June 22, 2025, 00:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11908173
I don't want to refute your theory, but given your 30 years of experience---presuming it is relevant--I'd ask you to clarify a few things.
First, water in fuel is not a novel concept and I would presume that the designers of the 787 knew about it. You've simply stated that water might collect and settle out, but how much water might you expect under those conditions (57% humidity doesn't seem terribly high to me) and what features and procedures are already there to mitigage water contamination issues? Your theory would imply that there basically aren't any. IDK how the tank venting system works, but the idea that some huge amount of water could have condensed in the tank from the outside seems preposterous.
Second, how much water do you think it would take to cause a sustained flameout in one of those engines? Remember that they have automatic continous relight, so you're going to have to sustain your flame suppression long enough for them to wind down completely. I think those engines were probably using something like 2 gallons per second of fuel along with 250lbs of air heated to over 1100F. Any fuel in the mix would burn and the water would be converted to steam so you'd need mostly water for a long time. So if you think a hundred gallons of water could have gotten into each tank then perhaps I'd buy your theory--which, btw, does fit the known facts pretty well. But I think that short of some woeful neglect, Boeing and AI already know about and have methods of dealing with water contamination. At least I hope so.
First, water in fuel is not a novel concept and I would presume that the designers of the 787 knew about it. You've simply stated that water might collect and settle out, but how much water might you expect under those conditions (57% humidity doesn't seem terribly high to me) and what features and procedures are already there to mitigage water contamination issues? Your theory would imply that there basically aren't any. IDK how the tank venting system works, but the idea that some huge amount of water could have condensed in the tank from the outside seems preposterous.
Second, how much water do you think it would take to cause a sustained flameout in one of those engines? Remember that they have automatic continous relight, so you're going to have to sustain your flame suppression long enough for them to wind down completely. I think those engines were probably using something like 2 gallons per second of fuel along with 250lbs of air heated to over 1100F. Any fuel in the mix would burn and the water would be converted to steam so you'd need mostly water for a long time. So if you think a hundred gallons of water could have gotten into each tank then perhaps I'd buy your theory--which, btw, does fit the known facts pretty well. But I think that short of some woeful neglect, Boeing and AI already know about and have methods of dealing with water contamination. At least I hope so.
Experience. Without wishing to dox myself, I've worked in engineering at a major airline from apprentice through (in no particular order) Line Maintenance, Heavy and Light Maintenance, to technical support and maintenance control on both Boeing and Airbus products, with various qualifications and authorisations along the way. [Hmm - Scrap this sentence?]On the day 9/11 occurred, I should have been making modifications inside a fuel tank instead of staring at the TV with mouth on the floor.
However, I would describe my experience as broad, yet shallow in respect to this incident. Some of my fleet I know every rivet. Some of my fleet I've only ever seen from a distance. I don't touch airplanes for a living any more. B787 though - is not my area of specialty. I'll dig in, but am not the expert. I am not a systems design engineer, so precise numbers and flow rates, are not what I do. But what the systems do, how they operate, what they look like, smell and taste like... yeah, I'm not a muggle. And I do have access to all the manuals and know how to use them. And - let me be clear, I am speculating. I was advancing a theory. It WILL be some flavour of wrong. The investigation will reveal all.
I Agree, Water in fuel is not a novel concept. Aircraft fuel tanks attract water - fact. How much? It varies. I've sumped tanks and got no water, I've seen drops of water beading about in the bottom of a gallon jug, I've seen gallons of water. I've been so covered in fuel I cant smell it or think straight and taken gallon after gallon not being able to tell if its fuel or water. I also agree that 57% humidity doesn't seem particularly high - its not south east Asian jungle levels - but I'm not an expert at humidity, 32Deg c at 57% humidity at 02:30 am is not going to be comfortable for me though. I looked at recent weather in DEL, and those values were at the higher end of the range.
Further, I believe the prevailing weather conditions on the ground are less important when it comes to the volume of water getting in. Fuel is cold, or gets damn cold during a 9 Hr flight. Fuel Temperature Management is an issue for our Drivers. So as the fuel is used at altitude, Air enters the tank through NACA Ducts in the outboard end of the wing. Its beneficial to maintain a slight positive pressure, amongst other things to reduce evaporation. (Added complication, there is also the Nitrogen Enrichment system due to TWA800 - but that's more about processing the air in the tank to change the properties and make it non-explosive). Then as the aircraft descends, more air enters as the air pressure increases. Its the humidity of that air in the descent that is going to determine the volume of water entering the tank and potentially the fuel. The water in the air condenses on the sides of the tank because of the cold post-flight fuel. It doesn't dissolve into the fuel, but sinks to the bottom. Ground temperature / humidity and time will likely affect how much water condenses out of that air while on the ground. There won't be a huge amount of air exchange on the ground. Likely if the AC landed at 2am, then from sunrise as the tank warmed up, there would actually be a flow out of the vents.
What Features and procedures are there to mitigate Water? I apologise if my post gave the impression that there are no mitigation processes. There are. Water is well understood in the industry.
Well for a start, Features / Design. The Aircraft has a water scavenge system. Water doesn't mix with fuel, it sinks to the bottom being about 20% denser than fuel, so at the very lowest point in the tank, the water scavenge system (Powered by the Aft Fuel Pump through a jet pump, a venturi like system) will suck up the 'fluid' at the very lowest point, where the water would collect and in Boeings words 'drip' that fluid into the path of the pump pickup inlet (but I'd describe it more as a 'squirt'). The idea being that a small amount of water injected into the fuel will be consumed by the engines harmlessly.
