Posts about: "Fuel (All)" [Posts: 1005 Pages: 51]

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.

This is contrary to what is published here and elsewhere.

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.

Virtually everything in this post is wrong. The 787 fuel system is almost the same as the 767. The default setup is all fuel pumps on. Each wing tank sends fuel to the left or right respective manifold. The center (main) tank pumps send fuel to both manifolds and operate at a higher pressure than the wing tanks and will feed the manifolds for each side from its left or right pump before the wing tanks. If there is fuel in the center tank it is always burned first and directly supplies the manifolds to the engines. Once the center tank is empty the wing tanks then begin supplying fuel to their respective manifolds. If any pumps are inadvertently left off you will get a EICAS message and a light in the pump switch.

It staggers me when I see flight deck crew balancing meal trays on their knees & especially when I see open containers of liquid. Maybe nobody else remembers remembers the 1964 movie Fate Is the Hunter , where an airliner goes down because coffee was spilled on the throttle cabinet. Why open liquids aren't banned on the flight deck is beyond me.

Good grief! They uploaded less fuel to save money??? That made the plane immediately sink to oblivion…because what? They ran out of fuel? You think airports all over India restrict fuel and endanger countless aircraft daily? It is the Captain’s prerogative to sign off on fuel upload.

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.

Miscellaneous comments:
I have seen in manuals for other airliners that because the bogie tilt is by a hydraulic actuator, gravity deploying the gear means the gear doesn't tilt to landing position.

With the loss of centre-system pressure*, would you expect the bogies to tilt naturally? I.e. spring pressure holds the gear in the stowed tilt, a hydraulic cylinder pushes the gear to the landing tilt. No pressure means the gear returns to the 'stowed' tilt.

The tilt actuator is designed to be overridden when the bogie hits the ground, so perhaps it has some kind of intentional bypass and doesn't stay in place without continually applied hydraulic pressure.

If so, that would also point towards total loss of electrics and no attempt to raise the gear.

* 787 centre system is powered by two electric pumps, plus the RAT. The RAT hydraulic pump only powers flight controls, not the landing gear.


Electric loss:
Surely even total AC power loss shouldn't result in engine loss, even if the RAT doesn't come online. The FADECs have their own alternators, bare minimum flight control computers and actuators are available on battery (though probably result in some equivalent of Direct Law), and boost pumps are unnecessary at low altitude. Left/right EDPs will remain active if the engines are running at any serious speed; providing flight controls.

Poor crew reaction to ending up in direct law is possible but it's hard to see the electrical issues as a cause, not a symptom.

Anti-terrorism squad looks to be doing an excellent job (/s) and recovered a convenience-store-grade CCTV recorder, probably from somewhere on the campus it crashed into:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com.../121823103.cms

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’s possible that it was contaminated. The next aircraft may have received fuel from a different storage tank with good fuel.

This got me thinking about a report I read where an Auckland based maintenance facility added too much biocide to an aircraft fuel tank by a factor of ten. From memory the Engineer simply read the instructions wrong or calculated the additive amount incorrectly and the cross checking systems were either not in place or they failed. I searched online for it but could only find the following;

So my point is, if we are speculating about fuel contamination causing dual engine failure, it is possible that a fuel contaminant is specific to a particular airframe and not the supply system. Obviously not saying that is what happened here, but it goes to show how many possibilities exist.

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.

I'm no aircraft engineer but aren't tanks read by a capacitive system. Water in that quantity, having a greater dielectric constant than jet fuel (I'd like to say \xd7100) will show an impossible amount of fuel on the gauges.
Also, for them to fail at exactly the same time with near full tanks (as evidenced from the explosion) doesn't give much credence to the contaminated fuel theory in my opinion.

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. What exactly caused the engine/electrical issues remains speculative. An action slip mistaking flaps for gear seems much less likely as due to the above, the correct selection was probably made.

From the videos of the last moments, there is strong evidence that the RAT was deployed, which has a very short list of possible triggers. The sole eye witness from inside describes power issues which lends credence.

Taken together, it seems that there was an event (or events) shortly after rotation that compromised both engines and the electrical system. There is no evidence yet of birdstrikes and continued engine operation *should* not be affected by the aircraft electrical system as they are independently/internally powered, so logic would have the engines failing first leading to a cascade of other problems. Something that affects all engines pretty much simultaneously is a rare beast but it has happened in the past; outside of a deliberate selection of the fuel and/or fire switches for both power plants there is fuel contamination, FOD and not much else. Its seems at least one FDR has been recovered so depending on where they take it for read-out, we should get some initial facts fairly shortly.

