June 20, 2025, 10:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906833
II.
Fuel-related
1. Loss of electric fuel pumps
Suction feed would have provided sufficient fuel pressure.
2. Fuel contamination
No other aircraft affected, no measures taken at airport. Simultaneous flameout due to contaminated fuel very unlikely.
3. Vapour lock
Unlikely to occur in this scenario. Even if (momentarily) no sufficient fuel pressure from the center tank, the engines would have been fed by the wing tanks.
June 20, 2025, 11:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906855
There are numerous pictures ot the outside of B787 centre tanks on the net. Does anyone one have any internal pictures, showing the tank floor and fuel pump pick ups?
We know the engines lost power in the initial climb, shortly after rotation. If there was water sitting between the tank lower skin stringers, the rotation would have been the point that the water could tumble over the stringers that were previously preventing its movement. accumulate at the back of the tank and enter both pumps more or less simultaneously.
We know the engines lost power in the initial climb, shortly after rotation. If there was water sitting between the tank lower skin stringers, the rotation would have been the point that the water could tumble over the stringers that were previously preventing its movement. accumulate at the back of the tank and enter both pumps more or less simultaneously.
In a well designed boat, you'd have each engine feeding from a different tank for the utmost in redundancy, but seemingly not so in all aircraft.
June 20, 2025, 11:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906865
I had been wondering the same until I read that there is a forward and a rear pickup within the tank. Each pump in the centre tank draws from it's own pickup and is piped to the spar valves and then onto the engines.
In a well designed boat, you'd have each engine feeding from a different tank for the utmost in redundancy, but seemingly not so in all aircraft.
In a well designed boat, you'd have each engine feeding from a different tank for the utmost in redundancy, but seemingly not so in all aircraft.
June 20, 2025, 11:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906868
Interestingly enough on Airbus aircraft even when there\x92s fuel in the centre tank the centre tank fuel pumps are switched off automatically after the flaps are extended for takeoff and each engine is fed by its respective wing tank for takeoff. Surprised it\x92s not the case for Boeings
June 20, 2025, 11:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906879
Interestingly enough on Airbus aircraft even when there\x92s fuel in the centre tank the centre tank fuel pumps are switched off automatically after the flaps are extended for takeoff and each engine is fed by its respective wing tank for takeoff. Surprised it\x92s not the case for Boeings
June 20, 2025, 12:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906937
Unlikely to have tankered in fuel & even if they did they would still have had to uplift more. It would be normal to load the onward fuel in AMD having only flown in with what they needed for the short sector.. Would most likely have departed DEL with wing tank fuel only and an empty centre tank. I wont speculate here but I do wonder what works might have occurred in the 8 hour stop in DEL.
June 20, 2025, 13:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906962
Unlikely to have tankered in fuel & even if they did they would still have had to uplift more. It would be normal to load the onward fuel in AMD having only flown in with what they needed for the short sector.. Would most likely have departed DEL with wing tank fuel only and an empty centre tank. I wont speculate here but I do wonder what works might have occurred in the 8 hour stop in DEL.
June 20, 2025, 13:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906987
Looking at water in the fuel tank: It's hard to believe that there was enough much water in the center fuel tank to stop both engines. On the day of the crash VT-ANB only flew DEL-AMD, a 1h flight that did not use the center fuel tank. However, the day before the plane came in from CDG with 9h of flight time. That flight would surely have used the center fuel tank. That means a large amount of water would have accumulated in the center fuel tank during just one day and two sectors.
Last edited by Mechta; 20th June 2025 at 14:07 .
June 20, 2025, 15:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907040
If I may - going back to the upthread report of an Indian Express newspaper interview with "an official" who was pointing at possible "water contamination". This is very misleading by either the "official" or the newspaper. The incident specified by "the official" near Gatwick in 2020 is this one:
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/airc...-february-2020
which was explicitly biocide contamination not water. As in the Japanese similar case discussed here already, the excessive biocide use caused chemical reactions in the fuel that - eventually - caused starvation and abrupt shutdown.
<snip>
So, some questions. If the investigators are looking at a biocide contamination:
- after such a fireball, would there be any way of determining whether the fuel had in fact been biocide contaminated? Perhaps the inner surfaces of the tanks? Assorted valves and piping along the fuel route?
