Posts about: "Fuel (All)" [Posts: 1005 Pages: 51]

Someone Somewhere
July 01, 2025, 13:08:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11914265
Originally Posted by adfad
As an electronics and software engineer who has read the AD and related materials on the 248 day bug my understanding is that:
  1. The specific 248-day integer overflow was patched, and before the fix was rolled out, the AD required this system to by power cycled every 120 days to prevent overflow
  2. The PCU software still has the functional requirement to be able to command all AC GCUs to enter failsafe mode, this means that while the initial bug was fixed, the ability for this particular software system to command the same result is still a functional part of the architecture - presumably for safety management of the AC system
  3. This was not the first or last "software overflow error" issue in Boeing or even in the 787
Although I'm not qualified in aviation engineering I do believe from an engineering safety standpoint that this architecture creates a rare but entirely feasible scenario in which the aircraft would be without AC power for at least 30 seconds until the APU could restore it.
Similar failures have happened on 737s/A320s/A330s and others. I'm not denying it's possible. There's a reason it's a certification requirement for the engines not to be dependent on aircraft power. The APU is MELable and battery starts are not extremely reliable.

I do agree that the engine driven pumps should be able to provide fuel alone, the whole point of these pumps is to keep the plane flying within some limitations, high altitude is one of those limitations, I propose that there may be others based on the following:
  • Some more knowledgable people here have proposed or countered vapour lock, fuel contamination and automatic fuel cut-off theories to various degrees - even if these are not enough on their own, loss of electrical during rotation at high temperature could combine with these in a way we have not yet considered
  • Thrust is nonlinear, and while I'm not qualified to say how much loss of fuel flow or loss of thrust would be critical in this scenario we do know that it was a hot takeoff with significant weight and gear remaining down - I know others here have run sims but I don't think anyone has focused on specific thrust / fuel flow params
  • While electric fuel pumps might not be physically necessary for takeoff, my final point is: why are they required for takeoff? Is it not to mitigate cavitation, fuel sloshing at rotation, or any other kind of problem that might be relevant here?
Thrust is non-linear and complex. Reaction engines (i.e. fans, props) are generally most efficient at minimum power - lowest excess velocity. Turbine engines are generally most efficient at high power. These cancel out somewhere in the middle. With two engines at low power, you also don't have the drag from the dead engine or the drag from the rudder countering yaw.

Cavitating destroys pumps rapidly - someone upthread said replacing the fuel pump immediately is SOP if it has suction fed. Expect end of life in tens of hours rather than tens of thousands.

Some aircraft have switched to using jet/venturi pumps powered by returned fuel, like the A220. The electric boost pumps there are mainly for redundancy and are shut down in cruise; only one in each wing tank. Some A320s replace the centre override pumps with venturi transfer pumps.
adfad
July 01, 2025, 13:36:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11914278
Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere
Thrust is non-linear and complex. Reaction engines (i.e. fans, props) are generally most efficient at minimum power - lowest excess velocity. Turbine engines are generally most efficient at high power. These cancel out somewhere in the middle. With two engines at low power, you also don't have the drag from the dead engine or the drag from the rudder countering yaw.

Cavitating destroys pumps rapidly - someone upthread said replacing the fuel pump immediately is SOP if it has suction fed. Expect end of life in tens of hours rather than tens of thousands.

Some aircraft have switched to using jet/venturi pumps powered by returned fuel, like the A220. The electric boost pumps there are mainly for redundancy and are shut down in cruise; only one in each wing tank. Some A320s replace the centre override pumps with venturi transfer pumps.
Thanks for the clarifications

My question is then: what is the minimum loss of thrust in both engines (perhaps more relevantly expressed as a % in fuel flow reduction from expected) that could produce the profile we saw. I appreciate this is a figure with many variables including timing and rate of loss.

The reason I think this question is relevant is because we pretty much have 2 prevailing theories at this point:
  1. A failure, or reduction of thrust (below idle, indicated by loss of AC generators), that somehow impacted both engines, within 20s of rotation (explaining the RAT and gear orientation)
  2. Somehow a loss of all AC power, leading somehow to a reduction of thrust or failure of engines (both engines impacted identically is assumed in this scenario since all AC is lost), and was of course below the minimum thrust needed to fly with gear down at this weight and temperature
I agree that if it is completely infeasible that loss of all AC power could do anything but cause thrust reduction of X where thrust minus X is not enough, even with gear down in high temperature and significant weight at the critical moment of takeoff to cause the profile we saw, then theory 2 is invalidated. I would love to invalidate any of the theories here but I do think some specific calculations, simulations or test data is needed
artee
July 09, 2025, 07:04:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918167
Air India jet's fuel switches in focus, as crash preliminary report nears

