2025-06-14T17:37:00
permalink Post: 11901683
Considering everything that's possibly to be found in the vicinity of the plane in the picture, I don't think we can conclusively say that's the RAT deployed.
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T18:06:00
permalink Post: 11901700
I don't think you can infer no hyd pressure from the spoiler "float. I've read elsewhere that they are biased up slightly to be used in slow speed roll control.
2025-06-14T21:22:00
permalink Post: 11901851
That\x92s not a false conclusion if in fact hydraulics were lost. I dont think that was the case and if it was engine driven hydraulic pumps have normal output all the way down to idle and actually further. I dont think the RAT deployed for any reason and i am not sure that has been confirmed.
2025-06-14T21:40:00
permalink Post: 11901866
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.
4 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T22:01:00
permalink Post: 11901878
That\x92s not a false conclusion if in fact hydraulics were lost. I dont think that was the case and if it was engine driven hydraulic pumps have normal output all the way down to idle and actually further. I dont think the RAT deployed for any reason and i am not sure that has been confirmed.
1 user 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.
2025-06-14T23:45:00
permalink Post: 11901966
Several hundred posts ago, a link to a PPrune thread re 787 RAT deployment was posted. I am sure everyone posting has at least seen if they have read the thread....
I apologise, if my thoughts have already been posted - please delete if this is the case, I cannot find them in the main thread though
None of us know if there was no engine failure, single engine failure or double engine failure.
If RAT was deployed, we do not yet know whether it was automatic or manually deployed by a very experienced captain because "We have no power. What harm can it do now?" (Electrical power, not thrust) Would the Captain also elect to start the APU in the few seconds he had?
In the thread re 787 RAT deployment, some one states that a single engine failure, due to the small rudder size on 787-8, automatically throttles back the remaining engine as the rudder will not be able to correct the course. I am not clear about the guards around this - be they height restrictions, speed restrictions or % of power delivery. If there are any guards in the software. It may have been stated and I missed it or didn't understand.
However, as someone involved with critical software design & development, if the generators were "playing up", which is highly possible given passenger observations on previous flights, could there be a window, if the aircraft experienced a problem with say no 1 engine ( suggested in video "analysis" despite the aircraft tracking right ) whereby the loss of electrical power triggered the software to "throttle back" No 2, and that again limiting any recovery of No 1, if the generators on 2 didn't perform/react as planned. Software always has holes.
The primary flight deck screens have battery backup - but do they lose power when the main buses go offline - and/or again when the RAT delivers? Or is it seemless? Previous posts mention both scenarios but with no answer. Are there flickers, resets, reboots? All distracting at best and time limiting at worst.
I think a pertinent point posted earlier, was that the problems seems to have begun with "gear up", a lot of load on the electrically driven, hydraulic pumps.
Seemingly started, but obviously not completed.
I believe the 2 guys sitting in row 0 dealing with this, were just passengers from the moment it left the gate - for whatever reason. The mayday call, by whichever pilot - although no transcript officially published - was probably a last ditch attempt to alert ATC asap to a situation with a clear outcome. Very sad. It is bad form to point the finger before any useful facts are confirmed.
So, I suspect generator problems & a hole in the software and/or logic due to timing issues caused by generators appearing to be on/offline -maybe rapidly - restricting thrust by design..
I apologise, if my thoughts have already been posted - please delete if this is the case, I cannot find them in the main thread though
None of us know if there was no engine failure, single engine failure or double engine failure.
If RAT was deployed, we do not yet know whether it was automatic or manually deployed by a very experienced captain because "We have no power. What harm can it do now?" (Electrical power, not thrust) Would the Captain also elect to start the APU in the few seconds he had?
In the thread re 787 RAT deployment, some one states that a single engine failure, due to the small rudder size on 787-8, automatically throttles back the remaining engine as the rudder will not be able to correct the course. I am not clear about the guards around this - be they height restrictions, speed restrictions or % of power delivery. If there are any guards in the software. It may have been stated and I missed it or didn't understand.
However, as someone involved with critical software design & development, if the generators were "playing up", which is highly possible given passenger observations on previous flights, could there be a window, if the aircraft experienced a problem with say no 1 engine ( suggested in video "analysis" despite the aircraft tracking right ) whereby the loss of electrical power triggered the software to "throttle back" No 2, and that again limiting any recovery of No 1, if the generators on 2 didn't perform/react as planned. Software always has holes.