- what relevant engine parameters are captured and (hopefully) usefully recorded by the FDRs? A couple of incident reports have mentioned monitoring of the exhaust gases, with an ability to detect contaminants as they are expelled.
- does anyone here know what records are kept regarding the biocide treatment at the point of fuelling? Iirc, in the Japanese incident it was forensic interviews with the ground crew responsible that revealed the details of the error, rather than captured hard data.
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/airc...-february-2020
which was explicitly biocide contamination not water. As in the Japanese similar case discussed here already, the excessive biocide use caused chemical reactions in the fuel that - eventually - caused starvation and abrupt shutdown.
<snip>
So, some questions. If the investigators are looking at a biocide contamination:
- after such a fireball, would there be any way of determining whether the fuel had in fact been biocide contaminated? Perhaps the inner surfaces of the tanks? Assorted valves and piping along the fuel route?
- what relevant engine parameters are captured and (hopefully) usefully recorded by the FDRs? A couple of incident reports have mentioned monitoring of the exhaust gases, with an ability to detect contaminants as they are expelled.
- does anyone here know what records are kept regarding the biocide treatment at the point of fuelling? Iirc, in the Japanese incident it was forensic interviews with the ground crew responsible that revealed the details of the error, rather than captured hard data.
June 20, 2025, 21:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907327
Hello, this is my first post on pprune; as a 787 pilot I’m also puzzled by this accident. All seem to agree that for some reason there was a complete electrical failure and RAT deployment. With a complete electrical failure all six main fuel pumps fail. Each engine also has two mechanically driven fuel pumps. On takeoff, if there is fuel in the center tank, it will be used first, pumped by the two center tank pumps.
My airline’s manuals don’t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren’t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline’s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
My airline’s manuals don’t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren’t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline’s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
June 20, 2025, 22:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907382
Hello, this is my first post on pprune; as a 787 pilot I\x92m also puzzled by this accident. All seem to agree that for some reason there was a complete electrical failure and RAT deployment. With a complete electrical failure all six main fuel pumps fail. Each engine also has two mechanically driven fuel pumps. On takeoff, if there is fuel in the center tank, it will be used first, pumped by the two center tank pumps.
My airline\x92s manuals don\x92t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren\x92t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline\x92s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
My airline\x92s manuals don\x92t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren\x92t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline\x92s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
FWIW, according to earlier posts, the fuel load was about 50T, leaving about 18T in the centre tank, so (I think) about 25-30% full. A full centre tank might allow engine pump suction to work fine, but this might not? (Contrary to what some have said.)
Anyway, FWIW, not everyone agrees with RAT Deployment - see recent post by shep69. Would love to know why he doesn't go with RAT deployment...
June 20, 2025, 23:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907388
Hello, this is my first post on pprune; as a 787 pilot I\x92m also puzzled by this accident. All seem to agree that for some reason there was a complete electrical failure and RAT deployment. With a complete electrical failure all six main fuel pumps fail. Each engine also has two mechanically driven fuel pumps. On takeoff, if there is fuel in the center tank, it will be used first, pumped by the two center tank pumps.
My airline\x92s manuals don\x92t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren\x92t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline\x92s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
My airline\x92s manuals don\x92t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren\x92t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline\x92s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
Furthermore the preference of the center tank while it's filled is just by the higher fuel pressure those center pumps deliver. There is no valve that controls that, which might be triggered by switching off pumps.
June 20, 2025, 23:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907389
Sorry but that doesn't really make sense. Once the power failed and all pumps are off where is the point of switching of the center fuel pumps off? Without power they aren't running anyways.
Furthermore the preference of the center tank while it's filled is just by the higher fuel pressure those center pumps deliver. There is no valve that controls that, which might be triggered by switching off pumps.
Furthermore the preference of the center tank while it's filled is just by the higher fuel pressure those center pumps deliver. There is no valve that controls that, which might be triggered by switching off pumps.
June 21, 2025, 00:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907405
Hello, this is my first post on pprune; as a 787 pilot I’m also puzzled by this accident. All seem to agree that for some reason there was a complete electrical failure and RAT deployment. With a complete electrical failure all six main fuel pumps fail. Each engine also has two mechanically driven fuel pumps. On takeoff, if there is fuel in the center tank, it will be used first, pumped by the two center tank pumps.
