2025-06-14T16:04:00
permalink Post: 11901609
I believe the point being made by the person you quoted was that the noise of the engines might have become much quieter
before
the start of the video with the possible RAT noise (the one where the plane passes almost overhead).
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 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)
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T17:42:00
permalink Post: 11901687
2025-06-14T18:08:00
permalink Post: 11901702
(the manual implies two in a pinch, but you shed all loads except the engine starters and a fuel pump)
2025-06-14T18:43:00
permalink Post: 11901720
There should not be a max pre-start EGT limit in-flight - that should only occur on the ground for a pilot-initiated Autostart where the starting EGT redlines are lower than for in-flight.
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.
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.
Could this mean that because there doesn't seem to have been any recovery once descent started, there was no fuel flow to support autorelight? Or that there was fuel flow and autorelight may have succeeded but there wasn't enough thrust generated before impact? From the video total descent time was only 17-20s. I guess what I'm asking is what would be the total cycle time if the first autorelight succeeded: flameout -> autorelight -> useful thrust? And if the PM executed dual-engine fail memory item fuel cutoff to run, how would that change the sequence?
2025-06-14T20:48:00
permalink Post: 11901821
Another hour spent sifting through the stuff since last night (my sympathies to the mods
). A few more comments:
"Real time engine monitoring" is typically not 'real time' - it's recorded and sent in periodic bursts. Very unlikely anything was sent from the event aircraft on this flight.
Commanded engine cutoff - the aisle stand fuel switch sends electrical signals to the spar valve and the "High Pressure Shutoff Valve" (HPSOV) in the Fuel Metering Unit, commanding them to open/close using aircraft power. The HPSOV is solenoid controlled, and near instantaneous. The solenoid is of a 'locking' type that needs to be powered both ways (for obvious reasons, you wouldn't want a loss of electrical power to shut down the engine). The fire handle does the same thing, via different electrical paths (i.e. separate wiring).
As I've noted previously, a complete loss of aircraft electrical power would not cause the engines to flameout (or even lose meaningful thrust) during takeoff. In the takeoff altitude envelope, 'suction feed' (I think Airbus calls it 'gravity feed') is more than sufficient to supply the engine driven fuel pumps. It's only when you get up to ~20k ft. that suction feed can become an issue - and this event happened near sea level.
Not matter what's happening on the aircraft side - pushing the thrust levers to the forward stop will give you (at least) rated takeoff power since the only thing required from the aircraft is fuel and thrust lever position (and the thrust lever position resolver is powered by the FADEC).
The TCMA logic is designed and scrubbed so as to be quite robust - flight test data of the engine response to throttle slams is reviewed to insure there is adequate margin between the TCMA limits and the actual engine responses to prevent improper TCMA activation. Again, never say never, but a whole lot would have had to go wrong in the TCMA logic for it to have activated on this flight.
Now, if I assume the speculation that the RAT deployed is correct, I keep coming up with two potential scenarios that could explain what's known regarding this accident:
1) TCMA activation shutdown the engines
or
2) The fuel cutoff switches were activated.
I literally can come up with no other plausible scenarios.
In all due respect to all the pilots on this forum, I really hope it wasn't TCMA. It wouldn't be the first time a mandated 'safety system' has caused an accident (it wouldn't just be Boeing and GE - TCMA was forced by the FAA and EASA to prevent a scenario that had never caused a fatal accident) - and there would be a lot embarrassing questions for all involved. But I personally know many of the people who created, validated, and certified the GEnx-1B TCMA logic - and can't imagine what they would be going through if they missed something (coincidentally, one of them was at my birthday party last weekend and inevitably we ended up talking about what we used to do at Boeing (he's also retired)). Worse, similar TCMA logic is on the GEnx-2B (747-8) - which I was personally responsible for certifying - as well as the GE90-115B and the 737 MAX Leap engine - the consequences of that logic causing this accident would be massive.
). A few more comments:
"Real time engine monitoring" is typically not 'real time' - it's recorded and sent in periodic bursts. Very unlikely anything was sent from the event aircraft on this flight.