The primary flight deck screens have battery backup - but do they lose power when the main buses go offline - and/or again when the RAT delivers? Or is it seemless? Previous posts mention both scenarios but with no answer. Are there flickers, resets, reboots? All distracting at best and time limiting at worst.
I think a pertinent point posted earlier, was that the problems seems to have begun with "gear up", a lot of load on the electrically driven, hydraulic pumps.
Seemingly started, but obviously not completed.
I believe the 2 guys sitting in row 0 dealing with this, were just passengers from the moment it left the gate - for whatever reason. The mayday call, by whichever pilot - although no transcript officially published - was probably a last ditch attempt to alert ATC asap to a situation with a clear outcome. Very sad. It is bad form to point the finger before any useful facts are confirmed.
So, I suspect generator problems & a hole in the software and/or logic due to timing issues caused by generators appearing to be on/offline -maybe rapidly - restricting thrust by design..
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-15T02:29:00
permalink Post: 11902059
This applies equally to a normal gear retraction: the centre hydraulic pumps must have stopped very early for the trucks to be in that position on an "interrupted" gear retraction, with the main gear doors still closed (and presumably locked). Seems unlikely.
I did raise this earlier... FCOMs say that the bogies remain in the stowed tilt after a gravity drop, but I don't know if that's because the gear has springs to hold it that way without hydraulics, or just they close the valves on the hydraulics so it stays in the last commanded position without pressure.
Alternate extension appears to rely on the truck positioner remaining in its previously "positioned" state - stowed - where it has been sitting cold, unloved and unpowered since the gear was previously retracted. Like other Boeing types, the wheel well has some bars to stop the truck moving while it's up and stowed.
It's remotely possible the main gear priority valves may have prevented more gear movement in the absence of good hydraulic pressure - however this wouldn't stop the nose gear from operating, so not likely.
Last edited by Lifer01; 15th Jun 2025 at 02:39 .
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-15T02:36:00
permalink Post: 11902060
Difficult!? Maybe not. If very late the flaps were tagged stowed, and there was a simultaneous gear up command, with FlapDown command, the overload could have failed a GCS. Then it becomes a switching exercise. (Automatics).
Alarms Warnings Impacted EICAS, ETC. it happened long ago, but we know what happens when an engine driven generator quits ..first it bangs for awhile, then it burns itself up, then ...
Alarms Warnings Impacted EICAS, ETC. it happened long ago, but we know what happens when an engine driven generator quits ..first it bangs for awhile, then it burns itself up, then ...
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.
In addition, the 787 has four main generators and I believe the switching is segregated into at least two controllers, on top of the four separate generator control units.
And again, electrical failure should not cause engine failure - consider QF32 where the wiring to the engine was mostly severed and they had to drown it with a fire truck.
Best post until now in my view. We will find out very soon I think. Gear up command triggered the instant lack of fuel to both engines. I'm not sure on how the fuel flow is dependant on the power supplies on the 787 but I genuinely believe you are very very close to what might have happened here.
Yes, thanks, I've seen a few comments to this effect, and I have to accept most of what you say. I understand that they have their own dedicated generators and local independent FADECs (or EECs), but I'm trying to use what I do know to attempt to figure this out. I know that there are Fuel Cutoff switches in the cockpit. Somehow, if switched to Off, these will cut off the fuel to the engines, "no matter what". Of course, even that's not true, as the Qantas A380 engine burst apparently (comment in this thread) showed.
Anyway, the thing I'm looking at is how the fuel cutoff switch function could have been activated in some other way. To me, it seems obvious that there are wires that run between the engine fuel shutoff valves and the cockpit / flight control panel (no doubt with relays etc in between). I don't know where those shutoff valves are located, but logic says they should be located in the fuselage, not out at the engines. I also don't know how those valves operate - are they solenoid valves or electro-mechanically driven? Nor do I know where the power to activate those valves comes from, but using my logic, if those valves close when powered off, such as solenoid valves typically do, then the power cannot exclusively come from the engine-dedicated generators. If it did, you'd never be able to start the engines so they could supply their own power to hold those valves open. So, there must be some power (appropriately) fed from the main aircraft control bus to activate those valves - if the rest of what I'm assuming is correct. Anyway, like I say, I don't know enough about the details at this point, but there are many more ways to activate or deactivate a circuit than by flicking a switch. Killing the relevant power supply, for example. A screwdriver across some contacts (for example), another. Shorting a wire to Chassis, maybe. Just trying to contribute what I can.