There is also agitation. The wing tank pumps are pretty much running constantly, from before engine startup to after engine shutdown. The pumps are quite violent to the fuel and supply more pressure then the engine could ever need. Any excess pressure is dumped right back into the tank, quite close to the pump, in a direction that would further stir up the fuel and help break up any water into suspended droplets.
This all works if there is a small amount of water in the fuel. The water scavenge pickup is right next to the pump inlet, but a bit lower. Little bits of water get managed. Looking at the pictures of the system, I'd say a couple of gallons of water would do no harm at all.
But if there was significantly more water in that tank. Guessing 10-30 + gallons, then the pump would be circulating water, or highly water rich fuel.
Then there's the suction pickup. Its in the same 'bay' as the aft fuel pump and located a little 'higher' than the pump inlet and water scavenge inlet. But also located between stringers that can separate out the settled water ( I wish I could share the pictures, but more than my job is worth ) I can imagine the suction pickup being in a pool of 'stagnant' water.
I also saw a post from Metcha about the scavenge system blocking with Algae - I don't know about that (B787 not my fleet). But possible that could aggravate things. There's also the reports of the Indian AAIB looking at the Titan Biocide incident. Its possible that might be related and could modify the theory.
Procedures - There's the (at my airline weekly I think) procedure to 'sump' the tanks. There are drain points in the tank. Valves that you can push in with a tool and fluid drains. As described earlier (and videos exist on YouTube), you drain about a gallon of fluid and examine it for water. Most often in temperate climates (my experience), there's a few 'beads' of water in the bottom of the jug, moving about like mercury. Except when there's more. Sometimes there's a clear line in the jug, half water, fuel above. And sometimes a gallon of water, that smells like fuel. You drain it until you are sure there's no water.
Could 'that much' water have condensed in the tank? Well - There's the question. I guess the basis of the theory is that on descent into DEL, the wing tanks picked up some very humid air, which settled water into the tanks through the night. Then, as the theory I posited must work, the wing pumps must have circulated and suspended that water into the fuel.
By design, the water from the CDG-DEL arrival should have been consumed in the DEL-AMD Sector. But desperately clinging to defending my theory (I appreciate this is a hole), lets assume that at DEL the pumps were running for a long time. Lets assume that the pumps allowed the water to be dispersed within the tank prior to being used through the engines. Then - in the DEL-AMD sector, the wing tanks could have picked up more water.
How much water would cause a sustained flameout? I never posited a sustained flameout. I posited a significant reduction in thrust. Listening back to the rooftop video, which at first we were all listening for evidence of RAT, there's also a rhythmic pop-pop-pop of engines struggling. I think the engines were running, albeit badly. Heavily water contaminated fuel will do that. It doesn't have to be 100% water. Just enough water to make the engine lose thrust. Your 2 gallons per second figure assumes the engine running at full flow. I'm not a figures man, I'll not challenge that, I do recall flowmeters at max thrust spin like crazy. But an engine struggling due to a high perrcentage of contamination, is that using 2 gal/sec? or just trying to? What happens if there is e.g. 20% water in the fuel?
There are also reported incidents of engine flameout / thrust reduction that have all happened at altitude. Incidents that have been recovered due to the altitude and time available. I Posited that the engines would have eventually regained full thrust once the contamination worked though. But 30 seconds of rough engine is very different at 40,000 feet than it is at 100 feet.
The theory also relies on a second part - the electrical failure. That the electrical failure causes the fuel supply to switch, a few seconds after the failure. We go, at the point of electrical failure from a pumped centre tank supply to a sucked wing tank supply. It takes time for that different fuel to reach the engine.
Ive written enough and am tired. Must stop now.
June 22, 2025, 00:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11908191
Procedures - There's the (at my airline weekly I think) procedure to 'sump' the tanks. There are drain points in the tank. Valves that you can push in with a tool and fluid drains. As described earlier (and videos exist on YouTube), you drain about a gallon of fluid and examine it for water. Most often in temperate climates (my experience), there's a few 'beads' of water in the bottom of the jug, moving about like mercury.
Except when there's more.
Sometimes there's a clear line in the jug, half water, fuel above. And sometimes a gallon of water, that smells like fuel. You drain it until you are sure there's no water.
Except when there's more.
Sometimes there's a clear line in the jug, half water, fuel above. And sometimes a gallon of water, that smells like fuel. You drain it until you are sure there's no water.
Could 'that much' water have condensed in the tank? Well - There's the question. I guess the basis of the theory is that on descent into DEL, the wing tanks picked up some very humid air, which settled water into the tanks through the night. Then, as the theory I posited must work, the wing pumps must have circulated and suspended that water into the fuel.
By design, the water from the CDG-DEL arrival should have been consumed in the DEL-AMD Sector.
But desperately clinging to defending my theory (I appreciate this is a hole), lets assume that at DEL the pumps were running for a long time.
Lets assume that the pumps allowed the water to be dispersed within the tank prior to being used through the engines. Then - in the DEL-AMD sector, the wing tanks could have picked up more water.
How much water would cause a sustained flameout?
