Posts about: "Fuel (All)" [Posts: 345 Pages: 18]

They're guarded by the switch design/operation itself. To move one of them, the toggle handle has to first be pulled outward.

The 787-8 landing gear retraction is primarily hydraulic, using the center hydraulic system for the main operation. However, the alternate gear extension system utilizes a dedicated electric pump to pressurize fluid from the center hydraulic system for gear extension. Obviously due its size and weight and staged retraction, the effort required to raise and stow the gear greatly exceeds that required for extension.

The main gear retraction/extension is controlled by the center hydraulic system.

It is apparent that the hydraulics failed when the engines shut down after breaking the down-locks and leaving the Main Landing gear bogeys in the tilt position, ready for a next step internal stowage and door closure (that was now never to happen). It is therefore apparent that the dual engine failure and consequent automated RAT extension was precipitated by this gear selection or retraction cycle and thus likely to be either WoW micro-switch or 5G Radar altimeter-effect associated. Due to accumulator depletion, the electric pump load would have spiked to replenish it. This may have precipitated the dual engine shutdown due to an unfiltered electrical surge affecting the Ground/Air microswitches (or a local 5G transmission affecting the RADALT) and resetting the TCMA.

The RADALT? Another plausibility? Because of the furore over a spasticated frequency allocation by the US FCC, the US FAA had finally “bought in” and declared that individual nations and their airline operators were responsible for their own 5G frequency spectrum allocations and for taking essential steps to ensure mitigation of the interference effects upon aircraft automated landings and other critical systems caused by their own national approved 5G spectrum decisions. It was admittedly a situation calling for extensive modifications to (and shielding for) the three radar altimeters fitted for redundancy considerations to all modern airliners... for Category 3 ILS approach and landing in zero/zero visibility conditions. The RADALT also features in many air-ground sensing applications. (eg the 747-8).

This was an unusual FAA “passing of the buck” to manufacturers such as Honeywell etc. (to sort out with client operators). But then again, it was not the US FCC’s right to dictate the specific 5G frequencies internationally. These spectrum allocations now vary over the wide selection of 5G phones available (and also nationally). 5G Radar Altimeters constitute a part of the ground/Air sensing that changes the TCMA from ground mode (able to fuel-chop engines) to the air mode (inhibited from doing so)... Ground activation is acceptable ...where fuel chopping of uncommanded thrust can prevent runway sideways excursions or runway length overruns. The question now becomes: “Is it more (or less) safe having an automated fuel-chopping capability on BOTH your left and right, rather than leaving it to the pilot to react via his center console fuel cut-off switches... in the unlikely event of a runaway engine after landing (or during an abandoned take-off)?

5G Frequency Variations

The frequencies of 5G phones vary nationally based on the frequency bands allocated and used by different carriers in each country. In the United States, for example, carriers such as AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and others use a combination of low-band, mid-band, and high-band 5G frequencies. Low-band 5G frequencies typically range from 600 MHz to 1 GHz, mid-band 5G frequencies range from 1.7 GHz to 2.5 GHz, and high-band 5G (mmWave) frequencies start at 24 GHz and go up to 40 GHz . These frequencies are allocated by regulatory bodies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and can vary between countries based on spectrum availability and regulatory decisions. In other countries, the specific frequency bands used for 5G may differ, leading to variations in the frequencies supported by 5G phones. Additionally, the deployment of 5G networks can also influence the frequencies used, with some countries focusing more on sub-6 GHz bands while others prioritize mmWave technology.

5G interference? It may be an avenue worth exploring?

Agree. The two most important controls in the aeroplane, sitting there in a wide-open, unprotected space. After an incident where a manual fell off the coaming (can't remember if a switch got bashed into the Off position), we put guards on our non-787 fuel switches:
Ours:

787:

Has this been discussed already?

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18...SIB_NM-18-33_1

Yes, and probably much to @Roo's disgust, we had an instance where an engine shut down all by itself in the cruise; it was concluded that the fuel switch hadn't been "locked" in the ON position and was just sitting on the edge. It was then highlighted to all of us that the FCOM stated "give it a good jiggle" to make doubly sure it was locked in ON.

This isn\xb4t quite right. They could both have had a malfunction without this being an issue until something or someone hit them at the same time (e.g. on rotation). It\xb4s just another theory which isn\xb4t less plausible than many others.

That is not a Boeing Fuel switch.

The discussion about the fuel control switch design is interesting so far as it goes, but I'm more interested in the physical arrangements under the bracket to which they're fitted and the associated connection and wiring arrangements. No doubt the arrangements are designed so as to reduce to 'vanishingly small' the probabilities of any common shorts to the wrong places, but who knows, for sure, how the switches and connections and wiring were installed in the accident aircraft, or whether there was a piece of swarf or other FOD that ended up somewhere that it should not have been (i.e. anywhere on the aircraft) during manufacture or maintenance.

Obviously. If yours is the switch I think it is (with the metal, unscrewable dome) then yes, it is very different. Very hard to "balance" yours in the middle.
Not so the Boeing fuel switches: they can be relatively easily "sat" in the middle, on the centre raised bit and could be bumped either way. Hence our (non-787) FCOM saying make sure you jiggle them when you put it in the On position to confirm it's locked there.

That's a Beechcraft Kingair starter switch

Mods, feel free to remove this if you think it's not contributing.

Folks, the exchange here about the cutoff switches ("fuel control switches") is exactly the kind of discussion that contributes meaningfully to our collective understanding of one possible causal or contributing factor in the accident. Smart, well-informed people politely considering and evaluating the suggestions of others. No snark or sniping. Love it.

