Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last Index Page
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T09:30:00 permalink Post: 11900244 |
Graphic produced from GE and later FR24 data showing the 8 airborne plot points between rotation and the transponder dropping out:
![]() Elapsed time between first and last points was 4.32 s, giving an average groundspeed of 179 kts. 5 users liked this post. |
Xeptu
2025-06-13T10:14:00 permalink Post: 11900293 |
|
babybaby
2025-06-13T10:29:00 permalink Post: 11900315 |
FR24 data appears to stop shortly after airborne but well before impact.
That would seem to align with the significant loss of electrics as a result of loss of engine generators theory? Flaps prematurely retracted shouldn\x92t be a cause of loss of electrical power to the transponder. If electrical power was normal then one would have expected data info until impact, regardless of flap position. 7 users liked this post. |
BrogulT
2025-06-13T15:12:00 permalink Post: 11900618 |
|
appruser
2025-06-13T17:43:00 permalink Post: 11900730 |
The lack of obvious debris/smoke during takeoff might indicate it was something other than a birdstrike, and combined with the loss of adsb (per FR24) right over the runway threshold at 70ft agl, maybe it is indicative of something else causing the simultaneous loss of thrust. |
Del Prado
2025-06-13T17:49:00 permalink Post: 11900739 |
In summary,
Flaps were extended, possibly flaps 5 or 15. Looks like it in the video and clearly shown post crash. Aircraft reached a height of just over 100\x92 AGL (possibly 200\x92 if you compare wingspan to height in videos) RAT was deployed. Seen on videos and heard conclusively. Aircraft rotated at \x91usual\x92 spot. Comparing FR24 data from previous flights over the past week. Aircraft took off at \x91usual\x92 speed. Comparing other flights. FR24 data stopped being sent shortly after take off. Possibly indicating electrical fault. Green and white flashing light reported by survivor. Possibly indicating electrical fault. Gear bogies were at unusual angle indicating Gear selected up and then interrupted. No smoke or flames to indicate bird strike. (Edit - still debate about this in the video above where the aircraft is behind a building) No rudder input to indicate single engine failure. All speculation but hopefully a pretty balanced summary from the thread so far. It would be great if there was more focus now on what might have caused above rather than talking flaps, birds, 625\x92, etc. 11 users liked this post. |
appruser
2025-06-13T19:02:00 permalink Post: 11900816 |
Although the gear bogie isn\x92t in the initial post-liftoff position, if you can see the retraction mechanism operating in a 787 It first tilts the bogie forward. I\x92d therefore consider that a \x93gear up\x94 switch was activated but the action failed \x97most likely due to hydraulic pressure loss. In the second video (left-side view), I could interpret that gear retraction begins around 24 s and then halts before 27 s, exactly when the aircraft stops climbing.
Just my two cents, from the perspective of an aircraft engineer with a background primarily in Airbus.​​ |
Pip_Pip
2025-06-13T19:31:00 permalink Post: 11900839 |
In summary,
Flaps were extended, possibly flaps 5 or 15. Looks like it in the video and clearly shown post crash. Aircraft reached a height of just over 100\x92 AGL (possibly 200\x92 if you compare wingspan to height in videos) RAT was deployed. Seen on videos and heard conclusively. Aircraft rotated at \x91usual\x92 spot. Comparing FR24 data from previous flights over the past week. Aircraft took off at \x91usual\x92 speed. Comparing other flights. FR24 data stopped being sent shortly after take off. Possibly indicating electrical fault. Green and white flashing light reported by survivor. Possibly indicating electrical fault. Gear bogies were at unusual angle indicating Gear selected up and then interrupted. No smoke or flames to indicate bird strike. (Edit - still debate about this in the video above where the aircraft is behind a building) No rudder input to indicate single engine failure. All speculation but hopefully a pretty balanced summary from the thread so far. It would be great if there was more focus now on what might have caused above rather than talking flaps, birds, 625\x92, etc. 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? 9 users liked this post. |
appruser
2025-06-13T23:21:00 permalink Post: 11900993 |
Combining all the bits and pieces of info from this thread so far, IMO we can theoretically sequence it thus using the video from the left:
00:18 Rotation. Normal takeoff config. 00:24 Gear up starts. per Raffael with FF. ......... FR24 ADSB last transmission (71ft, 172kt) just before runway threshold. Matches with video aircraft altitude at 1/2 wingspan. ......... ? Full power flameout leaves N2 ~ 60%; Airspeed < 200k so N2 will decay to 15% in 8-10s? ......... ? Takeoff EGT of 900C needs 25-35s to fall below 250C ? 00:27 Gear up stops. per Raffael with FF. Bogies tilted. ......... ? APU starts. 20-55s to 95%N? ......... Per 787 dual-engine fail/stall memory items, PM initiates Fuel Cutoff and Run. 00:28 Visible loss of thrust. Alt ~ 200ft using aircraft wingspan as measure. ......... Matches with eyewitness "within 5-10s ... it was stuck in the air". ......... Per 787 dual-engine fail/stall memory items, PM initiates RAT Switch for 1s. Whether auto or manual, the RAT initiates. ......... RAT "bang" heard by survivor ......... RAT coming online accounts for eyewitness "lights started flickering green and white". ......... Per 787 QRH below 1000ft, PF makes no change to Main Landing Gear and flaps, aircraft pointed straight for best glide. 00:31 Descending visibly, somewhere beyond the runway threshold. Alt ~ 200ft using aircraft wingspan as measure. ......... ? Because EGT > 250C FADEC blocks fuel (T-HOT hot restart inhibit?) so no relight though N2 > 15% ? ......... 787 glide ratio between 16:1 to 25:1 with MLG down, Flaps 5. About 15-20s and 3-5000ft of glide from 200ft? ......... Some flap accounts for the ground pictures. 00:34 ? N2 has presumably decayed to 15%, FADEC flips to X-START: airspeed outside envelope? No hope of relight now. ......... PM/PF transmits Mayday? ......... Video showing RAT deployed. 00:46 APU reaches some fraction of 95%N (APU sound accounting for survivor's perception of thrust?). 00:48 Impact. 4200ft from descent start, 3990ft from airport boundary road. 17s from visible descent start. if this is a valid sequence, the only remaining question is why the dual-engine failure at ~200ft agl? with condolences to the families and people affected. 4 users liked this post. |
Alty7x7
2025-06-14T14:09:00 permalink Post: 11901517 |
Max EGzt and autorelight
Combining all the bits and pieces of info from this thread so far, IMO we can theoretically sequence it thus using the video from the left:
00:18 Rotation. Normal takeoff config. 00:24 Gear up starts. per Raffael with FF. ......... FR24 ADSB last transmission (71ft, 172kt) just before runway threshold. Matches with video aircraft altitude at 1/2 wingspan. ......... ? Full power flameout leaves N2 ~ 60%; Airspeed < 200k so N2 will decay to 15% in 8-10s? ......... ? Takeoff EGT of 900C needs 25-35s to fall below 250C ? 00:27 Gear up stops. per Raffael with FF. Bogies tilted. ......... ? APU starts. 20-55s to 95%N? ......... Per 787 dual-engine fail/stall memory items, PM initiates Fuel Cutoff and Run. 00:28 Visible loss of thrust. Alt ~ 200ft using aircraft wingspan as measure. ......... Matches with eyewitness "within 5-10s ... it was stuck in the air". ......... Per 787 dual-engine fail/stall memory items, PM initiates RAT Switch for 1s. Whether auto or manual, the RAT initiates. ......... RAT "bang" heard by survivor ......... RAT coming online accounts for eyewitness "lights started flickering green and white". ......... Per 787 QRH below 1000ft, PF makes no change to Main Landing Gear and flaps, aircraft pointed straight for best glide. 00:31 Descending visibly, somewhere beyond the runway threshold. Alt ~ 200ft using aircraft wingspan as measure. ......... ? Because EGT > 250C FADEC blocks fuel (T-HOT hot restart inhibit?) so no relight though N2 > 15% ? ......... 787 glide ratio between 16:1 to 25:1 with MLG down, Flaps 5. About 15-20s and 3-5000ft of glide from 200ft? ......... Some flap accounts for the ground pictures. 00:34 ? N2 has presumably decayed to 15%, FADEC flips to X-START: airspeed outside envelope? No hope of relight now. ......... PM/PF transmits Mayday? ......... Video showing RAT deployed. 00:46 APU reaches some fraction of 95%N (APU sound accounting for survivor's perception of thrust?). 00:48 Impact. 4200ft from descent start, 3990ft from airport boundary road. 17s from visible descent start. if this is a valid sequence, the only remaining question is why the dual-engine failure at ~200ft agl? with condolences to the families and people affected. In-flight, the Autorelight function should attempt to restart the engine as soon as a flameout is detected, and for an engine flaming out at high power it might catch it before it even goes sub-idle. Generally, Autorelight will continue attempting until some cutoff N2 at which time it will stop attempting, or if the pilot move the fuel switch to Cutoff. And while the EEC is still powered (via its own PMA) down to roughly 10% N2, the ignition exciters required for Autorelight do get their power from the airplane. |
deltafox44
2025-06-14T16:03:00 permalink Post: 11901607 |
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) |
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T16:07:00 permalink Post: 11901611 |
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 ?