From Reuters

Summary
  • Air India crash probe focuses on engine fuel control switches - source
  • Preliminary report expected by Friday - sources
  • Report could provide early details into world's worst aviation disaster in a decade
  • Probe has been dogged by questions over lack of information
  • India reversed course and now allowing UN specialist observer status - sources
July 8 (Reuters) - A preliminary report into the deadly crash of an Air India jetliner in June is expected to be released by Friday, three sources with knowledge of the matter said, with one adding the probe had narrowed its focus to the movement of the plane's fuel control switches.

The London-bound Boeing (BA.N) 787 Dreamliner, which started losing height after reaching an altitude of 650 feet, crashed moments after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and the rest on the ground.

The investigation into the Air India crash is focusing on the movement of the engine fuel control switches following an analysis of the 787's flight and voice data recorders, along with a simulation by Boeing of the aircraft's final moments, one of the sources said.

The investigation has not raised any immediate concerns over mechanical failure, the source said, and there has been no bulletin to airlines recommending changes to 787 operations . Boeing declined to comment.

Aviation industry publication the Air Current first reported the focus on the fuel switches that help power the plane's two engines.

It was not clear what specific actions involving the fuel switches are being looked at by investigators. Sources told the Air Current that the available information on the black boxes could not rule in or out improper, inadvertent or intentional actions that preceded or followed the apparent loss of thrust before the aircraft crashed.

U.S. aviation safety expert John Cox said a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches that feed the engines. "You can't bump them and they move," he said.

Cox added that if a switch was shut off, the effect would be almost immediate, cutting off engine power.

Most air crashes are caused by multiple factors. The investigation is focusing at least partly on engine thrust , Reuters reported last month.

While the report from Indian investigators could be made public on Friday, the three sources cautioned to Reuters that plans could change and there was no clarity on how much information would be available in the document, which comes about 30 days after the June 12 tragedy.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to media.

India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, which is leading the probe under international rules , did not respond immediately to a request for comment outside normal business hours.

INFORMATION RELEASE

The probe has been dogged by questions over lack of information, after investigators took about two weeks to download flight recorder data after the crash. The Indian government held only one press conference on the incident, and no questions were taken.

However, India reversed course on an earlier decision reported by Reuters to prevent a U.N. aviation investigator from joining the probe, two senior sources said.

A specialist from the U.N.'s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was granted observer status, following an unusual request by the agency to offer its support.

ICAO declined to comment, adding in a statement that any public discussion of "cooperative arrangements," would require authorisation by the state.

The crash is challenging the Tata Group's ambitious campaign to restore Air India's reputation and revamp its fleet, after taking the carrier over from the government in 2022.

India is banking on a boom in aviation to support wider development goals, with New Delhi saying it wants India to be a job-creating global aviation hub along the lines of Dubai, which currently handles much of the country's international traffic.

A panel of Indian lawmakers will review safety in the country's civil aviation sector and has invited several industry and government officials to answer questions on Wednesday, with topics set to include the recent plane crash.

Reporting by Allison Lampert in Montreal and David Shepardson in Washington; Additional reporting by Dan Catchpole in Seattle and Kanjyik Ghosh in Bengaluru; Editing by Jamie Freed

Fursty Ferret
July 09, 2025, 11:00:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918308
For what it's worth, if the fuel control switches were rapidly cycled as per the dual engine failure memory actions, the engines should both have restarted and recovered full thrust within a matter of seconds. This is part of the certification and Rolls Royce publish the procedure (unofficially) as a last-ditch attempt to recover an engine that's experiencing a locked-in surge condition.
OliTom
July 09, 2025, 11:07:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918314
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
For what it's worth, if the fuel control switches were rapidly cycled as per the dual engine failure memory actions, the engines should both have restarted and recovered full thrust within a matter of seconds. This is part of the certification and Rolls Royce publish the procedure (unofficially) as a last-ditch attempt to recover an engine that's experiencing a locked-in surge condition.
Obvious questions, Is the procedure applicable to the GEnx engines installed on the accident aircraft and I assume this only applies if you realise the control switches are what the issue is, within seconds?

