Posts about: "Engine Failure (All)" [Posts: 493 Pages: 25]

Originally Posted by The Brigadier

We know that the right-hand GEnx-1B was removed for overhaul and re-installed in March 2025 so it was at “zero time” and zero cycles, meaning a performance asymmetry that the FADEC would have to manage every time maximum thrust is selected. If the old engine was still on the pre-2021 EEC build while the fresh engine carried the post-Service Bulletin software/hardware, a dual “commanded rollback” is plausible.
A latent fault on one channel with the mid-life core can prompt the other engine to match thrust to maintain symmetry, leading to dual rollback.

Originally Posted by silverelise

He also confirmed that all the data from the recorders has been downloaded and is being processed by the Indian AAIB, no boxes have been sent abroad.
The 30 day deadline for the preliminary report is July 12th.

Originally Posted by the linked article

Investigators still haven’t ruled out the possibility of sabotage being behind the Air India crash in Ahmedabad earlier this month that killed 274 people , according to India’s aviation minister. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has confirmed that the aircraft’s flight recorders – known as black boxes – will not be sent outside the country for assessment and will be analysed by the agency, said Murlidhar Mohol, the minister of state for civil aviation.l

Originally Posted by silverelise

India's Minister of State for Civil Aviation appears to be confirming in this interview that the cause of the accident was a dual engine failure. Which is, I think, the first vaguely official confirmation of what happened that has been released? He also confirmed that all the data from the recorders has been downloaded and is being processed by the Indian AAIB, no boxes have been sent abroad.
The 30 day deadline for the preliminary report is July 12th.

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Richard Godfrey has completely ignored that fact that the speed was reducing all the way down the descent. He has hypothesised a steady descent angle at around 3.5:1 and therefore concluded that one engine had stopped and the other was on ~10,000lb of thrust because, at the initial speed they needed that thrust to counter the drag. But the AOA clearly increases markedly as the aircraft approaches the ground, which means that the speed was reducing significantly.

As for statements such as:






They make me take that whole spiel with a grain of salt.

In a nutshell, he's saying they had an engine failure before rotation, then got all the way up to 300-odd feet (following what looked to me like an initially standard low-angle/flat 787 takeoff, then ran out of puff and crashed with the other engine running at 15-18% Thrust.

Pure speculation aka WAG.

Originally Posted by Abbas Ibn Firnas

I found descriptions on the systems of the 787 were easily discovered online, and while I have no hands-on experience of aircraft related matters, I do have experience in wider electrical theory and maintenance.

THRUST Asymmetry PROTECTION.
"For an engine-out condition, Thrust Asymmetry Protection (TAP) reduces thrust on the operating engine to ensure there is sufficient rudder for directional control. TAP reduces thrust when the airspeed decreases below approximately V2 on a takeoff or below approximately VREF on a go-around. Once speed is increased above V2/VREF, TAP increases thrust."

From what we know so far, it does seem the engines were not producing sufficient thrust, during a period when it would also be crucial to maintain electrical output for the electro-hydraulic systems and critical electrical loads.

Reduced electrical output could explain the failure of the gear to complete retraction, maybe caused by a generator failing at the worst possible moment.

If there was an EFATO, the ability of the remaining generators to provide sufficient power might become questionable, as is highlighted with the load shedding system.

Other features which are unique to the 787 could be contributing factors in explaining the accident.

It is known the 787 will generally employ an extended take-off roll, and a relatively higher V1 and Vr, and also climb out less steeply than other aircraft. Using more of the runway would reduce the margin for aborted take offs.

With the evident lack of thrust early in the climb out, and failure to retract the gear, if V2 had not been maintained, the TAP system would have reduced thrust even further. Manually increasing thrust will be inhibited.

Originally Posted by Sailvi767

It would go against every aspect of training for a professional crew to deploy the rat below 400 feet. Further if you put 100 crewmembers in a simulator on takeoff and said deploy the rat manually I would bet not a single crew member could find the rat deploy switch and activate it in under 5 seconds and maybe 2 or 3 in 10 seconds.