I never posited a sustained flameout. I posited a significant reduction in thrust. Listening back to the rooftop video, which at first we were all listening for evidence of RAT, there's also a rhythmic pop-pop-pop of engines struggling.
I think the engines were running, albeit badly.
Heavily water contaminated fuel will do that. It doesn't have to be 100% water. Just enough water to make the engine lose thrust. Your 2 gallons per second figure assumes the engine running at full flow.
I'm not a figures man, I'll not challenge that, I do recall flowmeters at max thrust spin like crazy. But an engine struggling due to a high percentage of contamination, is that using 2 gal/sec? or just trying to? What happens if there is e.g. 20% water in the fuel?
There are also reported incidents of engine flameout / thrust reduction that have all happened at altitude. Incidents that have been recovered due to the altitude and time available. I Posited that the engines would have eventually regained full thrust once the contamination worked though. But 30 seconds of rough engine is very different at 40,000 feet than it is at 100 feet.
The theory also relies on a second part - the electrical failure.
That the electrical failure causes the fuel supply to switch, a few seconds after the failure. We go, at the point of electrical failure from a pumped centre tank supply to a sucked wing tank supply. It takes time for that different fuel to reach the engine.
By design, the water from the CDG-DEL arrival should have been consumed in the DEL-AMD Sector.
But desperately clinging to defending my theory (I appreciate this is a hole), lets assume that at DEL the pumps were running for a long time.
Lets assume that the pumps allowed the water to be dispersed within the tank prior to being used through the engines. Then - in the DEL-AMD sector, the wing tanks could have picked up more water.
How much water would cause a sustained flameout?
I never posited a sustained flameout. I posited a significant reduction in thrust. Listening back to the rooftop video, which at first we were all listening for evidence of RAT, there's also a rhythmic pop-pop-pop of engines struggling.
I think the engines were running, albeit badly.
Heavily water contaminated fuel will do that. It doesn't have to be 100% water. Just enough water to make the engine lose thrust. Your 2 gallons per second figure assumes the engine running at full flow.
I'm not a figures man, I'll not challenge that, I do recall flowmeters at max thrust spin like crazy. But an engine struggling due to a high percentage of contamination, is that using 2 gal/sec? or just trying to? What happens if there is e.g. 20% water in the fuel?
There are also reported incidents of engine flameout / thrust reduction that have all happened at altitude. Incidents that have been recovered due to the altitude and time available. I Posited that the engines would have eventually regained full thrust once the contamination worked though. But 30 seconds of rough engine is very different at 40,000 feet than it is at 100 feet.
The theory also relies on a second part - the electrical failure.
That the electrical failure causes the fuel supply to switch, a few seconds after the failure. We go, at the point of electrical failure from a pumped centre tank supply to a sucked wing tank supply. It takes time for that different fuel to reach the engine.
Not sure if you are right, and not familiar enough with 787 to check the fuel flow logic, but a friend of mine dead-sticked a single engine trainer into a field due to water in the fuel ... 20 minutes after takeoff.
It could have happened earlier.
June 22, 2025, 22:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11908859
Humidity on the back of an envelope
At 50 degrees Celsius, air at 100% humidity contains 83 grams of water vapour per cubic meter.
The center fuel tank of the 787 has a volume of 126,372 liters, or 126 cubic meters.
If it was completely full of air at 50 degrees Celsius and 100% humidity, the center tank would contain 83 x 126 = 10500 grams, or 10.5 kilograms, of water vapour.
Suppose a magic cooling event happened that precipitated every last H2O molecule into a pool of liquid water on the floor of the tank. There would be 10.5 kilograms of water. By definition, that's equal to 10.5 liters of water. A U.S. gallon contains 3.79 liters, so we have 10.5 / 3.79 = 2.8 gallons, of liquid water.
A poster above stated that the engines consume two gallons of fuel per second at takeoff. If we could somehow cause all 2.8 gallons of humidity-sourced water to feed one engine, as a slug, it should all pass through the engine in 2.8 / 2 = 1.4 seconds.
Of course, this represents an extreme worst case.
My conclusion: I don't see how humidity involves enough water to douse the engines.
YYZJim
The center fuel tank of the 787 has a volume of 126,372 liters, or 126 cubic meters.
If it was completely full of air at 50 degrees Celsius and 100% humidity, the center tank would contain 83 x 126 = 10500 grams, or 10.5 kilograms, of water vapour.
Suppose a magic cooling event happened that precipitated every last H2O molecule into a pool of liquid water on the floor of the tank. There would be 10.5 kilograms of water. By definition, that's equal to 10.5 liters of water. A U.S. gallon contains 3.79 liters, so we have 10.5 / 3.79 = 2.8 gallons, of liquid water.
A poster above stated that the engines consume two gallons of fuel per second at takeoff. If we could somehow cause all 2.8 gallons of humidity-sourced water to feed one engine, as a slug, it should all pass through the engine in 2.8 / 2 = 1.4 seconds.
Of course, this represents an extreme worst case.
My conclusion: I don't see how humidity involves enough water to douse the engines.
YYZJim
June 30, 2025, 22:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11913922
OK - Fair Challenges - good post, I'll have a go at answering and simultaneously expanding my own thoughts. In fact I'm not having a go at you, I'm more working my theory....