Commanded engine cutoff - the aisle stand fuel switch sends electrical signals to the spar valve and the "High Pressure Shutoff Valve" (HPSOV) in the Fuel Metering Unit, commanding them to open/close using aircraft power. The HPSOV is solenoid controlled, and near instantaneous. The solenoid is of a 'locking' type that needs to be powered both ways (for obvious reasons, you wouldn't want a loss of electrical power to shut down the engine). The fire handle does the same thing, via different electrical paths (i.e. separate wiring).
As I've noted previously, a complete loss of aircraft electrical power would not cause the engines to flameout (or even lose meaningful thrust) during takeoff. In the takeoff altitude envelope, 'suction feed' (I think Airbus calls it 'gravity feed') is more than sufficient to supply the engine driven fuel pumps. It's only when you get up to ~20k ft. that suction feed can become an issue - and this event happened near sea level.
Not matter what's happening on the aircraft side - pushing the thrust levers to the forward stop will give you (at least) rated takeoff power since the only thing required from the aircraft is fuel and thrust lever position (and the thrust lever position resolver is powered by the FADEC).
The TCMA logic is designed and scrubbed so as to be quite robust - flight test data of the engine response to throttle slams is reviewed to insure there is adequate margin between the TCMA limits and the actual engine responses to prevent improper TCMA activation. Again, never say never, but a whole lot would have had to go wrong in the TCMA logic for it to have activated on this flight.
Now, if I assume the speculation that the RAT deployed is correct, I keep coming up with two potential scenarios that could explain what's known regarding this accident:
1) TCMA activation shutdown the engines
or
2) The fuel cutoff switches were activated.
I literally can come up with no other plausible scenarios.
In all due respect to all the pilots on this forum, I really hope it wasn't TCMA. It wouldn't be the first time a mandated 'safety system' has caused an accident (it wouldn't just be Boeing and GE - TCMA was forced by the FAA and EASA to prevent a scenario that had never caused a fatal accident) - and there would be a lot embarrassing questions for all involved. But I personally know many of the people who created, validated, and certified the GEnx-1B TCMA logic - and can't imagine what they would be going through if they missed something (coincidentally, one of them was at my birthday party last weekend and inevitably we ended up talking about what we used to do at Boeing (he's also retired)). Worse, similar TCMA logic is on the GEnx-2B (747-8) - which I was personally responsible for certifying - as well as the GE90-115B and the 737 MAX Leap engine - the consequences of that logic causing this accident would be massive.
67 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T21:11:00
permalink Post: 11901834
Long story short. Something or someone disrupted the fuel supply on both engines simultaneously around rotation time. In a way that a line check captain could not correct it in 10+ seconds remaining flight time. Occam razor at this stage would say, that both fire handles were activated. Hope that the investigation comes up with something different.
7 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T21:27:00
permalink Post: 11901855
Another hour spent sifting through the stuff since last night (my sympathies to the mods
). A few more comments:
"Real time engine monitoring" is typically not 'real time' - it's recorded and sent in periodic bursts. Very unlikely anything was sent from the event aircraft on this flight.
Commanded engine cutoff - the aisle stand fuel switch sends electrical signals to the spar valve and the "High Pressure Shutoff Valve" (HPSOV) in the Fuel Metering Unit, commanding them to open/close using aircraft power. The HPSOV is solenoid controlled, and near instantaneous. The solenoid is of a 'locking' type that needs to be powered both ways (for obvious reasons, you wouldn't want a loss of electrical power to shut down the engine). The fire handle does the same thing, via different electrical paths (i.e. separate wiring).
As I've noted previously, a complete loss of aircraft electrical power would not cause the engines to flameout (or even lose meaningful thrust) during takeoff. In the takeoff altitude envelope, 'suction feed' (I think Airbus calls it 'gravity feed') is more than sufficient to supply the engine driven fuel pumps. It's only when you get up to ~20k ft. that suction feed can become an issue - and this event happened near sea level.
