Posts about: "Engine Shutdown" [Posts: 105 Pages: 6]

What if the PF called stop just before V1and closed the thrust levers but either changed his mind or was overridden by the other pilot, who rapidly pushed the thrust levers back up. Could this trigger a TCMA intervention and subsequent dual engine shutdown as it was still on the runway at this point? Hopefully not.

This is the best theory of TCMA activation so far, but it\x92s still very remote. In this theory there is no need for a TCMA anomaly, it needs only(!) two simultaneous engine anonalies (and sn improper crew action) that would trigger the TCMA as designed. If there are safeguards preventing this happening, they are not mentioned in this thread.

It also doesn\x92t explaine the ADS-B data showing acceleration after lift off.

A little bit tangential here, thinking about this Mayday call (the exact contents of which haven't been verified, but have been variously reported as "no power", or "lost power" ) , if in front of you on the PFD, in large red letters, you have the words ENG FAIL, why would you say, "no power"? Seems a bit strange. Why not say "engine failure" or "no thrust"?

Could it be that "No power" may have meant the whole cockpit went dark? ie. A total electrical failure or huge short (survivor's bang) initiating RAT deployment and apu autostart. Doesn't explain loss of thrust explicitly but if there was a massive electrical issue, and critical data was lost (thinking air/ground switch position and other fundamentals), would dual engine shutdown be a possibility? Simultaneous FADEC failure? Exceptionally remote possibility perhaps, but by definition these accidents are exceptionally remote. If the RAT deployed we know there was definitely an electrical issue - how bad was it, though? Thinking about the possibility of an electrical failure causing an engine (and instrumentation) failure rather than the other way around. Over to the experts on this.

No please read above.

The engines will just keep running despite total electrical failure.

FADEC units are self powered and independent.

Even a completely “dark” flight deck still has the ISIS.

However\x85Cathay Pacific flight 780 from Surabaya to Hong Kong (2010) suffered just such a fuel contamination incident. This did not lead to immediate total engine shutdown. The function of the engines seriously degraded as the problems compounded during the flight, which reached the ground safely in Hong Kong both by dint of good fortune and serious skills of both Captain and Copilot. The aircraft did not drop out of the sky 20 seconds after leaving the ground.

BAW38 didn\x92t give an engine failure notification either. Neither engine produced the required power when demanded.

Misty.

Having followed this thread since the beginning, it is clear to me that this discussion is tainted by the fact that many contributors have MCAS and Boeing quality issues at the front of their minds.

I perfectly understand that, so no judgement from me, but it no doubt causes confirmation bias with conclusions being made about extremely improbable outcomes (dual engine failure at the same time during rotation/take off).

The RAT being deployed does not prove a TCMA-failure on both engines nor does it prove that both engines failed (its still not disproved or proven if it was manually deployed).

I was not aware that we have granular ADS-B data from the a/c itself showing airspeed post rotation (rather than speed interpolated from GPS). Apologies if I have missed it. If it does show acceleration after takeoff I tend to agree with you.

In no particular order, here are some more thoughts on TCMA having caught up on the thread:

If you cut the fuel from two big engines at take-off power, there must be some delay before n2 decays below the threshold for generation (below idle n2), the generators disconnect and RAT deploys. GEnx have relatively long spool up/down times as the fan is so large (and would be exposed to 170+kts of ram air). Perhaps someone has a view on how long this would be, but I imagine it could easily be 10s or more between fuel cut off and RAT deployment. On AI171 the RAT appears to be already deployed at the beginning of the bystander video. That starts c. 13s before impact and around 17s after rotation. This does not prove anything except that the supposed shut down must have happened very close to rotation and could have happened just before rotation while the a/c was on the ground.

As a thought experiment, imagine if ANA985 in 2019 had decided to go around. The a/c rotates and is ~50 ft above the runway, suddenly both engines spooling down, very little runway left to land on and no reverse thrust available. I am struck by how similar this scenario is to AI171. This theory would require there to have been unexpected thrust lever movement in the moments before rotation - but plausibly one pilot moving to reject, followed by an overrule or change of heart - or even a simple human error such as the recent BA incident at LGW - could achieve this. This is perhaps more likely that any sensor fault that you would expect to only impact a single engine given the redundancy of systems.

Tdracer writes that a key requirement of TCMA is to identify an engine runaway in the event of an RTO, in order to allow the a/c to stop on the runway. This will have been tested extensively - it is a big leap to imagine a false activation could be triggered. It did happen on ANA985 but through a very unusual set of inputs including application of reverse (albeit this latter point may not be relevant if TCMA logic does not distinguish between the reverser being deployed or not).

Incidentally there is an assumption the TCMA software version in place on the ANA flight had already been patched and fixed on AI171. That probably is the case but I am not sure it is a known fact.