Last edited by OliTom; 9th July 2025 at 11:24 .
Propellerhead
July 09, 2025, 12:32:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918361
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
For what it's worth, if the fuel control switches were rapidly cycled as per the dual engine failure memory actions, the engines should both have restarted and recovered full thrust within a matter of seconds. This is part of the certification and Rolls Royce publish the procedure (unofficially) as a last-ditch attempt to recover an engine that's experiencing a locked-in surge condition.
Not sure about this. I don\x92t think the loss of thrust on both engines memory items were envisaged to be done after liftoff. It\x92s way outside the ram air start envelope. The engines would spool down fairly quickly at that low airspeed. Procedures to the operator are written by Boeing, not the engine manufacturer. And there is no procedure official or otherwise to recover a single surging engine - you either run it surge and stall free at a lower thrust or shut it down.
MaybeItIs
July 09, 2025, 12:35:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918363
Originally Posted by OliTom
Obvious questions, Is the procedure applicable to the GEnx engines installed on the accident aircraft [...]?

Another question if I may? I've tried searching but find the search function quite perplexing! Anyway, didn't find this answered.


From other posts here, it's clear that the Cutoff switches have a mechanical locking system which requires the switch handles to be pulled outwards to disengage the lock, before they can be moved to Cutoff.


Question is, to a pilot who knows these switches, can both these switches be easily operated in this fashion in unison, i.e. I guess, with one hand, so that they are both unlocked and moved to off together? I imagine that would be quite difficult to do (unless that's what everyone routinely practices), so the result would not be simultaneous.
SloppyJoe
July 09, 2025, 12:45:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918371
Firstly, it's not rapid cycling of the fuel control switches, you turn them off then back on and see if it starts, this can take more than a minute as you have to wait to see if the action was successful. Second problem as mentioned above, the speed was far too low for a successful relight, you would most likely end up with a hot start or no start, most likely with a lot of smoke out the back due to unburnt fuel.

edited to add, after reading about the 787 it seems it uses electrical power to start. Same sort of issue though if not enough power, which is likely given the RAT was out.

Last edited by SloppyJoe; 9th July 2025 at 12:57 .
Musician
July 09, 2025, 13:09:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918385
The idea is to set the switch to CUTOFF and then to ON as that resets the FADEC (the circuit that controls the engine) and hopefully clears any issues it might have. The hope is that the turbine is still rotating fast enough for the FADEC to restart it. I believe this works the same as the auto-relight feature.
The turbine rotation would also provide the electrical power for that.

Do a thread search on "detent" to learn more about the construction of these switches than you ever wanted to know.
There's also a section on them in paulross 's https://paulross.github.io/pprune-th...171/index.html , but it may not be up to date. (Still a great resource, though.)

Unfortunately the wikipost linking to it is gone, presumably a victim to the recent forum changes.
Magplug
July 09, 2025, 14:45:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918435
As a 787 operator I can observe a couple of things......

Deliberately cycling the Engine Cutoff switches just after rotate, in response to a dual power loss is inconceivable. You are way too low and slow for it to have any effect and your attention is better devoted to aiming for the flattest area ahead to crash into. Commencing the Dual Eng Fail/Stall checklist memory items is conditional upon both engines being at sub-idle and the aircraft being within the in-flight relight envelope. Neither of those conditions existed.

The flight recorder will witness what came first - Power loss or Start Switches to Cutoff? It seems the 'Third Contingency' that I alluded to about a thousand posts ago, sadly now seems likely. Given the iron-grip that the government appears to have over the media, one wonders how the truth will ever surface?
V1... Ooops
July 09, 2025, 16:26:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918497
There has been discussion recently about a procedure that involves moving the fuel switches to CUTOFF and then back to RUN following a dual engine failure.

Attached is an image of a page from the Air India 787 Training Manual that discusses this procedure.

I am submitting this without comment or opinion.


PJ2
July 09, 2025, 16:34:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918504
For info only - re-post of lever-lock fuel-switch design:




B787 Fuel Control Switches -




Last edited by PJ2; 9th July 2025 at 16:45 . Reason: Add image of B787 Fuel Control Switches
Propellerhead
July 09, 2025, 16:38:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918511
Theory alert : If you don\x92t have, or delete the cruise altitude in the FMC the aircraft will command a level off at 400ft, with the thrust levers reducing thrust significantly (I\x92ve seen it in the sim and happened at least once for real to my operator). It\x92s easy to do when loading the descent winds if you hit the wrong button. Could this have been confused with a loss of thrust?

And I would say the cut off switches do make a fairly unique click when being moved - I can hear it in my head as I write this!
Propellerhead
July 09, 2025, 17:14:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918533
Yeah but thought it worth discussing again IF we believe that the engine failure was caused by a pilot selecting both fuel control switches to cutoff. You\x92re right that I can\x92t imagine myself doing it but fear can make our inner chimps do strange things in response to the flight or flight response. (See the chimp paradox book).

