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

Voltage fluctuation can have very nasty effects on electronics and sensors. There is a hacking technique called "voltage glitching" which makes use of these effects to trick electronics in states they are not designed for and never supposed to be.
So I wouldn't vouch for the FADECs if there was catastrophic problem with the power distribution in the aircraft.

To simplify the chicken/egg:

Tdracer earlier confirmed that an airplane electrical power loss would allow engines to keep running , because 1) engines are fully-capable of suction feed operation in takeoff envelope (if boost pumps lost), and 2) the EECs are powered by their own PMAs when running and to substantially below idle (I recall roughly 10% N2). Airplane powers the EEC for ground starts, prior to PMA coming online, and as backup to the PMA after that.

Related:

Engine igniters are powered by the aircraft. So theoretical full loss of aircraft power would disable Autorelight upon a flameout. Ignitors typically don't make the cut for most-essential battery-only loads because it would also take an engine flameout, and the airplane past V1 in ground roll can fly fine on one engine that can achieve takeoff thrust.

Autorelight is relevant - if there was a single-engine failure post V1, autorelight will attempt to relight the engine, so there is no need for a pilot to try to cycle the fuel switch to reset the EEC (potentially grabbing the wrong one), or to otherwise intervene. In such a circumstance, they need to trust their training. I've heard accounts that the most likely pilot instinct in such a situation would be to push the throttle(s) forward.

Finally - there was talk earlier about accidentally cutting the fuel switches - and it was duly noted that they have to be pulled out over the detent, so very unlikely. The same cutoff effect could be achieved with the engine fire handle(s), right behind the fuel switches on the pedestal - though they are an upward pull, so also not subject to inadvertent or accidental engagement.

It is similar to the 248-day continuous power software bug on the 787. In both cases a counter in the software would overflow after an amount of time that would be proportional to something like the number of seconds, milliseconds or other unit.

The 248 day bug would cause the PCU to trigger ALL 4 AC generator control units to shut down. The fact that this is even possible in software alone is remarkable and should make any engineer concerned. The fact that this was only fixed in software with no redundant physical system (e.g. 1 or more AC units being independent of this system) is concerning. The fact that Boeing had a second software overflow error causing the 51 day directive should really have everyone discussing software as a possible cause for this crash.

People may say that the engine driven pumps / suction feed / gravity feed would continue to power the engines but my understanding is the aircraft attitude and high fuel flow at takeoff could potentially mean less thrust than was needed if all 4 AC generators disconnected and stopped all AC fuel pumps during rotation.

A loss of lift AND thrust at this critical juncture could have had caused this awful disaster. I think the data recorders have already revealed the cause but If it's this, then I don't think we will hear much anytime soon.

A Qantas 747-438 suffered an 'Electrical System Event' when on approach to Bangkok airport on 7 January 2008. The following extracts are taken from the report:

"System malfunctions

Between 0846 and 0852, 4 after passing FL 100 and when the aircraft was turning
onto an extended left downwind leg for runway 01 Right (01R), the EICAS, flight
displays and automated systems showed faults of numerous electrical and other
aircraft systems, including:
\x95 AC buses 1, 2 and 3 not powered
\x95 autothrottle disconnected
\x95 autopilot disengaged
\x95 some fuel pumps not operating
\x95 weather radar not operating
\x95 automatic cabin air conditioning and pressurisation system not operating
\x95 right (FO\x92s) displays blanked
\x95 between three and five pages of messages on the EICAS display
\x95 lower EICAS display blanked.
The CSM contacted the flight crew and advised that the cabin lighting had failed."

"Origin of Generator Control Unit (GCU) faults

Post-incident examination of the GCUs revealed corrosion of the internal circuit
boards in all three of the GCUs that shut down. Analysis of the corrosion materials
observed in GCU 3 showed evidence of long-term exposure to water, including
evidence of acids and carbohydrates that are present in beverages such as coffee,
fruit juice and soft drinks. Those findings indicated a fluid source originating from
the aircraft\x92s galley drains or from spilt liquids in the cabin, and also suggested that
liquid ingress had been occurring over an unknown, but extended period of time."

https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/defaul.../ao2008003.pdf

This link to the report includes diagrams of where the 747 forward galley was located, directly above the Main Equipment Centre and the E1/E2 racks.

