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

Perhaps my earlier post was incredible and that's what prompted the SLF's question.

Let us assume a simple, hypothetical WoW sensor arrangement: One sensor per main landing gear.

One of those sensors is indicating weight OFF wheels and the other is indicating weight ON wheels. What does the TCMA in each engine interpret that ostensibly contradictory sensor information to mean? (Note: For the time being, ignore the question whether the information is erroneous. It may be true.)

Are both engine TCMA's in the 'in the air' state, are both 'on the ground', or is one 'on the ground' and the other 'in the air'?

Given the purpose of the TCMA, I would have thought that any 'doubt' in this case would be resolved in favour of the 'on ground' state for both TCMAs.

But maybe it's the other way around. Maybe any 'doubt' would be resolved in favour of both TCMA's being in the 'in the air' state.

I have difficulty in envisaging any advantage in the TCMA system being designed such that one engine's TCMA is in the 'in the air' state and the engine's 'on the ground'.

Whichever the design and outcome, there will be benefits and there will be risks.

This was already addressed in one of tdracer's posts about the TCMA system: the air/ground decision is made by the aircraft itself (using multiple redundant inputs and voting logic), and only a single air/ground binary state is provided to the EEC(FADEC). Further, he also stated that the EEC assumes "air", as that is the safer state given the nature of its operations.

Based on this, both engines will get the same air/ground indication from the aircraft and hence will always make the same TCMA decisions (subject to their individual throttle positions and thrust outputs).

The available video and trajectory information are quite conclusive that both engines stopped producing thrust within 12 seconds of the main wheels leaving the ground. Had partial power of any level remained, the aircraft impact would have been further away from the departure end of the runway. The NE end camera shows by using transit sightings against identifiable structures, that the failure occurred while the aircraft was still within the airport boundary area. The energy state of the aircraft at that time trades off to impact at the correct time and place.

On departure at these weights the aircraft would have some assumed temperature thrust reduction from max available on the GEnx -1B70, Unless they were carrying lead, they were around 30,000 or more below the limit weight for a flaps 5 TO. At that weight, around 440k lbs, they would have had a fair OEI climb gradient on one engine, certainly a positive gradient with the gear down, so they lost more than 50% of total thrust. There is no yaw or roll, or inputs to counter a yaw or roll moment so the aircraft was symmetrical at all times, that means losing absolutely no less than 50% of total available thrust at that point on each engine. At 50% reduction. the aircraft would have continued a positive gradient with the gear down and the flaps at the TO setting. It did not, it decelerated at around 1meter sec, or 0.1g deceleration for just maintaining level flight, but it also had to descend and that was worth around 0.05g as well. Instead of having any positive thrust margin, the guys were needing to descend to balance the decrement in thrust of around 0.15g, and that means it has negligible to no thrust from the engines. The full analysis takes more effort as the AOA has increased over the 15-20 seconds to impact, which is increasing the drag of the aircraft rapidly towards the end. For the first 5-10 seconds however, it is not such a great change, but it is still increasing.

In level flight, the aircraft would accelerate level at around 0.3-0.4g gear down with both engines running at max chuff. Lose one, and you are back to 0.05-0.1g or so. These guys had far less than one engine remaining, gravity was all that they had going for them.

To that end, there is no requirement to have the EAFR readout of the N1, N2, FF, or EGT, the video shows they had no puff going worth a darn. That is basic back of the envelope physics and anyone who does aircraft performance testing would be able to get that answer straight from the video without using a calculator, by the time they had watched the video a couple of times in replay.

I have no qualms on stating that the engines are not operating, the RAT, gear tilt are consistent with the dynamics of the aircraft. This is far simpler to determine the energy state than that of the B738W at Muan, the lack of early video required a couple of iterations of the kinetic energy of the aircraft at Muan to end up with a probable flight path, and most likely estimate of the thrust remaining for those most unfortunate souls.

regards,


FDR

Yes, all true. And I didn't think your earlier post was incredible, just that it was an exercise not intended to explain everything about air/ground logic. I think that, in the real world, it's most likely that the air/ground decision will take inputs from other sensors, not just WoW. Radio altimeters seem the most likely choice and we've been told they've been used on earlier Boeings (which I think I already knew or assumed). I'd certainly feel safer with that arrangement.

Without knowing the 787-8 gear system, we know that is is supposed to be hydraulically moved from \x94nose up\x94 to nose down as the first step in the gear up sequence. But do we know that it would end up \x94nose down\x94 without hyd pressure?

