FlightSpanner:
It's all in the data, except for why #2 Engine detected Flame Out, from the data it does indeed look like there was nothing wrong with #2, however the EEC thought there was a Flameout.
Indeed, and although this faulty "thought" caused the string of events to start, I wonder if they would have done any better if there was a real Flameout? I would expect a real flameout to be shown by a *really* sudden, low ITT reading, as it would be being sprayed by unlit fuel/air mixture, which would cool it down very fast (unless the flameout was due to fuel starvation, obviously, in which case it would just be cold air, but still much cooler than burning gasses).
Can anyone who's seen one comment on what a real flameout looks like on the gauges?
...
During the decrease of #1 engine PLA they also increased the #2 PLA, which at this point did nothing as the engine was at idle, my thought is they either had not noticed the #2 engine producing no power or had firewalled the power lever in an attempt to get some thrust back.
To me it suggests they thought that No.1 had failed, and they did a manual "uptrim" of what they thought was the good engine, without checking the instruments to confirm. What indication is there that the propeller is feathered, as it was when this firewalling of PLA2 took place?
Someone also mentioned the spikes on the TQ data, I have seen this before on other aircraft and believe it's due to the signal being zero on that channel, if you notice the Oil px it does exactly the same when the #1 engine is shut down.
That was me! So the system shows that sawtooth pattern to indicate: "This sensor is working, but is reading zero"? Sounds like a good idea, just surprised nobody has mentioned that - maybe a little-known characteristic?