I hope/wish. I accept that it's not at all likely that TCMA is the/a culprit in this crash, but it is, like the cutoff switches, one of the few things designed and intended to shut down an engine in a very big hurry. It would be good to know as much as possible about how it determines the aircraft's ground/air state.

And add the radio altimeter(s). I think, but don't know, that they provide inputs to the FADEC TCMA function also.

I have read most of the thread (old and new). As a lawyer working in forensic investigations, I am constantly involved in problem-solving. My field of work also includes complex investigations related to insolvencies, which almost always require an analysis of the causes behind a specific, established outcome. In doing so, I naturally also have to deal with probabilities. However, it often turns out that the most likely or plausible explanation does not reflect what actually happened.

Many of the considerations I’ve read fail because the simultaneous failure of both engines is extremely unlikely, leading to a constant search for higher-order causes. It was suggested that an incorrect altitude setting led to an early thrust reduction. However, this would not explain the deployment of the RAT (Ram Air Turbine), especially since the thrust could have been readjusted. FADEC and TCAM are highly redundant systems, and TCAM failure is unlikely due to WOW (Weight on Wheels) logic, making a simultaneous engine failure after VR equally improbable.

With that said, and with regard to my question concerning the AD that relates to the fuel control switches (FCS), my thought—and it was nothing more than that—was that their activation becomes more probable if it can occur accidentally. That’s how I came across SAIB: NM-18-33.

Another user then brought up an iPhone. That notion would, of course, be dramatic—but how unlikely is it really that after approximately 10,000 actuations between December 2013 and June 2025, the two FCS no longer lock perfectly? Considering all of this, I find it quite conceivable that the A/T slightly reduced thrust in the first seconds after VR (e.g., if an incorrect target altitude had been entered) and that an object lying between the thrust levers and the FCS could have pushed the FCS into the “Off” position. Due to the buttons on top of the switches, which provide some resistance, it’s even possible that the object both pulled and pushed them.

But all of this is speculation. The investigation report will bring clarity.

Even if my theory is not confirmed, I still believe that the positioning and mechanism of the FCS are suboptimal. Switches of such critical importance should be better protected, and movements in the area in front of the switches (like reducing thrust) should not follow the same direction as shutting off the fuel supply. A different switching direction alone would provide more safety—especially considering that the FCS are protected laterally by metal plates.

I thought this was a very good point. There are some detailed posts discussing the TCMA patent including this post . Is it possible the TCMA software functioned exactly as specified, and the issue is input data into TCMA?

In a total electrical failure, when the system switches to emergency battery power, how are input variables like rad alt and wow switches processed? (these were inputs someone mentioned on the 747-8, have the TCMA inputs been identified yet?)

I speculate the gear truck forward tilt is a symptom of a C hydraulic failure caused by a total electrical failure around the time of VR. Once they got 10 deg nose up on the rotation, with a total electrical failure, could the FADEC receive erroneous rad alt or wow inputs, and how would TCMA handle these inputs in the transition from ground to air logic?

What is baffling is the simultaneous nature of the suspected dual engine shutdown. There is no obvious asymmetry, with the flight path or rudder movements. If the engine fuel control switches had been manually cut one at a time, there should have been some visible flightpath change or flight control response. Something happened to both engines at exactly the same time.

It is probable that the switches are becoming easier to move across the gate after 10,000 operations. Something falling on them would be a possibility to cause that. And there is certainly an argument to be had whether down=on is a safer way for them to operate.

I think it's not a coincidence that tdracer's post was chosen to be the thread starter of part 2. I'll wait for the preliminary report to see it confirmed or disproved.

this isn\x92t the type of switch fitted to the 787 as a fuel control switch, totally irrelevant but has generated yet more nonsense. The switches are spring loaded (or so it feels) in addition to having a massive block to prevent inadvertent operation in either direction. Anyone suggesting they could be accidentally \x93knocked off\x94 is so clueless about their operation it\x92s actually painful to rebut

Don\xb4t get me wrong. But this is exactly the attitude - some might call it arrogance - which will lead to accidents or for bugs to sneak in sooner or later.

Happy to accept any challenge to my post. The SAIB refers to 4TL837-3D switches which are explicitly covered in the Honeywell data sheet I looked at (p16). Given that the SAIB was based on some shortfall in the locking mechanism it maybe that all these switches have been replaced by something with an improved specification since the SAIB was issued and I’d be very pleased to acknowledge that. Those who know facts what do you think?

Not looking over my shoulder here but I should add that I know and respect Honeywell switches. Those I have worked with are well designed and well made plus Honeywell incorporate improvements based on field experience. As posted by another contributor upthread I am puzzled by the odd ‘down’ = engine off configuration though.

The type of switch being discussed is the specific type reported as being liable to problems. The SAIB is here https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18...SIB_NM-18-33_1 and specifies a part number for the B788 as 4TL837-3D

That's a TL series switch with 4 poles (the "4" in "4TL"), a "type D" lock (meaning locked out of centre position per the Honeywell data sheet - the "D" in "3D." This is a photo of one:


You can find the manufacturer's datasheet here: https://octopart.com/datasheet/4tl83...ywell-25749542

Problems with critical switches aren't new on 787-8s. For instance, in addition to the SAIB above, there's this AD: https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...pany-airplanes

Looking at the photo above, it isn't just wear that's potentially an issue, but foreign object impingement. There don't appear to be gaitors fitted to these switches in the 788, so the locking mechanisms are potentially susceptible to a build-up of material if not kept clean. There are a range of other failure modes possible, whilst the SAIB specifically describes found-in-the-field problems with these switches.

Yes, they're chunky, and very positive when new. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.