Another point pointing to that the aircraft did consider itself being \x94In Air\x94 is the ADS-B data sending Altitude from the first 575 feet at 08:08:46.55 until at least 08:50.87\x85?

I would think the sub systems like TCMA would use the same In Air / On Ground logic as the aircraft normally use?
I come from an FBW aircraft with a Air/Ground logic that seems rather bullet proof and would guess the 787 wouldn\x92t use a less solid logic which probably, in doubt would consider it being \x94In Air\x94?
It would be \x94logic\x94 for the TCMA to use this logic?

I have to both agree and disagree with both this and the next post by TryingToLearn.

Yes, there may be (let's assume is) "identical" FADEC/TCMA hardware and firmware on both engines, but if the Left Engine is subject to Mars in the house of Uranus (wink wink), then the Right Engine cannot be, maybe it's Venus in the same House. This is simply because the Left engine TCMA 'contraption', I'm going to call it, is monitoring Left Engine Conditions (Shaft Speed, T/L setting / position data - Right or Wrong, and calculating and comparing accordingly against its internal map) while the opposite TCMA "device" is monitoring and calculating etc, Right Engine Conditions. There are some things in common, but (I say) it's virtually impossible for the Engine Conditions being individually monitored to be identical in both engines.

The Thrust Levers are electro-mechanical devices, almost certainly at this stage pushed by a somewhat squishy human hand, likely with a slight offset. What is the probability that those two levers are in identical positions, and even if they are, that the calibration (e.g. "zero points") of both levers are identical, and that the values they output (response slopes/curves) are exactly matching in every matching point in their individual travels? That's just one aspect, but consider the engines. They are different ages. Have different amounts of wear. They have separate fuel metering valves (or other names), separate HP Fuel pumps (and, I guess relief valves?), all also subject to wear), and each has a host of other, correspondingly paired, sensors, (maybe of different makes and certainly of different ages and different calibrations and response curves) from which each FADEC, supposedly independently of the TCMA, adjusts the fuel metering device settings and resulting engine power, and shaft RPMs follow in some other slightly non-matching way.

Sure, I would completely agree that the two engines and their calculated Throttle Lever positions to Shaft RPMs are always going to be similar during normal, matched operation, and they will very likely dance with each other, maybe one 'always' (75% of the time, say) leading during one dance (TO, say) with the other leading in dancing to a different tune (descent, say).

To me, the fact that this appears to have been an almost simultaneous dual engine failure, pretty much, for me, rules out a FADEC/TCMA firmware bug, especially as there don't seem to be any reports of even a single engine mid-air TCMA shutdown.

HOWEVER, and I want to stress this, that doesn't rule out the possibility that both TCMAs shutdown their respective engines simultaneously. Any lack of simultaneity observed would be due to those slight differences in other pieces of hardware, such as the time for one Shutoff valve to close versus the other.

As far as I know, there isn't enough information on what's actually inside those TCMA Black Boxes to say anything for sure, but here's a thought, which I think has been alluded to, or the question asked, here in one or other thread, earlier.

What does the TCMA firmware do when an engine is already running at a high power setting and TWO things occur in quick succession? I suspect this kind of event is a highly probable cause, but these two events have not occurred close enough together, or ever, before.

Imagine this: Plane taking off, Throttle Levers near Full Power, Engines performing correctly, also near Full Power, Rotation etc all normal, plane beginning to climb, positive rate achieved.

Pilot calls GEARUP. GearUp, activated.

The Gear Retract sequence begins. Due to some unforeseen or freshly occurring (maybe intermittent short or open circuit) linkage between the gear Up sequence and the WOW or Air/Ground System, the signal to both TCMAs suddenly switches to GROUND. All "good", so far, as the engine RPMs match the Throttle Lever settings and TCMA doesn't flinch. The plane could be in a Valid Takeoff sequence, so it had better not! But it does make a bit of sense. How is WOW / Air/Ground detected? Somewhere near the Landing Gear, I assume.

HOWEVER, now, a moment later, and perhaps due to a related system response, the Thrust Levers suddenly get pulled back to Idle, whether by man or Machine.

What would you expect the TCMA system to do? I would guess, fairly soon thereafter, two, independent, Fuel Cutoffs... Though I fully admit, I'm guessing based on a severe lack of knowledge of that Firmware.

Ok, no need for further explanation on that point, but I did refer to TCMA unflatteringly as a contraption, earlier. Last night (regrettably, before bed) I started looking at the TCMA Google Patent. Let's just say, so far, I'm aghast! My first impressions are bad ones. How did this patent even get approved? What I suspect here, now, is not a Firmware bug, but a serious Logic and Program Defect. But we'd have to see what's inside the firmware.