My airline’s manuals don’t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren’t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline’s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
My airline’s manuals don’t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren’t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline’s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
On the 320 (equipped with the old system (fuel pumps), not the newer system (transfer valves)) the center tank pumps are inhibited when the airplane is airborne with the slats extended.
Check these certification rules:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-25.953
and
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...-25#p-25.903(b )
June 21, 2025, 01:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907425
Hello, this is my first post on pprune; as a 787 pilot I\x92m also puzzled by this accident. All seem to agree that for some reason there was a complete electrical failure and RAT deployment. With a complete electrical failure all six main fuel pumps fail. Each engine also has two mechanically driven fuel pumps. On takeoff, if there is fuel in the center tank, it will be used first, pumped by the two center tank pumps.
My airline\x92s manuals don\x92t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren\x92t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline\x92s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
My airline\x92s manuals don\x92t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren\x92t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline\x92s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
If you go and chat to the engineers, have a look in the IPC or MM I Ch 28, you should find a good description of the fuel boost pumps. It's been a while but I recall they are Eaton designs, the general arrangement is similar to the B777. They both have a suction feed that permits fuel feed in the event of a loss of all boost pumps. The only impact of that arises at high altitude and high thrust levels, where the engine driven fuel boost pumps may capitate and reduce the available fuel feed resulting in a lower thrust level.
Refer page 12.20.02 in the TBC's B787 FCTM, or search for "SUCTION FEED".
At sea level, full thrust will be achieved without any boost pump on the aircraft. Recall that the CWT boost pumps are known as Override boost pumps, they are feeding from the CWT when there is fuel and they are running, as the output pressure is higher from these pumps than the 2 wing boost pumps. Whether there is fuel in the CWT or not, or the CWT pumps are energised, is immaterial to whether fuel will be supplied to the engine driven fuel pumps.
Note that with BA038, the fundamental problem was blockage of wax/ice formed in the piping that blocked the FOHE, and that will cause a problem with those engines that have such architecture, but is not associated with the availability of the boost pumps themselves. Even then, the engines did not technically fail, as they have both done simultaneously with the B788 of AI 171, BA's engines were running but not able to provide significant thrust due to the FOHE blockages.
June 21, 2025, 13:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907772
Hello, this is my first post on pprune; as a 787 pilot I’m also puzzled by this accident. All seem to agree that for some reason there was a complete electrical failure and RAT deployment. With a complete electrical failure all six main fuel pumps fail. Each engine also has two mechanically driven fuel pumps. On takeoff, if there is fuel in the center tank, it will be used first, pumped by the two center tank pumps.
My airline’s manuals don’t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren’t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline’s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
My airline’s manuals don’t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren’t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline’s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
Further up the thread one of the posters mentions that it is very unlikely that any crew action (checklist, QRH) would have got anywhere near to changing a fuel pump switch position.
June 21, 2025, 15:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907841
Resubmitting following some Mod Feedback and a significant re-write. Yes, it is speculative
I have a theory that I'd like to share. It brings together various pieces of known information, along with 30+ years of my experience as an aircraft engineer that forms a plausible (IMO) explanation of what may have happened.
We Know - From the Video's and the ADSB Data:
That up to and for the first few seconds after take-off appears relatively normal.
The AC appears to lose thrust without e.g. birdstrike or other spectacular smoke /fire producing event.
That the RAT deployed.
That the pilot reported 'Thrust not achieved' [Edit - We dont 'know' this - it is heavily reported]
We can see that the AC had a relatively busy schedule in the few days prior to the accident flight, so there was no significant downtime for maintenance activities that could have caused incident.
The AC flew DEL-CDG on 11 Jun with quite a racy turnaround in CDG of 1h12m. The centre tank would have been empty at CDG on arrival, and would have been partially filled for the return CDG-DEL.
CDG-DEL Arrived 01:47 am IST. Again the Centre Tank would have been empty. But quite a bit of fuel in the wings.
8 Hrs later, at 09:48 am IST the AC departed DEL-AMD. For such a short-hop, Fuel upload would have been minimal, merely a 'topping up' if at all. Certainly nothing into the Centre Tank.
DEL That night was fairly hot and humid - 57% at 02:30, 54% at 05:30, 44% at 08:30. That wing tank fuel could have picked up a fair amount of water.
The flight DEL-AMD would have only used the wing pumps. Thus any water in that 'overnight' fuel would have been vigorously stirred and evenly suspended. At concentrations that would cause no ill-effect at all.
