Posts about: "Flap Retraction" [Posts: 66 Pages: 4]

Boeing 744 logic results in acceleration and thrust reduction if flap retraction commences before programmed acceleration height. Lots of the B744 FMC /Autoflight logic seems to have made its way into the 787. If flaps were retracted in lieu of gear and this logic was so, could explain the lack of noise?

Like most Boeings, on the 787 you are prevented from selecting the flaps/slats all the way up in one go by the gate at flap 1. If this was a mis-selection by one of the pilots, they would have been prevented from selecting ALL the high lift devices up in one go by the flap 1 gate. Even if you manage to get the lever to the Flaps Up position then below 225kts you should get Slat-Gap protection which maintains MOST of the lift. I have never tried it personally but that's the operation as advertised by Boeing. Would that provide enough lift to save them...... that is really a matter of debate.

The aircraft may have suffered a power loss of one or both engines possibly by bird strike. I have to say that the B787 is the very easiest aircraft I have ever flown when handling an engine failure above V1. The flight path vector and the flight director in the head up display make finessing an engine failure absolute child's play. Having said that the Boeing 787 performance is calculated right to the limits of legal requirement, so there is no scope for mis-handling. If they failed to select the landing gear up, not due to a flap lever mis-selection, but some another distraction, like an engine failure, then the aircraft would struggle to accelerate to V2 to safely climb away.

The B787 derates are calculated to give an acceptable Vmca in the event of an engine failure. That is to say, if you apply any more power asymmetricly the Vmca criteria of up to 5deg of bank towards the live engine will require more control input resulting in more control drag. Our SOP was - If you need it - Use It! Thankfully I never had to find out.

By way of illustration, on the B747-400, leaving the gear down following an engine failure had the same effect as failing two of the four engines.

Main panel. And the handle is a rubber wheel. The flap lever is shaped like a flap. But that hasn\x92t stopped it happening multiple times in the past. The yellow and red lines on the speed tape will start to converge and should be an indication to PF. On all Boeing / Airbus that\x92s it\x92s happened on the pilots have recovered by re selcting flaps. Selecting F1 will save you. It\x92s a Boeing procedure written in the manual.

TE Flaps are extended, flap gaps between the wing and the flap element are observable. This is not an aberration of the spoiler position, you can see the nacelles through the gap, and that means the flap can not be in the retracted position.

An error of the TE flap deployed position, say between flaps 5 or 15 is not going to cause a stall event.

The flap has not been retracted instead of the gear.

Double engine failure... India. birds, always a latent threat. No rudder deflection, no aileron deflection, so it's not a SE problem, any engine issue is affecting both engines.

Pitch control and roll is not compromised in the video. The crew put out a mayday, not sounding like an electrical fault or distraction.

any funerals near by?

Incorrect TO thrust setting would not present in the video as recorded. Low thrust results in low acceleration, and extended distance to rotate. after rotate, low thrust results in low climb rate, and can result in the crew over pitching where the aircraft has obstructions that the crew have to avoid. the video appears to show the pitch increasing at a point where the aircraft is already unable to climb, not the other way round. An outside possibility.

For survivors, any from the aircraft will be a miracle, and mainly from the rear of the plane near door 3 area, if any. Plane is still striking tank traps at 70m/sec +, high ANU, it's not a high survivability event. Occupants in the buildings along the flight path will have a high fatality rate as well. This is going to be a high toll event in the aircraft and on the ground. Bad day at VAAH. RIP.

It was mentioned before but needs mentioning again. If, as reported, a MAYDAY was issued, I think we can discount the "incorrect flap setting" and 'inadvertent flap retraction" theories. A MAYDAY call is an appropriate response to mechanical failure/bird strike etc but generally not what pops into the mind when you realise your pilot error is about to result in a crash.

The video from the NE end of the runway, beside the RVR sensor shows a liftoff occurs abeam the closed high speed taxiway between C and D. Thats at 1250m to run to the DER. The first 10 seconds of flight is steady, and then the aircraft stops climbing and starts a gentle descent, and 5 seconds later the pitch starts to increase in 2 stages with impact around 20 seconds after liftoff. This is not the ADSB data, it is the video at the boundary on F/B.