When I get more time, I'll dig deeper.

NYT illustrated the story, drawing the same conclusions as this thread so far:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ash-cause.html

It will come as no surprise to anyone that EE bays are well protected with the sort of things you have described.
The 787 batteries are also in separate EE bays. Main one in the front and the dedicated APU battery in the power electrics bay aft of the landing gear.
They are both contained in fireproof boxes that will vent to atmosphere in the event of a thermal runaway.
I have been working on 787s for over a decade and leaks from gallies and lavs has not once been on my list of snags.

I see nothing in the video’s to suggest the aircraft was out of control. It was gliding almost exactly as you can expect from an event starting with the gear down and flaps at 5. As the aircraft nears the ground it appears there is a bit of flare to break the rate of descent. That is exactly what you would expect the pilots to do and their only course of action with a dual engine failure at low altitude.

The first B744 flood event in the E&E was 25 years into the operation with one airline, and the other 2 occurred over 30 years into the operation of the type, one was uniquely a cargo loading event, and how the OEM would have guessed that some carrier would enter a wading pool worth of rain water into the E&E, they had and have my sympathy. We took action after that to avoid a repetition, but it wasn't on the radar before it ended up with a bit of excitement for the crew. They happened to have a nice clear evening when the whole cockpit went darl. The B787 has a AD out since 2016 which was added to last year related to unwanted leaks. My own event with a B777 ended up with over 6 cubic meters of ice in the belly of the B773ER, and was only found doing a walk around where there was a number of the belly drains drooling onto the ramp, which happened to be dry. An event external to the system architecture remains a high probability, and as unusual as that may be it is not without precedent, with existing AD's related to such matters extant.

When pax flush clothing and other rubbish down a vacuum toilet system, the potential for stuff to not work as advertised is not zero.

A maintenance engineer looked into the gear tilt issue. The 787 has no hydraulic sequencing valves like traditional Boeings, and the bogie tilt command is simply generated by gear lever movement. So, I suppose the doors dropping before or after the gear tilting may simply be who gets there first.

That is not to say loss of hydraulics also causes "toes down" because of bogie imbalance or aerodynamics (as previously mentioned).

I found descriptions on the systems of the 787 were easily discovered online, and while I have no hands-on experience of aircraft related matters, I do have experience in wider electrical theory and maintenance.

THRUST Asymmetry PROTECTION.
"For an engine-out condition, Thrust Asymmetry Protection (TAP) reduces thrust on the operating engine to ensure there is sufficient rudder for directional control. TAP reduces thrust when the airspeed decreases below approximately V2 on a takeoff or below approximately VREF on a go-around. Once speed is increased above V2/VREF, TAP increases thrust."

From what we know so far, it does seem the engines were not producing sufficient thrust, during a period when it would also be crucial to maintain electrical output for the electro-hydraulic systems and critical electrical loads.

Reduced electrical output could explain the failure of the gear to complete retraction, maybe caused by a generator failing at the worst possible moment.

If there was an EFATO, the ability of the remaining generators to provide sufficient power might become questionable, as is highlighted with the load shedding system.

Other features which are unique to the 787 could be contributing factors in explaining the accident.

It is known the 787 will generally employ an extended take-off roll, and a relatively higher V1 and Vr, and also climb out less steeply than other aircraft. Using more of the runway would reduce the margin for aborted take offs.

With the evident lack of thrust early in the climb out, and failure to retract the gear, if V2 had not been maintained, the TAP system would have reduced thrust even further. Manually increasing thrust will be inhibited.

Disclaimer: I'm not a pilot, only a non-aviation engineer, and so I'm a bit hesitant to criticise this. And yet:

The determination of the height AGL seems quite incorrect - it completely ignores the local pressure and temperature, which very much need to be corrected for. Applying those corrections even using rough rules of thumb (~30 ft per mbar, ~4 feet per \xb0C per 1000 ft) gives a figure that's around ~100 feet AGL. The follow-up sanity check also fails even without knowing the correct math because if you match the ADS-B data (timestamp + location) to when & where the aircraft lifts off and starts to climb in the CCTV video (versus just assuming that the peak height seen in the video matches the last ADS-B data point), the aircraft is very much not 300 feet above the ground when its transponder reports an altitude of 625 feet.

