July 13, 2025, 20:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921615
I don't remember joining a debate about the APU door. In fact, I haven't seen such a debate, although I have seen some questions and speculation. I didn't read those posts carefully, but I got the sense that they were in the context of speculation about the possibilities for engine restart and thrust recovery, not about possible causal factors. Maybe I got that wrong.
July 13, 2025, 20:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921626
From the point that the fuel cutoffs were switched back to run, the primary (perhaps only) relevant issues were time and altitude. The left engine was relit and recovering on it's own but the right would probably have needed cranking as it appears to have had a hung start because it was spooled down too far and the airspeed was too low. However, I'm pretty sure that even if the APU had already been running at takeoff, they still would have needed at least another 30 seconds if not longer for full thrust. Also, there was nowhere near enough time for the APU to start and come online here.
Last edited by Mrshed; 13th July 2025 at 20:49 .
July 13, 2025, 20:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921628
The event shows that it's really imperative to relight the engines as quickly as possible.
The preliminary report says it took about 5 seconds for the engines to spool down to idle. 14 CFR \xa7 33.73 - Power or thrust response requires a jet engine to reach 95% thrust from stabilized flight idle in not over 5 seconds. So with a sufficiently quick reaction, flipping the switches back after 5 seconds, they could've been back in business by the time they actually flipped the switches back.
So it's not "flip the switches 3 seconds after liftoff and you're unrecoverable"; to be unrecoverable, there must also be sufficient time for the engines to spool down enough.
Don't ask, "why did you cut the engines", flip them back on. Go for the E in PACE.
The preliminary report says it took about 5 seconds for the engines to spool down to idle. 14 CFR \xa7 33.73 - Power or thrust response requires a jet engine to reach 95% thrust from stabilized flight idle in not over 5 seconds. So with a sufficiently quick reaction, flipping the switches back after 5 seconds, they could've been back in business by the time they actually flipped the switches back.
So it's not "flip the switches 3 seconds after liftoff and you're unrecoverable"; to be unrecoverable, there must also be sufficient time for the engines to spool down enough.
Don't ask, "why did you cut the engines", flip them back on. Go for the E in PACE.
Secondly, once the plane started to sink, just getting useable thrust won’t save the day, there has to be enough lift to arrest the sink rate. That requires some altitude, a lot more than 200’.
July 13, 2025, 20:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921632
Incidentally, the APU door started opening *after* the initiation of relight of the first engine.
Without the APU, would there have been sufficient power to restart even one engine, never mind two?
Could this be why the delay between the first and second switches being moved to RUN?
Does it also mean that in reality the 10 seconds between OFF and RUN is immaterial as there was insufficient electrical power to start the engines anyway?
Without the APU, would there have been sufficient power to restart even one engine, never mind two?
Could this be why the delay between the first and second switches being moved to RUN?
Does it also mean that in reality the 10 seconds between OFF and RUN is immaterial as there was insufficient electrical power to start the engines anyway?
Normal start uses a lot of electrical power to drive the two starters. In a situation with only the RAT supplying electrical power there won't be anywhere near enough power to turn even one starter. Restart relies on windmilling only. Igniters don't need a huge amount of power, fuel will be gravity fed to the engine driven pumps. The APU autostart function will use power from the dedicated APU battery only.
Edit to add, it can take an age for the APU to start off the battery. Well over a minute.
July 13, 2025, 20:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921633
I'm not sure it is amazing? All I read into the report's words is that the FCSs were turned on, I assume that this will see fuel flow to the combustion chambers and ignitors within 1s, and if the fuel ignites (why not?) EGT rises and the report records this as "relit".
The low airspeed airflow through engine and HP RPM on Eng 1 were sufficient to allow HP RPM to increase. The longer delay between Eng 2 OFF then ON allowed HP RPM to decay more than #1, and although 'relit', I read a successful (unassisted) spool up was unlikely? (i.e. a detailed unassisted relight envelope including current HP RPM and IAS would have #1 in the envelope and #2 outside).