In summary I remain baffled by this tragic accident. I have not yet read anything that explicitly rules out TCMA activation and it remains a possibility due to the vanishingly small number of factors that could shut down two engines at apparently the exact same moment when they have fully redundant systems. Fuel contamination, for example, has typically impacted each engine a few minutes (at least) apart. I am also cautious (as others have pointed out) of a form of confirmation bias about Boeing software systems with four-letter acronyms.

In my mind the cause could equally well be something completely different to anything suggested on this thread, that will only become clear with more evidence. All of the above also incorporates a number of theories, i.e. that there was an engine shutdown - that are not conclusively known.

Thank you to the mods for an excellent job.

It was posted but in a nutshell:

Airbus assumed their pilots would not spill their drinks but they did, and this resulted in an un-commanded dual engine shutdown. Now they have to use Sippy Cups!

Boeing assumed their pilots would spill their drinks so made the system robust enough to tolerate liquid spills without shutting down the engines.

Not 757 - it was a 767. Second time it happened in about 12 months.

Determined to be an ergonomics problem with the switch layout in the flightdeck.

Early 767s (JT9D and CF6-80A) had a supervisory "EEC" (Electronic Engine Control - Boeing still uses "EEC" to identify what most people call the FADEC on modern engines). The procedure if an EEC 'failed' was to switch both EECs off (to prevent excessive throttle stagger - unlike FADEC, the engine could operate just fine with a supervisory EEC failed).

Problem was that the EEC ON/OFF switch was located on the aisle stand - right above the fuel cutoff switches. Turned out 'muscle memory' was when the pilot reached down there, it was usually to turn the fuel ON or OFF - which is what they did. Fortunately realizing what he'd done wrong, the pilot quickly restored the switches to RUN and both engines recovered. And yes, they continued on to their destination (RAT was still deployed since there is no way to retract it in-flight).

Previous event was with JT9D engines (United IIRC). In that case, only one engine recovered (second engine went into an unrecoverable stall), they simply came back around and did a single engine landing.

Realizing the ergonomic issue, the EECs were relocated to the pilot's overhead (retrofit by AD).

To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a repeat of an inadvertent dual engine shutdown since the EEC switches were relocated. It's also very difficult to 'accidentally' move the switches as there is a locking detent - the switch must be pulled out slightly before it can be moved to CUTOFF.

Sorry but you are wrong. The RAT was basic on the 767 - every single 767 built has one. The Gimli glider deployed the RAT (1982), and the Delta dual engine shutdown out of LAX deployed the RAT.

On item 1, the TCMA issue should have been fixed, it does fit the sort of issue that occurred here. TDRACER can talk to that, and has done in 2019 and again in post 792. As to flap auto retraction, the B787 like all Boeings has a gated flap lever, and the flaps are only able to move independent of the lever by flap load relief. That would not have caused a loss of thrust, and in this case it is evident that the event is a thrust loss not a CL loss.

On item 2, the video shows no asymmetry at any time, so there is only a symmetric failure of the engines possible. Back on a B747 classic, you could chop all 4 engines at the same time with one hand, on a B737, also, not so much on a B777 or B787. I would doubt that anyone used two hands to cut the fuel at screen height. Note, there was a B744 that lost one engine in cruise when a clip board fell off the coaming. Didn't happen twice, and it only happened to one engine.


​​​​​
Neila83 is correct, the gear tilt pre retraction is rear wheels low, and at the commencement of the selection of the retraction cycle (generally), the first thing that happens is the inboard MLG doors start to open below the wheel well and then the bogie is driven to front wheels low. (There is also an option that the inboard gear doors start to open early as a result of WOW sensing to improve the SSL climb limit). [my bad, for the B788 Capt Bloggs informs us the gear door sequence is after the tilt, not before, the B789 has the before tilt, the option for the door open at rotate is separate]

The inboard doors do not appear to have opened in this case, yet, the gear is forward wheels down. This appears to be out of sequence. TD may have better knowledge on the options that exist with the B788, but this is not looking good at this time.

There is enough in the way of anomalies here to end up with regulatory action, and airlines themselves should/will be starting to pore over their systems and decide if they are comfortable with the airworthiness of the aircraft at this moment. A latent single point of failure is not a comfortable place to be. Inhibiting TCMA might be a good interim option, that system could have been negated by having the ATR ARM switches....(Both)... ARM deferred to the before takeoff checks. The EAFR recovery should result in action within the next 24-48 hours. Boeing needs to be getting their tiger teams warmed up, they can ill afford to have a latent system fault discovered that is not immediately responded to, and the general corporate response of "blame the pilots" is not likely to win any future orders.

I think we are about to have some really busy days for the OEM.


Not sure that Neila83 is that far off the mark at all.

