Posts about: "RAT (Deployment)" [Posts: 406 Page: 21 of 21]¶

The RAT was deployed after the switches transitioned.
This is because RAT deployment is automatic when both engines are shut down.
See https://paulross.github.io/pprune-th...oyment-10.html

Non-paywalled version: https://www.aol.com/articles/sabotag...060100148.html
There's the old "the RAT deployed early" (assuming it always takes a full 6 seconds to spool up), the water leak, the "can't move both switches in a second", and new "the aft FDR looks like it burned before the crash". And this, which is as yet unsubstantiated, and is likely not relevant at all:

whilst intentional action is the most obvious explanation one can\x92t ignore data and technical grounds if one is also going to dismiss counter theories on technical grounds

I still don\x92t believe we have got a clear answer on the recording interval of the engine cutoff switch channel, if it\x92s 1s then the \x91debunking\x92 by saying it can be done very quickly is moot as (near) instant would record as 1s I believe

and the RAT element is obviously very relevant, if RAT deployment is not recorded then one has to infer when it deployed based on when it delivered hydraulic/electric capability. And this will come down to counting seconds, any indication that the RAT may have deployed before the fuel cutoffs were recorded as moved is obviously hugely consequential

it\x92s easy to dismiss these narratives as vested interests but let\x92s be honest everyone has a vested interest here and blaming the pilots has been the go to when in doubt for a very very long time- probably as long as aviation has existed

in the absence of explicit evidence (does the CVR have more to tell?) of deliberate action or pre-planning this is a horrifically complicated investigation as there will always be plausible deniability on all sides and different courts/judges will rule on it very differently based on their own biases and views

The data in the report already shows us that the RAT deployed after the engines was shut down, and the data about RAT deployment maximum time and in this case when it started providing hydraulic pressure has a perfect match.

The ones trying to state otherwise either try very hard to make a case with *another* agenda behind or just lacks the knowledge to use the available data correctly.

There is not even a slightest doubt that this matches the described sequence and for example the pictures in the report.

"The aft EAFR burned before the crash" was I believe originally an attempt to tie it to the aft battery fires the 787 had more than a decade ago, as they're both 'aft'. Never mind that the aft electronics bay (APU battery) is under the floor near the wheel well while the aft EAFR is above the ceiling near the rear doors.

It's one second intervals but not necessarily recorded simultaneously. The NTSB has a few FDR reports from previous 787s that should show roughly what you would expect. I don't see any discrepancy.

RAT out would be recorded on the EAFR I believe, they just haven't explicitly specified when it happened.

The engines ran down after the switches were recorded moving. Even if the RAT deployed, that does not suggest that the crew switched the engines off because of an engine failure.

No crew is going to shut down the engines down simply because a RAT deploys unexpectedly.

It is very, very, very hard to argue that the EAFR records valid data for A/B/C/D but generates fake data for X/Y/Z, but the fake data is still externally and internally consistent. Which seems to be where we are now.

I don't think you can or will effectively prove whether it was intentional or some kind of an action slip, and by which pilot.

I think the accident report will be able to very clearly and with no reasonable doubt show that the switches were physically moved.

From the article:
And there you have the answer. If you refuse to consider the scary option, whatever remains must be the 'truth'.

Have we had actual confirmation that the aft EAFR was completely unrecoverable? I don't believe so; the preliminary report said this:
The forward EAFR will have shown when each bus lost power and if they don't believe there's any unique data on the aft EAFR, attempting to recover data from it is basically an academic exercise.

Don't blame the journalists. They are speaking to experts like the " the president of the Federation of Indian Pilots union" who is giving them the interpretation of the timings of the RAT deployment. Then there is "the founder of India\x92s Safety Matters Foundation" who says the extensive damage to one of the FDRs could only have been caused by "a lithium-ion battery fire", and not by an extended fuel fire. Therefore the plane must have been on fire at "sometime" before it took off. (I'm surprised nobody noticed that!)