The video take from the south end of the airport appears to show the RAT deployed.

The flight VAAH-EGLL is not a particularly heavy departure, the takeoff distance is not unreasonable for a twin jet, at under 7,000' from brakes release. I have limited developmental time only on the 787 before EIS, and I cannot recall any surprising latent threat in the performance of the aircraft for a premature flap retraction, and that certainly would not result in a RAT deployment. An accidental ATR low level off capture might get exciting for a few seconds, but it would not result in a RAT either.

The seat 11A pax survivor is remarkable.

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.

The issue I have with the \x91mis-selected flaps up\x92 theory is that if PM had accidentally retracted flaps, I\x92d expect the PF to lower the nose, apply max thrust to try and accelerate by flying level or in a minimal descent. In this accident, the nose never seems to get lowered to decrease the AoA, in fact pitch increases just before it seems to stall. I\x92d also expect similar for an overweight takeoff, thrust or loadsheet error.

The fact none of the above happened, coupled with the lack of landing gear coming up, makes me think they didn\x92t have thrust to play with.

I strongly agree with you. Fuel Cross feed valve is an example.

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.

Yes. But I have not flown this scenario in the sim. Way too many protection to take off without proper configuration which leads me to believe loss of lift due to flap retraction. 1100 hr FO ……..

From the airport CCTV video it looks to me like a normal takeoff and start of climb, until suddenly there's a loss of climb performance with no obvious upset at that point. From the picture of the wing post crash it looks like the flaps were still deployed (N.B. based on pre-accident photos that's the right wing so closest to the camera is aileron and flaps are further away, damage had me confused first time), so I'm going with loss of thrust rather than flap retraction.

From the videos from bystanders it looks like RAT deployment (both sound and zoomed in pictures) rather than thrust lever retard, and that would also explain failure to retract gear - if you are dealing with both engines out at that altitude then gear isn't your first thought. From the airport CCTV video I don't see anything that looks like bird strikes at that point in the climb i.e. no obvious flocks of birds, no smoke out of the engines, no slewing one way as one engine fails and then the other is cut by accident - plus you wouldn't cut the engine at that point, you'd climb on one engine and then sort it out.

Even fuel contamination or water build up in both tanks is likely to result in one engine failing a few seconds before the other. So I can't come up with anything other than both fuel cutoff switches that would result in loss of thrust and RAT deployment. Looking at a picture of the cutoff switches https://www.nycaviation.com/2013/08/...is-fired/30179 I don't see how they get hit by accident.

I'm confused, hope we get an FDR / CVR readout soon.

Here's another YouTube presentation.

Similar to the Emirates crash following the attempted go around in DXB, momentum can be converted into altitude until speed runs out and gravity takes over.

On the Airbus, if we take off in anything other than 1+F, I'm watching the F/Os left hand very carefully when I call for flap retraction.

If it was inadvertant flap retraction then they would have lived had it been an Airbus ( alpha floor prot, slats don't retract etc)

My 2 cents: this accident will be a catalytic event.

It will soon come to light pilots crashed a 100% working aircraft. Boeing and Airbus will present a near automatic airplane as a consequence very soon.

This accident will be the gravestone for the handling ( and thinking) pilot.

I\x92ll reply to my own post in light of the RAT deployment. If true then this opens up to a lot more. And simply guessing with grainy video a fools game. All I saw was gear down to high Into the climb. This should not happen under any circumstance . Dual engine failure would explain the loss of lift obviously. Early flap retraction also. One would hope it\x92s not a simple as that: cheers

There isn't enough clarity on numerous issues, and without answers to the following, zero conclusions can be made as to a possible cause. This is definitely one that could go in numerous directions. Anyone claiming to have the definitive answers must have the FDR data, and I'm assuming that shouldn't take too long to be located and analysed.

1a. Were flaps deployed at start of take off roll?
1b. Were flaps retracted coinciding with climb rate reduction?
2. Did the RAT definitely deploy? The videos are grainy low quality. AI improvement surely isn't reliable.
3. If the RAT deployed, would that indicate complete power loss?
4. Was there any other audio indicating thrust loss or variations during departure?
5. Can we confirm the pilot Mayday indicating thrust loss? If so, that needs investigation as a first priority. The pilot was telling us the cause. Unless we have alternative information he should be believed.
6. Why was the gear not retracted? Distraction, hydraulic failure, flap instead of gear, intentionally, the possibilities are endless.
7. If complete thrust loss occurred, other than a severe fuel issue, what could cause simultaneous flameout? That would be almost unimaginable, yet this is what the pilot allergy said happened. It would have massive ramifications if that gets confirmed.