Originally Posted by GroundedSpanner

....The theory I'm working is...

Originally Posted by za9ra22

What configuration, specifically?

Caused by what? /
Didn't I read somewhere in the wiki, that the engines will continue to suck fuel? / Which is?
Contaminated with what, and how? And why were no other aircraft affected?
Which specific circumstances?

Originally Posted by GroundedSpanner

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.

Originally Posted by The Brigadier

We know that the right-hand GEnx-1B was removed for overhaul and re-installed in March 2025 so it was at \x93zero time\x94 and zero cycles, meaning a performance asymmetry that the FADEC would have to manage every time maximum thrust is selected. If the old engine was still on the pre-2021 EEC build while the fresh engine carried the post-Service Bulletin software/hardware, a dual \x93commanded rollback\x94 is plausible. A latent fault on one channel with the mid-life core can prompt the other engine to match thrust to maintain symmetry, leading to dual rollback.

Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret

For what it's worth, if the fuel control switches were rapidly cycled as per the dual engine failure memory actions, the engines should both have restarted and recovered full thrust within a matter of seconds. This is part of the certification and Rolls Royce publish the procedure (unofficially) as a last-ditch attempt to recover an engine that's experiencing a locked-in surge condition.

Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret

For what it's worth, if the fuel control switches were rapidly cycled as per the dual engine failure memory actions, the engines should both have restarted and recovered full thrust within a matter of seconds. This is part of the certification and Rolls Royce publish the procedure (unofficially) as a last-ditch attempt to recover an engine that's experiencing a locked-in surge condition.

Originally Posted by Propellerhead

Yeah but thought it worth discussing again IF we believe that the engine failure was caused by a pilot selecting both fuel control switches to cutoff. You\x92re right that I can\x92t imagine myself doing it but fear can make our inner chimps do strange things in response to the flight or flight response. (See the chimp paradox book).

Originally Posted by Propellerhead

One thing that I remember from when I was a simulator TRI/TRE on a Boeing was that as an instructor you get very used to operating critical
switches rapidly without following any procedure, in order to set the sim up for a single engine landing etc. When I was then line flying next I had to guard against doing the same thing in the real aircraft.

Originally Posted by tdracer

Muscle memory is a strange and (usually) wonderous thing. It allows us as humans to perform amazing things without actually thinking about what we are doing. Professional Athletes have perfected this to a high art, but the rest of us do things using muscle memory on a regular basis. Back when I was still racing, I happened to look down at my hands on the steering wheel in fast, bumpy corner, and I was simply amazed at the large, rapid steering inputs that I was making to compensate for the bumps - with absolutely zero conscious thought. Muscle memory at its best.

However, it can also bite us. The Delta dual engine shutdown during takeoff from LA (referenced way back when in the 1st accident thread) was caused by muscle memory - the pilot reached down to set the EEC switches (located near the fuel On-Off switches) but muscle memory caused him to do something else - set both fuel switches to OFF. Fortunately, he quickly recognized his error, placing the switches back to RUN and the engines recovered in time to prevent a water landing (barely).

It is conceivable that a pilot - reaching down to the center console to adjust something unrelated - could have muscle memory cause him to turn the fuel off to both engines. While all new engines are tested for "Quick Windmill Relight" - i.e. the fuel switch is set to CUTOFF with the engine at high power - and the engine must recover and produce thrust withing a specified time (memory says 60 or 90 seconds) - it takes a finite amount of time for the engines to recover (spool down after a power cut at high power is incredibly fast - plus moving the switch to CUTOFF causes a FADEC reset, which means it won't do anything for ~ 1 second). Doing that at a couple hundred feet and the chance that an engine will recover and start producing thrust before ground impact is pretty much zero

Originally Posted by Magplug

Propellerhead You are correct, a low level altitude capture would back off the throttles as the FMA goes into ALT. However the FD would drop unexpectedly as would the engine noise as the throttles rolled back..... So in what world would that prompt you to call for the dual engine failure checklist rather than firewalling the throttles? This was discussed about 75 pages ago.... It makes good reading