Also the estimation of the glide ratio with flaps 5, gear and the RAT deployed being 3.5 to 1 seemed incredibly low to me, but I'm the first to admit that I have nowhere near as much knowledge of gliding performance as I do of weather math. So I looked up the closest incident I could think of: Air Transat 236, an A330-200 (so of a pretty similar shape, wingspan and wing area as a 787). According to the final report (link: https://www.fss.aero/accident-report...1-08-24-PT.pdf ), the aircraft arrived at a fix approximately 8 nautical miles (48609 ft) from the runway at an altitude of approximately 13000 ft, at which point the crew decided to execute a 360 turn to lose altitude as well as to extend the slats and landing gear during the turn (the RAT of course had already long been deployed at this point), both to prepare for landing and to help further lose altitude. Sure there's some rounding here, and my understanding is that "flaps 1" on Airbus aircraft deploys only leading edge and not trailing edge devices, but this already suggests that their expected glide ratio was significantly higher than the raw 48609:13000 ratio (~3.74:1).

They re-established themselves on final in their landing configuration at an altitude of ~8000 feet and a distance of 9 nautical miles (54685 ft), so let's say that the true distance was somewhere between 8 NM and 9 NM to account for rounding. That gives a glide ratio of between ~6:1 and ~6.83:1. But on top of that, the crew still had to execute a series of S-turns to lose enough altitude to actually make the runway, so their "dirty" glide ratio must have been even higher than that. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to determine conclusively what the ratio was since we don't know how many track miles were added on by the turns (the flight data recorder stopped when the engines flamed out and human testimony only goes so far), and again they did not have flaps extended, but I think it's fair to say that a glide ratio of 3.5:1 is a wildly low estimate for an airliner of the 787's calibre even with the gear down.

Sorry if this is off-topic or too much rambling, but considering how much speculation there tends to be both in this thread and elsewhere about real-world glide performance (especially in non-ideal configurations), hopefully these details are helpful.

It's hard to find a full and reliable translation of his statement but here is another snippet from Yahoo (I can't post links sorry)

I think it's very important to define "engine failure" vs e.g., reduced thrust - BA38 for example was described as "restricted fuel flow when thrust was demanded" and there was no evidence of engine driven generator power stopping as the engines were still running at idle at impact. It's pretty clear from the available evidence that Air India lost electrical power within 20 seconds of leaving the ground, and based on the landing gear orientation theories that time may be significantly shorter <10 seconds.

None of the above makes any sense. There are excellent videos of the takeoff. The aircraft was rock solid in yaw. The takeoff roll and rotation appear normal. Had the flaps been up they would have had a tail strike before getting airborne. The videos show a normal takeoff roll, normal rotation and normal initial climb. At some point below 200 feet AGL all thrust is lost. Here is a video of what a single engine failure looks like before reaching acceleration height. Note also how the wing looks when it reaches about the same distance the Air India video is shot from. At flaps five they appear up.

Elmer Fudd (an alternative spelling of "PhD") by all accounts knows a thing or two about a thing or two, aerodynamics of ducks, and ballistics, at the 12-Ga, birdshot level at least. That is a step above GT.

1. There is zero reason for the engines to have to be DOA before rotate. A point of note will be a close look at the elevator deflection at rotate, and that alone would put paid to such a position.
2. The engines being lost shortly after rotate is consistent with the video from the NE met sensor camera.
3. Determining the liftoff point by ADSB without adding a correction for the flow change at the PS sensor due to AOA is going to give nonsense, and that appears to be the case. The video gives a fair, not brilliant geometry to shoot a transit sighting of the aircraft at liftoff, and that is before the point that GT states.
4. I am impressed that GT has the deceleration rates for a B787 gear down, flaps at 5, for zero thrust. I know what it is for gear up, gear down, not so much, but it will be on the prompt side of ugly.
5. Undertaking an MLE estimate of the kinematics, do add the change for AOA if assuming a deceleration rate. You can get away with a rough overall estimate, but then lets not "gild the Lilly" by assuming accuracy at the decimal point level.
6. Every sensor has measurement errors, position errors, and granularity factors when converting to an output, accuracy to multiple decimal points just looks tacky.
7. The weight of the aircraft, if it is within +/-2% of the actual is doing pretty well, we have analysed baby puppy FAA aircraft that alter their actual weight by over 6% depending on whether they are using EASA weights for PLD, or FAA, or maybe the aircraft just happen to suffer from Coriolis.
8. GT's heart is in the right place, I don't agree with much of what he says, but then my wife doesn't agree with me often either, so maybe that is inconclusive.