The low airspeed airflow through engine and HP RPM on Eng 1 were sufficient to allow HP RPM to increase. The longer delay between Eng 2 OFF then ON allowed HP RPM to decay more than #1, and although 'relit', I read a successful (unassisted) spool up was unlikely? (i.e. a detailed unassisted relight envelope including current HP RPM and IAS would have #1 in the envelope and #2 outside).
July 13, 2025, 20:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921636
I think there is a bit of confusion running in this thread about how the auto restart function works.
Normal start uses a lot of electrical power to drive the two starters. In a situation with only the RAT supplying electrical power there won't be anywhere near enough power to turn even one starter. Restart relies on windmilling only. Igniters don't need a huge amount of power, fuel will be gravity fed to the engine driven pumps. The APU autostart function will use power from the dedicated APU battery only.
Normal start uses a lot of electrical power to drive the two starters. In a situation with only the RAT supplying electrical power there won't be anywhere near enough power to turn even one starter. Restart relies on windmilling only. Igniters don't need a huge amount of power, fuel will be gravity fed to the engine driven pumps. The APU autostart function will use power from the dedicated APU battery only.
July 13, 2025, 20:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921640
Thanks for confirming - the point I'm trying to make (apparently badly) is twofold:
1. There's a discussion here about the delay of 4 seconds between switching engine 1 and engine 2 to RUN. The fact is that this is irrelevant in terms of outcome given the lack of APU at the start of this process. Moreover if the lack of APU was known to the pilots, then it would potentially explain this delay anyway (what was the point in flicking the other switch yet)?
2. The lack of APU until at least 12-13 seconds after loss of engines, lack of electrical power from the engines, and at best limited electrical power from the RAT (and for a time, none), would have affected other systems used by the pilots during this short flight, at least for part of it. This hasn't been discussed basically at all, despite a lot of discussion around the ten second delay to start the engines restart, even though that power loss would have been in that window.
1. There's a discussion here about the delay of 4 seconds between switching engine 1 and engine 2 to RUN. The fact is that this is irrelevant in terms of outcome given the lack of APU at the start of this process. Moreover if the lack of APU was known to the pilots, then it would potentially explain this delay anyway (what was the point in flicking the other switch yet)?
2. The lack of APU until at least 12-13 seconds after loss of engines, lack of electrical power from the engines, and at best limited electrical power from the RAT (and for a time, none), would have affected other systems used by the pilots during this short flight, at least for part of it. This hasn't been discussed basically at all, despite a lot of discussion around the ten second delay to start the engines restart, even though that power loss would have been in that window.
Ok so:
1) There may be a technical reason outside of my scope for what you describe. From an operational point of view, for every EFATO I\x92ve ever done in the sim we are taught ANC. Initially our primary focus is flying the aircraft, hence why it\x92s being suggested this was the work of the PM, the only one with sufficient capacity capable of such at that moment. The fact the APU hasn\x92t come online whilst under such workload whilst falling out of the sky at 300ft wouldn\x92t be much of a consideration from the PF
2) Without power, altitude or airspeed nothing else really matters at that stage, does it? The APU takes longer to come online than this flight lasted!
July 13, 2025, 22:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921747
While this is thread is still deeply into hamster wheel status, there are some valuable inputs being made. I'll try to continue with that...
Thrust lever position post-accident - it takes very little force to move the thrust levers, a little more than one pound-force at the knob. I'd be very surprised if the post impact position was the same as pre-impact (and lever angle is recorded on the FDR, so the investigators know where they were). In short - the post-accident lever position is not meaningful.
Fuel condition switch position detents - if the Indian investigators had any reason to believe that a failed or inoperative detent was a contributing fact, the authorities would have ordered a fleet-wide inspection (especially since it literally takes only seconds to do the inspection - the paperwork would take many times longer than the actual inspection).
