2025-06-12T12:11:00
permalink Post: 11899141
Like most Boeings, on the 787 you are prevented from selecting the flaps/slats all the way up in one go by the gate at flap 1. If this was a mis-selection by one of the pilots, they would have been prevented from selecting ALL the high lift devices up in one go by the flap 1 gate. Even if you manage to get the lever to the Flaps Up position then below 225kts you should get Slat-Gap protection which maintains MOST of the lift. I have never tried it personally but that's the operation as advertised by Boeing. Would that provide enough lift to save them...... that is really a matter of debate.
The aircraft may have suffered a power loss of one or both engines possibly by bird strike. I have to say that the B787 is the very easiest aircraft I have ever flown when handling an engine failure above V1. The flight path vector and the flight director in the head up display make finessing an engine failure absolute child's play. Having said that the Boeing 787 performance is calculated right to the limits of legal requirement, so there is no scope for mis-handling. If they failed to select the landing gear up, not due to a flap lever mis-selection, but some another distraction, like an engine failure, then the aircraft would struggle to accelerate to V2 to safely climb away.
The B787 derates are calculated to give an acceptable Vmca in the event of an engine failure. That is to say, if you apply any more power asymmetricly the Vmca criteria of up to 5deg of bank towards the live engine will require more control input resulting in more control drag. Our SOP was - If you need it - Use It! Thankfully I never had to find out.
By way of illustration, on the B747-400, leaving the gear down following an engine failure had the same effect as failing two of the four engines.
The aircraft may have suffered a power loss of one or both engines possibly by bird strike. I have to say that the B787 is the very easiest aircraft I have ever flown when handling an engine failure above V1. The flight path vector and the flight director in the head up display make finessing an engine failure absolute child's play. Having said that the Boeing 787 performance is calculated right to the limits of legal requirement, so there is no scope for mis-handling. If they failed to select the landing gear up, not due to a flap lever mis-selection, but some another distraction, like an engine failure, then the aircraft would struggle to accelerate to V2 to safely climb away.
The B787 derates are calculated to give an acceptable Vmca in the event of an engine failure. That is to say, if you apply any more power asymmetricly the Vmca criteria of up to 5deg of bank towards the live engine will require more control input resulting in more control drag. Our SOP was - If you need it - Use It! Thankfully I never had to find out.
By way of illustration, on the B747-400, leaving the gear down following an engine failure had the same effect as failing two of the four engines.
10 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T14:31:00
permalink Post: 11899272
If the aircraft suffered a bird strike, I would have expected some evidence of bird debris left behind on the airfield would have been found by now. 🤷♂️
2025-06-12T15:25:00
permalink Post: 11899336
The loss of lift would
begin
immediately.
It looks like they used up an awful lot of runway so potentially incorrect performance and thrust setting, incorrect flap setting, chuck in a temperature inversion or changing winds too if you like and mistakenly retracting flaps instead of the gear could well be the last orifice of the Emmental.
It looks like they used up an awful lot of runway so potentially incorrect performance and thrust setting, incorrect flap setting, chuck in a temperature inversion or changing winds too if you like and mistakenly retracting flaps instead of the gear could well be the last orifice of the Emmental.
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T18:19:00
permalink Post: 11899566
Bird strike occurrences at Ahmedabad Airport
Don't know how common bird strikes are at other airports but I found several incidents at Ahmedabad:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site...t=gws-wiz-serp
And here's an article from last December describing the airport's measures to reduce the number of bird strikes:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../115851258.cms
https://www.google.com/search?q=site...t=gws-wiz-serp
And here's an article from last December describing the airport's measures to reduce the number of bird strikes:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../115851258.cms
2025-06-12T19:29:00
permalink Post: 11899647
nothing was normal the plane rotated right at the end of the runway far too late and barely climbed at all for 10 seconds before falling 20 seconds and finally crashing 30 seconds after take off.