We remain in the same holding pattern with a curious event that was recorded in daylight, and from which the recorders are recovered. The answers will start "flowing" "short"ly I guess.

For the past 30 years, we have collectively bagged Boeing in increasing measure, for doing what all corporations are obliged to do; the board is answerable to the investors, and the investors have a "10-second Tom" event horizon when it comes to their earnings. It is little wonder that the race to the bottom is being won by Boeing, it is what Wall Street demands, and in the end, after the bones of the OEM are picked clean by those that do such things on the carcasses of once great US engineering giants, then they will bitch and moan about the losses to shareholders while they pocket the profit of their profession, fleecing the investors. L-M has been better in managing the milking of the public purse, and maybe that is the way it should be.

This is my latest attempt to square the circle using all the data points and minimal assumptions. The main shortcoming of the analysis is not knowing the maximum L/D and the speed for maximum LD with the gear down, flaps 5, and the RAT extended. However, if I use a reasonable number in my opinion for the L/D in that configuration and assume that the airplane is being flown at the speed for it, it will not get to the crash site. The distance from the runway of the crash site is from a previous graphic (1.55 km); the rotation point from fdr, permalink 314; 200 feet max height above the runway being generally accepted; crash site 50 feet below the runway elevation cited previously. An average speed of 180 knots is consistent with the dimensions given and 30 seconds flight time. A flare at 50 feet will briefly increase the L/D to 20, maybe even 30 (500 feet more than shown) but still not enough to make up the shortfall, In fact, with a head wind the L/D will be lower than assumed as well as if the speed being flown is higher or lower than required for maximum L/D in that configuration. In other words, there must have been some thrust available.

Two points:

1) I had seen the "50 feet below runway" referenced as well, and double-checked on Google Earth, and could not confirm this. The terrain looks reasonably level. I'd be happy to see evidence for this claim, but until I do, I'll think it's false.

2) The maximum L/D is given for optimal speed, which remains constant throughout the glide. In the AI171 case, drag is balanced not just by loss of altitude (as it is in the optimal glide), but also by loss of speed. The speed decline provides energy, and I suspect that makes up the shortfall you assign to thrust.

Note that kinetic energy is proportional to v\xb2, i.e. a speed loss of 50 knots from 180 to 130 vs 50 to 0 provides 15500 vs 2500 units of energy, i.e. 6 times as much. If you hypothetically hurl a unpowered aircraft into the sky with a catapult (and if there was no drag), hurling it at 180 knots makes it go 6 times as high by the time its speed decays to 130 knots than it could ever go if you hurled it at 50 knots. Of course there's drag in reality, and that also varies with v\xb2, so this is a very theoretical consideration intended to calibrate your expectations.

I remember that someone used some kind of tool to confirm that the aircraft could've gone unpowered for as long as we assume it did, but of course I can't find it again now. :-(

We know (from the 248-day bug) that full AC power failure is possible and we see from the RAT and landing gear orientation that full AC power failure was likely within ~10 seconds of leaving the ground.

I also don't see any evidence that engine driven fuel pumps alone must be able to handle this scenario: provide enough fuel flow for takeoff and climb, even while the pitch is rotating, even in a hot environment with significant weight, even while the gear is stuck down.

I know that the engine driven pumps have documented limitations and that the regulations allow for some limitations. I know that at least one of these limitation is high altitude and I _suspect_ that the design intends for this unlikely scenario (engine driven fuel pumps alone with no AC pumps) to guarantee enough fuel flow to get to an airport and land. I also suspect that the APU is expected to solve loss of all AC generators - and as we know, there wasn't enough time for it to start in this scenario.

I believe that particular bug is fixed, though it's always possible there's other issues causing a total AC loss.

Not really relevant to what you quoted though, as the scenario in question requires:

• Engines running on centre tank fuel during takeoff while the aircraft is operating normally
  • We don't know for certain if this is the case. It seems to be but it's not something that happens on other families.
• Then, total AC failure stopping fuel boost pumps.
• Engines suction feed from contaminated/full-of-water wing tanks.

The aircraft has two engines and should be able to climb out on one, plus it dropped like a rock . 'Significantly degraded' thrust isn't really compatible with what we saw. You'd also expect the engines to recover pretty quickly as it leveled off.

The limitations at high altitude are primarily air/volatiles degassing out of the fuel. That's not going to be much of an issue at sea level, even if the engines are a bit higher up during rotation.
APU is a nice-to-have; it's on the MEL. If you lose all four generators, it's because of some major carnage in the electrical software/hardware and chances of putting the APU on line even if it's operating are very slim.