Not matter what's happening on the aircraft side - pushing the thrust levers to the forward stop will give you (at least) rated takeoff power since the only thing required from the aircraft is fuel and thrust lever position (and the thrust lever position resolver is powered by the FADEC).
The TCMA logic is designed and scrubbed so as to be quite robust - flight test data of the engine response to throttle slams is reviewed to insure there is adequate margin between the TCMA limits and the actual engine responses to prevent improper TCMA activation. Again, never say never, but a whole lot would have had to go wrong in the TCMA logic for it to have activated on this flight.
Now, if I assume the speculation that the RAT deployed is correct, I keep coming up with two potential scenarios that could explain what's known regarding this accident:
1) TCMA activation shutdown the engines
or
2) The fuel cutoff switches were activated.
I literally can come up with no other plausible scenarios.
In all due respect to all the pilots on this forum, I really hope it wasn't TCMA. It wouldn't be the first time a mandated 'safety system' has caused an accident (it wouldn't just be Boeing and GE - TCMA was forced by the FAA and EASA to prevent a scenario that had never caused a fatal accident) - and there would be a lot embarrassing questions for all involved. But I personally know many of the people who created, validated, and certified the GEnx-1B TCMA logic - and can't imagine what they would be going through if they missed something (coincidentally, one of them was at my birthday party last weekend and inevitably we ended up talking about what we used to do at Boeing (he's also retired)). Worse, similar TCMA logic is on the GEnx-2B (747-8) - which I was personally responsible for certifying - as well as the GE90-115B and the 737 MAX Leap engine - the consequences of that logic causing this accident would be massive.
). A few more comments:
"Real time engine monitoring" is typically not 'real time' - it's recorded and sent in periodic bursts. Very unlikely anything was sent from the event aircraft on this flight.
Commanded engine cutoff - the aisle stand fuel switch sends electrical signals to the spar valve and the "High Pressure Shutoff Valve" (HPSOV) in the Fuel Metering Unit, commanding them to open/close using aircraft power. The HPSOV is solenoid controlled, and near instantaneous. The solenoid is of a 'locking' type that needs to be powered both ways (for obvious reasons, you wouldn't want a loss of electrical power to shut down the engine). The fire handle does the same thing, via different electrical paths (i.e. separate wiring).
As I've noted previously, a complete loss of aircraft electrical power would not cause the engines to flameout (or even lose meaningful thrust) during takeoff. In the takeoff altitude envelope, 'suction feed' (I think Airbus calls it 'gravity feed') is more than sufficient to supply the engine driven fuel pumps. It's only when you get up to ~20k ft. that suction feed can become an issue - and this event happened near sea level.
Not matter what's happening on the aircraft side - pushing the thrust levers to the forward stop will give you (at least) rated takeoff power since the only thing required from the aircraft is fuel and thrust lever position (and the thrust lever position resolver is powered by the FADEC).
The TCMA logic is designed and scrubbed so as to be quite robust - flight test data of the engine response to throttle slams is reviewed to insure there is adequate margin between the TCMA limits and the actual engine responses to prevent improper TCMA activation. Again, never say never, but a whole lot would have had to go wrong in the TCMA logic for it to have activated on this flight.
Now, if I assume the speculation that the RAT deployed is correct, I keep coming up with two potential scenarios that could explain what's known regarding this accident:
1) TCMA activation shutdown the engines
or
2) The fuel cutoff switches were activated.
I literally can come up with no other plausible scenarios.
In all due respect to all the pilots on this forum, I really hope it wasn't TCMA. It wouldn't be the first time a mandated 'safety system' has caused an accident (it wouldn't just be Boeing and GE - TCMA was forced by the FAA and EASA to prevent a scenario that had never caused a fatal accident) - and there would be a lot embarrassing questions for all involved. But I personally know many of the people who created, validated, and certified the GEnx-1B TCMA logic - and can't imagine what they would be going through if they missed something (coincidentally, one of them was at my birthday party last weekend and inevitably we ended up talking about what we used to do at Boeing (he's also retired)). Worse, similar TCMA logic is on the GEnx-2B (747-8) - which I was personally responsible for certifying - as well as the GE90-115B and the 737 MAX Leap engine - the consequences of that logic causing this accident would be massive.