The phtographs show how ineffective the dripshield was in protecting the electrical equipment and the extent of corrosion and damage.

The aircraft was 17 years old at the time of the incident and had completed a C-check approximately three months before the incident.

As FDR notes, this issue seems to have carried over to the 787-8 with Airworthiness Directive AD 2016-14-04 ( https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExte...A0058AF6B.0001 )

"We are issuing this AD 2016-14-04 to prevent a water leak
from an improperly installed potable water system coupling, or main cabin water source, which could
cause the equipment in the EE bays to become wet, resulting in an electrical short and potential loss
of system functions essential for safe flight"

AD 2016-14-04 mirrors precisely what occurred to the Qantas 747 on 7 January 2008. It is possible something similar may have occurred on take-off of AI171, with water causing the equipment in the EE bays to become wet resulting in electrical short and potential loss of system functions

There have been many speculations about latent threats in systems\x92 design. If you can easiliy come up with some possible latent threat, what are the changes that not a one professional person designing, testing and certifying it couldn\x92t figure it out? Or it was ignore if recognised?

Without any 787 knowledge, I would assume two discreet signals from respective Engine Fuel Switch to each FADEC channel, possibly with other redundancies. Or other solution that is at least as robust.

If decrease in thrust not by transition to climb thrust due to early inadvertent flap retraction and pilot action on fuel control switches from accomplishing dual engine failure memory items, then fuel cavitation /fuel fumes lock may be a cause. Just saying.

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.

What you are saying is, as several have said before, is that everything started to fail at or shortly before rotation. Joining the dots from two other branches in this thread is it correct to say that there are only two things that happen at that point: the aircraft transitions from "ground" to "air" (multiple sensors) and there is a change in orientation such that any liquid (eg potable water) that has found its way into the EE bay will move. Question: the aircraft was routed DEL-AMD-LGW. Where was the potable water tankage topped up? Presumably prior to the longest sector? In addition to the inspection list that the Indian AAIB has mandated should they also inspect peer aircraft for EE bay corrosion...?

This doesn't make any sense. The plane was in the air for approximately 30 seconds, the plane stops climbing around 12 seconds after take off, and the noise of the RAT is heard 11 seconds before the plane crashes - even if we assume the RAT both deploys instantly and deployed the exact moment that video began recording, that only gives the pilots a 7 second window to perform an action that results in it being deployed.

There just isn't enough time for the RAT to be deployed as a result of any action by the crew, IMHO. And to demonstrate how long 7 seconds is - that's enough to say 20 words, assuming no interruptions .

If you read the thread, you would know:

The RAT was almost certainly deployed. 4 different sources.
The Flaps were not retracted. Visible at the accident site plus many other sources agreeing they were indeed down.
APU will autostart when all engine power is lost. Potentially explaining why the inlet door was open or partially open at the accident site. Mentioned in several previous posts
On a 787-8, the main bogies tilt as the 1st action of the gear retract sequence. As stated in previous posts. I don't think this happens unless gear is selected up. So the conclusion was, gear was selected up. One caveat, IIRC, there was some discussion around a failure could have caused the bogies to tilt without Gear up being selected but I don't recall the outcome.
As for the Air France remark, un-necessary IMHO. Let's respect the crews please.

OK, I promised some informed speculation when I got back, so here goes:
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.

First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.

GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).

Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely ).

Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.

N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.

The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.

TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.

If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.

The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).

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.

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.

Sometimes complex sequences can have very simple causalities. A lot of complex speculation in this thread so far focused on highly technical things. Yet the basic fundamentals of powered flight have not changed (despite our attempts to do so) over the past 100 years.

1. As a general rule it is a bad idea to run out of either altitude or airspeed or both.
2. If you try to maintain altitude without sufficient thrust you will eventually run out of airspeed.
3. If you have sufficient thrust you can maintain your altitude at a given airspeed, and if you have excess thrust you can maintain your airspeed and increase your altitude. If you have lots of excess thrust you can increase your altitude and increase your airspeed.
4. If you try to increase your altitude by pitching the nose up, and without sufficient excess thrust, your speed will decay quickly, up to the point of stall, at which point you will lose any small amount of altitude you have gained and begin descending.

