2025-06-12T20:44:00
permalink Post: 11899716
Current a/c Type A319/A320
A link to the report Zoot0 referred to:
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/AIR-2..._AIR-22-09R1_1
Excerpt in the spoiler
Spoiler
{there is more, this is just a taste, see the whole report for details}.
Would any of our 787 qualified pilots care to comment on this as it relates, or doesn't relate, to the aircraft's brief flight shown on the CCTV video?
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T20:46:00
permalink Post: 11899718
The theories concerning inadvertent flap retraction are not consistent with the apparent transcript from the mayday call made or rat deployment. In the first video that circulated, the engines can\x92t really be heard (certainly not producing any significant amount of thrust). If the aircraft was climbing out misconfigured, those engines would be screaming. Instead, all you can hear is the rat.
Similarly - a bird strike, knocking out two engines simultaneously is a noisy/messy event and I would expect to see evidence of this occurring in both videos, and in the area at the point of ingestion. The engines don\x92t just roll back with a bird strike - they surge, smoke, bang and splutter. It would be very apparent.
At this time, I think everything is pointing towards both engines simultaneously having their fuel feeds interrupted between V1 and Vr. CVR/FDR will be interesting.
Similarly - a bird strike, knocking out two engines simultaneously is a noisy/messy event and I would expect to see evidence of this occurring in both videos, and in the area at the point of ingestion. The engines don\x92t just roll back with a bird strike - they surge, smoke, bang and splutter. It would be very apparent.
At this time, I think everything is pointing towards both engines simultaneously having their fuel feeds interrupted between V1 and Vr. CVR/FDR will be interesting.
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T21:25:00
permalink Post: 11899752
There are no IDGs on a 787. There are 4 identical variable frequency starter-generators.
2025-06-12T21:56:00
permalink Post: 11899773
That was my first thought. You don\x92t get a double engine failure for nothing else but that and maybe birds, but birds would have caused some trailing smoke or at least some visible signs on cctv at some point throughout the ingestion period.
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T22:02:00
permalink Post: 11899778
OK, I promised some informed speculation when I got back, so here goes:
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Last edited by T28B; 12th Jun 2025 at 22:21 . Reason: white space is your friend, and is reader-friendly
33 users liked this post.
2025-06-12T22:46:00
permalink Post: 11899806
My money is on hot, heavy, engine failure and PNF raises flaps instead of gear for now
2025-06-12T23:05:00
permalink Post: 11899819
Intriguing: agree it doesn't look like an inadvertent flap-less take-off, but having watched the video several times, I can’t see any sign of a pitch-down input (ie, less pitch up) that would surely be evident following a dual engine failure. Even if the loss of almost full power from underslung engines didn't naturally cause a change of pitch (FBW), surely the first instinctive control input following such a large loss of thrust would be to lower the nose a little.
Conversely, the rapid sinking feeling induced by the inadvertent Flap retraction at the Gear-up point could confuse the senses and be interpreted as a loss of thrust?
Tragic whatever the cause; I’m sure we'll have the answer fairly soon.
Conversely, the rapid sinking feeling induced by the inadvertent Flap retraction at the Gear-up point could confuse the senses and be interpreted as a loss of thrust?
Tragic whatever the cause; I’m sure we'll have the answer fairly soon.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-12T23:50:00
permalink Post: 11899842
Wow love the theories. Ok why was the gear still down. Under all circumstances that comes up with positive rate. Can\x92t see the flaps but sure looks like they were retracted instead of gear coming up.
engine failure. Sure that would suck lift out but all parameters take thay into effect with the proper flap setting. And you can\x92t take off without the right flap setting per the performance data unless you ignore it.
Loss of lift. VNAV engages at 400 ft and targets airspeed in MCP.
engine failure. Sure that would suck lift out but all parameters take thay into effect with the proper flap setting. And you can\x92t take off without the right flap setting per the performance data unless you ignore it.
Loss of lift. VNAV engages at 400 ft and targets airspeed in MCP.
2025-06-12T23:54:00
permalink Post: 11899847
Ok why was the gear still down. Under all circumstances that comes up with positive rate. Can’t see the flaps but sure looks like they were retracted instead of gear coming up.
engine failure. Sure that would suck lift out but all parameters take thay into effect with the proper flap setting. And you can’t take off without the right flap setting per the performance data unless you ignore it.
Loss of lift. VNAV engages at 400 ft and targets airspeed in MCP.
engine failure. Sure that would suck lift out but all parameters take thay into effect with the proper flap setting. And you can’t take off without the right flap setting per the performance data unless you ignore it.
Loss of lift. VNAV engages at 400 ft and targets airspeed in MCP.
2025-06-13T00:31:00
permalink Post: 11899866
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-13T01:01:00
permalink Post: 11899888
2025-06-13T02:18:00
permalink Post: 11899930
Determined to be an ergonomics problem with the switch layout in the flightdeck.
Early 767s (JT9D and CF6-80A) had a supervisory "EEC" (Electronic Engine Control - Boeing still uses "EEC" to identify what most people call the FADEC on modern engines). The procedure if an EEC 'failed' was to switch both EECs off (to prevent excessive throttle stagger - unlike FADEC, the engine could operate just fine with a supervisory EEC failed).
Problem was that the EEC ON/OFF switch was located on the aisle stand - right above the fuel cutoff switches. Turned out 'muscle memory' was when the pilot reached down there, it was usually to turn the fuel ON or OFF - which is what they did. Fortunately realizing what he'd done wrong, the pilot quickly restored the switches to RUN and both engines recovered. And yes, they continued on to their destination (RAT was still deployed since there is no way to retract it in-flight).
Previous event was with JT9D engines (United IIRC). In that case, only one engine recovered (second engine went into an unrecoverable stall), they simply came back around and did a single engine landing.
Realizing the ergonomic issue, the EECs were relocated to the pilot's overhead (retrofit by AD).
To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a repeat of an inadvertent dual engine shutdown since the EEC switches were relocated. It's also very difficult to 'accidentally' move the switches as there is a locking detent - the switch must be pulled out slightly before it can be moved to CUTOFF.
Last edited by T28B; 13th Jun 2025 at 02:22 . Reason: again, broke up the text to be reader friendly, great input!
11 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T02:34:00
permalink Post: 11899935
Would not be the first time that an accident has uncovered unintended consequences of a particular fallback configuration that was never able to be checked by either/any of Airbus, McDD or Boeing developmental test-pilots. Thinking of the automatic thrust augment/restoration on the MD81 (regn OY-KHO) that crashed 27Dec91 near Gottrora in Sweden (double engine failure). Design Boffins failed to realize that ice-sheet ingestion (sliding off the wings to be ingested by both rear-mount engines) would not benefit at all from each engine hiccup causing a continual uprating of the other (and vice-versa). To be found/uncovered in a simulator you would have to be testing various pilot inadvertencies (rather than rote expected actions). Then again, don't always believe the outcomes to be seen in a simulator. They don't necessarily faithfully emulate what would happen systems-wise in an aircraft... particularly when it comes to complex materiel failure modes or illogical sequiturs (e.g. MCAS)
So, if such an untestable circumstance were to happen to a competent crew and they were to inadvertently shut-down the wrong engine (and then/were in "clean-up mode":
a. The residual hyds would break the downlocks - but not retract the gear (and it would appear to be still selected down)
b. The alternate flaps might start to retract (gear downlocks not being now "made") once selected, but the slats remain out.
c. the RAT would deploy
The point at which all thrust ceases (and the climb vector flattens/reverses) is easily seen
in the video shot from the 6:30 clock position from about a km away. It's readily apparent.
An engine failure just off the runway after V1 in a fully loaded 787-8 in high ambient temperatures would assuredly have a crew thinking about a "toute suite" shutdown of a misbehaving donk. That's human nature. When the PERF is quite sluggish you will be thinking that a quick clean-up of the situation is certainly called for. That's just human nature unfortunately, particularly when you are under the time compression of dire circumstance (and the airframe is performing like a lame dog, just due to the environmentals and the early failure). I think that what the pilot reportedly said to ATC in his Mayday bears that out as being his instant mindset (quite clearly). Been in that "fools rush in" circ myself. You just have to "sit on your hands" and fly the beast.
But then again, if the RAT was NOT found deployed, then it's a case of the right seat mistakenly sucking in the flaps and slats... and that will do it... whatever the power/TOGA might be.
https://tinyurl.com/4zzkeeud
Rotation +33s
Mayday call +44s, circa 300 ft altitude (ADS-B)
Peak altitude +49s, 625 ft (Flightradar24)
Impact +58s, crash site 1.6 km from runway
So, if such an untestable circumstance were to happen to a competent crew and they were to inadvertently shut-down the wrong engine (and then/were in "clean-up mode":
a. The residual hyds would break the downlocks - but not retract the gear (and it would appear to be still selected down)
b. The alternate flaps might start to retract (gear downlocks not being now "made") once selected, but the slats remain out.
c. the RAT would deploy
The point at which all thrust ceases (and the climb vector flattens/reverses) is easily seen
in the video shot from the 6:30 clock position from about a km away. It's readily apparent.