Engine restart (i.e. "Quick Windmill Relight"): Even if the igniters were firing, at high power they won't actually spark (the electrical resistance or the air at several hundred psi prevents a spark) - so they won't spark until you get down somewhere near idle if you're close to sea level. Once the engine has dropped below the min idle, it takes a long time for it accelerate back to even an idle condition. At takeoff power, the compressor components get very hot - do a power cut the air coming in the compressor gets heated by the residual heat in the compressor. This in turn limits how fast you can add fuel in the burner without excessively back pressuring the compressor and causing a compressor stall. So it actually takes longer for the engine to accel to idle that it would during a normal (cold engine) start. The 5 seconds to 95% accel requirement referenced earlier is from a stable 'high' idle (we typically call it 'approach idle' since it's automatically selected when landing flaps are selected). Approach idle is ~10% N2 higher than the in-flight minimum idle, so that takes several more seconds. Bottom line, after initiating the Quick Windmill Relight, you're not going to have usable thrust for at least 30 seconds - probably closer to 60 seconds.
For all the complaining about this preliminary report, it actually goes into more detail than is typical.
BTW, my money is still on the 'muscle memory/action slip' or whatever you want to call it. I can easily imagine a scenario along the line of 'why did you turn off the fuel' - 'I didn't - oh wait - oh
...
Thrust lever position post-accident - it takes very little force to move the thrust levers, a little more than one pound-force at the knob. I'd be very surprised if the post impact position was the same as pre-impact (and lever angle is recorded on the FDR, so the investigators know where they were). In short - the post-accident lever position is not meaningful.
Fuel condition switch position detents - if the Indian investigators had any reason to believe that a failed or inoperative detent was a contributing fact, the authorities would have ordered a fleet-wide inspection (especially since it literally takes only seconds to do the inspection - the paperwork would take many times longer than the actual inspection).
Engine restart (i.e. "Quick Windmill Relight"): Even if the igniters were firing, at high power they won't actually spark (the electrical resistance or the air at several hundred psi prevents a spark) - so they won't spark until you get down somewhere near idle if you're close to sea level. Once the engine has dropped below the min idle, it takes a long time for it accelerate back to even an idle condition. At takeoff power, the compressor components get very hot - do a power cut the air coming in the compressor gets heated by the residual heat in the compressor. This in turn limits how fast you can add fuel in the burner without excessively back pressuring the compressor and causing a compressor stall. So it actually takes longer for the engine to accel to idle that it would during a normal (cold engine) start. The 5 seconds to 95% accel requirement referenced earlier is from a stable 'high' idle (we typically call it 'approach idle' since it's automatically selected when landing flaps are selected). Approach idle is ~10% N2 higher than the in-flight minimum idle, so that takes several more seconds. Bottom line, after initiating the Quick Windmill Relight, you're not going to have usable thrust for at least 30 seconds - probably closer to 60 seconds.
For all the complaining about this preliminary report, it actually goes into more detail than is typical.
BTW, my money is still on the 'muscle memory/action slip' or whatever you want to call it. I can easily imagine a scenario along the line of 'why did you turn off the fuel' - 'I didn't - oh wait - oh
...
July 13, 2025, 22:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921757
While this is thread is still deeply into hamster wheel status, there are some valuable inputs being made. I'll try to continue with that...
Thrust lever position post-accident - it takes very little force to move the thrust levers, a little more than one pound-force at the knob. I'd be very surprised if the post impact position was the same as pre-impact (and lever angle is recorded on the FDR, so the investigators know where they were). In short - the post-accident lever position is not meaningful.
Fuel condition switch position detents - if the Indian investigators had any reason to believe that a failed or inoperative detent was a contributing fact, the authorities would have ordered a fleet-wide inspection (especially since it literally takes only seconds to do the inspection - the paperwork would take many times longer than the actual inspection).