But certainly loss of engines or electrics that caused deployment of the RAT (if that was the case) would be accompanied by a bunch of load-shedding, which would in all likelihood include the transponder. Edit: Your own reply beat me to it ... 1 user liked this post. |
andihce
2025-06-14T16:37:00 permalink Post: 11901634 |
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) I guess you have to make a post on just this one item to get it noticed! But I agree that this piece of data deserves close attention, and is potentially confirmatory of certain scenarios which lead to electrical power loss. I'm no expert on Flight Aware's ADS-B data, but other posts here show other flights taking off on this runway happily reporting data further down the runway and (well) after takeoff. How else do you explain the cessation of ADS-B data from this flight from shortly after takeoff until the crash? |
Someone Somewhere
2025-06-14T17:35:00 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 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) 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) 2 users liked this post. |
1stspotter
2025-06-14T18:27:00 permalink Post: 11901706 |
1. there are multiple frames of the video showing ' something' at the position where the RAT is located under the fuselage 2. the sound in the video which is very similar to a deployed RAT 3. the sound analysis posted here by multiple people last but not least 4. the aircraft stopped transmitting ADSB data shortly after the rotating. This indicates an electrical failure. Other aircraft ADSB data was picked up by FR24 receivers indication there is a good reception of the signal in that area. 8 users liked this post. |
QDM360
2025-06-14T19:20:00 permalink Post: 11901748 |
This FR24 recording of AI171 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../ai171#3ac3097 only consists of 4 unique ADS-B data messages. The first two were on the apron/taxiway. Then one at the runway intersection. And the fourth and last one just after the aircraft became airborne. That's all. The two last ADS-B data messages are more than 4 minutes apart. It was 8:04 UTC when they entered the runway at the intersection. The next and last data point was received at 8:08 UTC. The map view connects these dots, so it looks like a proper track. But in reality the ADS-B receiver barely received anything. It's therefore silly to argue the aircraft stopped transmitting ADS-B data based on this poor recording. The only thing you can say with certainty is that FR24's ADS-B receiver at Ahmedabad has really, really poor coverage... 1 user liked this post. |
BrogulT
2025-06-14T19:36:00 permalink Post: 11901758 |
People really need to stop using FR24 data if they don't understand it.
The map view connects these dots, so it looks like a proper track. But in reality the ADS-B receiver barely received anything. It's therefore silly to argue the aircraft stopped transmitting ADS-B data based on this poor recording. The only thing you can say with certainty is that FR24's ADS-B receiver at Ahmedabad has really, really poor coverage... 4 users liked this post. |
nachtmusak
2025-06-14T20:00:00 permalink Post: 11901782 |
People really need to stop using FR24 data if they don't understand it.
This FR24 recording of AI171 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../ai171#3ac3097 only consists of 4 unique ADS-B data messages. The first two were on the apron/taxiway. Then one at the runway intersection. And the fourth and last one just after the aircraft became airborne. That's all. Not sure how permanent the content at this URL is, but here's a link to FR24's update which has a CSV with all frames received https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/f...rom-ahmedabad/ Last edited by nachtmusak; 14th Jun 2025 at 20:04 . Reason: Added a link to the more extensive ADS-B data 3 users liked this post. |
1stspotter
2025-06-14T20:07:00 permalink Post: 11901788 |
There are more data messages than that, which FR24 shared on the day of the accident and which have been posted a few times in this thread. I'm pretty sure there's also been a comparison of this + previous flights posted in this thread that shows that while the coverage at the airport itself is spotty, it's reasonable to expect further messages to have been received before impact.
Not sure how permanent the content at this URL is, but here's a link to FR24's update which has a CSV with all frames received https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/f...rom-ahmedabad/ Somebody on this forum did some analysis with FR24 data of this flight and other AI171 B787 flights. See this article for an overview of all scenarios. It all looks very like to an commanded dual engine shutdown. Why nobody knows. |
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T20:08:00 permalink Post: 11901790 |
People really need to stop using FR24 data if they don't understand it.
This FR24 recording of AI171 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../ai171#3ac3097 only consists of 4 unique ADS-B data messages. The first two were on the apron/taxiway. Then one at the runway intersection. And the fourth and last one just after the aircraft became airborne. That's all. The two last ADS-B data messages are more than 4 minutes apart. It was 8:04 UTC when they entered the runway at the intersection. The next and last data point was received at 8:08 UTC. The map view connects these dots, so it looks like a proper track. But in reality the ADS-B receiver barely received anything. It's therefore silly to argue the aircraft stopped transmitting ADS-B data based on this poor recording. The only thing you can say with certainty is that FR24's ADS-B receiver at Ahmedabad has really, really poor coverage... While those still have the 4\xbd minute gap while the aircraft was presumably backtracking, they resume during the latter part of the takeoff roll where reception is clearly better. There is little doubt that when they abruptly cease after the aircraft is airborne it's because the plane has stopped transmitting. 4 users liked this post. |