You raise another interesting point: "TCMA notwithstanding". Could you elaborate, please? What will happen if the TCMA system, which apparently also has some degree of engine control, loses power? The problem with interlinked circuits and systems is that sometimes, unexpected things can happen when events that were not considered actually happen. If one module, reporting to another, loses power or fails, sometimes it can "tell" the surviving module something that isn't true... My concern is where does the power to the Fuel Cutoff switches come from? Are there relays or solid-state switches (or what?) between the Panel Switches and the valves? If so, is the valve power derived from a different source, and if so, where? Are the valves solenoids, open when power applied, or something else? What is the logic involved, between switch and valve?
Would you mind answering these questions so I can ponder it all further, please? If I'm wrong, I'll happily say so.
Anyway, the thing I'm looking at is how the fuel cutoff switch function could have been activated in some other way. To me, it seems obvious that there are wires that run between the engine fuel shutoff valves and the cockpit / flight control panel (no doubt with relays etc in between). I don't know where those shutoff valves are located, but logic says they should be located in the fuselage, not out at the engines. I also don't know how those valves operate - are they solenoid valves or electro-mechanically driven? Nor do I know where the power to activate those valves comes from, but using my logic, if those valves close when powered off, such as solenoid valves typically do, then the power cannot exclusively come from the engine-dedicated generators. If it did, you'd never be able to start the engines so they could supply their own power to hold those valves open. So, there must be some power (appropriately) fed from the main aircraft control bus to activate those valves - if the rest of what I'm assuming is correct. Anyway, like I say, I don't know enough about the details at this point, but there are many more ways to activate or deactivate a circuit than by flicking a switch. Killing the relevant power supply, for example. A screwdriver across some contacts (for example), another. Shorting a wire to Chassis, maybe. Just trying to contribute what I can.
You raise another interesting point: "TCMA notwithstanding". Could you elaborate, please? What will happen if the TCMA system, which apparently also has some degree of engine control, loses power? The problem with interlinked circuits and systems is that sometimes, unexpected things can happen when events that were not considered actually happen. If one module, reporting to another, loses power or fails, sometimes it can "tell" the surviving module something that isn't true... My concern is where does the power to the Fuel Cutoff switches come from? Are there relays or solid-state switches (or what?) between the Panel Switches and the valves? If so, is the valve power derived from a different source, and if so, where? Are the valves solenoids, open when power applied, or something else? What is the logic involved, between switch and valve?
Would you mind answering these questions so I can ponder it all further, please? If I'm wrong, I'll happily say so.
The valves are located in the spar (hence being called 'spar valves'. The fuel tank is immediately above the engine so it is a very short pipe for suction feeding. Tail mount engines are potentially a different story...
What\x92s the usual time frame for the release of preliminary data and report from the FDR and CVR? Is it around 6 months?
I guess if no directives come from Boeing or the FAA in the next 2 weeks, it can be presumed that a systems failure from which recovery was impossible was unlikely.
I guess if no directives come from Boeing or the FAA in the next 2 weeks, it can be presumed that a systems failure from which recovery was impossible was unlikely.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-15T04:00:00
permalink Post: 11902086
I accept it as a fact.
I believe the valves are almost all bi-stable power-open power-close. When not powered, they remain in the last commanded position.
The valves are located in the spar (hence being called 'spar valves'. The fuel tank is immediately above the engine so it is a very short pipe for suction feeding. Tail mount engines are potentially a different story...
The valves are located in the spar (hence being called 'spar valves'. The fuel tank is immediately above the engine so it is a very short pipe for suction feeding. Tail mount engines are potentially a different story...
