July 10, 2025, 13:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919015
AI171 Thread by Subject
I have rebuilt the site that organises this thread by subject here:
https://paulross.github.io/pprune-th...171/index.html
Changes:
Raise issues here https://github.com/paulross/pprune-threads/issues or PM me.
Changes:
- Built the thread up to July 10, 2025, 12:31:00
- Add subjects: Relight, 51 Day Issue, Fuel Cutoff Switches (detent), ICAO, Fuel Cutoff Switches, Memory Items, Annex 13, Simulation Scenarios.
- Various technical fixes should give a better/more accurate presentation.
Raise issues here https://github.com/paulross/pprune-threads/issues or PM me.
July 11, 2025, 00:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919310
This has all been answered in previous posts, but I'll repeat it for those you don't want to look back through something like 150 pages:
Thrust Lever Angle (TLA) is measured directly by the FADEC, using a resolver hardwired to and excited by the FADEC. Both FADEC channels have their own resolver input - on most Boeing aircraft it's a common resolver with two sets of electrically isolated windings, however on the 787 it actually uses two mechanically separate resolvers. The resolver is basically read as "sine" and "cosine" which is converted in the angle. This also makes error detection easy, using the sine squared + cosine squared relationship. Any other aircraft systems that use TLA use the TLA signal relayed back to the aircraft by the FADEC.
The fuel control switch is a two-position multiple pole 'latching' switch - you have to pull it out slightly over detent to move it between the RUN and CUTOFF positions (on other aircraft there is an interposing relay for some of the functions. not sure about the implementation on the 787). Moving the switch to cutoff sends a DC signal to both the High Pressure ShutOff Valve (HPSOV) in the fuel control and the spar valve commanding them to close. HPSOV is solenoid actuated and is near instantaneous, Spar Valve takes ~one second to change positions (yes, this is different than some other airframers that only send the signal to one valve or the other, but it's been standard Boeing design practice since the early 1970s). Both the HPSOV solenoid and the Spar Valve are designed to stay in their last commanded position if airframe power is lost. Moving the switch to CUTOFF also sends a 'reset' signal to the FADEC - meaning the FADEC will be offline for roughly one second. On the 787 (and 777 and 747-8), there is a brief pause (~0.25 seconds) before the shutdown signal is sent to the engine to allow the electrical system to reconfigure to prevent a brief interrupt of electrical power to the rest of the aircraft.
Pulling the Fire Handle does the same thing as the fuel condition switch - via separate wiring (physically isolated from the fuel switch wiring to help protect from things like rotor burst damage), with the exception of the FADEC reset (since there is no requirement to be able to restart the engine after a Fire Handle shutdown).
There is absolutely no TLA input into either the fuel conditions switch or the Fire Handle - you can shutdown the engine via either regardless of Thrust Lever Angle.
All this is standard Boeing design practice (and except for the no-break electrical power transfer) has been for at least 50 years. This is enforced by the Boeing "Design Requirements and Objectives" - DR&O - compliance with is demonstrated by an audit after the final design freeze.
Thrust Lever Angle (TLA) is measured directly by the FADEC, using a resolver hardwired to and excited by the FADEC. Both FADEC channels have their own resolver input - on most Boeing aircraft it's a common resolver with two sets of electrically isolated windings, however on the 787 it actually uses two mechanically separate resolvers. The resolver is basically read as "sine" and "cosine" which is converted in the angle. This also makes error detection easy, using the sine squared + cosine squared relationship. Any other aircraft systems that use TLA use the TLA signal relayed back to the aircraft by the FADEC.
The fuel control switch is a two-position multiple pole 'latching' switch - you have to pull it out slightly over detent to move it between the RUN and CUTOFF positions (on other aircraft there is an interposing relay for some of the functions. not sure about the implementation on the 787). Moving the switch to cutoff sends a DC signal to both the High Pressure ShutOff Valve (HPSOV) in the fuel control and the spar valve commanding them to close. HPSOV is solenoid actuated and is near instantaneous, Spar Valve takes ~one second to change positions (yes, this is different than some other airframers that only send the signal to one valve or the other, but it's been standard Boeing design practice since the early 1970s). Both the HPSOV solenoid and the Spar Valve are designed to stay in their last commanded position if airframe power is lost. Moving the switch to CUTOFF also sends a 'reset' signal to the FADEC - meaning the FADEC will be offline for roughly one second. On the 787 (and 777 and 747-8), there is a brief pause (~0.25 seconds) before the shutdown signal is sent to the engine to allow the electrical system to reconfigure to prevent a brief interrupt of electrical power to the rest of the aircraft.