Sometimes complex sequences can have very simple causalities. A lot of complex speculation in this thread so far focused on highly technical things. Yet the basic fundamentals of powered flight have not changed (despite our attempts to do so) over the past 100 years.

1. As a general rule it is a bad idea to run out of either altitude or airspeed or both.
2. If you try to maintain altitude without sufficient thrust you will eventually run out of airspeed.
3. If you have sufficient thrust you can maintain your altitude at a given airspeed, and if you have excess thrust you can maintain your airspeed and increase your altitude. If you have lots of excess thrust you can increase your altitude and increase your airspeed.
4. If you try to increase your altitude by pitching the nose up, and without sufficient excess thrust, your speed will decay quickly, up to the point of stall, at which point you will lose any small amount of altitude you have gained and begin descending.

So…

Fact 1: The airplane stopped going up because it lacked excess thrust necessary to sustain the climb, and;

Fact 2: The airplane’s airspeed decreased constantly because they were trying to maintain either altitude or the climb, but lacked the thrust to do so, and;

Fact 3: If they had prematurely raised the flaps, the climb rate would have decreased/possibly turned negative, but the airplane would have continued to accelerate.

So where did the thrust go?

Fact 4: There is no adverse yaw seen in any of the videos, so wherever it went the loss of thrust occurred (nearly) simultaneously in both engines.

Fact 5: The only way to stop a jet engine from thrusting (sorry) is by either blowing it up or removing the fuel supply. If it blows up- like from birds trying to become a fuel source, there will be evidence. (See Jeju Air for a good example.)

Fact 6: There is (so far) no evidence of either engine blowing up. (I’m deliberately using highly technical terms here…)

Fact 7: There is unmistakably clear audible evidence of the RAT being deployed on the raw video from the right rear quarter of the airplane. Near supersonic propellor blades are an unmistakable sound- the RAT was definitively deployed no matter how much people want to argue to the contrary.

Fact 8: In the same video there is silence from the engines when they should be thundering at full (or nearly full) power. (Yes, I know that isn’t a thing- I am a simple man alas.)

Thus the only possible conclusions are (cringes as he waits for fdr to rip him a new ah):

1. The engines stopped burning, at nearly the same moment in time.
2. As a result, the airplane stopped climbing and also began to lose airspeed in an attempt to maintain altitude.
3. The RAT being deployed so quickly means that the ‘puters believed both engines were dead donks. (They were.)
4. If both engines ceased burning it meant the fuel supply was interrupted. We aren’t talking flight idle here- it was lights out for both.
5. (I am quoting someone else here) There is enough suction for the fuel to feed even if the fuel pumps are inop.
6. The engines stopped being provided with fuel. Because something physical was placed between the tanks and the burners. And they flamed out.

The $64,000 question here (remember when that was a lot of money??!!) is simply: What stopped both engines from getting fuel?

There are a very finite number of possibilities to that answer- and I do have my suspicions, but I lack the qualification to opine on that one.

I’ll leave the rest to the more experienced folk here.

Warm regards-

dce

How is misselected flap still being discussed? Misselected flap does not cause gear retraction to cease nor cause the RAT to deploy. Both of which are (subjectively) evidenced in the videos. What is the supporting evidence for misselected flap?

Yes absolutely. 100% catastrophic loss of power when getting airborne. No evidence for bird strikes\x85no severe eng damage symptoms in the videos, no mention of birds in the mayday\x85

they\x92ve gone TO power all the way to rotate, no power issues, no eng fuel issues, but as soon as its wheels off they lose all power. That can\x92t be coincidental. TCMA certainly fits this scenario especially with ground/air logic.

This indeed is the best summary till now

Post 400\x92, on the assumption VNAV engages, the Flight Control Laws command pitch to maintain speed at VNAV engagement\x85up until Acceleration Altitude. So the aircraft will NOT accelerate like you assert in Fact 3. That is not a \x93fact\x94.