The AC was on the ground at AMD for 2 Hrs, from 11:17am to 1:17 pm IST. The AC would have re-fuelled, first filling up the wing tanks to the top, then filling the centre-tank to whatever quantity necessary. There was enough time for water in the wing tanks to settle out.
The B787 Fuel system has pumps in the wing tanks, and pumps in the centre tanks. The Centre Tank pumps are also known as 'override' pumps because they output a higher pressure than the wing tank pumps, thus ensuring that with all pumps running, the centre tank fuel is used first.
Should the centre tank pumps stop, due to either filure or running out of fuel to pump, the wing tank pumps then produce the pressure.
In the event that all pumps stop running (e.g. an electrical failure), the engines will suck the fuel from the wing tanks. The 'sucked' fuel comes from a dedicated pipe in each tank through the 'Suction Feed Check Valve' (so that pumped fuel doesn't just exit through the suction tube). The suction tube pickup is in a slightly different position to the wing pump pickups.
It is conceivable to me that the suction tube pickup could have been immersed in water, settled out from the fuel in the wing tanks.
Then - at start-up of the aircraft in AMD, The engines would have been supplied with fuel from the centre tank. Fresh Fuel. All OK. Wing pumps running and doing not much. But, I speculate, the suction pick-ups immersed in water. Waiting.
Start up and taxi out was all normal. Runway acceleration up to v1 appears normal. V1 - Rotate - (positive rate - Gear up? - Not my debate).
But somewhere around that time, I speculate that a significant electrical failure occurred. Enough for the RAT to deploy. Enough for the fuel pumps to stop. I'll not speculate on the cause. We know that it can occur, that's why the RAT was designed to operate.
The engines at that point were at TOGA thrust. In a significant electrical failure, the engines will keep on doing what they were last told. Keep that thrust stable. So the AC climbed for a few seconds more. The pilots did what they were trained to do for a power failure, manage that, thankfully the engines were still going well...
But there was only so much 'good' fuel in the lines. The engines sucking fuel themselves, the fuel would now be coming from the suction pickups, a different supply. A supply likely heavily water contaminated. It would take a few seconds for that contaminated fuel to actually reach the engines, but when that contaminated fuel hit, Thrust would have been significantly reduced. The EEC's would have been doing their best to maintain the thrust, firewalling the throttles would probably have little effect at that exact moment. The engines would have likely worked through that bad fuel in a shortish period of time, but a period of time that our crew did not have. A fully loaded aircraft producing less than take-off thrust, is not sustaining enough thrust for continued flight. The rest - is down to the skill of the crew in deciding exactly where to hit the ground within the very narrow range of choice they had.
I have a theory that I'd like to share. It brings together various pieces of known information, along with 30+ years of my experience as an aircraft engineer that forms a plausible (IMO) explanation of what may have happened.
We Know - From the Video's and the ADSB Data:
That up to and for the first few seconds after take-off appears relatively normal.
The AC appears to lose thrust without e.g. birdstrike or other spectacular smoke /fire producing event.
That the RAT deployed.
That the pilot reported 'Thrust not achieved' [Edit - We dont 'know' this - it is heavily reported]
We can see that the AC had a relatively busy schedule in the few days prior to the accident flight, so there was no significant downtime for maintenance activities that could have caused incident.
The AC flew DEL-CDG on 11 Jun with quite a racy turnaround in CDG of 1h12m. The centre tank would have been empty at CDG on arrival, and would have been partially filled for the return CDG-DEL.
CDG-DEL Arrived 01:47 am IST. Again the Centre Tank would have been empty. But quite a bit of fuel in the wings.
8 Hrs later, at 09:48 am IST the AC departed DEL-AMD. For such a short-hop, Fuel upload would have been minimal, merely a 'topping up' if at all. Certainly nothing into the Centre Tank.
DEL That night was fairly hot and humid - 57% at 02:30, 54% at 05:30, 44% at 08:30. That wing tank fuel could have picked up a fair amount of water.
The flight DEL-AMD would have only used the wing pumps. Thus any water in that 'overnight' fuel would have been vigorously stirred and evenly suspended. At concentrations that would cause no ill-effect at all.
The AC was on the ground at AMD for 2 Hrs, from 11:17am to 1:17 pm IST. The AC would have re-fuelled, first filling up the wing tanks to the top, then filling the centre-tank to whatever quantity necessary. There was enough time for water in the wing tanks to settle out.