Pulling the Fire Handle does the same thing as the fuel condition switch - via separate wiring (physically isolated from the fuel switch wiring to help protect from things like rotor burst damage), with the exception of the FADEC reset (since there is no requirement to be able to restart the engine after a Fire Handle shutdown).
There is absolutely no TLA input into either the fuel conditions switch or the Fire Handle - you can shutdown the engine via either regardless of Thrust Lever Angle.
All this is standard Boeing design practice (and except for the no-break electrical power transfer) has been for at least 50 years. This is enforced by the Boeing "Design Requirements and Objectives" - DR&O - compliance with is demonstrated by an audit after the final design freeze.
July 11, 2025, 20:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919772
The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42
UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned
from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1
and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut
off.
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff.
The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
The CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed
during the initial climb immediately after lift-off (fig. 15). No significant bird activity is observed
in the vicinity of the flight path. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport
perimeter wall.
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to
RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC)
automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
As per the EAFR data both engines N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the
RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC.
RAT in extended position
15
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to
RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC)
automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”.
UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned
from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1
and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut
off.
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff.
The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
The CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed
during the initial climb immediately after lift-off (fig. 15). No significant bird activity is observed
in the vicinity of the flight path. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport
perimeter wall.
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to
RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC)
automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
As per the EAFR data both engines N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the
RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC.
RAT in extended position
15
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to
RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC)
automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”.
08:08:42 Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position.
One of the pilots asks the other why did he cutoff.
The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
08:08:52 Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN
08:08:56 Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN
Who (or what?) operated the cutoff switches?
Last edited by Engineless; 11th July 2025 at 20:53 .
July 11, 2025, 22:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919886
Seconds count:
Time was spent with the verbal exchange, and then perhaps each pilot expected the other to put the switch back?
Anyway, the preliminary report also establishes that the aircraft had only 3-4 seconds of powered flight. (Would the gear lever be operated that early?) Everyone who saw that from the CCTV video, pat yourselves on the back.
Mayday call, dual engine failure, RAT deployment all confirmed.
TCMA was a red herring, the aircraft was firmly in air mode as the accident unfolded, and the thrust levers were at takeoff thrust the whole time.
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction. The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight.
Engine 1's core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery.
Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11 UTC.
That was with 10 seconds delay vs. 13 seconds for engine 2.
Time was spent with the verbal exchange, and then perhaps each pilot expected the other to put the switch back?
Anyway, the preliminary report also establishes that the aircraft had only 3-4 seconds of powered flight. (Would the gear lever be operated that early?) Everyone who saw that from the CCTV video, pat yourselves on the back.
Mayday call, dual engine failure, RAT deployment all confirmed.
TCMA was a red herring, the aircraft was firmly in air mode as the accident unfolded, and the thrust levers were at takeoff thrust the whole time.
July 11, 2025, 22:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919944
Anyone willing to make an estimate of how long would be required to reach take-off thrust given the known movement of the cut-off switches? With engine 1 spooling up and engine 2 having relit but failing to accelerate, it sounds like they came oh so close to recovery.
I imagine that what happened with engine 2 ("able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery") will be a major part of the investigation.
I imagine that what happened with engine 2 ("able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery") will be a major part of the investigation.
July 11, 2025, 23:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919982
The actual CVR will be crucial to solving the problem.
When someone attempted the engine re-lights at 08:08:52 and 08:08:56, does the CVR hear one or two movements of the RUN/CUTOFF switches for each engine?
Therefore, we could determine the position of the switch prior to the re-light attempt, and whether this was caused by a person on the Flight Deck or mechanical problem.
Release the CVR.
When someone attempted the engine re-lights at 08:08:52 and 08:08:56, does the CVR hear one or two movements of the RUN/CUTOFF switches for each engine?
Therefore, we could determine the position of the switch prior to the re-light attempt, and whether this was caused by a person on the Flight Deck or mechanical problem.
Release the CVR.
July 12, 2025, 00:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920034
July 12, 2025, 00:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920045
08:08:52 EAFR: Eng 1 cutoff to RUN
08:08:54 EAFR: APU inlet door opens (auto start logic)
08:08:56 EAFR: Eng 2 cutoff to RUN
08:09:05 ATC: Mayday call
08:08:54 EAFR: APU inlet door opens (auto start logic)
08:08:56 EAFR: Eng 2 cutoff to RUN
08:09:05 ATC: Mayday call
July 12, 2025, 01:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920049
If I recall correctly, the Mayday call was wording to the effect "thrust not achieved". That sounds like a phrase which could be expected from a pilot who had just frantically tried to restart an engine, and realized that it was not a success, and there would not be an opportunity for another attempt. The pilot aviated, (forget navigation), then communicated - over a period of 13 seconds.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “ MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY ”. The
ATCO enquired about the call sign. ATCO did not get any response but observed the aircraft
crashing outside the airport boundary and activated the emergency response.