5 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T22:05:00
permalink Post: 11901881
Indeed
Thanks for answering the question I hadn't yet asked but wanted to confirm!
I'm still sticking with "Major Electrical Fault" as my most likely cause, and this adds to my suspicions.
As I understand it, the landing gear is raised / retracted by electric motor-driven hydraulic pump (pumps?). This/these would create a significant electrical load.
If the plane's multi-redundant electrical system has a fault which is intermittent (the worst kind of electrical issue to diagnose), and which causes the redundancy controls to go haywire (as there are, of course, electronic controls to detect failures and drive the switching over of primary and backup electrical supplies), then this fault could to triggered by a large load coming on-line. It could even be as simple as a high current cable lug not having been tightened when a part was being replaced at some stage. The relevant bolt might be only finger-tight. Enough to work 99.99% of the time between then and now... But a little bit more oxidation, and particularly, a bit more heat (it was a hot day), and suddenly, a fault.
Having worked in electronics for years, I know that semi-conductors (and lots of other components, especially capacitors [and batteries]) can also degrade instead of failing completely. Electro-static discharges are great for causing computer chips to die, or go meta-stable - meaning they can get all knotted up and cease working correctly - until they are powered off for a while. They can also degrade in a way that means they work normally a low temperatures, but don't above a certain temperature.
Anyway, there MUST be ways that the redundant power supplies can be brought down, simply because, to have a critical bus powered from a number of independent sources, there must be "controls" of some sort. I don't know how it's done in the 787, but that's where I'd be looking.
As there is a lot of discussion already about how the bogies are hanging the wrong way suggesting a started but failed retraction operation, and it's now confirmed that the retraction would normally have taken place at about the point where the flight went "pear shaped", I'm going to suggest that the two things are connected. More than that: I'll suggest that the Gear Up command triggered the fault that caused both engines to shut down in very short succession. Nothing the pilots did wrong, and no way they could have known and prevented it.
It's going to be difficult to prove though.
I'm still sticking with "Major Electrical Fault" as my most likely cause, and this adds to my suspicions.
As I understand it, the landing gear is raised / retracted by electric motor-driven hydraulic pump (pumps?). This/these would create a significant electrical load.
If the plane's multi-redundant electrical system has a fault which is intermittent (the worst kind of electrical issue to diagnose), and which causes the redundancy controls to go haywire (as there are, of course, electronic controls to detect failures and drive the switching over of primary and backup electrical supplies), then this fault could to triggered by a large load coming on-line. It could even be as simple as a high current cable lug not having been tightened when a part was being replaced at some stage. The relevant bolt might be only finger-tight. Enough to work 99.99% of the time between then and now... But a little bit more oxidation, and particularly, a bit more heat (it was a hot day), and suddenly, a fault.
Having worked in electronics for years, I know that semi-conductors (and lots of other components, especially capacitors [and batteries]) can also degrade instead of failing completely. Electro-static discharges are great for causing computer chips to die, or go meta-stable - meaning they can get all knotted up and cease working correctly - until they are powered off for a while. They can also degrade in a way that means they work normally a low temperatures, but don't above a certain temperature.
Anyway, there MUST be ways that the redundant power supplies can be brought down, simply because, to have a critical bus powered from a number of independent sources, there must be "controls" of some sort. I don't know how it's done in the 787, but that's where I'd be looking.
As there is a lot of discussion already about how the bogies are hanging the wrong way suggesting a started but failed retraction operation, and it's now confirmed that the retraction would normally have taken place at about the point where the flight went "pear shaped", I'm going to suggest that the two things are connected. More than that: I'll suggest that the Gear Up command triggered the fault that caused both engines to shut down in very short succession. Nothing the pilots did wrong, and no way they could have known and prevented it.
It's going to be difficult to prove though.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-14T22:17:00
permalink Post: 11901893
Now, if I assume the speculation that the RAT deployed is correct, I keep coming up with two potential scenarios that could explain what's known regarding this accident:
1) TCMA activation shutdown the engines
or
2) The fuel cutoff switches were activated.