2025-06-15T04:53:00
permalink Post: 11902102
Ok, thanks for clarifying. Of course, an overload will simply cause the hydraulic pressure relief valves to activate. There will be a moderate increase in motor current when bypassing, but the electrical side should be fully able to cope with that. Should be! I'm suggesting here that there was a fault somewhere in the electrical supplies that effectively derated some part of it, and that maybe the GearUp load was too much for it on this occasion.
It uses a variable displacement pump to maintain 5000PSI constant pressure. The swashplate angle is varied to adjust pump output flow: more devices consuming fluid, more flow to keep the pressure up. If the pumps cannot deliver enough fluid, the swashplate reaches the full flow position and the output pressure decreases until flow consumed equals flow produced. Very much like a constant-current constant-voltage power supply.
Running in that area of maximum flow is 100% expected under some conditions, especially if an engine or EDP fails and the electric demand pump is supplying a whole hydraulic system sized for the larger EDP (although I think this would be less of an issue on the 787 as the L/R systems don't do much, but the same variable-displacement pump design has been around for a LONG time including on the 737).
And again, there's a VFD between the aircraft electrical bus and the pump motor, because the pump is 400Hz and the aircraft is wild-frequency. VFDs are very very good at isolating faults unless you are actually looking at a sustained overload on one of four generators .
Thanks for confirming the 4 gens. So there's probably quite a bit of switching required. Not sure how that's done, but I guess robust contactors are required. And even these can fail. Systems usually cannot tell that a contactor has failed on the open side until it's switched. So, a switchover may have been done, but a failed contact meant the backup generator wasn't connected. Who knows, so many possibilities.
No bus is essential on a modern aircraft.
Boeing treats everything electric as a black box but the A380 has this beautifully overkill drawing - given both have 4x generators, 2x APU generators, and a RAT, it should not be entirely dissimilar levels of redundancy:
Note that the reason for some links having two contactors in series (e.g. BTC5/6 or BTC7) is because this is spread across two separate units, so that a fire and total loss of one leaves ~half the aircraft powered and totally flyable.
Okay! Many thanks for that! Of course, it very much complicates the picture, and I'm very puzzled as to how the Fuel Cutoff Switches and Valves operate. Apparently, the TCAM system shuts off an errant engine on the ground at least, but my concern is not with the software but the hardware. It obviously has an Output going into the Fuel Shutoff system. If the TCAM unit loses power, can that output cause the Cutoff process (powered by the engine-dedicated generator) to be activated? I guess that's the $64 billion question, but if MCAS is any example, then: Probably!
Power-open power-close is very common in commercial/situations where you don't want to be wasting energy 24/7 and don't have a defined position for the valve/damper in case of power loss. Done a bunch of them in ductwork and electrically operated windows - your car likely has them, for example.
Last edited by Someone Somewhere; 15th Jun 2025 at 05:08 .
4 users liked this post.
2025-06-15T08:34:00
permalink Post: 11902234
Could be that the gear is quite clearly in the forward tilt position (indicating initial gear retraction has commenced), but then the gear never goes up. How does that occur? The gear in the 787 is driven in retraction by the center hydraulic system. How is the center hydraulic system powered? Electrically, via C1 and C2 EMP's. How are those EMP's supplied with power? Engine 1 and 2 (via a bootstrap from L1/2 R1/2 gens). The rat also connects to the center hydraulic system, but importantly, it does not supply hydraulic power to the gear. Only a select number of flight control surfaces.
So, my question to you is, given you're claiming there is zero evidence of electrical failure, how did the gear move into the forward tilt position, but then not retract?
4 users liked this post.
2025-06-15T10:58:00
permalink Post: 11902355
This is probably a very stupid question, but what would happen if a BPCU fault (or other cause) led to VFSGs on opposite sides of the aircraft being connected to the same 230 VAC bus?
My understanding is that the left engine VFSGs are not synchronized in frequency or phase with the right engine VFSGs. Cross-connecting them, electrically, could be quite violent from both an electrical and mechanical perspective.
Is it realistically possible that the torque shock from cross-connected VFSGs could damage their associated accessory drive trains to the extent that the associated FADEC alternators would no longer make power? In this situation, there would be a loss of aircraft electrical power due to the BPCU fault, no FADEC alternator power due to damage to the accessory drive train, and, therefore, no engine thrust.