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “ MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY ”. The
ATCO enquired about the call sign. ATCO did not get any response but observed the aircraft
crashing outside the airport boundary and activated the emergency response.
#2 may or may not have eventually started successfully; the extra two seconds of no fuel meant it would be a much harder start for the FADEC.
It doesn't sound like the crew have any input on the relight process; if the switch is on, the FADECs will try anything they can to get the engines lit and accelerating ASAP. Repeatedly switching between off and on will not help this process and there are basically no other controls the crew have, especially with no other power to run the engine starters.
July 12, 2025, 01:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920057
Why are we concentrating on the engine switches .?
What happened before this to cause the engines to run down, resulting in the crew trying the documented procedure of turning the switches off then on to restart ?.
Basically they ran out of time to resolve the problem.
What happened before this to cause the engines to run down, resulting in the crew trying the documented procedure of turning the switches off then on to restart ?.
Basically they ran out of time to resolve the problem.
July 12, 2025, 01:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920062
There are no documented procedures to that effect during takeoff\x85\x85\x85
July 12, 2025, 01:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920079
Why are we concentrating on the engine switches .?
What happened before this to cause the engines to run down, resulting in the crew trying the documented procedure of turning the switches off then on to restart ?.
Basically they ran out of time to resolve the problem.
What happened before this to cause the engines to run down, resulting in the crew trying the documented procedure of turning the switches off then on to restart ?.
Basically they ran out of time to resolve the problem.
The takeoff run seems to show a normal acceleration to V1.
July 12, 2025, 01:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920081
What happened before this to cause the engines to run down, resulting in the crew trying the documented procedure of turning the switches off then on to restart ?
The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.
July 12, 2025, 01:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920083
Spoiler
It seems like people are jumping to conclusions about the pilots and letting Boeing off the hook without proper investigation. Instead of providing a professional, detailed transcript of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), we’re just getting casual comments about what the pilot allegedly said. Critical information—like the timing of transmissions, the checklist items completed before takeoff, and other key details that should be on the CVR—are essential for understanding what happened in the cockpit, especially since the crash occurred so soon after takeoff. In my view, the preliminary report feels too convenient for certain parties involved.
Examining the before-takeoff checklists seems like it would be akin to examining the re-arrangement of the deckchairs before the titanic even hit the iceberg.
The engines were switched off. Unlike Embraer, B & A have no protections stopping you switching an engine off inadvertently. From everything in the report, everything operated exactly as designed. I am not certain of how long the relight window is without windmilling speed, but +- 10 seconds seems entirely reasonable.
The outstanding question that presumably requires much more in-depth investigation of the wreckage items and CVR audio is whether:
- the cutoff switches were operated deliberately (and by who)
- the cutoff switches were operated inadvertently (and by who)
- the cutoff switches were bumped (by what) and the guards failed or weren't installed
- some electrical failure perfectly mimicked both many-pole switches being operated, then being operated again (seems unlikely)
July 12, 2025, 02:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920123
I assume the 10 second pause is based on how long it took the two 767 event pilots to realize their error and return the switches to RUN.
July 12, 2025, 03:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920143
This is pure speculation but I can envision the following sequence of events that would match the timeline and the little we know from the CVR and sequence of events.
- While PF is concentrated on flying the airplane, PNF moves the switches from RUN to CUTOFF in quick succession (for whatever reason).
- PF doesn't notice that the switches have been moved (again, he is concentrated on flying) but soon perceives the loss of thrust and sees a message on EICAS.
- PF looks down to check throttle position. It takes him a couple seconds to realize that the switches are in CUTOFF position.
- PF asks PNF (and his superior) "Why did you cut off the engines?" (or something similar). PNF anwers that he didn't (a lie, but we don't know if deliberate or just confusion / mental breakdown)
- PF realizes that PNF is in a wrong mental state, and attempts to restart the engines. It takes him a couple of seconds to move both switches because his other hand is on the yoke trying to stabilize the airplane.
- By then the airplane has lost too much energy for a successful recovery. One of the pilots calls MAYDAY because he knows that they are about to crash.
This sequence would match the timeline between the initial fuel cutoff, and when the switches were moved back to run position, and would actually indicate great presence of mind and quick decision from the PF.
Again, this is pure speculation but it would match well with the little information we have.
- While PF is concentrated on flying the airplane, PNF moves the switches from RUN to CUTOFF in quick succession (for whatever reason).
- PF doesn't notice that the switches have been moved (again, he is concentrated on flying) but soon perceives the loss of thrust and sees a message on EICAS.
- PF looks down to check throttle position. It takes him a couple seconds to realize that the switches are in CUTOFF position.