The most obvious answer is low power/flaps setting if the engines were weird they would have probably aborted take off. Bird strike/engine issue during take off roll after v1? Super unlikely but never say never
The most obvious answer is low power/flaps setting if the engines were weird they would have probably aborted take off. Bird strike/engine issue during take off roll after v1? Super unlikely but never say never
If the flaps weren't set then the aircraft would have accelerated on the runway faster, not slower. But I don't think the flaps were set wrong, or retracted early. The flaps appear extended in the video and the post crash photo. Why do you think a bird strike after V1 is unlikely? If you fly into a flock of birds a double engine failure is no less likely then a single failure. My initial thought watching the first video this lunchtime was power loss in both engines, probably bird strikes. I still think that.
If both engines failed then all four of those things would happen very soon afterwards.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-12T20:07:00
permalink Post: 11899686
Both videos evidence a normal rotation and climb followed swiftly by an abrupt cessation of the climb. No sign of yaw. But an apparent catastrophic loss of thrust. To me this points to dual engine failure. Statistically the most likely cause would be bird strike. The flap/gear configurations are probably not causative.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-12T20:16:00
permalink Post: 11899688
2025-06-12T20:23:00
permalink Post: 11899693
The theories concerning inadvertent flap retraction are not consistent with the apparent transcript from the mayday call made or rat deployment. In the first video that circulated, the engines can\x92t really be heard (certainly not producing any significant amount of thrust). If the aircraft was climbing out misconfigured, those engines would be screaming. Instead, all you can hear is the rat.
Similarly - a bird strike, knocking out two engines simultaneously is a noisy/messy event and I would expect to see evidence of this occurring in both videos, and in the area at the point of ingestion. The engines don\x92t just roll back with a bird strike - they surge, smoke, bang and splutter. It would be very apparent.
At this time, I think everything is pointing towards both engines simultaneously having their fuel feeds interrupted between V1 and Vr. CVR/FDR will be interesting.
Similarly - a bird strike, knocking out two engines simultaneously is a noisy/messy event and I would expect to see evidence of this occurring in both videos, and in the area at the point of ingestion. The engines don\x92t just roll back with a bird strike - they surge, smoke, bang and splutter. It would be very apparent.
At this time, I think everything is pointing towards both engines simultaneously having their fuel feeds interrupted between V1 and Vr. CVR/FDR will be interesting.
7 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T20:42:00
permalink Post: 11899714
The theories concerning inadvertent flap retraction are not consistent with the apparent transcript from the mayday call made or rat deployment. In the first video that circulated, the engines can\x92t really be heard (certainly not producing any significant amount of thrust). If the aircraft was climbing out misconfigured, those engines would be screaming. Instead, all you can hear is the rat.
Similarly - a bird strike, knocking out two engines simultaneously is a noisy/messy event and I would expect to see evidence of this occurring in both videos, and in the area at the point of ingestion. The engines don\x92t just roll back with a bird strike - they surge, smoke, bang and splutter. It would be very apparent.
At this time, I think everything is pointing towards both engines simultaneously having their fuel feeds interrupted between V1 and Vr. CVR/FDR will be interesting.
Similarly - a bird strike, knocking out two engines simultaneously is a noisy/messy event and I would expect to see evidence of this occurring in both videos, and in the area at the point of ingestion. The engines don\x92t just roll back with a bird strike - they surge, smoke, bang and splutter. It would be very apparent.
At this time, I think everything is pointing towards both engines simultaneously having their fuel feeds interrupted between V1 and Vr. CVR/FDR will be interesting.
The fact none of the above happened, coupled with the lack of landing gear coming up, makes me think they didn\x92t have thrust to play with.
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T20:46:00
permalink Post: 11899718
The theories concerning inadvertent flap retraction are not consistent with the apparent transcript from the mayday call made or rat deployment. In the first video that circulated, the engines can\x92t really be heard (certainly not producing any significant amount of thrust). If the aircraft was climbing out misconfigured, those engines would be screaming. Instead, all you can hear is the rat.