I don't think the video clips we have are clear enough to say anything at all at this stage. Flaps are hard to see on 787 imo for departure settings. All I can say is it appeared to climb well in the first seconds, then coinciding with the point that gear would usually be retracted, lift appears to very quickly be lost. That indicates sudden speed loss, or lift loss. Speed loss would be thrust, lift loss would be flap retraction if thrust was still available.

The pilot allegedly reported thrust loss, that should be highest on the list of causes imo. In the case of double engine failure without any apparent outside influence visible on videos, that would be quite something for investigators to fathom.

I don't know if anyone has data to show speed trend at the point the aircraft starts to descend, or a better audio for thrust variations at that point. I'm guessing that the update frequency on FR24 would be too slow to show that sudden change at the highest point achieved.

We'll have the answers soon enough, all I can say is there appears to be no clear answers here without the data recorders or clear improved information. Indeed no conclusions whatsoever can be made as to crew actions either.

RIP crew and passengers, condolences to the families.

Here is a very unlikely scenario. It may be possible that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft.

We have been told the experience levels of the pilots but not how long they have been flying the 787.

The 787 is very automatic and, in my experience, the easiest aircraft to fly. It does a lot of things for you and reminds you of things that you may have forgotten to do. For that reason, in my opinion it is also the safest aircraft around. However, you have to understand what the automatics are doing in order to manage it correctly.

By putting the departure route into the FMC you set up the lateral navigation and also the vertical navigation including speeds and altitudes. After take-off the FMC will command you initially to fly at up to V2 + 20 until flap retraction ( normally no lower than 1000 feet agl), and then increase the speed with flap retraction until initial climb speed and then final climb speed above FL 100.

If your first altitude restriction on departure is 4000 feet (which will be in the FMC) and VNAV is engaged you will level at 4000 feet. But, if prior to departure, you put 3000 feet in the altitude window (maybe as instructed by ATC) the aircraft will level at 3000 feet.

If I remember correctly LNAV engages at 50 feet and VNAV engages at 400 feet agl. And, I may be mistaken, but I think that the auto-pilot could be engaged at 100 feet agl.

Now, I am probably wrong about this, but if you forget to set the altitude window to the first altitude in departure and leave it at 0 (which with some airlines the previous crew will do on shutdown) the following might possibly occur. At 50 feet LNAV engages, at 100 feet the autopilot engages, at 400 feet VNAV engages but as the altitude window is set to 0 the aircraft (on autopilot) now descends to capture 0 feet. The speed at this point in VNAV is low (max V2 + 20 kts) so, to maintain that, both thrust levers close. This, of course, would be totally unexpected and could have a startle effect. If you do not realise what has caused this you might think that there is a problem with the engines and you have very little time to deal with it. I would suggest that putting out a Mayday call at this stage is not a good use of time.

As I stated at the beginning this is probably very unlikely and may not be possible, but could be tried in a simulator.

Most likely anything between 256 and 1024wps, individual parameters will vary with regards sample rate. Not au-fait with 787 but other Boeing aircraft may have dataframes relative to the original owner requirements (though this is unlikely to vary much given my experience with Boeing aircraft). I\x92m not sure if GE have a real time EHM feed like RR? Anyhow, and not wanting to speculate too much, if there was anything engine related it would certainly show up on the DFDR and GE could possibly even know that by now if they are equipped with real time health monitoring. In my opinion, for what it\x92s worth, the CCTV footage is consistent with flap retraction instead of gear, something that would also be easily identifiable upon review of the FDR which will be reported upon in due course.

Totally agreed. But at some point with the buildings coming into 8k definition, one would hope that a pilot experienced enough to be employed on a 787 would disconnect everything, firewall it and pull up the nose..

No, these jets are designed to fly on one engine after takeoff. With two running, a flap retraction and then extension wouldn't be an issue.