West Coast
June 14, 2025, 17:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901613

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechpowi

Yes, in one in a million (billion?) cases. If every take off and landing would be with the APU runing, there would be [some small number] of cases where the APU would shutdown at the critical moment causing electrics to reconfigure or the APU could shed a blade or catch a fire. Those events should not cause an accident, but then aircraft shouldn\x92t just fall out of the sky 30 seconds after lift off.

Furthernore mandating use of the APU would be quite hyppocratic, if reduced thrust take-offs, single engine taxi outs, landing with less than maximum available flap or other cost saving measures were still allowed.

Add to those thoughts, an inop APU means the aircraft isn\x92t going anywhere.

Subjects APU

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

West Coast
June 14, 2025, 18:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901684

Quote:

Originally Posted by stn

Is that with the B787? Because all buses can fly without APU. Those days at work are ####ty, tho

A poster added that the APU should be run for landings/takeoffs, not a realistic expectation.

Subjects APU

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

West Coast
June 14, 2025, 21:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901786

Quote:

Originally Posted by HumbleDeer

On the B787/B788, you'd be expected to run it because you need the electrical power to spool up at least one of the engines, after which the one running engine can provide power to start the one yet to be started engine.

But not as a function of dispatch unless performance requires or a deferral is in place.

Subjects: None

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

West Coast
July 12, 2025, 21:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920811

Quote:

Originally Posted by za9ra22

I well understand the notion, but the hard reality is that accidents are more often the result of complex overlays of circumstance rather than single individual or system issues. That was really my only point.

Accidents yes, intentional acts, no.

Last edited by T28B; 12th July 2025 at 21:44 . Reason: brackets completed

Subjects: None

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
July 15, 2025, 15:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922980

Quote:

Originally Posted by toiletsaft

The authors of the preliminary report would surely have known that the report as drafted would raise strong suspicions of an intentional act by one of the pilots to shut off the fuel switches. If the investigators had evidence that would indicate that it was not (or may not have been) a deliberate act (from for example the rest of the verbal exchanges between the pilots) then surely they would have included such information in the report in order to avoid such a conclusion from being drawn by the reading public. This suggests that there is no such evidence.

More likely as with investigation reporting, they\x92re simply calling balls and strikes and really aren\x92t concerned about the conclusions readers make.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Switches Preliminary Report

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast June 14, 2025, 17:09:00 GMT permalink Post: 11901613	Quote: Originally Posted by mechpowi Yes, in one in a million (billion?) cases. If every take off and landing would be with the APU runing, there would be [some small number] of cases where the APU would shutdown at the critical moment causing electrics to reconfigure or the APU could shed a blade or catch a fire. Those events should not cause an accident, but then aircraft shouldn\x92t just fall out of the sky 30 seconds after lift off. Furthernore mandating use of the APU would be quite hyppocratic, if reduced thrust take-offs, single engine taxi outs, landing with less than maximum available flap or other cost saving measures were still allowed. Add to those thoughts, an inop APU means the aircraft isn\x92t going anywhere. Subjects APU Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
West Coast June 14, 2025, 18:40:00 GMT permalink Post: 11901684	Quote: Originally Posted by stn Is that with the B787? Because all buses can fly without APU. Those days at work are ####ty, tho A poster added that the APU should be run for landings/takeoffs, not a realistic expectation. Subjects APU Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
West Coast June 14, 2025, 21:06:00 GMT permalink Post: 11901786	Quote: Originally Posted by HumbleDeer On the B787/B788, you'd be expected to run it because you need the electrical power to spool up at least one of the engines, after which the one running engine can provide power to start the one yet to be started engine. But not as a function of dispatch unless performance requires or a deferral is in place. Subjects: None The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
West Coast July 12, 2025, 21:23:00 GMT permalink Post: 11920811	Quote: Originally Posted by za9ra22 I well understand the notion, but the hard reality is that accidents are more often the result of complex overlays of circumstance rather than single individual or system issues. That was really my only point. Accidents yes, intentional acts, no. Last edited by T28B; 12th July 2025 at 21:44 . Reason: brackets completed Subjects: None 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast July 15, 2025, 15:20:00 GMT permalink Post: 11922980	Quote: Originally Posted by toiletsaft The authors of the preliminary report would surely have known that the report as drafted would raise strong suspicions of an intentional act by one of the pilots to shut off the fuel switches. If the investigators had evidence that would indicate that it was not (or may not have been) a deliberate act (from for example the rest of the verbal exchanges between the pilots) then surely they would have included such information in the report in order to avoid such a conclusion from being drawn by the reading public. This suggests that there is no such evidence. More likely as with investigation reporting, they\x92re simply calling balls and strikes and really aren\x92t concerned about the conclusions readers make. Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Switches Preliminary Report Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 3 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts by user "West Coast" [Posts: 5 Total up-votes: 4 Page: 1 of 1]¶