The B787 Fuel system has pumps in the wing tanks, and pumps in the centre tanks. The Centre Tank pumps are also known as 'override' pumps because they output a higher pressure than the wing tank pumps, thus ensuring that with all pumps running, the centre tank fuel is used first.
Should the centre tank pumps stop, due to either filure or running out of fuel to pump, the wing tank pumps then produce the pressure.
In the event that all pumps stop running (e.g. an electrical failure), the engines will suck the fuel from the wing tanks. The 'sucked' fuel comes from a dedicated pipe in each tank through the 'Suction Feed Check Valve' (so that pumped fuel doesn't just exit through the suction tube). The suction tube pickup is in a slightly different position to the wing pump pickups.
It is conceivable to me that the suction tube pickup could have been immersed in water, settled out from the fuel in the wing tanks.
Then - at start-up of the aircraft in AMD, The engines would have been supplied with fuel from the centre tank. Fresh Fuel. All OK. Wing pumps running and doing not much. But, I speculate, the suction pick-ups immersed in water. Waiting.
Start up and taxi out was all normal. Runway acceleration up to v1 appears normal. V1 - Rotate - (positive rate - Gear up? - Not my debate).
But somewhere around that time, I speculate that a significant electrical failure occurred. Enough for the RAT to deploy. Enough for the fuel pumps to stop. I'll not speculate on the cause. We know that it can occur, that's why the RAT was designed to operate.
The engines at that point were at TOGA thrust. In a significant electrical failure, the engines will keep on doing what they were last told. Keep that thrust stable. So the AC climbed for a few seconds more. The pilots did what they were trained to do for a power failure, manage that, thankfully the engines were still going well...
But there was only so much 'good' fuel in the lines. The engines sucking fuel themselves, the fuel would now be coming from the suction pickups, a different supply. A supply likely heavily water contaminated. It would take a few seconds for that contaminated fuel to actually reach the engines, but when that contaminated fuel hit, Thrust would have been significantly reduced. The EEC's would have been doing their best to maintain the thrust, firewalling the throttles would probably have little effect at that exact moment. The engines would have likely worked through that bad fuel in a shortish period of time, but a period of time that our crew did not have. A fully loaded aircraft producing less than take-off thrust, is not sustaining enough thrust for continued flight. The rest - is down to the skill of the crew in deciding exactly where to hit the ground within the very narrow range of choice they had.
Last edited by GroundedSpanner; 21st June 2025 at 17:52 . Reason: Thrust not achieved comment is not proven.
June 21, 2025, 15:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907854
Resubmitting following some Mod Feedback and a significant re-write. Yes, it is speculative
I have a theory that I'd like to share. It brings together various pieces of known information, along with 30+ years of my experience as an aircraft engineer that forms a plausible (IMO) explanation of what may have happened.
We Know - From the Video's and the ADSB Data:
That up to and for the first few seconds after take-off appears relatively normal.
The AC appears to lose thrust without e.g. birdstrike or other spectacular smoke /fire producing event.
That the RAT deployed.
That the pilot reported 'Thrust not achieved'
We can see that the AC had a relatively busy schedule in the few days prior to the accident flight, so there was no significant downtime for maintenance activities that could have caused incident.
The AC flew DEL-CDG on 11 Jun with quite a racy turnaround in CDG of 1h12m. The centre tank would have been empty at CDG on arrival, and would have been partially filled for the return CDG-DEL.
CDG-DEL Arrived 01:47 am IST. Again the Centre Tank would have been empty. But quite a bit of fuel in the wings.
8 Hrs later, at 09:48 am IST the AC departed DEL-AMD. For such a short-hop, Fuel upload would have been minimal, merely a 'topping up' if at all. Certainly nothing into the Centre Tank.
DEL That night was fairly hot and humid - 57% at 02:30, 54% at 05:30, 44% at 08:30. That wing tank fuel could have picked up a fair amount of water.
The flight DEL-AMD would have only used the wing pumps. Thus any water in that 'overnight' fuel would have been vigorously stirred and evenly suspended. At concentrations that would cause no ill-effect at all.