So…

Fact 1: The airplane stopped going up because it lacked excess thrust necessary to sustain the climb, and;

Fact 2: The airplane’s airspeed decreased constantly because they were trying to maintain either altitude or the climb, but lacked the thrust to do so, and;

Fact 3: If they had prematurely raised the flaps, the climb rate would have decreased/possibly turned negative, but the airplane would have continued to accelerate.

So where did the thrust go?

Fact 4: There is no adverse yaw seen in any of the videos, so wherever it went the loss of thrust occurred (nearly) simultaneously in both engines.

Fact 5: The only way to stop a jet engine from thrusting (sorry) is by either blowing it up or removing the fuel supply. If it blows up- like from birds trying to become a fuel source, there will be evidence. (See Jeju Air for a good example.)

Fact 6: There is (so far) no evidence of either engine blowing up. (I’m deliberately using highly technical terms here…)

Fact 7: There is unmistakably clear audible evidence of the RAT being deployed on the raw video from the right rear quarter of the airplane. Near supersonic propellor blades are an unmistakable sound- the RAT was definitively deployed no matter how much people want to argue to the contrary.

Fact 8: In the same video there is silence from the engines when they should be thundering at full (or nearly full) power. (Yes, I know that isn’t a thing- I am a simple man alas.)

Thus the only possible conclusions are (cringes as he waits for fdr to rip him a new ah):

1. The engines stopped burning, at nearly the same moment in time.
2. As a result, the airplane stopped climbing and also began to lose airspeed in an attempt to maintain altitude.
3. The RAT being deployed so quickly means that the ‘puters believed both engines were dead donks. (They were.)
4. If both engines ceased burning it meant the fuel supply was interrupted. We aren’t talking flight idle here- it was lights out for both.
5. (I am quoting someone else here) There is enough suction for the fuel to feed even if the fuel pumps are inop.
6. The engines stopped being provided with fuel. Because something physical was placed between the tanks and the burners. And they flamed out.

The $64,000 question here (remember when that was a lot of money??!!) is simply: What stopped both engines from getting fuel?

There are a very finite number of possibilities to that answer- and I do have my suspicions, but I lack the qualification to opine on that one.

I’ll leave the rest to the more experienced folk here.

Warm regards-

dce

I’m not a 787 driver so for fear of looking dumb in front of those that are this still confuses me. Even IF they’ve mis-selected the flap setting (I still don’t think it’s been cemented on here that there is in fact a FMS/flap setting disagreement warning but i believe there is), had the wrong de-rated take off settings, selected flaps instead of gear up the 787 with massive high bypass engines, FBW and full envelope protections surely cannot let itself be put in such a low energy/high alpha regime as we saw in the videos IF it has both fans functioning normally, surely?

the pilots may have messed up royally and numerous times so those holes lined up but the plane is the final block in the chain and a 21st century all digital entirely clean sheet design was sold as being immune to such catastrophic outcomes from a few minor (consequential yes) and fairly common errors- aren’t all the protections and our procedures designed after decades of mistakes?

im having a hard time squaring how a fully functioning modern bird like this could allow for this outcome and almost whatever the pilots did outside of unbelievable inputs and the pilots are are a bit of a red herring IMO

I have seen your previous posts about this, and I happen to agree. Visually, as a lay man non visuals expert, I am in your \xabcamp.\xbb

However, the rat is small, and the artifacts are plentiful. Small sensor, compressed video, compressed upload, zoom, it is in short an awful source.

However, the RAT is a much better noisemaker, and the audio signature is much more obvious than it’s visual appearance in this case, and though the recording isn’t fantastic quality, there was more than enough information there to objectively conclude the RAT is out. And that is my professional, on the weekend, opinion.

I want to ask a pretty frank question for all of you, and I hope it is ok, from an audio specialist non-pilot:
Provided the engines spooled down. Provided the RAT is out. (There are no explosions, no bird strikes.)
Isn’t software and previous electrical failures a red herring too?Would anything but a complete fuel shut off lead to this result? That still leaves everything from the Fate is the Hunter plot, to Airbus A350 center consoles and Alaska 2059 open as root causes.

Another hour spent sifting through the stuff since last night (my sympathies to the mods ). A few more comments:

"Real time engine monitoring" is typically not 'real time' - it's recorded and sent in periodic bursts. Very unlikely anything was sent from the event aircraft on this flight.