- PF asks PNF (and his superior) "Why did you cut off the engines?" (or something similar). PNF anwers that he didn't (a lie, but we don't know if deliberate or just confusion / mental breakdown)
- PF realizes that PNF is in a wrong mental state, and attempts to restart the engines. It takes him a couple of seconds to move both switches because his other hand is on the yoke trying to stabilize the airplane.
- By then the airplane has lost too much energy for a successful recovery. One of the pilots calls MAYDAY because he knows that they are about to crash.
This sequence would match the timeline between the initial fuel cutoff, and when the switches were moved back to run position, and would actually indicate great presence of mind and quick decision from the PF.
Again, this is pure speculation but it would match well with the little information we have.
July 12, 2025, 11:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920539
It's established fact both fuel control switches moved to CUTOFF 4 seconds after Vr, a deliberate guarded action, not easily done accidentally.
The CVR records one pilot asking \x93Why did you cut off?\x94, the other replies \x93I didn\x92t\x94. Then a bland Mayday attributed to the Captain \x93engine failure, returning\x94 in the middle of the crisis.
The language, if reported correctly, feels strangely detached. No confusion, no urgency, no clear troubleshooting. Not drawing conclusions, but does anyone else see signs of performative behaviour, that is saying the right things outwardly, while being at odds with the underlying cause?
I appreciate that both crew members lost their lives, however if we avoid discussing uncomfortable patterns, we miss the point of investigation and learning.
The CVR records one pilot asking \x93Why did you cut off?\x94, the other replies \x93I didn\x92t\x94. Then a bland Mayday attributed to the Captain \x93engine failure, returning\x94 in the middle of the crisis.
The language, if reported correctly, feels strangely detached. No confusion, no urgency, no clear troubleshooting. Not drawing conclusions, but does anyone else see signs of performative behaviour, that is saying the right things outwardly, while being at odds with the underlying cause?
I appreciate that both crew members lost their lives, however if we avoid discussing uncomfortable patterns, we miss the point of investigation and learning.
July 12, 2025, 12:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920577
Don't the Checklist instructions for an engine restart throw a spanner in the works, in terms of what conditions you are supposed to perform the restart in? Could that account for the delay, if they were being followed? I find this:
to be very confusing, due to the Condition: statement. Having probably never actually done it before, did they think the engine speeds had to be below idle before attempting a restart?
Relevant links from previous thread:
Air India Ahmedabad accident 12th June 2025 Part 2
Air India Ahmedabad accident 12th June 2025 Part 2
to be very confusing, due to the Condition: statement. Having probably never actually done it before, did they think the engine speeds had to be below idle before attempting a restart?
Relevant links from previous thread:
Air India Ahmedabad accident 12th June 2025 Part 2
Air India Ahmedabad accident 12th June 2025 Part 2
July 12, 2025, 22:25:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920886
1 second delay
Again, you can not conclude that from the report.
Different inputs are sampled at different rates. Some very basic info here:
It's highly likely switch positions are only sampled at 1Hz, and not at 100 Hz. For engine parameters you'll likely want a higher sample rate, as the whole engine could go from perfectly fine to exploded in less than a second.
If you had something like:
08:08:42.96 UTC: cut off switch 1
08:08:43.01 UTC: cut off switch 2
It would likely be recorded as:
08:08:42 UTC: cut off switch 1
08:08:43 UTC: cut off switch 2
Leading you to believe there was one second between these 2 actions, whereas it was actually only 50ms.
Different inputs are sampled at different rates. Some very basic info here:
It's highly likely switch positions are only sampled at 1Hz, and not at 100 Hz. For engine parameters you'll likely want a higher sample rate, as the whole engine could go from perfectly fine to exploded in less than a second.
If you had something like:
08:08:42.96 UTC: cut off switch 1
08:08:43.01 UTC: cut off switch 2
It would likely be recorded as:
08:08:42 UTC: cut off switch 1
08:08:43 UTC: cut off switch 2
Leading you to believe there was one second between these 2 actions, whereas it was actually only 50ms.
Last edited by AK1969; 13th July 2025 at 00:41 .
July 13, 2025, 00:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920958
Takeoff thrust loss
With about 10 seconds between to-Cutoff and back-to-Run, it.is hard to see recovery with any terrain or obstacles present. Perhaps, assuming accidental Cutoff, they were restored within a second or two, the Quick Relight could have restored thrust rapidly as the engines were still spooling down - then it is a matter of the built-in margins in the takeoff performance. But the report said the engines both were sub-idle when the Quick Relight logic would have reactivated with the restoration to Run.
I doubt it was close - up to 10 seconds with 100% thrust loss. It could easily be evaluated in a Simulator, but not sure it matters now.