The FMA\x92s will be:

THR REF | LNAV | VNAV SPD

I’m not a 787 driver so for fear of looking dumb in front of those that are this still confuses me. Even IF they’ve mis-selected the flap setting (I still don’t think it’s been cemented on here that there is in fact a FMS/flap setting disagreement warning but i believe there is), had the wrong de-rated take off settings, selected flaps instead of gear up the 787 with massive high bypass engines, FBW and full envelope protections surely cannot let itself be put in such a low energy/high alpha regime as we saw in the videos IF it has both fans functioning normally, surely?

the pilots may have messed up royally and numerous times so those holes lined up but the plane is the final block in the chain and a 21st century all digital entirely clean sheet design was sold as being immune to such catastrophic outcomes from a few minor (consequential yes) and fairly common errors- aren’t all the protections and our procedures designed after decades of mistakes?

im having a hard time squaring how a fully functioning modern bird like this could allow for this outcome and almost whatever the pilots did outside of unbelievable inputs and the pilots are are a bit of a red herring IMO

If this is correct, does it point more towards the engines having been erroneously shut down earlier, rather than a fuel starvation or contamination issue?

Hello all,
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!

Having looked at the photos of the wings, one wing appears to have flaps and slats, the other does not.

this could be from post impact damage, but an interesting observation.

From what I can see so far, there is an electrical event that occurs.

but why and how that causes an aircraft to crash, is to be determined.

This is either going to be a very quick or very long investigation, no in-between.

My gut instinct is this is going to be a previously unexpected or unplanned failure that, whilst there was redundancy (expected) it took it all out.

although a totally unrelated incident, it reminds me of the LHR 777 with the fuel pump heaters being designed to stop ice getting into the lines. But on that exact day, conditions and variables, the very system designed to mitigate said problems, became the problem.

My next question, again I believe not discussed, is what do the 787 Fuel Cutoff switches actually do? Obviously, they cut off the fuel supplies to the engines - pretty important in engine fire and other scenarios, but goes without saying. The real question is, what do they activate (or deactivate)? I'm assuming a simple solenoid valve, which is open when powered and closed when unpowered, but of course, there will (certainly) be Electro-Mechanical or Solid-State (Electronic) relays between the switches and the (solenoid valves).

I guess the next obvious question is, is there anything else that can turn off those Fuel Cutoff Valves - a computer condition for example. I'm assuming not, but I think it needs to be considered.

Taking each switch individually, next, since this is part of an electrical circuit, and of necessity must include Electrical Relays, there is certainly at least one and in all probability two electric Power Sources involved in this circuit. One supply which passes through the switch to activate the relay, and, I'm assuming, a second, higher current and probably higher voltage supply which drives the (solenoid?) valve.

As I see it, interrupting either supply will have the same effect - if the system is wired in the Positive-Postive sense, meaning a current through the switch causes the relay to pass a current through the (solenoid). If either of these supplies is cut, the Fuel Shutoffs will shut off the fuel. So, the question is, where do these supplies come from, and under what circumstances could they be cut off?

Sure, it looks to some (myself included) like a near simultaneous cutoff of both engines, but that doesn't have to have been caused by either of the pilots. I know there is huge redundancy built into the 787 Electrical Systems, but some of the evidence is suggesting that there was something not right with the plane's electrical system. I'm also fairly sure that there will be parts and places where certain faults can take the system down, despite the redundancy. I can't say where, but it's very difficult to design a perfect system, especially where there has to be transfers between multiple potential supplies and single actuators, motors or valves.

Having spent years repairing electrical and electronic systems, I know that the most difficult of all electrical faults are the intermittent ones. And I suspect that this is at the root of this crash. An intermittent or faulty AOA sensor has "caused" (provoked) multiple famous crashes... Can't find the one I'm looking for (pre-1980, I think) as the Max AOA issues dominate.

I can cite a very personal example, which involved the electrical supply to my house. I had several computers running 24x365 so of course, ran them off a UPS, which turned out to be a very good thing. I started to notice that at certain times, the UPS would activate - it would cut in and take over the computer loads, its alarm would go off to indicate a power fault. But the power was still on! This carried on for weeks and I initially blamed the UPS. Then, I noticed that it only happened on very hot afternoons... Long story short, the fault was caused by an electrical linesman, probably 30 years earlier, failing to tighten up a joint clamp on the phase wire to our house, across the street. Heating caused expansion then movement, and the power would momentarily go off then back on, and the UPS detected this. I note that this crash was on a hot day, and maybe this plane (which I believe was repositioned for the flight), had not been operating in such high temperatures recently, meaning the problem went unnoticed.