I have to agree with everything here except your assertion about engine shutdown.
Even though these are big engines with plenty of inertia, when you select engine shut off they spool down very quickly if on load. IE, The generators, two per engine and hydraulic pumps, etc, being driven by the (relatively) small mass of the N2 rotor will drag the speed down very quickly, the gennies will trip offine in seconds, the pumps will quickly reduce flow and pressure.
As for what went wrong.
If the engines have stopped working there has to be a common failure mode, fuel is one but as has been said, no other aircraft has had a problem, as far as we know. FOD? It would have to be something major to shut down two GeNX engines and there would be debris all over the runway, we would know by now.
I have no idea if the RAT has deployed, I can't see it in the video and the noise could be something else.
We shall see.
There is compelling evidence that flaps are set correctly and not retracted inadvertently.
I await further evidence.
Edit to add. LAE 40 years, type rated on 737 to 787 with lots of others in between.

I was not aware that we have granular ADS-B data from the a/c itself showing airspeed post rotation (rather than speed interpolated from GPS). Apologies if I have missed it. If it does show acceleration after takeoff I tend to agree with you.

In no particular order, here are some more thoughts on TCMA having caught up on the thread:

If you cut the fuel from two big engines at take-off power, there must be some delay before n2 decays below the threshold for generation (below idle n2), the generators disconnect and RAT deploys. GEnx have relatively long spool up/down times as the fan is so large (and would be exposed to 170+kts of ram air). Perhaps someone has a view on how long this would be, but I imagine it could easily be 10s or more between fuel cut off and RAT deployment. On AI171 the RAT appears to be already deployed at the beginning of the bystander video. That starts c. 13s before impact and around 17s after rotation. This does not prove anything except that the supposed shut down must have happened very close to rotation and could have happened just before rotation while the a/c was on the ground.

As a thought experiment, imagine if ANA985 in 2019 had decided to go around. The a/c rotates and is ~50 ft above the runway, suddenly both engines spooling down, very little runway left to land on and no reverse thrust available. I am struck by how similar this scenario is to AI171. This theory would require there to have been unexpected thrust lever movement in the moments before rotation - but plausibly one pilot moving to reject, followed by an overrule or change of heart - or even a simple human error such as the recent BA incident at LGW - could achieve this. This is perhaps more likely that any sensor fault that you would expect to only impact a single engine given the redundancy of systems.

Tdracer writes that a key requirement of TCMA is to identify an engine runaway in the event of an RTO, in order to allow the a/c to stop on the runway. This will have been tested extensively - it is a big leap to imagine a false activation could be triggered. It did happen on ANA985 but through a very unusual set of inputs including application of reverse (albeit this latter point may not be relevant if TCMA logic does not distinguish between the reverser being deployed or not).

Incidentally there is an assumption the TCMA software version in place on the ANA flight had already been patched and fixed on AI171. That probably is the case but I am not sure it is a known fact.

In summary I remain baffled by this tragic accident. I have not yet read anything that explicitly rules out TCMA activation and it remains a possibility due to the vanishingly small number of factors that could shut down two engines at apparently the exact same moment when they have fully redundant systems. Fuel contamination, for example, has typically impacted each engine a few minutes (at least) apart. I am also cautious (as others have pointed out) of a form of confirmation bias about Boeing software systems with four-letter acronyms.

In my mind the cause could equally well be something completely different to anything suggested on this thread, that will only become clear with more evidence. All of the above also incorporates a number of theories, i.e. that there was an engine shutdown - that are not conclusively known.

Thank you to the mods for an excellent job.

DIBO:

That was a partial answer, but still too many variables. Not nitpicking , but if you are trying to trace the source of a possible engine shutdown, you first need to list all the functions that have authority to do that, at source. Then generate a diagram showing all the steps along the path from those sources to the shutdown point. Truth is, we just don't have enough data to do that.

I'm honestly mystified by the obsession with TCMA. The FADECs control almost every aspect of the engines, so there must be numerous ways they could cause a failure or uncommanded shutdown. So, even if we assume that the engines failed due to faults in the FADECs, why assume that TCMA would be involved? Surely it's more logical to simply posit that some unspecified bug in the FADEC software caused the failure. That bug could be related to TCMA, but it could just as easily involve any one of the dozens of other subroutines that likely exist.

Various posters seem to assume that all it takes is an incorrect air/ground signal, and the engines would shut down. But in fact it would also require the FADECs to read the thrust levers as being at or near idle... AND the engines failing to respond to closure of the fuel metering valve. I've read the entirety of both threads, and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to explain how a malfunction within the airframe could cause both of those things to occur on both engines (or even one engine!).

There is at least one thing common to the TCMA on each engine: The TCMA software.

My recollection may be inaccurate, but wasn't there something in the software for 787 generator control units that would cause generator shut down if the aircraft was 'powered up' for a continuous 248 days? Same software, so all 4 generators would shut down. Is my recollection inaccurate?