Engine restart (i.e. "Quick Windmill Relight"): Even if the igniters were firing, at high power they won't actually spark (the electrical resistance or the air at several hundred psi prevents a spark) - so they won't spark until you get down somewhere near idle if you're close to sea level. Once the engine has dropped below the min idle, it takes a long time for it accelerate back to even an idle condition. At takeoff power, the compressor components get very hot - do a power cut the air coming in the compressor gets heated by the residual heat in the compressor. This in turn limits how fast you can add fuel in the burner without excessively back pressuring the compressor and causing a compressor stall. So it actually takes longer for the engine to accel to idle that it would during a normal (cold engine) start. The 5 seconds to 95% accel requirement referenced earlier is from a stable 'high' idle (we typically call it 'approach idle' since it's automatically selected when landing flaps are selected). Approach idle is ~10% N2 higher than the in-flight minimum idle, so that takes several more seconds. Bottom line, after initiating the Quick Windmill Relight, you're not going to have usable thrust for at least 30 seconds - probably closer to 60 seconds.
For all the complaining about this preliminary report, it actually goes into more detail than is typical.
BTW, my money is still on the 'muscle memory/action slip' or whatever you want to call it. I can easily imagine a scenario along the line of 'why did you turn off the fuel' - 'I didn't - oh wait - oh
...
Thrust lever position post-accident - it takes very little force to move the thrust levers, a little more than one pound-force at the knob. I'd be very surprised if the post impact position was the same as pre-impact (and lever angle is recorded on the FDR, so the investigators know where they were). In short - the post-accident lever position is not meaningful.
Fuel condition switch position detents - if the Indian investigators had any reason to believe that a failed or inoperative detent was a contributing fact, the authorities would have ordered a fleet-wide inspection (especially since it literally takes only seconds to do the inspection - the paperwork would take many times longer than the actual inspection).
Engine restart (i.e. "Quick Windmill Relight"): Even if the igniters were firing, at high power they won't actually spark (the electrical resistance or the air at several hundred psi prevents a spark) - so they won't spark until you get down somewhere near idle if you're close to sea level. Once the engine has dropped below the min idle, it takes a long time for it accelerate back to even an idle condition. At takeoff power, the compressor components get very hot - do a power cut the air coming in the compressor gets heated by the residual heat in the compressor. This in turn limits how fast you can add fuel in the burner without excessively back pressuring the compressor and causing a compressor stall. So it actually takes longer for the engine to accel to idle that it would during a normal (cold engine) start. The 5 seconds to 95% accel requirement referenced earlier is from a stable 'high' idle (we typically call it 'approach idle' since it's automatically selected when landing flaps are selected). Approach idle is ~10% N2 higher than the in-flight minimum idle, so that takes several more seconds. Bottom line, after initiating the Quick Windmill Relight, you're not going to have usable thrust for at least 30 seconds - probably closer to 60 seconds.
For all the complaining about this preliminary report, it actually goes into more detail than is typical.
BTW, my money is still on the 'muscle memory/action slip' or whatever you want to call it. I can easily imagine a scenario along the line of 'why did you turn off the fuel' - 'I didn't - oh wait - oh
...
The EAFR data revealed that the thrust levers remained
forward (takeoff thrust) until the impact.
Would that position be consistent with a restart attempt?
July 13, 2025, 23:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921779
There have been a few cases that I know about where the flight crew did a normal ground start with the thrust lever at mid-power, and the engine simply continues to accelerate to the 'commanded' N1 or EPR. In one case (a 777), this happened during pushback. As the engine continued to accelerate above idle, the thrust caused the aircraft to jackknife around the tug, causing the tug driver to have to dive for cover to prevent serious injury. That even happened while we were doing the development of the 747-8 - it prompted me to ask the 747 Chief Pilot if we wanted to consider a 'start inhibit' in the FADEC logic that would prevent a ground start attempt if the thrust lever wasn't at idle (ground starts only - for what should be obvious reasons). He didn't like the idea, and it went no further...
