Posts by user "jimtx" [Posts: 12 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 1]

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

Here\x92s another screen shot from an unknown source showing both the RAT and a bit of symmetric spoiler float due to lack of hydraulic pressure to close side.

Originally Posted by sevenfive

Looks like it is tilted during rotation as far as I can see.

Are you talking about the perfect world? We all make mistakes....

Originally Posted by Pilot DAR

Nothing in the report suggests that the engines began to run down before the fuel was selected to cutoff. The report states a sequence of events for power loss which begins with the switches MOVING or BEING MOVED to cutoff. The maximum airspeed was immediately before the switches were moved, so there had not been a power rundown prior to that:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Wouldn't they already know if the detents were missing in this case? They recovered the switches and told us what position they were in at impact.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Unless defective, they cannot be operated with a flick of the wrist. They have to be pulled up hard, before they can be moved.
I think this has been explained 80K times.

Originally Posted by Shep69

I flew the 777. The 78 switches are of similar design. They must be positively lifted and then moved with a robust over center block preventing them from moving after being bumped by something or other. Nothing I can think of in the cockpit could hit them with enough force to break the over center lock. IIRC none of our fleet had the side guard. It takes a conscious act to move them. The stabilizer trim cutouts are completely different red guarded switches.

Originally Posted by rigoschris

It\x92s not great that they mention the SAIB in the Preliminary Report but don\x92t give any details to the state of the particular switches of this airplane.

The metal parts of the switches seem intact in the picture, so it would be easy to check if the \x93lobes\x94 in the movable and stationary parts of the switches were there. A close-up picture would lay this topic to rest.

This omission is causing a lot of speculation online.

Originally Posted by Guildenstern

There is something about the report that doesn't sit right. Why didn't it say anything about the state of the locks on the fuel switches that were recovered? The investigators knew this was an issue. They recovered the switches sufficiently intact to determine their position. Why didn't they report if the locks were present? Yes, I'm aware that it's exceedingly unlikely the locks were absent given that the console including switches had been replaced as recently as 2023. But "exceedingly unlikely" is not certainty. It seems like a crucial omission.

Originally Posted by 1stspotter

No that is not what I mean,
The faulty switch on same Boeing 737 aircraft is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the Boeing 787. This aircraft has a different type of switch (see partnumber). There is not a single issue ever reported. There was not a single issue found after the crash.
.

Originally Posted by za9ra22

Not sure why you would think the paragraph in the preliminary report was a red herring - it's a statement of historical context directly relating to the fuel control switches which the investigation had found in the FDR record as having 'transitioned' to OFF before 'transitioning' ack to ON.

To not detail the background would have been to omit a clearly pertinent fact which would have left others questioning the authority of the report for not covering it. The report itself then clearly states: "At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers." to ensure it is known that no defects were found at the time of the report being issued.

I suspect it is written as it is because at this point, there is no evidence the investigation can provide as to how the switches 'transitioned', let alone why.

Originally Posted by GroundedSpanner

Because the preliminary report can only contain verified factual information.
"There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB." - This will have been verified by the investigation team fairly rapidly. Verified reportable fact, included in the preliminary report.


This could not have been done by the team in the time available. Bear in mind that the EAFR was not read until almost 2 weeks after the crash. Before that point there would have been little focus on the fuel switches, which were recovered in the run position (verifiable and reported). Once attention was directed to the switches, a small team will form just to forensically examine those switches. They will likely take WEEKS to even begin the detailed examination of the switches. Those switches have been through a crash and a fire. They dare not move them until every possible non-destructive examination technique has been used. What do you test first? just pulling the sleeve will move something. Moving the lever will move the contacts. Did fingerprints survive the fire?. You would want to x-ray them, measure wear on the locking, look at contact position. Electrically test the terminals. Does it need to be opened? They would get examples from the manufacturer and destructively test them.
Yes in the final report they would be in a position to make a statement like that. But in the preliminary - No.

Originally Posted by tdracer

Yea DAR, it's time for another break. It's been days since anything really new has been posted - just hamster wheel arguments of the same theories, and even stuff that I thought had been thoroughly discredited, dead, and buried has come back to life (e.g. TCMA and the fuel condition switches both unilaterally changing state).

If something new comes up - then either reopen or someone can start a new one.