Similarly - a bird strike, knocking out two engines simultaneously is a noisy/messy event and I would expect to see evidence of this occurring in both videos, and in the area at the point of ingestion. The engines don\x92t just roll back with a bird strike - they surge, smoke, bang and splutter. It would be very apparent.
At this time, I think everything is pointing towards both engines simultaneously having their fuel feeds interrupted between V1 and Vr. CVR/FDR will be interesting.
Similarly - a bird strike, knocking out two engines simultaneously is a noisy/messy event and I would expect to see evidence of this occurring in both videos, and in the area at the point of ingestion. The engines don\x92t just roll back with a bird strike - they surge, smoke, bang and splutter. It would be very apparent.
At this time, I think everything is pointing towards both engines simultaneously having their fuel feeds interrupted between V1 and Vr. CVR/FDR will be interesting.
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T22:02:00
permalink Post: 11899778
OK, I promised some informed speculation when I got back, so here goes:
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Last edited by T28B; 12th Jun 2025 at 22:21 . Reason: white space is your friend, and is reader-friendly
33 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T00:12:00
permalink Post: 11899855
From the airport CCTV video it looks to me like a normal takeoff and start of climb, until suddenly there's a loss of climb performance with no obvious upset at that point. From the picture of the wing post crash it looks like the flaps were still deployed (N.B. based on pre-accident photos that's the right wing so closest to the camera is aileron and flaps are further away, damage had me confused first time), so I'm going with loss of thrust rather than flap retraction.
From the videos from bystanders it looks like RAT deployment (both sound and zoomed in pictures) rather than thrust lever retard, and that would also explain failure to retract gear - if you are dealing with both engines out at that altitude then gear isn't your first thought. From the airport CCTV video I don't see anything that looks like bird strikes at that point in the climb i.e. no obvious flocks of birds, no smoke out of the engines, no slewing one way as one engine fails and then the other is cut by accident - plus you wouldn't cut the engine at that point, you'd climb on one engine and then sort it out.
Even fuel contamination or water build up in both tanks is likely to result in one engine failing a few seconds before the other. So I can't come up with anything other than both fuel cutoff switches that would result in loss of thrust and RAT deployment. Looking at a picture of the cutoff switches https://www.nycaviation.com/2013/08/...is-fired/30179 I don't see how they get hit by accident.
I'm confused, hope we get an FDR / CVR readout soon.
From the videos from bystanders it looks like RAT deployment (both sound and zoomed in pictures) rather than thrust lever retard, and that would also explain failure to retract gear - if you are dealing with both engines out at that altitude then gear isn't your first thought. From the airport CCTV video I don't see anything that looks like bird strikes at that point in the climb i.e. no obvious flocks of birds, no smoke out of the engines, no slewing one way as one engine fails and then the other is cut by accident - plus you wouldn't cut the engine at that point, you'd climb on one engine and then sort it out.
Even fuel contamination or water build up in both tanks is likely to result in one engine failing a few seconds before the other. So I can't come up with anything other than both fuel cutoff switches that would result in loss of thrust and RAT deployment. Looking at a picture of the cutoff switches https://www.nycaviation.com/2013/08/...is-fired/30179 I don't see how they get hit by accident.
I'm confused, hope we get an FDR / CVR readout soon.
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T01:27:00
permalink Post: 11899904
The pilot is being quoted as saying to ATC:
"Mayday...no thrust, losing power, unable to lift"
I don't think a pilot with over 8000 hours experience would mistakenly diagnose that. Also corroborates with the RAT being deployed. Question is how do both engines lose thrust. Bird strike is the obvious one. Fuel contamination seems unlikely.
I see a post above showing how its possible an electrical failure can result in power loss. Passengers on the flight before this said there were issues in the cabin; lights, displays and air con was not working. Again, seems v unlikely to be related.
"Mayday...no thrust, losing power, unable to lift"
I don't think a pilot with over 8000 hours experience would mistakenly diagnose that. Also corroborates with the RAT being deployed. Question is how do both engines lose thrust. Bird strike is the obvious one. Fuel contamination seems unlikely.