I literally can come up with no other plausible scenarios
1) TCMA activation shutdown the engines
or
2) The fuel cutoff switches were activated.
I literally can come up with no other plausible scenarios
2025-06-14T22:19:00
permalink Post: 11901899
I'm still sticking with "Major Electrical Fault" as my most likely cause, and this adds to my suspicions.
[snip]
Anyway, there MUST be ways that the redundant power supplies can be brought down, simply because, to have a critical bus powered from a number of independent sources, there must be "controls" of some sort. I don't know how it's done in the 787, but that's where I'd be looking.
As there is a lot of discussion already about how the bogies are hanging the wrong way suggesting a started but failed retraction operation, and it's now confirmed that the retraction would normally have taken place at about the point where the flight went "pear shaped", I'm going to suggest that the two things are connected. More than that: I'll suggest that the Gear Up command triggered the fault that caused both engines to shut down in very short succession. Nothing the pilots did wrong, and no way they could have known and prevented it.
[snip]
Anyway, there MUST be ways that the redundant power supplies can be brought down, simply because, to have a critical bus powered from a number of independent sources, there must be "controls" of some sort. I don't know how it's done in the 787, but that's where I'd be looking.
As there is a lot of discussion already about how the bogies are hanging the wrong way suggesting a started but failed retraction operation, and it's now confirmed that the retraction would normally have taken place at about the point where the flight went "pear shaped", I'm going to suggest that the two things are connected. More than that: I'll suggest that the Gear Up command triggered the fault that caused both engines to shut down in very short succession. Nothing the pilots did wrong, and no way they could have known and prevented it.
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T22:21:00
permalink Post: 11901900
I think it needs to be said again that pretty much anything can happen to the aircraft systems and the engines will carry on running - this is by design as they have independent FADEC and power supplies and at sea level fuel will get through without boost pumps. You could almost saw the wing off the fuselage and the engine would still produce thrust, TCMA notwithstanding.
We don\x92t know yet what actually triggered the RAT from the relatively short list but every item on it means there is a serious/critical failure(s). The flight path suggests that it was a double engine failure or shutdown (commanded or uncommanded) as anything else should have left the aeroplane in a poor state but able to climb away.
We don\x92t know yet what actually triggered the RAT from the relatively short list but every item on it means there is a serious/critical failure(s). The flight path suggests that it was a double engine failure or shutdown (commanded or uncommanded) as anything else should have left the aeroplane in a poor state but able to climb away.
6 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T22:24:00
permalink Post: 11901903
OK, but even if we do assume that there was a major electrical fault which brought down the main supplies: multiple posts in this thread have already asserted that this would not cause the shutdown of the engines, and that even if the fuel pumps failed, suction would keep the engines running.
2025-06-14T22:26:00
permalink Post: 11901906
I am curious to learn what power source drives the high-pressure fuel pumps in the engine. If there is such a thing, I suppose there would.
Gearbox? This is at odds with a possible cascading electric failure that (might have) caused a loss of engine fuel feed.
To my understanding on my ancient plane and engine design, the HP pumps that feed the nozzles are driven mechanically, which enables gravity feeding among other scenarios, but also assures the fuel supply is independent of whatever happens upstream of the nacelle. Except for LP/fire shut-off cocks.
Gearbox? This is at odds with a possible cascading electric failure that (might have) caused a loss of engine fuel feed.
To my understanding on my ancient plane and engine design, the HP pumps that feed the nozzles are driven mechanically, which enables gravity feeding among other scenarios, but also assures the fuel supply is independent of whatever happens upstream of the nacelle. Except for LP/fire shut-off cocks.
