Posts about: "Gear Retraction" [Posts: 243 Pages: 13]

Item 1) On the 787, is the gear lever on the main panel facing the flight crew, or on the centre console? I'd imagine they'd (flap and gear levers) need to be adjacent to each other for that to happen. All good points though.

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.

doesn't have to be hot brakes, there are a number of 787 MELs which require gear down after takeoff, the most extreme I ever applied got us to FL150 before we could retract it.
very doubtful this would be the cause of this accident however

https://www.flightglobal.com/probe-d...121461.article

No idea what happens to a Dreamliner, but the A320 series can handle flaps instead of gear retraction

A mayday call will normally contain information about the nature of the emergency.
The flaps instead of gear is based on the landing gear being down throughout the whole emergency. It\x92s just weird. I get that it may be overlooked in a stressful situation, but when they had time for a mayday call?
So, someone said the 747 will have an early thrust reduction if you retract flaps too early, is this also the case with the 787?

Except here it's 40\xb0C SAT

My impression was very similar: they never had enough thrust for level flight with the gear down, used up the whole runway accelerating to something close to Vr, rotated and started to climb but very soon started slowing and had to reduce the angle of attack, starting the descent.

It looks like an action slip to me as the timing looks right ie \x93positive rate \x93 \x93gear up\x94 (someone raises the flaps instead of the gear) PF is looking through the HUD so just sees someone move their hand rather than the hand moving the correct lever

It\x92s then taking off heavy weight with 35c and the flaps have been raised and the gear is still down.

As nobody realised the flaps had been raised instead of the gear when it happened they automatically think it\x92s some other issue as the aircraft loses lift and the amber band rapidly rises and the aircraft runs out of lift.

could be something else like fuel or 2 engine failure but seems possible it\x92s an action slip also.

I didn\x92t see the RAT deployed but saw the gear down still and an aircraft fall out of the sky with what sounded like engines running still.

something I\x92m not sure has been discussed till now- doesn\x92t the 787 have an \x91early door\x92 function where the gear doors automatically open to improve performance? Even pprune has discussed this:
B787-9 LDG gear retraction
(That thread is illuminating in light of this loss for a number of reasons too)


in the video/images seen it doesn\x92t appear that the gear doors are down, does this further indicate an AC power loss?

(not sure if this applies to the entire 787 family though)

That only applies to the 787-9. The accident aircraft was a -8

This was my thought. tf were they doing making a radio call in that situation.

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.

Just to say that I have always seen BA fly the 787 at approx. circuit height at LHR with landing gear always down. It is not raised until later into the departure. It does look really strange but I assume is part of the 787-specific SOP's, perhaps someone could confirm........

Wow love the theories. Ok why was the gear still down. Under all circumstances that comes up with positive rate. Can\x92t see the flaps but sure looks like they were retracted instead of gear coming up.

engine failure. Sure that would suck lift out but all parameters take thay into effect with the proper flap setting. And you can\x92t take off without the right flap setting per the performance data unless you ignore it.

Loss of lift. VNAV engages at 400 ft and targets airspeed in MCP.

Airboard, do you fly the 787?

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

I think it\x92s normal for most, even those with time on type, to point to the flap or gear lever issue. It was the same with the MAX until all the software issues came to light, the software was not really something top of mind, these machines are built and designed with precision, the thought of software causing havoc is somewhat implausible.

I think the discussion is at a standstill until we get more clarity on the flap position, and the RAT. The latter will become an issue for Boeing if that was extended, and they will need to work around the clock to prevent future mishaps, and reassure many flight op departments, especially those with early build 787s, that this is a isolated event.

No, no, no and again no.

This is a transport category aircraft. It will happily climb on one engine to a safe altitude where procedures are followed.

There is zero evidence of any engine "failures" or shutdowns by the crew.

However the gear is still down at around 500' agl.

Can I just strongly agree add a bit more ....... no, no, no

So what is known at the moment?

- The flight crew consisted of an experienced Captain and a First Officer with a little more than 1000 hours. Whether or not this flight was a training event appears not yet determined.

- The aircraft departed from Ahmedabad, using full length of the runway, lifting off at an appropriate distance from the departure end and reaching an altitude of less than 1000ft before descending again to an impact. It therefore got out of ground effect. Also, the power selected for takeoff was sufficient to get the aircraft airborne within the constraints of the field.

- The landing gear was left down much longer than usual and remained so for the whole duration of the flight.

- Flaps appear to have been extended normally to a setting not triggering any pre-takeoff configuration warning. On the 787, extended TE flaps are not as obviously visible as on other types, especially with low quality pictures, but a gap between the flaps and the wing proper was visible, showing a glimpse of the engine nacelle through it.

- Whether or not the RAT was out appears not entirely clear, although there are strong indicators of it being deployed. If this is confirmed, this seems to point to a major engine or electric issue.

- Engine noise is surprisingly low on the available videos, either drowned out by environnmental noise (the 787 is not a noisy bird) or due to lack of power produced.

- Descent was at a very high AOA and appears not intentional. The crew did not decide to push the nose down.

- The aircraft appears to have been structurally intact with nothing issuing from it. No debris, smoke, fumes or liquids were in trail, no parts were observed to have been lost or dropped.

- There seems to have been a mayday call from the aircraft, possibly indicating power issues.


The crew seems to have found no reason to abort the takeoff before V1. Whatever befell them must have struck past that speed and given them cause not to retract the landing gear. Whether the lever was not moved or the systems did not react to it is not determined yet.

The aircraft had enough energy to climb to about 600, in any case less than 1000ft altitude. Ahmedabad seems not to call for a specific NADP, but whether it was NADP1, 2, A or B that was flown, it is fairly safe to assume that its normal regime would have been takeoff power and takeoff flap settings at that time.

Multiple other aircraft departed from or arrived at Ahmedabad before the accident, of which at least one must in all probability have taken onboard the fuel from the local bowsers in substantial amounts and used it without troubles, or else there would have been other flights in trouble due to this.

I am awaiting the preliminary report from the authorities and the readout of the data recorders with much interest.