I see a post above showing how its possible an electrical failure can result in power loss. Passengers on the flight before this said there were issues in the cabin; lights, displays and air con was not working. Again, seems v unlikely to be related.
2025-06-13T01:30:00
permalink Post: 11899907
The pilot is being quoted as saying to ATC:
"Mayday...no thrust, losing power, unable to lift"
I don't think a pilot with over 8000 hours experience would mistakenly diagnose that. Also corroborates with the RAT being deployed. Question is how do both engines lose thrust. Bird strike is the obvious one. Fuel contamination seems unlikely.
I see a post above showing how its possible an electrical failure can result in power loss. Passengers on the flight before this said there were issues in the cabin; lights, displays and air con was not working. Again, seems v unlikely to be related.
"Mayday...no thrust, losing power, unable to lift"
I don't think a pilot with over 8000 hours experience would mistakenly diagnose that. Also corroborates with the RAT being deployed. Question is how do both engines lose thrust. Bird strike is the obvious one. Fuel contamination seems unlikely.
I see a post above showing how its possible an electrical failure can result in power loss. Passengers on the flight before this said there were issues in the cabin; lights, displays and air con was not working. Again, seems v unlikely to be related.
8 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T03:02:00
permalink Post: 11899948
OK, I promised some informed speculation when I got back, so here goes:
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Very hot day, so far past breakpoint, N1 Max sensitive to TAT. Any TAT or DT latching (can't recall if) would be cleared - if at 400 ft AGL, which may not have been attained here.
2025-06-13T05:25:00
permalink Post: 11900014
There's no evidence of bird strike on any of the videos. Fuel starvation/contamination is highly unlikely to impact both engines simultaniously. One other possibility is a catastrophic software failure, as Boeing had with the 737 Max.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-13T06:02:00
permalink Post: 11900031
There's no evidence of bird strike on any of the videos. Fuel starvation/contamination is highly unlikely to impact both engines simultaniously. One other possibility is a catastrophic software failure, as Boeing had with the 737 Max.
If you rotated and then lost all power wouldn't you put the nose down?
2025-06-13T06:42:00
permalink Post: 11900067
Such a terrible shame, condolences to all. It looks inexplicable from the CCTV.
Seems time for a visual evidence review.
There seems to be a RAT theory based on a hyper zoomed artifact and someone showing a RAT deployed on a different airframe. Not convinced about that, you might get a similar artifact from a belly antenna. The noise? CCTV doesn\x92t have noise and the other pictures I saw were from a car in traffic.
Others are are saying it climbed to 500\x92, not sure about that, the highest I have seen visually is less than 300\x92, QNH vs. QFE I suspect.
Flaps vs. Gear definitely a possibility and the AoA was increasing particularly after the descent started.
Double EF (If RAT deployment not a red herring) Fuel contamination? Would have to be deliberate as no other aircraft affected, unlikely. Maintenance or crew error, possible unlikely. Bird strike, no evidence.
MTOW error possible but it seemed to take off fine so no reason for the return to the ground.
What about the bang the survivor heard? I suspect you can treat the evidence of anyone involved in an air crash with a pinch of salt. Order of events are often out of sequence even when talking to trained observers in less stressful situations
MCP mis-setting to 100\x92. Engage AP early, often seen, thrust immediately commands to idle by ATHR, starts to sink, extreme startle and forget gear because it appears like a double EF.
I know where my money is but only time will tell, if they get the Black Boxes in good condition, the factual statement should clear it up quickly.
Seems time for a visual evidence review.
There seems to be a RAT theory based on a hyper zoomed artifact and someone showing a RAT deployed on a different airframe. Not convinced about that, you might get a similar artifact from a belly antenna. The noise? CCTV doesn\x92t have noise and the other pictures I saw were from a car in traffic.
Others are are saying it climbed to 500\x92, not sure about that, the highest I have seen visually is less than 300\x92, QNH vs. QFE I suspect.
Flaps vs. Gear definitely a possibility and the AoA was increasing particularly after the descent started.