Experience. Without wishing to dox myself, I've worked in engineering at a major airline from apprentice through (in no particular order) Line Maintenance, Heavy and Light Maintenance, to technical support and maintenance control on both Boeing and Airbus products, with various qualifications and authorisations along the way. [Hmm - Scrap this sentence?]On the day 9/11 occurred, I should have been making modifications inside a fuel tank instead of staring at the TV with mouth on the floor.
However, I would describe my experience as broad, yet shallow in respect to this incident. Some of my fleet I know every rivet. Some of my fleet I've only ever seen from a distance. I don't touch airplanes for a living any more. B787 though - is not my area of specialty. I'll dig in, but am not the expert. I am not a systems design engineer, so precise numbers and flow rates, are not what I do. But what the systems do, how they operate, what they look like, smell and taste like... yeah, I'm not a muggle. And I do have access to all the manuals and know how to use them. And - let me be clear, I am speculating. I was advancing a theory. It WILL be some flavour of wrong. The investigation will reveal all.
I Agree, Water in fuel is not a novel concept. Aircraft fuel tanks attract water - fact. How much? It varies. I've sumped tanks and got no water, I've seen drops of water beading about in the bottom of a gallon jug, I've seen gallons of water. I've been so covered in fuel I cant smell it or think straight and taken gallon after gallon not being able to tell if its fuel or water. I also agree that 57% humidity doesn't seem particularly high - its not south east Asian jungle levels - but I'm not an expert at humidity, 32Deg c at 57% humidity at 02:30 am is not going to be comfortable for me though. I looked at recent weather in DEL, and those values were at the higher end of the range.
Further, I believe the prevailing weather conditions on the ground are less important when it comes to the volume of water getting in. Fuel is cold, or gets damn cold during a 9 Hr flight. Fuel Temperature Management is an issue for our Drivers. So as the fuel is used at altitude, Air enters the tank through NACA Ducts in the outboard end of the wing. Its beneficial to maintain a slight positive pressure, amongst other things to reduce evaporation. (Added complication, there is also the Nitrogen Enrichment system due to TWA800 - but that's more about processing the air in the tank to change the properties and make it non-explosive). Then as the aircraft descends, more air enters as the air pressure increases. Its the humidity of that air in the descent that is going to determine the volume of water entering the tank and potentially the fuel. The water in the air condenses on the sides of the tank because of the cold post-flight fuel. It doesn't dissolve into the fuel, but sinks to the bottom. Ground temperature / humidity and time will likely affect how much water condenses out of that air while on the ground. There won't be a huge amount of air exchange on the ground. Likely if the AC landed at 2am, then from sunrise as the tank warmed up, there would actually be a flow out of the vents.
What Features and procedures are there to mitigate Water? I apologise if my post gave the impression that there are no mitigation processes. There are. Water is well understood in the industry.
Well for a start, Features / Design. The Aircraft has a water scavenge system. Water doesn't mix with fuel, it sinks to the bottom being about 20% denser than fuel, so at the very lowest point in the tank, the water scavenge system (Powered by the Aft Fuel Pump through a jet pump, a venturi like system) will suck up the 'fluid' at the very lowest point, where the water would collect and in Boeings words 'drip' that fluid into the path of the pump pickup inlet (but I'd describe it more as a 'squirt'). The idea being that a small amount of water injected into the fuel will be consumed by the engines harmlessly.
There is also agitation. The wing tank pumps are pretty much running constantly, from before engine startup to after engine shutdown. The pumps are quite violent to the fuel and supply more pressure then the engine could ever need. Any excess pressure is dumped right back into the tank, quite close to the pump, in a direction that would further stir up the fuel and help break up any water into suspended droplets.
This all works if there is a small amount of water in the fuel. The water scavenge pickup is right next to the pump inlet, but a bit lower. Little bits of water get managed. Looking at the pictures of the system, I'd say a couple of gallons of water would do no harm at all.
But if there was significantly more water in that tank. Guessing 10-30 + gallons, then the pump would be circulating water, or highly water rich fuel.
Then there's the suction pickup. Its in the same 'bay' as the aft fuel pump and located a little 'higher' than the pump inlet and water scavenge inlet. But also located between stringers that can separate out the settled water ( I wish I could share the pictures, but more than my job is worth ) I can imagine the suction pickup being in a pool of 'stagnant' water.
I also saw a post from Metcha about the scavenge system blocking with Algae - I don't know about that (B787 not my fleet). But possible that could aggravate things. There's also the reports of the Indian AAIB looking at the Titan Biocide incident. Its possible that might be related and could modify the theory.
Procedures - There's the (at my airline weekly I think) procedure to 'sump' the tanks. There are drain points in the tank. Valves that you can push in with a tool and fluid drains. As described earlier (and videos exist on YouTube), you drain about a gallon of fluid and examine it for water. Most often in temperate climates (my experience), there's a few 'beads' of water in the bottom of the jug, moving about like mercury. Except when there's more. Sometimes there's a clear line in the jug, half water, fuel above. And sometimes a gallon of water, that smells like fuel. You drain it until you are sure there's no water.
Could 'that much' water have condensed in the tank? Well - There's the question. I guess the basis of the theory is that on descent into DEL, the wing tanks picked up some very humid air, which settled water into the tanks through the night. Then, as the theory I posited must work, the wing pumps must have circulated and suspended that water into the fuel.