What we do know, for sure, is that the TCMAs have the same 'authority' and effect as the fuel cut-off switches. The difference is that the crew control the latter.

I think you may be inferring something that isn't actually true. It certainly isn't true in my case. Wanting to explore the details of a function known to be designed to shut down engines, in a case where unexplained shutdown of engines appears to be a likely cause or contributing factor, doesn't suggest that we are assuming TCMA is involved. It's just exploring the details of a a function that is designed to do that and doesn't put on a light, smoke and sound show, or produce obvious debris and residue, when it does.

I think those of us who are persistently trying to learn the details of the sensor inputs to and logic of TCMA (I prefer that characterization to "obsessed with") understand quite well the points you make here — at least those of us whose interest survives in this new thread. However, I at least, and I believe others as well, have also come to the tentative conclusions that (a) the accident aircraft had engines providing little to no useful thrust from nearly the first moments after rotation, and (b) the only possible reasons for that which have been considered here so far involve the sudden and approximately simultaneous shutdown of those engines, most likely by interruption of fuel flow (because that's one of the very few things we know that can do that without producing big bangs, flames and smoke, etc.).

I don't agree that it's more logical to posit that something we don't know about has shut down the engines rather than something that we do know about that is intended to shut down engines. Do you know of other routines/subroutines in the FADEC that shut down fuel supply?

I certainly don't assume that and I haven't seen posts from others (that I consider serious and reasonably well-informed) that "seem to assume" that.

Yes, we know that.

Right, and you won't see a serious attempt to do that until we know, at least, what specific sensor inputs the TCMA function uses to determine the air/ground state of the aircraft and the logic that uses those to make the determination.

Many years ago I maintained a Hawker 1000 business jet equipped with PW305 engines with FADEC. The fuel control did not have a separate switch to control fuel flow to shut down the engines. Shutdown was accomplished by pressing a release on the power levers allowing the lever to be pulled past the idle stop all the way to the cutoff position.

One day upon returning from a flight, the crew pulled both power levers to cutoff. The right engine shutdown immediately as expected, but the left engine kept running. By the time we in maintenance got out to the airplane, the engine finally shutdown by itself.

Troubleshooting found the cause of the problem. The cutoff position of the power lever closed a micro switch that sent a ground to the FADEC. That ground went through two discrete wires. One went directly to one input on the FADEC. The other went through a squat switch on the main gear leg to a second input on the FADEC. The engine would only shutdown immediately if both inputs went to ground simultaneously. If only one input went to ground, the FADEC would delay shutdown for 30 seconds. This was to protect against an inadvertent movement of the power lever to the cutoff position in flight causing an immediate shutdown.

The squat switch on the left gear leg had failed in the open position, causing the problem.

I am wondering if more modern FADEC engines have similar protections against immediate shutdown in the air? I can see why the designers of the Hawker implemented the system the way they did, because the shutdown command was integral to the power lever, and it potentially could be pulled to the cutoff position in flight by an inadvertent release of the locking mechanism that would normally prevent it from going past the idle stop, whereas modern FADEC engines like found on the 787 have a discrete locking switch.

But, if a similar protection against immediate shutdown does exist in the 787, would the engines keep running for a period of time (in the air) even if the fuel control switch was accidentally or deliberately moved to \x93off\x94?

Could you please elaborate on that?

FR24 did do that raw ADS-B data comparison. Remember the GPS position and barometric altitude are sent by the aircraft itself. The altitude is sent in 25 ft intervals, so a shallow curve that is smooth in reality looks janky in the data, due to the rounding of the numbers. From https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/f...rom-ahmedabad/ :
The red line is the accident flight, and it covers approximately 4.3 seconds.
Obviously the altitudes are all uncorrected for barometric pressure, which would've varied with the weather on that day; you kind of have to mentally shift the lines vertically downward. Now I looked for, but couldn't find, the post in the old thread where the rotation was triangulated\xb9, but I remember that it was near the turnoff to the high-speed taxiway, so a few seconds ahead of this ADS-B capture. We only have the video to show us what occurred then.

That means the ADS-B data doesn't really tell us whether the first few seconds of the climb were normal or not.

When we compare the red line to the blue lines, the data tells us the climb rate had already decayed significantly before the accident aircraft passed over the end of the runway, because the red flight path is much more shallow than the blue flight paths.

Please correct me if I'm wrong: to my eye, the data alone does not show that the engines must have failed after rotation, because the data does not demonstrate a normal climb rate.

But likewise, the engines can't have failed much before rotation:
For completeness' sake: you can look at the CCTV video, consider the 787's wingspan a flying 200 ft yardstick, and hopefully agree that the aircraft did not get much higher than 200 ft AAL, if that.

-----
\xb9 I found one of them, anyway. The reference is the CCTV video: