June 13, 2025, 23:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901007
Speaking as a B787 Captain..... There is so much rubbish and stupid suggestion being written here.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
Even though these are big engines with plenty of inertia, when you select engine shut off they spool down very quickly if on load. IE, The generators, two per engine and hydraulic pumps, etc, being driven by the (relatively) small mass of the N2 rotor will drag the speed down very quickly, the gennies will trip offine in seconds, the pumps will quickly reduce flow and pressure.
As for what went wrong.
If the engines have stopped working there has to be a common failure mode, fuel is one but as has been said, no other aircraft has had a problem, as far as we know. FOD? It would have to be something major to shut down two GeNX engines and there would be debris all over the runway, we would know by now.
I have no idea if the RAT has deployed, I can't see it in the video and the noise could be something else.
We shall see.
There is compelling evidence that flaps are set correctly and not retracted inadvertently.
I await further evidence.
Edit to add. LAE 40 years, type rated on 737 to 787 with lots of others in between.
June 13, 2025, 23:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901008
Speaking as a B787 Captain..... There is so much rubbish and stupid suggestion being written here.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
the ALT capture is what caught EK\x92s 777 out in DBX right? I still can\x92t think of a logical reason why they continued to allow ALT capture below thrust reduction height (depending on your operator 400-1000 AGL), that seems like a latent threat.
June 14, 2025, 00:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901040
Default setup is left tank left engine, right tank right engine. Each engine also has two redundant pumps feeding it, meaning it can operate fully and normally on one operational engine fuel pump.
Furthermore, the engines cannot run from the center tank. There's no such thing. The center tank transfers to the outer tanks, when necessary or when running low or to resolve imbalances, either automatically or manually initated by the pilot for whatever reason. The engine fuel pumps only ever draw from their respective tank.
It is as thus impossible for the center tank being empty to cause engine shutdown unless the main tanks were also empty, in which case we would: be in a lot of trouble, shouldn't be taking off, and wouldn't have a massive orange fireball.
Furthermore, the engines cannot run from the center tank. There's no such thing. The center tank transfers to the outer tanks, when necessary or when running low or to resolve imbalances, either automatically or manually initated by the pilot for whatever reason. The engine fuel pumps only ever draw from their respective tank.
It is as thus impossible for the center tank being empty to cause engine shutdown unless the main tanks were also empty, in which case we would: be in a lot of trouble, shouldn't be taking off, and wouldn't have a massive orange fireball.
https://kb.skyhightex.com/knowledge-...7-fuel-system/
Can you state the source of your information? I have no way of independently verifying what I've provided. According to that, however, the two center tank pumps are higher pressure than the L/R tank pumps and will override them if both are activated. So the center tank fuel is used first, then the L/R tank pumps. If no pumps are operating, the engines can suction fuel from their respective L or R tanks provided there's enough atmospheric pressure. The end result is still that an empty center tank cannot cause an engine shutdown absent some other malfunction.
June 14, 2025, 00:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901047
Default setup is left tank left engine, right tank right engine. Each engine also has two redundant pumps feeding it, meaning it can operate fully and normally on one operational engine fuel pump.
Furthermore, the engines cannot run from the center tank. There's no such thing. The center tank transfers to the outer tanks, when necessary or when running low or to resolve imbalances, either automatically or manually initated by the pilot for whatever reason. The engine fuel pumps only ever draw from their respective tank.
It is as thus impossible for the center tank being empty to cause engine shutdown unless the main tanks were also empty, in which case we would: be in a lot of trouble, shouldn't be taking off, and wouldn't have a massive orange fireball.
Furthermore, the engines cannot run from the center tank. There's no such thing. The center tank transfers to the outer tanks, when necessary or when running low or to resolve imbalances, either automatically or manually initated by the pilot for whatever reason. The engine fuel pumps only ever draw from their respective tank.
It is as thus impossible for the center tank being empty to cause engine shutdown unless the main tanks were also empty, in which case we would: be in a lot of trouble, shouldn't be taking off, and wouldn't have a massive orange fireball.
June 14, 2025, 01:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901055
Trying repeatedly to follow the whole thread plus updates but loading on the iPhone constantly jumps backwards and forwards making it a struggle to cover everything.
Two points which may or may not have relevance. One is just before the final crash, a dark-looking cover(?) flies up into the air. Could this be the first contact with sound that the surviving passenger alleges he heard?
Secondly the cost of aviation fuel seems to be comparatively more expensive in India than either Japan (leg before) or the UK (following leg). Would this effect refuelling procedures within India, supposing a company directive to save when possible?
(Frequent long-haul passenger.)
Two points which may or may not have relevance. One is just before the final crash, a dark-looking cover(?) flies up into the air. Could this be the first contact with sound that the surviving passenger alleges he heard?
Secondly the cost of aviation fuel seems to be comparatively more expensive in India than either Japan (leg before) or the UK (following leg). Would this effect refuelling procedures within India, supposing a company directive to save when possible?
(Frequent long-haul passenger.)
But let’s run with it. Less fuel = lighter load. So…how does that make lift off/climb a more difficult procedure??? It shouid have been easier. How does that result in rapid loss of lift? Did they finish their tablespoon of fuel?
Or - if you are hinting at fuel contamination by being “watered down” somehow…why were no other aircraft affected? You might wish to consider Cathay Pacific flight 780, which suffered a serious fuel contamination incident. The problem was not initialiy detectable, but some engine underperformance was noted in one engine fairly early into the flght. The problems compounded during the flght from Surabaya to Hong Kong, culminating in complete engine shutdown. Fortunately, due to the experience and skill of Captain and Copilot, they just - only just - managed to land safely in Hong Kong. Point is - a crash scenario did not unfold in seconds.
Last edited by Blake777; 14th June 2025 at 01:48 .
June 14, 2025, 01:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901066
AD validity
Still valid Dave. That AD was raised circa post #248 (Search thread for \x93AD\x94)
All four Variable Frequency Generators (2 per engine) going offline at once is too much of a coincidence not to mention that AD.
RAT deployment has been substantiated, which occurs automatically, extension of which takes about 6 secs & would be heard by pax in the cabin as a loud \x93bang\x94 as the leg locks into place.
The sole on-board survivor quote regarding flickering green/white lights (Emergency Exit lights) directly adjacent to his seat 11A, speaks to electrical disruption during the takeoff phase.
If the double engine failure or electrical bus/distribution failure causing loss of thrust occurred for a reason other than the AD mentioned above, the cause will need to be established without delay lest the void is filled with mis-information, fear, uncertainty, & doubt.
The current level of trust in the manufacturer is fragile for good reason.
.
This occurrence will have operators & regulators around the world reviewing their risk assessment models, especially regarding Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)/ Defect Deferral Guide (DDG) maintenance relief.
Compliance & maintenance come at a cost.
Lack thereof comes at a far greater & heavier cost.
All four Variable Frequency Generators (2 per engine) going offline at once is too much of a coincidence not to mention that AD.
RAT deployment has been substantiated, which occurs automatically, extension of which takes about 6 secs & would be heard by pax in the cabin as a loud \x93bang\x94 as the leg locks into place.
The sole on-board survivor quote regarding flickering green/white lights (Emergency Exit lights) directly adjacent to his seat 11A, speaks to electrical disruption during the takeoff phase.
If the double engine failure or electrical bus/distribution failure causing loss of thrust occurred for a reason other than the AD mentioned above, the cause will need to be established without delay lest the void is filled with mis-information, fear, uncertainty, & doubt.
The current level of trust in the manufacturer is fragile for good reason.
.
This occurrence will have operators & regulators around the world reviewing their risk assessment models, especially regarding Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)/ Defect Deferral Guide (DDG) maintenance relief.
Compliance & maintenance come at a cost.
Lack thereof comes at a far greater & heavier cost.
June 14, 2025, 02:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901082
YMML EK?
Speaking of invalid derate, I sort of recall reading about an incident with a very heavy aircraft and some kind of mistake or fault (or maybe both?) leading to insufficient takeoff thrust on a hot day. Fortunately the crew was able to stabilise the aircraft and return safely to the airport, but unfortunately I don't remember any more details, and so finding it has been difficult.
Might that incident shed any light on this one, especially since that crew was able to recover?
Might that incident shed any light on this one, especially since that crew was able to recover?
Are you thinking of the EK A340 that departed with a 100 ton descepancy entered in the box resulting in incorrect thrust derate and under cooked V speeds? That aircraft was saved by the flight crew that fire walled the thrust leavers with about 600M remaining. Tail strike and destroyed the LOC antenta, but was able to get Airbourne then return for landing at YMML. Is this a possibility? 100 ton gross error, resulting in incorrect thrust, speeds and flap setting? Pilot mistakes lack of thrust for partial engine failure? The confusion and startle factor as the aircraft is rotating with a surprising lack of thrust and the runway end fast approaching may account for the gear not being selected up. If there were a gross error in the weight entered in the FMC, no takeoff config warning. 40 degrees C, flaps 5 instead of flaps 15 or similar? Hopefully some initial data from the FDR may be a pretty good indication.
June 14, 2025, 02:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901091
Are you thinking of the EK A340 that departed with a 100 ton descepancy entered in the box resulting in incorrect thrust derate and under cooked V speeds? That aircraft was saved by the flight crew that fire walled the thrust leavers with about 600M remaining. Tail strike and destroyed the LOC antenta, but was able to get Airbourne then return for landing at YMML. Is this a possibility? 100 ton gross error, resulting in incorrect thrust, speeds and flap setting? Pilot mistakes lack of thrust for partial engine failure? The confusion and startle factor as the aircraft is rotating with a surprising lack of thrust and the runway end fast approaching may account for the gear not being selected up. If there were a gross error in the weight entered in the FMC, no takeoff config warning. 40 degrees C, flaps 5 instead of flaps 15 or similar? Hopefully some initial data from the FDR may be a pretty good indication.
If RAT out ??? That tells a lot .
Not long to wait now ?
condolences to family\x92s and loved ones !
Last edited by Toruk Macto; 14th June 2025 at 04:30 .
June 14, 2025, 03:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901109
Ex petroleum lab technician and tank farm sampler here.
Jetstar Boeing 787-8 VH-VKJ General Electric GEnx-1B Engine Biocide Serious Incident near Kansai
On 29 March 2019 the No 1 General Electric GEnx-1B engine of Jetstar Airways Boeing 787-8 VH-VKJ , flying from Cairns , Australia to Osaka Kansai Internationa l, Japan, fell below idle during the descent at an altitude of about 16,000 ft for 8 seconds. The No 2 engine then fell below idle too for 81 seconds. The aircraft safely landed at Kansai International less than 30 minutes later.June 14, 2025, 03:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901113
A few posts earlier desmotronic mentions the sole survivor saying he could feel thrust increasing. In addition he mentioned a loud bang just before impact. At no point has the survivor been quoted saying all engine power stopped, or the noise of the engines completely stopped. Even thrust reduction after takeoff is very noticeable in the cabin, so imagine if both engines would have quit. Not to discount anything at this stage, but this is puzzling regarding the double engine failure scenario (based on some grainy images of a RAT maybe being extended).
June 14, 2025, 04:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901123
Ex petroleum lab technician and tank farm sampler here. We would occasionally get fuel samples from crashed aircraft to test for contamination. One test was for water and sediment/microorganism sludge.
In this accident, fuel contamination continues to be dismissed as a cause, because no other aircraft have reported issues. But there has been no discussion regarding the airport's fuel storage, transfer, or filtration systems. Water and sediment naturally settles at the bottom of fuel storage tanks. If this aircraft received fuel drawn from the bottom of a storage tank, in the absence of a proper filtration system, it\x92s possible that it was contaminated. The next aircraft may have received fuel from a different storage tank with good fuel.
In this accident, fuel contamination continues to be dismissed as a cause, because no other aircraft have reported issues. But there has been no discussion regarding the airport's fuel storage, transfer, or filtration systems. Water and sediment naturally settles at the bottom of fuel storage tanks. If this aircraft received fuel drawn from the bottom of a storage tank, in the absence of a proper filtration system, it\x92s possible that it was contaminated. The next aircraft may have received fuel from a different storage tank with good fuel.
Fuel contamination is certainly a valid theory. The main thing working against it is that it would seem from the aircraft's flight path is that both engines failed at exactly the same time and lost thrust simultaneously. The chances of this are non zero, but remote. I say that as there appears to be no yaw, or other controlling of the aircraft - either by pilot or automation - that would suggest an asymmetric thrust scenario, even for a few seconds.
Yes, Jetstar had the biocide issue but did not immediately hit both engines within seconds of each other.
It's my understanding that both engines draw fuel from independent sources during that time (which may be fed from a common source (eg central tank). But again, the odds of both failing at the exact same instant is low, but not zero.
June 14, 2025, 06:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901175
Speaking as a B787 Captain..... There is so much rubbish and stupid suggestion being written here.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
1) The flap retraction would immediately result in progressive less lift, not only after full retraction . The time in the air could have been longer than your estimate, maybe enough time for full retraction
2) if 200 feet in MCP, why would that lead to a descent? Shouldn't that result in level flight?
3) wrong TOW / too low power setting sounds like a plausible event.Happened before. But with full power / TOGA set in the air ( which surely must have happened)I would expect at least a longer struggle rather than the constant descent. Just a gut feeling though, busdriver, no experience on 787. Maybe already in a power on stall. The only problem with this hypothesis is that it does not explain the gear down since there definitely was positive rate after rotation.
4) double engine failure too remote, no signs of flames etc. Forget it, agreed.
My guess remains inadvertant flaps retraction for what it's worth.
June 14, 2025, 09:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901300
Double power loss causality
A summary of the more certain things we know about the accident so far:
The takeoff run was from the full length and appeared normal, even after comparing with the same flight on previous days. This very much reduces the likelihood of it being a performance issue, e.g. wrong flaps, derate, ZFW/TOW, etc.
Shortly after takeoff, the gear started retracting but stopped in an early intermediate position. At the same time the aircraft climb rate dropped off, then it started a shallow descent. This is consistent with a loss of electrical power causing a loss of hydraulic pressure and total engine thrust from both engines reducing below that generated by one engine at the takeoff setting. The position reporting also went offline at that moment, indicating that it was likely load shed due to an electrical malfunction .
The takeoff run was from the full length and appeared normal, even after comparing with the same flight on previous days. This very much reduces the likelihood of it being a performance issue, e.g. wrong flaps, derate, ZFW/TOW, etc.
Shortly after takeoff, the gear started retracting but stopped in an early intermediate position. At the same time the aircraft climb rate dropped off, then it started a shallow descent. This is consistent with a loss of electrical power causing a loss of hydraulic pressure and total engine thrust from both engines reducing below that generated by one engine at the takeoff setting. The position reporting also went offline at that moment, indicating that it was likely load shed due to an electrical malfunction .
I personally think this is a good summary of what we can ascertain at this point from the evidence we have.
I am not a 787 driver by any means but with a fair bit of aviation experience. I would be interested in any thoughts on this suggestion regarding loss of thrust:
If we take it as a reasonable assumption as above that it is almost simultaneous loss of significant thrust, and for the good reasons already discussed, it is pretty unlikely that from what we can see/analyse, that the cause of this would be bird strike (expect to see some signs on video if it's significant enough to cause double engine failure) nor fuel contamination (reasons as above re: likelihood, other ac affected and simultaneous nature). TCMA I don't know enough about but it seems that the sensor redundancy/logic protection is so high it would not be the sole cause.
On this basis, should we perhaps consider the causality of a total electrics failure of some kind first, leading to deployment of the RAT, gear retraction cease etc. Clearly the independent FADEC power generation systems would mean this doesn't on its own prevent thrust control of the engines but could we then be looking at cascading faults (possibly exacerbated by latent faults below the MEL/defect threshold) that contribute to dual power loss and sensor/system issues in throttle response not resulting in FADEC commands to the engines to increase thrust. So even at that point 'firewalling' the throttles could tragically not recover the situation?
Very happy to be corrected by those with much more experience and understanding of big jets operations and systems!
June 14, 2025, 12:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901414
I'm reading a lot of the comments, speculation is something we all like, but some things just do not add up, even with a RAT deployed
if they had dual engine failure around 50 feet where you raise the gear, how can they still find the energy to climb, since they would be at VR/V2 speed (not V2+20 at that altitude, what VNAV would command after take off, especially with a take off weight of around 205/210 tons, the 787 wings are amazing but not miracles
if they had a normal departure, why did they not raise the gear, they had a positive rate since they were climbing and the speed according to ADS-B was a constant. if they were single engine ! this would have saved them with this weight and weather, one of the first things you learn when EFATO with a 787, raise the gear, your climb performance increases dramatically
if they did an intersection departure with they're genex 64-70K engines, they would have had a take off limited weight of around 172 tons, I estimate that they were close to 205/210 tons, (max zfw of around 161 tons and around 45/50 tons of fuel) even full length would have been a stress for the engines, with the prevailing weather conditions, intersection take off can be ruled out, they would have never made it, full length is already difficult.
When we see the video, the airplane is still climbing / flying straight and level (not losing altitude), yet we hear what we think might be the RAT, I can't imagine that they had the kinetic energy to do this with no engines. if they had dual engine failure, they would have been a brick, Hot and High, no thrust, flaps 5, zero chance.
flickering of lights etc. seen by the survivor and the loud bang heard, I would not trust pax observations, because of the things they had to go through, also and I've said this before, if it was a loud bang, where is the smoke and fire in the engines, or in the video, its not audible
lets see what the report will say, but it it could be a lot to swallow for some
if they had dual engine failure around 50 feet where you raise the gear, how can they still find the energy to climb, since they would be at VR/V2 speed (not V2+20 at that altitude, what VNAV would command after take off, especially with a take off weight of around 205/210 tons, the 787 wings are amazing but not miracles
if they had a normal departure, why did they not raise the gear, they had a positive rate since they were climbing and the speed according to ADS-B was a constant. if they were single engine ! this would have saved them with this weight and weather, one of the first things you learn when EFATO with a 787, raise the gear, your climb performance increases dramatically
if they did an intersection departure with they're genex 64-70K engines, they would have had a take off limited weight of around 172 tons, I estimate that they were close to 205/210 tons, (max zfw of around 161 tons and around 45/50 tons of fuel) even full length would have been a stress for the engines, with the prevailing weather conditions, intersection take off can be ruled out, they would have never made it, full length is already difficult.
When we see the video, the airplane is still climbing / flying straight and level (not losing altitude), yet we hear what we think might be the RAT, I can't imagine that they had the kinetic energy to do this with no engines. if they had dual engine failure, they would have been a brick, Hot and High, no thrust, flaps 5, zero chance.
flickering of lights etc. seen by the survivor and the loud bang heard, I would not trust pax observations, because of the things they had to go through, also and I've said this before, if it was a loud bang, where is the smoke and fire in the engines, or in the video, its not audible
lets see what the report will say, but it it could be a lot to swallow for some
June 14, 2025, 12:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901432
The B787 is a way way different and much more complex and sophisticated plane than your Gulfie. The B787's two outermost (left & right) hydraulic systems are primarily driven by the engines, mechanically driving the hydraulic pumps. The center hydraulics are primarily electrically driven, and power the main flight controls, amongst other things like the gear. The left and right ones power the main flight controls as well, some of the less important flight control surfaces like spoilers and thrust reversers -- pardon me for not having the exact list of things. They also have a backup/supplementary electric pump each. Each of the two main engines has redundancy for the power plant a.k.a. VFSG (and motor-driven pump?) in its own right as well. All three hydraulic systems work together in a redundant fashion when it comes to the primary flight controls. The RAT can provide both electrical and mechanical sources of hydraulic support, if I'm not mistaken. The flight instrument and information systems can also be powered from two backup batteries, the APU power plant itself, and/or the RAT.
The Global Express has 4 engine driven generators, one APU generator, one RAT generator that provide AC and DC power to the aircraft's systems. On the hydraulic side, the aircraft has 3 fully independent and redundant hydraulic systems which power all flight control surfaces the exception being, the slats and flaps are AC power driven and are available even with only the RAT providing power. The 3 hydraulic systems are powered from each engine backed up by 2 EDPs (system 1 and 2) and system 3 is powered by 2 EDPs only. The RAT powers system 3 via one of its EDPs. In the event of a dual engine failure the RAT would deploy automatically and power the AC essential plus DC essential busses and one EDP on system 3. The APU is available to you up to FL450 and will supply full AC power but bleed air only up to FL300.
June 14, 2025, 12:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901455
Sorry but before you make a statement like this, you better read up on the "complexity and sophistication" of the latest business jets like the Gulfstreams and Global Express.
The Global Express has 4 engine driven generators, one APU generator, one RAT generator that provide AC and DC power to the aircraft's systems. On the hydraulic side, the aircraft has 3 fully independent and redundant hydraulic systems which power all flight control surfaces the exception being, the slats and flaps are AC power driven and are available even with only the RAT providing power. The 3 hydraulic systems are powered from each engine backed up by 2 EDPs (system 1 and 2) and system 3 is powered by 2 EDPs only. The RAT powers system 3 via one of its EDPs. In the event of a dual engine failure the RAT would deploy automatically and power the AC essential plus DC essential busses and one EDP on system 3. The APU is available to you up to FL450 and will supply full AC power but bleed air only up to FL300.
The Global Express has 4 engine driven generators, one APU generator, one RAT generator that provide AC and DC power to the aircraft's systems. On the hydraulic side, the aircraft has 3 fully independent and redundant hydraulic systems which power all flight control surfaces the exception being, the slats and flaps are AC power driven and are available even with only the RAT providing power. The 3 hydraulic systems are powered from each engine backed up by 2 EDPs (system 1 and 2) and system 3 is powered by 2 EDPs only. The RAT powers system 3 via one of its EDPs. In the event of a dual engine failure the RAT would deploy automatically and power the AC essential plus DC essential busses and one EDP on system 3. The APU is available to you up to FL450 and will supply full AC power but bleed air only up to FL300.
Elsewhere, there is a picture of the tail wreckage showing what looks likethe APU door partially open. The panel is otherwise undamaged indicating not caused by post-impact. I’ll try to poach it
its here, but wrong file extension on the photo
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...smid=url-share
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 14th June 2025 at 13:52 .
June 14, 2025, 14:05:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901513
I agree it is helpful to seek a consensus on some of these matters.
The most productive responses would be along the lines of:-
(1) I too have read all previous posts and agree that your summary reflects the current consensus,
(2) I too have read all previous posts and agree your summary reflects the consensus HOWEVER I challenge that consensus because... [ [i]EITHER (a) reference to previous post that merits greater credence, OR (b) new evidence supplied],
(3) I too have read all previous posts but I do NOT agree your summary reflects the consensus [explanation required].
It is not necessary for everyone who thinks (1) to say it (although some initial feedback would be useful!). However, if any of the more experienced and informed PPRuNers are thinking either (2) or (3) then it would be instructive to hear that.
FWIW, yours strikes me as a reasonable summary of the best consensus I have been able to discern (as of ~30 minutes ago). There are multiple caveats to each line item, but I presume you've deliberately left those out for the sake of readability, so I'll do the same!
The only comments I would add are:-
- It's a stretch to say the RAT is seen or heard "conclusively". Doubts have been expressed about the video quality and there are dissenting views regarding the audio. If a few more people were able to wade in on the audio point in particular, this could be very beneficial in moving the discussion forward because the presence or otherwise of the RAT is significant to several competing theories.
- On the subject of audio, I am surprised there has not been more discussion regarding engine noise. In the primary eye witness video the (alleged) RAT can be heard distinctly, as can the sounds of distant impact. If the engines were working as expected when overflying the camera and then flying directly away from it, do we really not think the engine noise would be more conclusive, i.e. louder (notwithstanding quiet engines and derated takeoffs)?
Whichever way readers are leaning in the flaps versus power loss debate, surely these two points are pivotal, and we have actual evidence available to discuss?
- Gear bogies: I'm not sure a consensus has yet been reached regarding the angle of the bogies. (I am not personally qualified to comment on this - I am purely saying I don't see a clear consensus just yet among those who are)
- Mayday call: I don't recall seeing a confirmed source for the widely reported mayday. Others have brought this up in the thread but nobody appears to be able to confirm one way or the other. If accurate, its contents are informative. Am I right to presume that you have left it out of your summary due to a lack of confirmation?
The most productive responses would be along the lines of:-
(1) I too have read all previous posts and agree that your summary reflects the current consensus,
(2) I too have read all previous posts and agree your summary reflects the consensus HOWEVER I challenge that consensus because... [ [i]EITHER (a) reference to previous post that merits greater credence, OR (b) new evidence supplied],
(3) I too have read all previous posts but I do NOT agree your summary reflects the consensus [explanation required].
It is not necessary for everyone who thinks (1) to say it (although some initial feedback would be useful!). However, if any of the more experienced and informed PPRuNers are thinking either (2) or (3) then it would be instructive to hear that.
FWIW, yours strikes me as a reasonable summary of the best consensus I have been able to discern (as of ~30 minutes ago). There are multiple caveats to each line item, but I presume you've deliberately left those out for the sake of readability, so I'll do the same!
The only comments I would add are:-
- It's a stretch to say the RAT is seen or heard "conclusively". Doubts have been expressed about the video quality and there are dissenting views regarding the audio. If a few more people were able to wade in on the audio point in particular, this could be very beneficial in moving the discussion forward because the presence or otherwise of the RAT is significant to several competing theories.
- On the subject of audio, I am surprised there has not been more discussion regarding engine noise. In the primary eye witness video the (alleged) RAT can be heard distinctly, as can the sounds of distant impact. If the engines were working as expected when overflying the camera and then flying directly away from it, do we really not think the engine noise would be more conclusive, i.e. louder (notwithstanding quiet engines and derated takeoffs)?
Whichever way readers are leaning in the flaps versus power loss debate, surely these two points are pivotal, and we have actual evidence available to discuss?
- Gear bogies: I'm not sure a consensus has yet been reached regarding the angle of the bogies. (I am not personally qualified to comment on this - I am purely saying I don't see a clear consensus just yet among those who are)
- Mayday call: I don't recall seeing a confirmed source for the widely reported mayday. Others have brought this up in the thread but nobody appears to be able to confirm one way or the other. If accurate, its contents are informative. Am I right to presume that you have left it out of your summary due to a lack of confirmation?
- The bogie could be explained by the Flap/Slat priority valve giving priority to the flaps if the PM suddenly realised his mistake and quickly put the flap lever back to the TO position and then selected the gear lever to UP. Those systems are both heavy hitters and would\x92ve sucked the life out of the CTR hydraulic system pumps.
- There is no way loss of AC (alleged RAT deployment) could've caused a spool down of both engines. Think QF A380 incident in SIN - The entire #1 engine wiring harness in the wing was completely severed and yet it continued (by design) to run at its previous thrust setting. They had to shut it down using a fire truck!
- History and design would dictate that a big 180 minutes ETOP\x92s twin such as the 787 having a dual engine failure or significant power loss at such a critical phase of flight would be a billion to one chance at best. Only the Airbus A400 had a software issue causing all 4 engine fuel shutoff valves to close causing it to crash killing the flight test crew - But this was during its development and flt testing.
- Wide body twin\x92s delivering in the region of 60,000 to 115,000 lbs of thrust at TO rarely , if at all, flame out from multiple bird strike(s) like the baby Bus\x92s and Boeing\x92s. If anyone has seen the frozen chickens at TO power video would know what I\x92m talking about. And the Fan Blade being \x91blown off\x92 as well. In both cases the engine was was able to maintain full TOGA thrust for significantly longer than the AI aircraft.
But it\x92s early days and anything could happen. And nothing surprises me anymore.
June 14, 2025, 14:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901523
- History and design would dictate that a big 180 minutes ETOP\x92s twin such as the 787 having a dual engine failure or significant power loss at such a critical phase of flight would be a billion to one chance at best. Only the Airbus A400 had a software issue causing all 4 engine fuel shutoff valves to close causing it to crash killing the flight test crew - But this was during its development and flt testing.
.
.
June 14, 2025, 15:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901555
- The bogie could be explained by the Flap/Slat priority valve giving priority to the flaps if the PM suddenly realised his mistake and quickly put the flap lever back to the TO position and then selected the gear lever to UP. Those systems are both heavy hitters and would’ve sucked the life out of the CTR hydraulic system pumps.
- There is no way loss of AC (alleged RAT deployment) could've caused a spool down of both engines. Think QF A380 incident in SIN - The entire #1 engine wiring harness in the wing was completely severed and yet it continued (by design) to run at its previous thrust setting. They had to shut it down using a fire truck!
- History and design would dictate that a big 180 minutes ETOP’s twin such as the 787 having a dual engine failure or significant power loss at such a critical phase of flight would be a billion to one chance at best. Only the Airbus A400 had a software issue causing all 4 engine fuel shutoff valves to close causing it to crash killing the flight test crew - But this was during its development and flt testing.
- Wide body twin’s delivering in the region of 60,000 to 115,000 lbs of thrust at TO rarely , if at all, flame out from multiple bird strike(s) like the baby Bus’s and Boeing’s. If anyone has seen the frozen chickens at TO power video would know what I’m talking about. And the Fan Blade being ‘blown off’ as well. In both cases the engine was was able to maintain full TOGA thrust for significantly longer than the AI aircraft.
- There is no way loss of AC (alleged RAT deployment) could've caused a spool down of both engines. Think QF A380 incident in SIN - The entire #1 engine wiring harness in the wing was completely severed and yet it continued (by design) to run at its previous thrust setting. They had to shut it down using a fire truck!
- History and design would dictate that a big 180 minutes ETOP’s twin such as the 787 having a dual engine failure or significant power loss at such a critical phase of flight would be a billion to one chance at best. Only the Airbus A400 had a software issue causing all 4 engine fuel shutoff valves to close causing it to crash killing the flight test crew - But this was during its development and flt testing.
- Wide body twin’s delivering in the region of 60,000 to 115,000 lbs of thrust at TO rarely , if at all, flame out from multiple bird strike(s) like the baby Bus’s and Boeing’s. If anyone has seen the frozen chickens at TO power video would know what I’m talking about. And the Fan Blade being ‘blown off’ as well. In both cases the engine was was able to maintain full TOGA thrust for significantly longer than the AI aircraft.
As for history and design making a dual-engine failure a billion to one chance: I'd be more inclined to agree that it's unlikely to be what happened if the actual manufacturing of planes (Boeings in particular) and the maintenance procedures were both carried out "by the book" at all times by the manufacturer and the airlines... This is clearly not the case though.
Last edited by Saab Dastard; 14th June 2025 at 19:35 . Reason: reference to deleted posts removed
June 14, 2025, 17:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901681
What concerns me a little bit is if indeed AC power is lost, would the suction feed inlets in the wing tanks provide enough fuel flow to maintain TO thrust?
I know the system is designed to achieve this in a situation where all of the AC powered boost pumps are lost. But what about in a real situation...
Could this cause a degradation of thrust? Even the slightest decrease..
I know the system is designed to achieve this in a situation where all of the AC powered boost pumps are lost. But what about in a real situation...
Could this cause a degradation of thrust? Even the slightest decrease..
I did read and search this thread, but I found nothing about ADS-B loss just before the end of the runway and at 71 ft high, according to FR24. ADS-B coverage is poor on the ground on the north-east part of the airfield (hence the fake news about taking off from the intersection) but I don't think it would be lost once airborne, except if it has been shut off... electrical failure ?
more precisely, loss of the two Main AC buses (ADS-B not powered by Standby AC)
more precisely, loss of the two Main AC buses (ADS-B not powered by Standby AC)
There's a list of equipment operable on battery/RAT here, but I'm not sure which (if any) is the transponder (26:10):
If you had gear pins and an engine loss, I could maybe see climb rate being zero or slightly negative. Not the brick impression we see here.
There have been a couple comments regarding the tilt of the bogies not corresponding to the landing configuration which have taken this as an indicator for an attempted (but failed) retraction.
I don't think anybody has so far confirmed which of the two positions the bogie would have without hydraulic pressure, but I would strongly think it is the one used in the retraction/extension cycle and not the landing configuration, for the simple reason that otherwise the gravity drop would potentially not work (I assume it is tilted for the stowing because it would otherwise not fit).
Maybe someone with concrete knowledge can confirm this?
This would then only confirm that the bogies were unpressurized (likely because of loss of hydraulics, but of course could also still be a partial retraction that stopped for some reason)
I don't think anybody has so far confirmed which of the two positions the bogie would have without hydraulic pressure, but I would strongly think it is the one used in the retraction/extension cycle and not the landing configuration, for the simple reason that otherwise the gravity drop would potentially not work (I assume it is tilted for the stowing because it would otherwise not fit).
Maybe someone with concrete knowledge can confirm this?
This would then only confirm that the bogies were unpressurized (likely because of loss of hydraulics, but of course could also still be a partial retraction that stopped for some reason)