2025-06-14T22:33:00
permalink Post: 11901909
2025-06-14T22:39:00
permalink Post: 11901913
Almost all catastrophic accidents that are not deliberately initiated require multiple causes. It’s extremely unlikely that both engine condition switches or fire switches were accidentaly actuated during a routine rotation and initial climb. However it’s stil possible that the crew did actuate those switches (intentionally or unintentionally) in response to some anomaly experienced at that time. Thus it’s not impossible that electrical system malfunction was the first link in a sequence that led to removing the fuel supply to both engines. The most obvious one is that crew thought that they had dual engine failure due to lost of main electrical power and initiated a double engine restart bycling the engine condition levers.
The purpose of this post is not to promote the above as a possible cause of the accident, but to remaind people that a (proven) mechanical fault does not rule out pilot error and vice versa.
The purpose of this post is not to promote the above as a possible cause of the accident, but to remaind people that a (proven) mechanical fault does not rule out pilot error and vice versa.
2025-06-14T23:04:00
permalink Post: 11901940
If you are referring to loss of all boost pumps, am not aware of any engine that will not continue to run with a suction feed to the main boost pumps at low altitudes. At high altitudes, there is a chance of cavitation of the main pumps but only at very high powers, and generally not at sea level.
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T23:05:00
permalink Post: 11901941
I am curious to learn what power source drives the high-pressure fuel pumps in the engine. If there is such a thing, I suppose there would.
Gearbox? This is at odds with a possible cascading electric failure that (might have) caused a loss of engine fuel feed.
To my understanding on my ancient plane and engine design, the HP pumps that feed the nozzles are driven mechanically, which enables gravity feeding among other scenarios, but also assures the fuel supply is independent of whatever happens upstream of the nacelle. Except for LP/fire shut-off cocks.
Gearbox? This is at odds with a possible cascading electric failure that (might have) caused a loss of engine fuel feed.
To my understanding on my ancient plane and engine design, the HP pumps that feed the nozzles are driven mechanically, which enables gravity feeding among other scenarios, but also assures the fuel supply is independent of whatever happens upstream of the nacelle. Except for LP/fire shut-off cocks.
Engine driven fuel pump failures are very rare, but have happened (usually with some 'precursor' symptoms that were ignored or mis-diagnosed by maintenance). It would be unheard of for engine driven fuel pumps to fail on both engines on the same flight.
As I've repeatedly posted, even a 100% aircraft power failure would not explain both engines quitting, at least without several other existing faults. Again, never say never, but you can only combine so many 10-9 events before it becomes ridiculous...
TCMA doesn't know what V1 is - it's active whenever the air/ground logic says the aircraft is on-ground.
16 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T23:30:00
permalink Post: 11901954
If you are referring to loss of all boost pumps, am not aware of any engine that will not continue to run with a suction feed to the main boost pumps at low altitudes. At high altitudes, there is a chance of cavitation of the main pumps but only at very high powers, and generally not at sea level.
Speculating on a combined loss of electric power plus bad fuel, but seems as likely as any of the other farfetched scenarios.
2025-06-14T23:40:00
permalink Post: 11901962
Howdy
I am curious to learn what power source drives the high-pressure fuel pumps in the engine. If there is such a thing, I suppose there would.
Gearbox? This is at odds with a possible cascading electric failure that (might have) caused a loss of engine fuel feed.
To my understanding on my ancient plane and engine design, the HP pumps that feed the nozzles are driven mechanically, which enables gravity feeding among other scenarios, but also assures the fuel supply is independent of whatever happens upstream of the nacelle. Except for LP/fire shut-off cocks.
Gearbox? This is at odds with a possible cascading electric failure that (might have) caused a loss of engine fuel feed.
To my understanding on my ancient plane and engine design, the HP pumps that feed the nozzles are driven mechanically, which enables gravity feeding among other scenarios, but also assures the fuel supply is independent of whatever happens upstream of the nacelle. Except for LP/fire shut-off cocks.
There have been conflicting reports about the call to ATC. Original reports quoted the Captain saying "Mayday...no thrust, losing power, cannot lift". But I've seen reports today stating the call was simply "Mayday, Mayday" and then no further response.
Difficult to confirm so I wouldn't put too much weight behind it until something more official is released.
Difficult to confirm so I wouldn't put too much weight behind it until something more official is released.