Double EF (If RAT deployment not a red herring) Fuel contamination? Would have to be deliberate as no other aircraft affected, unlikely. Maintenance or crew error, possible unlikely. Bird strike, no evidence.
MTOW error possible but it seemed to take off fine so no reason for the return to the ground.
What about the bang the survivor heard? I suspect you can treat the evidence of anyone involved in an air crash with a pinch of salt. Order of events are often out of sequence even when talking to trained observers in less stressful situations
MCP mis-setting to 100\x92. Engage AP early, often seen, thrust immediately commands to idle by ATHR, starts to sink, extreme startle and forget gear because it appears like a double EF.
I know where my money is but only time will tell, if they get the Black Boxes in good condition, the factual statement should clear it up quickly.
Last edited by Bluffontheriver123; 13th Jun 2025 at 07:05 . Reason: Emphasis
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T07:00:00
permalink Post: 11900081
Such a terrible shame, condolences to all. It looks inexplicable from the CCTV.
Seems time for a visual evidence review.
There seems to be a RAT theory based on a hyper zoomed artifact and someone showing a RAT deployed on a different airframe. Not convinced about that, you might get a similar artifact from a belly antenna. The noise? CCTV doesn\x92t have noise and the other pictures I saw were from a car in traffic.
Others are are saying it climbed to 500\x92, not sure about that, the highest I have seen visually is less than 300\x92, QNH vs. QFE I suspect.
Flaps vs. Gear definitely a possibility and the AoA was increasing but only after the descent started.
Double EF (If RAT deployment not a red herring) Fuel contamination? Would have to be deliberate as no other aircraft affected, unlikely. Maintenance or crew error, possible unlikely. Bird strike, no evidence.
MTOW error possible but it seemed to take off fine so no reason for the return to the ground.
What about the bang the survivor heard? I suspect you can treat the evidence of anyone involved in an air crash with a pinch of salt. Order of events are often out of sequence even when talking to trained observers in less stressful situations
MCP mis-setting to 100\x92. Engage AP early, often seen, thrust immediately commands to idle by ATHR, starts to sink, extreme startle and forget gear because it appears like a double EF.
I know where my money is but only time will tell, if they get the Black Boxes in good condition, the factual statement should clear it up quickly.
Seems time for a visual evidence review.
There seems to be a RAT theory based on a hyper zoomed artifact and someone showing a RAT deployed on a different airframe. Not convinced about that, you might get a similar artifact from a belly antenna. The noise? CCTV doesn\x92t have noise and the other pictures I saw were from a car in traffic.
Others are are saying it climbed to 500\x92, not sure about that, the highest I have seen visually is less than 300\x92, QNH vs. QFE I suspect.
Flaps vs. Gear definitely a possibility and the AoA was increasing but only after the descent started.
Double EF (If RAT deployment not a red herring) Fuel contamination? Would have to be deliberate as no other aircraft affected, unlikely. Maintenance or crew error, possible unlikely. Bird strike, no evidence.
MTOW error possible but it seemed to take off fine so no reason for the return to the ground.
What about the bang the survivor heard? I suspect you can treat the evidence of anyone involved in an air crash with a pinch of salt. Order of events are often out of sequence even when talking to trained observers in less stressful situations
MCP mis-setting to 100\x92. Engage AP early, often seen, thrust immediately commands to idle by ATHR, starts to sink, extreme startle and forget gear because it appears like a double EF.
I know where my money is but only time will tell, if they get the Black Boxes in good condition, the factual statement should clear it up quickly.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-13T07:03:00
permalink Post: 11900085
To me the radio call signals possibly helplessness and confusion.I do not think a pilot who understands what is going on would make the call. He would be too busy trouble shooting. It could be a sign that is was NOT an engine failure or a bird strike ( in both cases they would have mentioned it). Nor a deliberate crash. They had no idea why they could not climb and that tells me they most probably retracted the flaps. Time will tell.
Last edited by Sisiphos; 13th Jun 2025 at 07:22 .
4 users liked this post.