July 14, 2025, 00:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921803
While this is thread is still deeply into hamster wheel status, there are some valuable inputs being made. I'll try to continue with that...
Thrust lever position post-accident - it takes very little force to move the thrust levers, a little more than one pound-force at the knob. I'd be very surprised if the post impact position was the same as pre-impact (and lever angle is recorded on the FDR, so the investigators know where they were). In short - the post-accident lever position is not meaningful.
Fuel condition switch position detents - if the Indian investigators had any reason to believe that a failed or inoperative detent was a contributing fact, the authorities would have ordered a fleet-wide inspection (especially since it literally takes only seconds to do the inspection - the paperwork would take many times longer than the actual inspection).
Engine restart (i.e. "Quick Windmill Relight"): Even if the igniters were firing, at high power they won't actually spark (the electrical resistance or the air at several hundred psi prevents a spark) - so they won't spark until you get down somewhere near idle if you're close to sea level. Once the engine has dropped below the min idle, it takes a long time for it accelerate back to even an idle condition. At takeoff power, the compressor components get very hot - do a power cut the air coming in the compressor gets heated by the residual heat in the compressor. This in turn limits how fast you can add fuel in the burner without excessively back pressuring the compressor and causing a compressor stall. So it actually takes longer for the engine to accel to idle that it would during a normal (cold engine) start. The 5 seconds to 95% accel requirement referenced earlier is from a stable 'high' idle (we typically call it 'approach idle' since it's automatically selected when landing flaps are selected). Approach idle is ~10% N2 higher than the in-flight minimum idle, so that takes several more seconds. Bottom line, after initiating the Quick Windmill Relight, you're not going to have usable thrust for at least 30 seconds - probably closer to 60 seconds.
For all the complaining about this preliminary report, it actually goes into more detail than is typical.
BTW, my money is still on the 'muscle memory/action slip' or whatever you want to call it. I can easily imagine a scenario along the line of 'why did you turn off the fuel' - 'I didn't - oh wait - oh
...
Thrust lever position post-accident - it takes very little force to move the thrust levers, a little more than one pound-force at the knob. I'd be very surprised if the post impact position was the same as pre-impact (and lever angle is recorded on the FDR, so the investigators know where they were). In short - the post-accident lever position is not meaningful.
Fuel condition switch position detents - if the Indian investigators had any reason to believe that a failed or inoperative detent was a contributing fact, the authorities would have ordered a fleet-wide inspection (especially since it literally takes only seconds to do the inspection - the paperwork would take many times longer than the actual inspection).
Engine restart (i.e. "Quick Windmill Relight"): Even if the igniters were firing, at high power they won't actually spark (the electrical resistance or the air at several hundred psi prevents a spark) - so they won't spark until you get down somewhere near idle if you're close to sea level. Once the engine has dropped below the min idle, it takes a long time for it accelerate back to even an idle condition. At takeoff power, the compressor components get very hot - do a power cut the air coming in the compressor gets heated by the residual heat in the compressor. This in turn limits how fast you can add fuel in the burner without excessively back pressuring the compressor and causing a compressor stall. So it actually takes longer for the engine to accel to idle that it would during a normal (cold engine) start. The 5 seconds to 95% accel requirement referenced earlier is from a stable 'high' idle (we typically call it 'approach idle' since it's automatically selected when landing flaps are selected). Approach idle is ~10% N2 higher than the in-flight minimum idle, so that takes several more seconds. Bottom line, after initiating the Quick Windmill Relight, you're not going to have usable thrust for at least 30 seconds - probably closer to 60 seconds.
For all the complaining about this preliminary report, it actually goes into more detail than is typical.
BTW, my money is still on the 'muscle memory/action slip' or whatever you want to call it. I can easily imagine a scenario along the line of 'why did you turn off the fuel' - 'I didn't - oh wait - oh
...