The AC was on the ground at AMD for 2 Hrs, from 11:17am to 1:17 pm IST. The AC would have re-fuelled, first filling up the wing tanks to the top, then filling the centre-tank to whatever quantity necessary. There was enough time for water in the wing tanks to settle out.
The B787 Fuel system has pumps in the wing tanks, and pumps in the centre tanks. The Centre Tank pumps are also known as 'override' pumps because they output a higher pressure than the wing tank pumps, thus ensuring that with all pumps running, the centre tank fuel is used first.
Should the centre tank pumps stop, due to either filure or running out of fuel to pump, the wing tank pumps then produce the pressure.
In the event that all pumps stop running (e.g. an electrical failure), the engines will suck the fuel from the wing tanks. The 'sucked' fuel comes from a dedicated pipe in each tank through the 'Suction Feed Check Valve' (so that pumped fuel doesn't just exit through the suction tube). The suction tube pickup is in a slightly different position to the wing pump pickups.
It is conceivable to me that the suction tube pickup could have been immersed in water, settled out from the fuel in the wing tanks.
Then - at start-up of the aircraft in AMD, The engines would have been supplied with fuel from the centre tank. Fresh Fuel. All OK. Wing pumps running and doing not much. But, I speculate, the suction pick-ups immersed in water. Waiting.
Start up and taxi out was all normal. Runway acceleration up to v1 appears normal. V1 - Rotate - (positive rate - Gear up? - Not my debate).
But somewhere around that time, I speculate that a significant electrical failure occurred. Enough for the RAT to deploy. Enough for the fuel pumps to stop. I'll not speculate on the cause. We know that it can occur, that's why the RAT was designed to operate.
The engines at that point were at TOGA thrust. In a significant electrical failure, the engines will keep on doing what they were last told. Keep that thrust stable. So the AC climbed for a few seconds more. The pilots did what they were trained to do for a power failure, manage that, thankfully the engines were still going well...
But there was only so much 'good' fuel in the lines. The engines sucking fuel themselves, the fuel would now be coming from the suction pickups, a different supply. A supply likely heavily water contaminated. It would take a few seconds for that contaminated fuel to actually reach the engines, but when that contaminated fuel hit, Thrust would have been significantly reduced. The EEC's would have been doing their best to maintain the thrust, firewalling the throttles would probably have little effect at that exact moment. The engines would have likely worked through that bad fuel in a shortish period of time, but a period of time that our crew did not have. A fully loaded aircraft producing less than take-off thrust, is not sustaining enough thrust for continued flight. The rest - is down to the skill of the crew in deciding exactly where to hit the ground within the very narrow range of choice they had.
I have a theory that I'd like to share. It brings together various pieces of known information, along with 30+ years of my experience as an aircraft engineer that forms a plausible (IMO) explanation of what may have happened.
We Know - From the Video's and the ADSB Data:
That up to and for the first few seconds after take-off appears relatively normal.
The AC appears to lose thrust without e.g. birdstrike or other spectacular smoke /fire producing event.
That the RAT deployed.
That the pilot reported 'Thrust not achieved'
We can see that the AC had a relatively busy schedule in the few days prior to the accident flight, so there was no significant downtime for maintenance activities that could have caused incident.
The AC flew DEL-CDG on 11 Jun with quite a racy turnaround in CDG of 1h12m. The centre tank would have been empty at CDG on arrival, and would have been partially filled for the return CDG-DEL.
CDG-DEL Arrived 01:47 am IST. Again the Centre Tank would have been empty. But quite a bit of fuel in the wings.
8 Hrs later, at 09:48 am IST the AC departed DEL-AMD. For such a short-hop, Fuel upload would have been minimal, merely a 'topping up' if at all. Certainly nothing into the Centre Tank.
DEL That night was fairly hot and humid - 57% at 02:30, 54% at 05:30, 44% at 08:30. That wing tank fuel could have picked up a fair amount of water.
The flight DEL-AMD would have only used the wing pumps. Thus any water in that 'overnight' fuel would have been vigorously stirred and evenly suspended. At concentrations that would cause no ill-effect at all.
The AC was on the ground at AMD for 2 Hrs, from 11:17am to 1:17 pm IST. The AC would have re-fuelled, first filling up the wing tanks to the top, then filling the centre-tank to whatever quantity necessary. There was enough time for water in the wing tanks to settle out.