By design, the water from the CDG-DEL arrival should have been consumed in the DEL-AMD Sector. But desperately clinging to defending my theory (I appreciate this is a hole), lets assume that at DEL the pumps were running for a long time. Lets assume that the pumps allowed the water to be dispersed within the tank prior to being used through the engines. Then - in the DEL-AMD sector, the wing tanks could have picked up more water.
How much water would cause a sustained flameout? I never posited a sustained flameout. I posited a significant reduction in thrust. Listening back to the rooftop video, which at first we were all listening for evidence of RAT, there's also a rhythmic pop-pop-pop of engines struggling. I think the engines were running, albeit badly. Heavily water contaminated fuel will do that. It doesn't have to be 100% water. Just enough water to make the engine lose thrust. Your 2 gallons per second figure assumes the engine running at full flow. I'm not a figures man, I'll not challenge that, I do recall flowmeters at max thrust spin like crazy. But an engine struggling due to a high perrcentage of contamination, is that using 2 gal/sec? or just trying to? What happens if there is e.g. 20% water in the fuel?
There are also reported incidents of engine flameout / thrust reduction that have all happened at altitude. Incidents that have been recovered due to the altitude and time available. I Posited that the engines would have eventually regained full thrust once the contamination worked though. But 30 seconds of rough engine is very different at 40,000 feet than it is at 100 feet.
The theory also relies on a second part - the electrical failure. That the electrical failure causes the fuel supply to switch, a few seconds after the failure. We go, at the point of electrical failure from a pumped centre tank supply to a sucked wing tank supply. It takes time for that different fuel to reach the engine.
Ive written enough and am tired. Must stop now.
Experience. Without wishing to dox myself, I've worked in engineering at a major airline from apprentice through (in no particular order) Line Maintenance, Heavy and Light Maintenance, to technical support and maintenance control on both Boeing and Airbus products, with various qualifications and authorisations along the way. [Hmm - Scrap this sentence?]On the day 9/11 occurred, I should have been making modifications inside a fuel tank instead of staring at the TV with mouth on the floor.
However, I would describe my experience as broad, yet shallow in respect to this incident. Some of my fleet I know every rivet. Some of my fleet I've only ever seen from a distance. I don't touch airplanes for a living any more. B787 though - is not my area of specialty. I'll dig in, but am not the expert. I am not a systems design engineer, so precise numbers and flow rates, are not what I do. But what the systems do, how they operate, what they look like, smell and taste like... yeah, I'm not a muggle. And I do have access to all the manuals and know how to use them. And - let me be clear, I am speculating. I was advancing a theory. It WILL be some flavour of wrong. The investigation will reveal all.
I Agree, Water in fuel is not a novel concept. Aircraft fuel tanks attract water - fact. How much? It varies. I've sumped tanks and got no water, I've seen drops of water beading about in the bottom of a gallon jug, I've seen gallons of water. I've been so covered in fuel I cant smell it or think straight and taken gallon after gallon not being able to tell if its fuel or water. I also agree that 57% humidity doesn't seem particularly high - its not south east Asian jungle levels - but I'm not an expert at humidity, 32Deg c at 57% humidity at 02:30 am is not going to be comfortable for me though. I looked at recent weather in DEL, and those values were at the higher end of the range.
Further, I believe the prevailing weather conditions on the ground are less important when it comes to the volume of water getting in. Fuel is cold, or gets damn cold during a 9 Hr flight. Fuel Temperature Management is an issue for our Drivers. So as the fuel is used at altitude, Air enters the tank through NACA Ducts in the outboard end of the wing. Its beneficial to maintain a slight positive pressure, amongst other things to reduce evaporation. (Added complication, there is also the Nitrogen Enrichment system due to TWA800 - but that's more about processing the air in the tank to change the properties and make it non-explosive). Then as the aircraft descends, more air enters as the air pressure increases. Its the humidity of that air in the descent that is going to determine the volume of water entering the tank and potentially the fuel. The water in the air condenses on the sides of the tank because of the cold post-flight fuel. It doesn't dissolve into the fuel, but sinks to the bottom. Ground temperature / humidity and time will likely affect how much water condenses out of that air while on the ground. There won't be a huge amount of air exchange on the ground. Likely if the AC landed at 2am, then from sunrise as the tank warmed up, there would actually be a flow out of the vents.
What Features and procedures are there to mitigate Water? I apologise if my post gave the impression that there are no mitigation processes. There are. Water is well understood in the industry.
Well for a start, Features / Design. The Aircraft has a water scavenge system. Water doesn't mix with fuel, it sinks to the bottom being about 20% denser than fuel, so at the very lowest point in the tank, the water scavenge system (Powered by the Aft Fuel Pump through a jet pump, a venturi like system) will suck up the 'fluid' at the very lowest point, where the water would collect and in Boeings words 'drip' that fluid into the path of the pump pickup inlet (but I'd describe it more as a 'squirt'). The idea being that a small amount of water injected into the fuel will be consumed by the engines harmlessly.
There is also agitation. The wing tank pumps are pretty much running constantly, from before engine startup to after engine shutdown. The pumps are quite violent to the fuel and supply more pressure then the engine could ever need. Any excess pressure is dumped right back into the tank, quite close to the pump, in a direction that would further stir up the fuel and help break up any water into suspended droplets.
This all works if there is a small amount of water in the fuel. The water scavenge pickup is right next to the pump inlet, but a bit lower. Little bits of water get managed. Looking at the pictures of the system, I'd say a couple of gallons of water would do no harm at all.