The last line, is not a zero possibility, but at present the whole wiring system for the fuel control switches would need to be evaluated for any potential common fault that may be intermittent before I would lean towards the cognitive slip type error. The poor old FO would have both hands on the yoke from V1, irrespective of the company's SOP and so would have been rather unpleasantly surprised by the loss of performance. I think the 10 seconds in this case is remarkably fast observation-orientation-decision-action sequence, and that one engine had already started to recover towards operation is a credit to the design of the engine.
July 14, 2025, 00:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921812
During the design phase, the GE types fought back very hard at the QWR requirement - as I've noted previously, it's a very difficult requirement to meet - and doing the actual flight testing to show compliance does significant damage to the engine (as in a several percent loss in engine efficiency). But the FAA has a very specific requirement that must be met (documented in an "Issue Paper"), and they make the rules.
July 14, 2025, 04:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921851
The extract below shows that from Idle to 83% N1 took 5 seconds after the initiation of a TOGA, so I think your estimate of 30 seconds is probably too high. However, after reading that report, I am of the opinion that AI 171 had no chance of recovering. If the FCS switches had been set to Run within 5 seconds of being set to Cut Off, there might just have been a chance, but it is not at all certain.
July 14, 2025, 08:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921930
Engine restart (i.e. "Quick Windmill Relight"): Even if the igniters were firing, at high power they won't actually spark (the electrical resistance or the air at several hundred psi prevents a spark) - so they won't spark until you get down somewhere near idle if you're close to sea level. Once the engine has dropped below the min idle, it takes a
long
time for it accelerate back to even an idle condition. At takeoff power, the compressor components get very hot - do a power cut the air coming in the compressor gets heated by the residual heat in the compressor. This in turn limits how fast you can add fuel in the burner without excessively back pressuring the compressor and causing a compressor stall. So it actually takes
longer
for the engine to accel to idle that it would during a normal (cold engine) start. The 5 seconds to 95% accel requirement referenced earlier is from a stable 'high' idle (we typically call it 'approach idle' since it's automatically selected when landing flaps are selected). Approach idle is ~10% N2 higher than the in-flight minimum idle, so that takes several more seconds. Bottom line, after initiating the Quick Windmill Relight, you're not going to have usable thrust for
at least
30 seconds - probably closer to 60 seconds..
If the restriction to getting the engine relit earlier (well above idle N2) is only the spark gap, I am somewhat surprised that beefier igniters, perhaps with high/low voltage settings (for emergency/normal use), are not used. Compressed air is a reasonable insulator, but it's nowhere the oil, SF6, or vacuum that HV operators use in tight spaces.
Bigger igniters might mean you can spark the fuel at ~70% N2 at which point you're presumably seconds away from having thrust again, and don't do the significant engine damage associated with I assume EGT exceedances from scheduling high fuel to ramp N2 rapidly with already-hot parts.
My final thoughts for this event.
Misinformation, most of us including myself was of the view that Gear Up had been selected because we saw an image believed to be the accident aircraft with the bogeys stowed for retraction.The report image shows that they were not and the Gear Selector was down. A crucial element in the sequence of events.
Misinformation, most of us including myself was of the view that Gear Up had been selected because we saw an image believed to be the accident aircraft with the bogeys stowed for retraction.The report image shows that they were not and the Gear Selector was down. A crucial element in the sequence of events.
I think there is a bit of confusion running in this thread about how the auto restart function works.
Normal start uses a lot of electrical power to drive the two starters. In a situation with only the RAT supplying electrical power there won't be anywhere near enough power to turn even one starter. Restart relies on windmilling only. Igniters don't need a huge amount of power, fuel will be gravity fed to the engine driven pumps. The APU autostart function will use power from the dedicated APU battery only.
Edit to add, it can take an age for the APU to start off the battery. Well over a minute.