An engine failure just off the runway after V1 in a fully loaded 787-8 in high ambient temperatures would assuredly have a crew thinking about a "toute suite" shutdown of a misbehaving donk. That's human nature. When the PERF is quite sluggish you will be thinking that a quick clean-up of the situation is certainly called for. That's just human nature unfortunately, particularly when you are under the time compression of dire circumstance (and the airframe is performing like a lame dog, just due to the environmentals and the early failure). I think that what the pilot reportedly said to ATC in his Mayday bears that out as being his instant mindset (quite clearly). Been in that "fools rush in" circ myself. You just have to "sit on your hands" and fly the beast.
But then again, if the RAT was NOT found deployed, then it's a case of the right seat mistakenly sucking in the flaps and slats... and that will do it... whatever the power/TOGA might be.
https://tinyurl.com/4zzkeeud
Rotation +33s
Mayday call +44s, circa 300 ft altitude (ADS-B)
Peak altitude +49s, 625 ft (Flightradar24)
Impact +58s, crash site 1.6 km from runway
Last edited by bbofh; 13th Jun 2025 at 07:53 .
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-13T03:02:00
permalink Post: 11899948
OK, I promised some informed speculation when I got back, so here goes:
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Very hot day, so far past breakpoint, N1 Max sensitive to TAT. Any TAT or DT latching (can't recall if) would be cleared - if at 400 ft AGL, which may not have been attained here.
2025-06-13T03:27:00
permalink Post: 11899954
Also, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "just off the runway after V1". I think V1 was probably some ways back.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-13T05:11:00
permalink Post: 11900006
An engine failure just off the runway after V1 in a fully loaded 787-8 in high ambient temperatures would assuredly have a crew thinking about a "toute suite" shutdown of a misbehaving donk
This is a transport category aircraft. It will happily climb on one engine to a safe altitude where procedures are followed.
There is zero evidence of any engine "failures" or shutdowns by the crew.
However the gear is still down at around 500' agl.
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T05:15:00
permalink Post: 11900008
Just as an example of how many misconceptions, mistruths, half truths and complete BS there is in this, and any accident, thread consider this\x85
I am very sure the only variant of the 757/767 that had a RAT was the 767-400, which was not in production in 1986. I flew the 767-200 and -300 with 3 different engine combinations (around 30-40 different airframes and 2 airlines) and none of them had a RAT.
Happy to be corrected if this model 757 (or 767 as someone in a later post says) had a RAT.
I am very sure the only variant of the 757/767 that had a RAT was the 767-400, which was not in production in 1986. I flew the 767-200 and -300 with 3 different engine combinations (around 30-40 different airframes and 2 airlines) and none of them had a RAT.
Happy to be corrected if this model 757 (or 767 as someone in a later post says) had a RAT.
11 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T05:25:00
permalink Post: 11900014
There's no evidence of bird strike on any of the videos. Fuel starvation/contamination is highly unlikely to impact both engines simultaniously. One other possibility is a catastrophic software failure, as Boeing had with the 737 Max.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-13T06:26:00
permalink Post: 11900060
Re fuel contamination. Shouldn’t the engines be feeding from separate tanks at that point? What are the odds of simultaneous Engine Failure? (Basing that on there is little yaw or wing drop to the live)
It’s years since I looked at it. I thought it was in the FARs explicitly but I can only find CFR 25.1309 states the safety analysis for equipment systems and installations that would be likely encompass this.
It’s years since I looked at it. I thought it was in the FARs explicitly but I can only find CFR 25.1309 states the safety analysis for equipment systems and installations that would be likely encompass this.
2025-06-13T06:43:00
permalink Post: 11900068
If it is true that the RAT deployed during the flight, possibly from early on in the 30s of airborne time, and multiple independent pieces of evidence suggest that this is the case, then that narrows down things considerably. Double engine failure, massive electrical issues or fuel control switches / fire switches on both engines are all I can think of that could cause this. Gear/flaps etc. are a red herring. During the period after the power loss and before the RAT came online (up to 8s
AFAIK
), almost everything would have been load shed as battery power only.
3 users liked this post.