In what world would you feather both props instead of selecting landing flaps in Nepal and cause a fatal crash? Seemed pretty inconceivable until it happened. What we all would do in the comfort of our armchairs is very different to what can happen in the heat of the moment.



Last edited by Propellerhead; 9th July 2025 at 17:37 .
Musician
July 09, 2025, 17:20:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918536
Originally Posted by Propellerhead
Yeah but thought it worth discussing again IF we believe that the engine failure was caused by a pilot selecting both fuel control switches to cutoff. You\x92re right that I can\x92t imagine myself doing it but fear can make our inner chimps do strange things in response to the flight or flight response. (See the chimp paradox book).
Or we could wait two more days because certainly that would be in the flight recorder data.
simmple
July 09, 2025, 17:22:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918540
Not a Boeing but the aircraft I last flew, if you turned off the fuel nothing would happen unless the power levers were below a certain power setting. You had to reduce the power levers, maybe to idle, can\x92t remember, then the fuel switches off.

Bristolhighflyer
July 09, 2025, 17:27:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918542
Originally Posted by Magplug
The flight recorder will witness what came first - Power loss or Start Switches to Cutoff? It seems the 'Third Contingency' that I alluded to about a thousand posts ago, sadly now seems likely.
This. If power was lost first, it's complicated. If switches to cutoff was first, it may be a simple and unpalatable answer.
Propellerhead
July 09, 2025, 17:55:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918554
Fuel control switches will cut off the fuel at any thrust or thrust lever setting - they need to be able to deal with an uncommanded thrust increase from an engine fault.

I guess I\x92m hoping that there is (and trying to find) a logical explanation to this accident that we can all learn from and make sure it never happens again. There aren\x92t that many things that scare me in my job. Some of the alternatives I find terrifying for the industry, the manufacturer, the operators and the travelling public.

PPRUNE could make a rule that all accident threads are locked until the final report is published when it can be discussed (I\x92m sure the mods have been tempted at times)! I suspect the website wouldn\x92t get many hits if it did\x85..
Someone Somewhere
July 09, 2025, 18:06:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918557
Originally Posted by Propellerhead
Fuel control switches will cut off the fuel at any thrust or thrust lever setting - they need to be able to deal with an uncommanded thrust increase from an engine fault.
The fire switches potentially provide that capability.

There are many types where the shutoff position is a fully aft thrust lever, past a lift-up gate. Apparently this has caused a few human-factors issues because other types use the exact same mechanism for setting reverse thrust.
tdracer
July 09, 2025, 18:20:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918562
Originally Posted by Propellerhead
One thing that I remember from when I was a simulator TRI/TRE on a Boeing was that as an instructor you get very used to operating critical
switches rapidly without following any procedure, in order to set the sim up for a single engine landing etc. When I was then line flying next I had to guard against doing the same thing in the real aircraft.
Muscle memory is a strange and (usually) wonderous thing. It allows us as humans to perform amazing things without actually thinking about what we are doing. Professional Athletes have perfected this to a high art, but the rest of us do things using muscle memory on a regular basis. Back when I was still racing, I happened to look down at my hands on the steering wheel in fast, bumpy corner, and I was simply amazed at the large, rapid steering inputs that I was making to compensate for the bumps - with absolutely zero conscious thought. Muscle memory at its best.

However, it can also bite us. The Delta dual engine shutdown during takeoff from LA (referenced way back when in the 1st accident thread) was caused by muscle memory - the pilot reached down to set the EEC switches (located near the fuel On-Off switches) but muscle memory caused him to do something else - set both fuel switches to OFF. Fortunately, he quickly recognized his error, placing the switches back to RUN and the engines recovered in time to prevent a water landing (barely).

It is conceivable that a pilot - reaching down to the center console to adjust something unrelated - could have muscle memory cause him to turn the fuel off to both engines. While all new engines are tested for "Quick Windmill Relight" - i.e. the fuel switch is set to CUTOFF with the engine at high power - and the engine must recover and produce thrust withing a specified time (memory says 60 or 90 seconds) - it takes a finite amount of time for the engines to recover (spool down after a power cut at high power is incredibly fast - plus moving the switch to CUTOFF causes a FADEC reset, which means it won't do anything for ~ 1 second). Doing that at a couple hundred feet and the chance that an engine will recover and start producing thrust before ground impact is pretty much zero