Posts by user "West Coast" [Posts: 5 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 1]

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.

Originally Posted by stn

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

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.

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.

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.