But if there was significantly more water in that tank. Guessing 10-30 + gallons, then the pump would be circulating water, or highly water rich fuel.
Then there's the suction pickup. Its in the same 'bay' as the aft fuel pump and located a little 'higher' than the pump inlet and water scavenge inlet. But also located between stringers that can separate out the settled water ( I wish I could share the pictures, but more than my job is worth ) I can imagine the suction pickup being in a pool of 'stagnant' water.
I also saw a post from Metcha about the scavenge system blocking with Algae - I don't know about that (B787 not my fleet). But possible that could aggravate things. There's also the reports of the Indian AAIB looking at the Titan Biocide incident. Its possible that might be related and could modify the theory.
Procedures - There's the (at my airline weekly I think) procedure to 'sump' the tanks. There are drain points in the tank. Valves that you can push in with a tool and fluid drains. As described earlier (and videos exist on YouTube), you drain about a gallon of fluid and examine it for water. Most often in temperate climates (my experience), there's a few 'beads' of water in the bottom of the jug, moving about like mercury. Except when there's more. Sometimes there's a clear line in the jug, half water, fuel above. And sometimes a gallon of water, that smells like fuel. You drain it until you are sure there's no water.
Could 'that much' water have condensed in the tank? Well - There's the question. I guess the basis of the theory is that on descent into DEL, the wing tanks picked up some very humid air, which settled water into the tanks through the night. Then, as the theory I posited must work, the wing pumps must have circulated and suspended that water into the fuel.
By design, the water from the CDG-DEL arrival should have been consumed in the DEL-AMD Sector. But desperately clinging to defending my theory (I appreciate this is a hole), lets assume that at DEL the pumps were running for a long time. Lets assume that the pumps allowed the water to be dispersed within the tank prior to being used through the engines. Then - in the DEL-AMD sector, the wing tanks could have picked up more water.
How much water would cause a sustained flameout? I never posited a sustained flameout. I posited a significant reduction in thrust. Listening back to the rooftop video, which at first we were all listening for evidence of RAT, there's also a rhythmic pop-pop-pop of engines struggling. I think the engines were running, albeit badly. Heavily water contaminated fuel will do that. It doesn't have to be 100% water. Just enough water to make the engine lose thrust. Your 2 gallons per second figure assumes the engine running at full flow. I'm not a figures man, I'll not challenge that, I do recall flowmeters at max thrust spin like crazy. But an engine struggling due to a high perrcentage of contamination, is that using 2 gal/sec? or just trying to? What happens if there is e.g. 20% water in the fuel?
There are also reported incidents of engine flameout / thrust reduction that have all happened at altitude. Incidents that have been recovered due to the altitude and time available. I Posited that the engines would have eventually regained full thrust once the contamination worked though. But 30 seconds of rough engine is very different at 40,000 feet than it is at 100 feet.
The theory also relies on a second part - the electrical failure. That the electrical failure causes the fuel supply to switch, a few seconds after the failure. We go, at the point of electrical failure from a pumped centre tank supply to a sucked wing tank supply. It takes time for that different fuel to reach the engine.
Ive written enough and am tired. Must stop now.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 30th June 2025 at 23:01 . Reason: Quote from a week ago; this is not a Hamsterwheel thread, thanks!
June 30, 2025, 23:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11913954
Except:
The longer this takes the more crew actions or lack thereof become the centerpiece of the investigation.
More then 1,100 787\x92s have been delivered and flying the last 14 years.
Hundreds fly every single day.
Not a whisper from any of the aviation authorities worldwide. No emergency AD\x92s..nothing.
- A \x91quick turnaround\x92 of a passenger aircraft is 2.5-3hrs
- Fuel in CDG is no doubt more expensive then at DEL. Also a crew doesn\x92t just take extra fuel without dispatchers concurring
- If anything it may have carried a little extra from DEL.
- Turnaround was 2:38 or close to it.
- Engines run on their own tank for take off. Two different tanks with the same contamination would be exceptionally rare.
- A complete electrical failure due to some massive event combined with two tanks contaminated would be akin to a lightning strike on a lottery winner.
The longer this takes the more crew actions or lack thereof become the centerpiece of the investigation.
More then 1,100 787\x92s have been delivered and flying the last 14 years.
Hundreds fly every single day.
Not a whisper from any of the aviation authorities worldwide. No emergency AD\x92s..nothing.
July 01, 2025, 00:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11913971
Is this correct? I'm sure I've seen contradictory views, such as (paraphrasing): For TO, All pumps are On; the centre (tank) pumps have higher delivery pressure so they win the "Supply the Fuel" contest, unless they fail or their tank goes empty; in either case, their delivery pressure goes to zero and the wing tank pump(s) then get their turn.
Oops, too slow, answered already by Sailvi767
Oops, too slow, answered already by Sailvi767
Last edited by MaybeItIs; 1st July 2025 at 00:44 . Reason: Oops...
July 01, 2025, 03:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11913998
787 Fuel System
).
On the A320 if the centre fuel pumps are selected on pre-start, they run for 2 mins after start and then turn themselves off until Flaps selected to 0 (i.e. well after takeoff), when they turn themselves on. As far as the crew are concerned they were selected on from pre-start onwards [long retired A320 so forgive me if in error].
If certification demands this 'complexity' it would seem surprising the 787 does not have a similar system? Are we sure the 787 centre tank 'higher pressure' pumps are:
- Actually running on takeoff?