The B787 Fuel system has pumps in the wing tanks, and pumps in the centre tanks. The Centre Tank pumps are also known as 'override' pumps because they output a higher pressure than the wing tank pumps, thus ensuring that with all pumps running, the centre tank fuel is used first.
Should the centre tank pumps stop, due to either filure or running out of fuel to pump, the wing tank pumps then produce the pressure.
In the event that all pumps stop running (e.g. an electrical failure), the engines will suck the fuel from the wing tanks. The 'sucked' fuel comes from a dedicated pipe in each tank through the 'Suction Feed Check Valve' (so that pumped fuel doesn't just exit through the suction tube). The suction tube pickup is in a slightly different position to the wing pump pickups.
It is conceivable to me that the suction tube pickup could have been immersed in water, settled out from the fuel in the wing tanks.
Then - at start-up of the aircraft in AMD, The engines would have been supplied with fuel from the centre tank. Fresh Fuel. All OK. Wing pumps running and doing not much. But, I speculate, the suction pick-ups immersed in water. Waiting.
Start up and taxi out was all normal. Runway acceleration up to v1 appears normal. V1 - Rotate - (positive rate - Gear up? - Not my debate).
But somewhere around that time, I speculate that a significant electrical failure occurred. Enough for the RAT to deploy. Enough for the fuel pumps to stop. I'll not speculate on the cause. We know that it can occur, that's why the RAT was designed to operate.
The engines at that point were at TOGA thrust. In a significant electrical failure, the engines will keep on doing what they were last told. Keep that thrust stable. So the AC climbed for a few seconds more. The pilots did what they were trained to do for a power failure, manage that, thankfully the engines were still going well...
But there was only so much 'good' fuel in the lines. The engines sucking fuel themselves, the fuel would now be coming from the suction pickups, a different supply. A supply likely heavily water contaminated. It would take a few seconds for that contaminated fuel to actually reach the engines, but when that contaminated fuel hit, Thrust would have been significantly reduced. The EEC's would have been doing their best to maintain the thrust, firewalling the throttles would probably have little effect at that exact moment. The engines would have likely worked through that bad fuel in a shortish period of time, but a period of time that our crew did not have. A fully loaded aircraft producing less than take-off thrust, is not sustaining enough thrust for continued flight. The rest - is down to the skill of the crew in deciding exactly where to hit the ground within the very narrow range of choice they had.
June 21, 2025, 17:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907910
Yes - Yes it does.
However, that water scavenge works by picking up fluid from just next to at aft boost pump inlet, and dripping it into the aft boost pump inlet. Powered by the motive flow of the aft boost pump.
Whereas the suction feed inlet, is - although not far away - in a different location that could itself be sitting in water.
After a good look at the SDS - It seems like the system is assuming a small amount of water, with fuel flowing.
But when the centre tank override pumps are doing all the supply, its the same fluid being circulated in the same bay. If there is a 'lot' of water, then the aft boost pump is just circulating water (or very water rich fuel).
I think the key point of my post was that in an significant power failure, when the pumps stop working, the fuel supply is changed from centre to wing tanks, that it will take a few seconds from after the pumps stop working, to the fuel being received at the engines to be coming from a different source. That source being the bottom of the wing tanks. If the fuel quality is very different in the 2 different locations, the engines are going to struggle.
However, that water scavenge works by picking up fluid from just next to at aft boost pump inlet, and dripping it into the aft boost pump inlet. Powered by the motive flow of the aft boost pump.
Whereas the suction feed inlet, is - although not far away - in a different location that could itself be sitting in water.
After a good look at the SDS - It seems like the system is assuming a small amount of water, with fuel flowing.
But when the centre tank override pumps are doing all the supply, its the same fluid being circulated in the same bay. If there is a 'lot' of water, then the aft boost pump is just circulating water (or very water rich fuel).
I think the key point of my post was that in an significant power failure, when the pumps stop working, the fuel supply is changed from centre to wing tanks, that it will take a few seconds from after the pumps stop working, to the fuel being received at the engines to be coming from a different source. That source being the bottom of the wing tanks. If the fuel quality is very different in the 2 different locations, the engines are going to struggle.
June 21, 2025, 18:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907986
I would take that post by Crossky with a grain of salt. No part of his post made sense and I can only assume he is not a 787 pilot despite claiming to be. "Fuel starvation if pumps aren't turned off, not in my manual but I read about a procedure on the Internet", it's loony stuff.
.
.