Commanded engine cutoff - the aisle stand fuel switch sends electrical signals to the spar valve and the "High Pressure Shutoff Valve" (HPSOV) in the Fuel Metering Unit, commanding them to open/close using aircraft power. The HPSOV is solenoid controlled, and near instantaneous. The solenoid is of a 'locking' type that needs to be powered both ways (for obvious reasons, you wouldn't want a loss of electrical power to shut down the engine). The fire handle does the same thing, via different electrical paths (i.e. separate wiring).

As I've noted previously, a complete loss of aircraft electrical power would not cause the engines to flameout (or even lose meaningful thrust) during takeoff. In the takeoff altitude envelope, 'suction feed' (I think Airbus calls it 'gravity feed') is more than sufficient to supply the engine driven fuel pumps. It's only when you get up to ~20k ft. that suction feed can become an issue - and this event happened near sea level.

Not matter what's happening on the aircraft side - pushing the thrust levers to the forward stop will give you (at least) rated takeoff power since the only thing required from the aircraft is fuel and thrust lever position (and the thrust lever position resolver is powered by the FADEC).

The TCMA logic is designed and scrubbed so as to be quite robust - flight test data of the engine response to throttle slams is reviewed to insure there is adequate margin between the TCMA limits and the actual engine responses to prevent improper TCMA activation. Again, never say never, but a whole lot would have had to go wrong in the TCMA logic for it to have activated on this flight.

Now, if I assume the speculation that the RAT deployed is correct, I keep coming up with two potential scenarios that could explain what's known regarding this accident:
1) TCMA activation shutdown the engines
or
2) The fuel cutoff switches were activated.
I literally can come up with no other plausible scenarios.

In all due respect to all the pilots on this forum, I really hope it wasn't TCMA. It wouldn't be the first time a mandated 'safety system' has caused an accident (it wouldn't just be Boeing and GE - TCMA was forced by the FAA and EASA to prevent a scenario that had never caused a fatal accident) - and there would be a lot embarrassing questions for all involved. But I personally know many of the people who created, validated, and certified the GEnx-1B TCMA logic - and can't imagine what they would be going through if they missed something (coincidentally, one of them was at my birthday party last weekend and inevitably we ended up talking about what we used to do at Boeing (he's also retired)). Worse, similar TCMA logic is on the GEnx-2B (747-8) - which I was personally responsible for certifying - as well as the GE90-115B and the 737 MAX Leap engine - the consequences of that logic causing this accident would be massive.

The engine driven fuel pump is literally driven off the engine gearbox (driven by a mechanical connection to the N2 shaft) - if the engine's running, the gearbox is turning (baring a major mechanical fault). The engine driven fuel pump is a two-stage pump - a centrifugal pump that draws the fuel into the pump (i.e. 'suction feed'), and a gear pump which provides the high-pressure fuel to the engine and as muscle pressure to drive things like the Stator Vane and Bleed Valve actuators. It takes a minimum of ~300 PSI to run the engine - the HPSOV is spring loaded closed and it takes approximately 300 psi to overcome that spring.
Engine driven fuel pump failures are very rare, but have happened (usually with some 'precursor' symptoms that were ignored or mis-diagnosed by maintenance). It would be unheard of for engine driven fuel pumps to fail on both engines on the same flight.

As I've repeatedly posted, even a 100% aircraft power failure would not explain both engines quitting, at least without several other existing faults. Again, never say never, but you can only combine so many 10-9 events before it becomes ridiculous...

TCMA doesn't know what V1 is - it's active whenever the air/ground logic says the aircraft is on-ground.

A flight test (at least one - it's often duplicated) is performed as a basic part of aircraft/engine certification. One engine with all boost pumps off and on 'suction' feed - the other engine with normal aircraft boost pump operation (for what should be obvious reasons). Start, taxi, takeoff, and climb in that configuration until the test engine quits due to fuel starvation as a result of the engine fuel pump cavitation (done using "unweathered" fuel - once fuel has been at altitude for a period of time (hours or more - i.e. 'weathered'), most of the dissolved gases in the fuel have vented off, and suction feed works far better - often up to cruise altitudes).
I don't think this test is ever done during normal operations or maintenance (at least not on purpose) as it is very abusive to the engine driven fuel pump - the sort of cavitation that this causes rapidly erodes the pumping surfaces (it's SOP to replace the engine driven fuel pump after such a test).