- If running, they are providing centre tank fuel directly to both engines, and not, say, centre tank fuel to wing tanks, and then wing tanks to engines?
July 01, 2025, 03:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914009
Both engines run from the center tank on takeoff if it has fuel in the tank which was the case on this flight
\xa7 25.953 Fuel system independence.
Each fuel system must meet the requirements of \xa7 25.903(b) ( (b) Engine isolation. The powerplants must be arranged and isolated from each other to allow operation, in at least one configuration, so that the failure or malfunction of any engine, or of any system that can affect the engine, will not— (1) Prevent the continued safe operation of the remaining engines; or(2) Require immediate action by any crewmember for continued safe operation )
by—
(a) Allowing the supply of fuel to each engine through a system independent of each part of the system supplying fuel to any other engine; or
(b) Any other acceptable method
That is, during these periods each engine must be supplied with fuel from a separate tank, you don't want all engines being supplied by the same tank and run the risk of losing all engines due to contamination in that one tank.
Switch over to the centre tank to feed all engines typically takes place at 10,000'
July 01, 2025, 04:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914010
Originally Posted by
Megan
Switch over to the centre tank to feed all engines typically takes place at 10,000'
July 01, 2025, 09:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914140
Hold your horses there
Bloggs
, I didn't say they did, I said centre tanks were typically turned on at that altitude (using a certain 737 operator as a guide). As the check list that you posted shows the centre pumps will automatically turn off because of load shedding once an engine is started.
July 01, 2025, 10:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914164
Not really relevant to what you quoted though, as the scenario in question requires:
-
Engines running on centre tank fuel during takeoff
while the aircraft is operating normally
- We don't know for certain if this is the case. It seems to be but it's not something that happens on other families.
- Then, total AC failure stopping fuel boost pumps.
- Engines suction feed from contaminated/full-of-water wing tanks.
I also don't see any evidence that engine driven fuel pumps alone must be able to handle this scenario: provide enough fuel flow for takeoff and climb, even while the pitch is rotating, even in a hot environment with significant weight, even while the gear is stuck down.
I know that the engine driven pumps have documented limitations and that the regulations allow for some limitations. I know that at least one of these limitation is high altitude and I _suspect_ that the design intends for this unlikely scenario (engine driven fuel pumps alone with no AC pumps) to guarantee enough fuel flow to get to an airport and land. I also suspect that the APU is expected to solve loss of all AC generators - and as we know, there wasn't enough time for it to start in this scenario.
I know that the engine driven pumps have documented limitations and that the regulations allow for some limitations. I know that at least one of these limitation is high altitude and I _suspect_ that the design intends for this unlikely scenario (engine driven fuel pumps alone with no AC pumps) to guarantee enough fuel flow to get to an airport and land. I also suspect that the APU is expected to solve loss of all AC generators - and as we know, there wasn't enough time for it to start in this scenario.
The limitations at high altitude are primarily air/volatiles degassing out of the fuel. That's not going to be much of an issue at sea level, even if the engines are a bit higher up during rotation.
APU is a nice-to-have; it's on the MEL. If you lose all four generators, it's because of some major carnage in the electrical software/hardware and chances of putting the APU on line even if it's operating are very slim.
July 01, 2025, 12:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914226
It's exactly the same on the B777 - the centre fuel pump switches go on before start if the FUEL IN CENTER EICAS message is displayed. The switches go off again when the FUEL LOW CENTER message is displayed. On the ground, the B777 needs two power sources for both centre tank pumps to operate, so one pump is normally shed until after engine start. The centre tank pumps output about three times the pressure of the main tank pumps. Fuel is fed from the centre tank until the centre tank pumps are selected off.
July 01, 2025, 12:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914234
Originally Posted by
MaybeItIs
...\xa7 25.903(b) includes the words: "in at least one configuration,"
It doesn't, that I can see, state that that configuration must be used during takeoff, though common sense would say it should.
...\xa7 25.903(b) includes the words: "in at least one configuration,"
It doesn't, that I can see, state that that configuration must be used during takeoff, though common sense would say it should.
I also don't see any evidence that engine driven fuel pumps alone must be able to handle this scenario: provide enough fuel flow for takeoff and climb, even while the pitch is rotating, even in a hot environment with significant weight, even while the gear is stuck down.
A lot of other posters here have stated that according to FCOM instructions, the normal, accepted 787 Takeoff configuration is "Both sides draw from centre" if the Centre tanks have enough fuel in them. I think (maybe wrongly) that this (prior few posts) is the first time this exact point has been raised. I hope I'm correct there. If not, my humble apologies.
The great thing about this forum and sadly, this tragic accident, is that it's drawing a few previously little-known worms out of the woodwork.
July 01, 2025, 12:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914255
I believe that particular bug is fixed, though it's always possible there's other issues causing a total AC loss.
Not really relevant to what you quoted though, as the scenario in question requires:
The aircraft has two engines and should be able to climb out on one, plus it dropped like a rock . 'Significantly degraded' thrust isn't really compatible with what we saw. You'd also expect the engines to recover pretty quickly as it leveled off.
The limitations at high altitude are primarily air/volatiles degassing out of the fuel. That's not going to be much of an issue at sea level, even if the engines are a bit higher up during rotation.