Normal start uses a lot of electrical power to drive the two starters. In a situation with only the RAT supplying electrical power there won't be anywhere near enough power to turn even one starter. Restart relies on windmilling only. Igniters don't need a huge amount of power, fuel will be gravity fed to the engine driven pumps. The APU autostart function will use power from the dedicated APU battery only.
Edit to add, it can take an age for the APU to start off the battery. Well over a minute.
You can spin up the engines in three ways: starter motor (electric or pneumatic, depending on type), windmill (but at low speeds, the RPM given by a windmill won't be enough), or the inertia of the already spinning engine. Quick relight I believe is predominantly inertia.
July 14, 2025, 14:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922259
You say; but have actually tried to move 'locking' switches, but without the locking spring ?
My very dated experience with similar switches showed that it is very easy, even simpler than a normal switch which has some inherent resistance. (Natural, unsprung switch position above the body ridge)
Video on-line depicting an errant 787 switch; the surprise is that this would not be noticed, but then we are only human.
My very dated experience with similar switches showed that it is very easy, even simpler than a normal switch which has some inherent resistance. (Natural, unsprung switch position above the body ridge)
Video on-line depicting an errant 787 switch; the surprise is that this would not be noticed, but then we are only human.
So they were either faulty or a deliberate action was made. The only other reason I can think of is they had a double eng failure and they were already trying to restart them.
I can't rationally think about anything different than these three scenarios.
July 15, 2025, 04:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922647
1. Where is the Data showing the TIME STAMP of when each engine parameters FIRST indicated an Engine spooling down. ( N1- N2, RPM. FUEL FLOW. EGT)
2. if the time STAMP of any engine spool down data occurred prior to the first movement of the fuel start lever. Then any subsequent movement of the start levers must be seen as an attempt to restart.
3. so that timeline must be established. More data is required.
2. if the time STAMP of any engine spool down data occurred prior to the first movement of the fuel start lever. Then any subsequent movement of the start levers must be seen as an attempt to restart.
3. so that timeline must be established. More data is required.
July 15, 2025, 04:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922651
1. Where is the Data showing the TIME STAMP of when each engine parameters FIRST indicated an Engine spooling down. ( N1- N2, RPM. FUEL FLOW. EGT)
2. if the time STAMP of any engine spool down data occurred prior to the first movement of the fuel start lever. Then any subsequent movement of the start levers must be seen as an attempt to restart.
3. so that timeline must be established. More data is required.
2. if the time STAMP of any engine spool down data occurred prior to the first movement of the fuel start lever. Then any subsequent movement of the start levers must be seen as an attempt to restart.
3. so that timeline must be established. More data is required.
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 .
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 .
That's the Embraer option.
The other option I can imagine is a mechanical stop with an override button, like the landing gear lever. Can't switch the fuel levers off unless you're slow and on the ground, the engine is failed or on fire, or you push override.
July 15, 2025, 10:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922796
Preliminary Report - another possibility?
I agree that the Preliminary Report will have been a very carefully chosen synopsis, but I don't think it precludes a system behaviour that might or might not even be categorised as either an electrical or mechanical malfunction, as such.
Consider that the Preliminary Report only references the CVR contents to indicate one crew querying why he (the other) cutoff, and the other denying it. Clearly very pertinent data to this investigation, so I'm not ruling out both of the crew being sincere, until I understand the aircraft system better.
If the cutoffs weren't triggered by the crew moving the switches, then the most likely thing was that both FADECs encountered a situation that invoked cutoff, practically at the same moment. That might suggest that the data from independent Run/Cutoff switches via independent poles that possibly route via a PIP or PIPs to various RDCs and in turn the CCS (which means these paths have a common mode) resulted in data to both FADECs "failing" in a critical manner simultaneously.
