Writing a report
The report states, (paraphrased), that the cabling from the Starboard flight station in the area of the boost quadrant “......was not recovered....”
It also infers that the aft connector “punched through” the hole, leaving shoulder marks. But the brass junction block could not fit through, therefore, the cable was not attached prior to impact.
“Not recovered”. A technical phrase, with a specific meaning. Recovery involves “locating, photography (in situ), isolating and indexing, delicate removal, carefully containing, and a chain of authority whilst in transit to a secure location.”
“Discovery”. A visual happenstance, object(s) protected, left undisturbed, pending assessment.
Was the cable run discovered, found? the language in the report does not state? “Not recovered” is unfortunate use of language exonerating liability? No. It is misleading. If “found” the obligation is to carefully and scientifically research the structure. The aft controls locker is inside the wing box, which survived the impact.
Did the team say “not found”? Need confirmation here. The cable run in question was almost certainly “located”. Did it make the trash truck before anyone granted its critical importance?
BTW. The “aft connector” is intended to pass through the hole in the spar.
It is the only way to thread the cable run into the aft controls locker from forward of the spar, during assembly of the full run.
Why? The flexible cable is permanently swaged to the sixteen foot long Lockclad cable. Lockclad will not pass easily through the hole from the aft aspect.
The “hole”:
1. Drilling through a metallic structure requires care.
2. After through and through penetration, the hole must be “eased” at both faces, to prevent the establishment and propagation of cracks in the spar. It is likely (hopefully) this was accomplished by “rounding” (or at least “chamfering”) each perimeter to forestall later cracks from forming.
This “easing” could easily be mistaken for remnants of a violent pass by the connector.
I maintain: The kit between the Boost quadrant and the slack absorber was stripped away from the quadrant during the first (fuselage) impact. Both Port and Starboard runs. Both terminal installations remained in the control bay.
I am going to further say, subject to further examination, that the cable forward of the slack absorber was connected in flight, and stripped away whilst attached upon impact.
With the number of aileron squawks, and their diversity, I would question whether replacement of the boost unit would have mitigated all of them?
By boost unit, do we mean the cylinder and drive arm only? Do we include the pumps, their power source, and the control valve?
What about the ”taper pin”, and the faulty “indicator light”?
Maybe in FOIA.
Last edited by Concours77; 12th Jan 2018 at 15:37.