APU is a nice-to-have; it's on the MEL. If you lose all four generators, it's because of some major carnage in the electrical software/hardware and chances of putting the APU on line even if it's operating are very slim.
Not really relevant to what you quoted though, as the scenario in question requires:
-
Engines running on centre tank fuel during takeoff
while the aircraft is operating normally
- We don't know for certain if this is the case. It seems to be but it's not something that happens on other families.
- Then, total AC failure stopping fuel boost pumps.
- Engines suction feed from contaminated/full-of-water wing tanks.
The aircraft has two engines and should be able to climb out on one, plus it dropped like a rock . 'Significantly degraded' thrust isn't really compatible with what we saw. You'd also expect the engines to recover pretty quickly as it leveled off.
The limitations at high altitude are primarily air/volatiles degassing out of the fuel. That's not going to be much of an issue at sea level, even if the engines are a bit higher up during rotation.
APU is a nice-to-have; it's on the MEL. If you lose all four generators, it's because of some major carnage in the electrical software/hardware and chances of putting the APU on line even if it's operating are very slim.
- The specific 248-day integer overflow was patched, and before the fix was rolled out, the AD required this system to by power cycled every 120 days to prevent overflow
- The PCU software still has the functional requirement to be able to command all AC GCUs to enter failsafe mode, this means that while the initial bug was fixed, the ability for this particular software system to command the same result is still a functional part of the architecture - presumably for safety management of the AC system
- This was not the first or last "software overflow error" issue in Boeing or even in the 787
I do agree that the engine driven pumps should be able to provide fuel alone, the whole point of these pumps is to keep the plane flying within some limitations, high altitude is one of those limitations, I propose that there may be others based on the following:
- Some more knowledgable people here have proposed or countered vapour lock, fuel contamination and automatic fuel cut-off theories to various degrees - even if these are not enough on their own, loss of electrical during rotation at high temperature could combine with these in a way we have not yet considered
- Thrust is nonlinear, and while I'm not qualified to say how much loss of fuel flow or loss of thrust would be critical in this scenario we do know that it was a hot takeoff with significant weight and gear remaining down - I know others here have run sims but I don't think anyone has focused on specific thrust / fuel flow params
- While electric fuel pumps might not be physically necessary for takeoff, my final point is: why are they required for takeoff? Is it not to mitigate cavitation, fuel sloshing at rotation, or any other kind of problem that might be relevant here?
July 01, 2025, 12:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914257
Remember the 787 uses electrics for engine start, wing anti-ice, centre hydraulics, and cabin air compressors. There's some big electrical loads.
Centre tank boost pumps are probably comparatively small, but if you can conclusively say x is not required during ground engine start , why power it?
July 01, 2025, 13:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914270
....the normal, accepted 787 Takeoff configuration is "Both sides draw from centre" if the Centre tanks have enough fuel in them. I think (maybe
wrongly
)
that
this
(prior few posts)
is the first time this exact point has been raised
. I hope I'm correct there. If not, my humble apologies..
Plane crash near Ahmedabad..
Plane crash near Ahmedabad..
Gets tiring correcting glaring errors such as the recent one wrongly asserting separate tanks for each engine is mandatory on TO or that it is routine to turn centre pumps on at 10,000'. Many of us just read it and say "that is clearly BS", "The person has not read the thread", then move on looking for some actual updated information, or news, while not speculating at all.
July 01, 2025, 13:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11914271
Sorry, you missed the point I was trying to make. \xa7 25.903(b) does say that the fuel system
must
be able to operate
in an isolated, two-sided mode (for a twin engined jet), such that nothing on one side, such as bad fuel, will adversely affect the other engine. Of course, during Takeoff, both sides drawing fuel from a Centre Tank containing a lot of contaminants (e.g. Fuel Bug matter, water) is a scenario that could bring down the plane. We are all aware of that. But the point I was trying to make is that although \xa7 25.903(b) requires "at least one configuration" that separates both systems entirely (such as Left engine drawing from Left Main Tank, and Right from Right) which
can
be configured, the Rule doesn't appear to make that compulsory for Takeoff.
A lot of other posters here have stated that according to FCOM instructions, the normal, accepted 787 Takeoff configuration is "Both sides draw from centre" if the Centre tanks have enough fuel in them. I think (maybe wrongly) that this (prior few posts) is the first time this exact point has been raised. I hope I'm correct there. If not, my humble apologies.
The great thing about this forum and sadly, this tragic accident, is that it's drawing a few previously little-known worms out of the woodwork.
A lot of other posters here have stated that according to FCOM instructions, the normal, accepted 787 Takeoff configuration is "Both sides draw from centre" if the Centre tanks have enough fuel in them. I think (maybe wrongly) that this (prior few posts) is the first time this exact point has been raised. I hope I'm correct there. If not, my humble apologies.
The great thing about this forum and sadly, this tragic accident, is that it's drawing a few previously little-known worms out of the woodwork.
\x93Fuel from the center tank is transferred to the inner tanks to keep the inner tanks near full. The FCMC automatically controls the flow from the center to the inner tanks by operating the inner tank inlet valves. The center tank pumps run continuously when there is fuel in the center tank and provide fuel to the fueling manifold. When the inner tanks are full, the inner tank inlet valves are commanded closed until the inner tank fuel is burned down to approximately 4400 lbs below full. At that point, the inner tank inlet valves reopen to allow the inner tanks to fill, and repeat. \x93