The only CCS vulnerability I'm aware of is what happens if the CCS is kept powered for 51 days, shortly after which, the Time Manager data integrity for ARINC 664 messages is compromised, possibly only considered critical n conjunction with a CDN Switch failure. AD 2020-06-14 therefore requires a maintenance action of cycling the CCS power at least once every 25 days.
Two such omitted, or incorrectly executed maintenance actions in a row would have to happen for that known issue to be relevant. Perhaps there is some other input in the CCS system that influences both lanes of data to the FADECs for the Cutoff to be triggered, but I'm not aware of such.
If the data to both FADECs became good again around the same time (perhaps no longer Stale Data, or an alternative source selected, or other mechanism), and given the unavailability of APU power at this point, might Engine 1 restart be initiated first, and might Engine 2 restart be triggered 4 seconds later by the FADECs? Is that possible without the crew cycling the switches?
Regarding AD 2020-06-14, which was approved quickly, Boeing subsequently offered revised wording, which changed "may" to "will", see FAA Docket 2020-0205-0004, but as it did not alter the maintenance action, it was not adopted. A fuller description of possible consequences was in FAA Docket 2020-0205-0001_content, but it was quite wide ranging, and didn't attempt to characterise specific aircraft systems behaviour.
For anyone wanting more information on the CCS, in the context of that Airworthiness Directive, I recommend reading A Reverse Engineer’s Perspective on the Boeing 787 ‘51 days’ Airworthiness Directive at IOActive.
As a non-professional pilot, please accept that my knowledge of much beyond the CCS is patchy, but I welcome this scenario being critiqued.
Thank you for your time, and I'm just donning my hard hat and flack jacket.
Last edited by T28B; 15th July 2025 at 13:56 . Reason: formatting for easier reading
July 15, 2025, 14:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922968
...
Which actually brings me to this one because I would like to ask for a bit of clarification: By "fuel switch discrete" are you referring to the Fuel Control Switches discussed in the preliminary report?
I would assume from your statement, that if a mismatch in the NC/NO signal on the switch was detected the FADEC would not direct the Fuel Cutoff Valves to close (as far as the types you are familiar with are concerned), is that correct?
...
Which actually brings me to this one because I would like to ask for a bit of clarification: By "fuel switch discrete" are you referring to the Fuel Control Switches discussed in the preliminary report?
I would assume from your statement, that if a mismatch in the NC/NO signal on the switch was detected the FADEC would not direct the Fuel Cutoff Valves to close (as far as the types you are familiar with are concerned), is that correct?
...
July 15, 2025, 15:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11923044
OODA - loop.
https://oodaloop.com/the-ooda-loop-e...-environments/
Keep in mind the critics of the \x91Miracle on the Hudson\x92. If they would have anticipated a dual engine failure and turned immediately they would have made a runway.
Thats not how things work in reality.
It takes times to analyze and come up with a response and look for a response.
Just keep in mind this was not occurring in an air conditioned simulator under training conditions.
https://oodaloop.com/the-ooda-loop-e...-environments/
Keep in mind the critics of the \x91Miracle on the Hudson\x92. If they would have anticipated a dual engine failure and turned immediately they would have made a runway.
Thats not how things work in reality.
It takes times to analyze and come up with a response and look for a response.
Just keep in mind this was not occurring in an air conditioned simulator under training conditions.
We tried this in the G650 sim utilizing the timing from the accident report - both to cutoff 3 seconds after liftoff, then back to run 10 seconds later. The profile was pretty much exactly the same and resulted in a red screen. The next one we waited 10 seconds after liftoff (we left the gear down) and then another 10 seconds before moving them back to run. We actually got relight on one and then the other but full thrust was restored at only 80\x92 off the ground but we were able to fly away.
I know, completely different airplane, but it was certainly a unique scenario to watch and it showed us the behavior of the engines during an auto-relight that we had never seen before
I know, completely different airplane, but it was certainly a unique scenario to watch and it showed us the behavior of the engines during an auto-relight that we had never seen before