I presume each VFSG has a frangible link to protect the accessory drive train in the event the VFSG seizes up, which ought to make this loss-of-engine-thrust scenario impossible, but presumption is not knowledge, and this is a possible failure chain that doesn't involve stacking up multiple 10e-9 events.
My understanding is that the left engine VFSGs are not synchronized in frequency or phase with the right engine VFSGs. Cross-connecting them, electrically, could be quite violent from both an electrical and mechanical perspective.
Is it realistically possible that the torque shock from cross-connected VFSGs could damage their associated accessory drive trains to the extent that the associated FADEC alternators would no longer make power? In this situation, there would be a loss of aircraft electrical power due to the BPCU fault, no FADEC alternator power due to damage to the accessory drive train, and, therefore, no engine thrust.
I presume each VFSG has a frangible link to protect the accessory drive train in the event the VFSG seizes up, which ought to make this loss-of-engine-thrust scenario impossible, but presumption is not knowledge, and this is a possible failure chain that doesn't involve stacking up multiple 10e-9 events.
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-15T11:03:00
permalink Post: 11902361
Retired engineer here. Following my post a while ago on the avionics electrical system I have read all the posts and also noticed mention of the hydraulics system.
Returning to my original source, which is Book 1 Introduction to B787 Avionic/Electrical, I read on p. 96 that the RAT will deploy if any of three conditions are met.
https://fliphtml5.com/quwam/qhdw/Boo...ics_Electrical
These conditions for deployment of the RAT specifically are:
Loss of both engines
Loss of power to the instrument buses
Loss of all three hydraulic systems
The latter one may be worth a close look because it would appear that problems took place when the wheels left the runway and I assume there was a change of states in various sensors. I surmise these sensors are different from the engine systems where both commands and power are needed to force a change of state in, say, fuel pumps. Is it the same for thrust control?
It says there are three hydraulic systems but is there a common reservoir? I'm not an expert in that field but google tells me that B787 has a bootstrap reservoir system which I understand to mean that a pressure of 5000 psi is maintained using a piston arrangement.
At this point think timeline, and changes of states.
There is an operational change when the wheels leave the ground. The associated sensors would send that data to the CCS. What was sent? Maybe the CCS read Hydraulic L + Hydraulic R + Hydraulic C = incorrect or fail, which would trigger deployment of the RAT. What would the electrical and control system do then? More importantly what exactly did all the systems do on this aircraft following such an event.
Was there a problem with the fluid in the hydraulics? Does hydraulic fluid ever 'go off' in very hot conditions. Or maybe there wasn't as much fluid in there than there should have been? How would hydraulics systems be compromised if indeed that was the case.
All speculation - but forensic system analysis is a bit like that.
Finally - what was the noise the survivor heard? Was it before or after the lights flickered? It may have been a bit of the airframe hitting something and snapping.
The survivors in the doctor's hostel heard a noise too which may be jet engines running. They would know the difference between that and other noises being close to an airport. Need a timeline for everything here.
Apologies for the long post. Just my thoughts.
RIP to all who didn't survive.
Returning to my original source, which is Book 1 Introduction to B787 Avionic/Electrical, I read on p. 96 that the RAT will deploy if any of three conditions are met.
https://fliphtml5.com/quwam/qhdw/Boo...ics_Electrical
These conditions for deployment of the RAT specifically are:
Loss of both engines
Loss of power to the instrument buses
Loss of all three hydraulic systems
The latter one may be worth a close look because it would appear that problems took place when the wheels left the runway and I assume there was a change of states in various sensors. I surmise these sensors are different from the engine systems where both commands and power are needed to force a change of state in, say, fuel pumps. Is it the same for thrust control?
It says there are three hydraulic systems but is there a common reservoir? I'm not an expert in that field but google tells me that B787 has a bootstrap reservoir system which I understand to mean that a pressure of 5000 psi is maintained using a piston arrangement.
At this point think timeline, and changes of states.
There is an operational change when the wheels leave the ground. The associated sensors would send that data to the CCS. What was sent? Maybe the CCS read Hydraulic L + Hydraulic R + Hydraulic C = incorrect or fail, which would trigger deployment of the RAT. What would the electrical and control system do then? More importantly what exactly did all the systems do on this aircraft following such an event.
Was there a problem with the fluid in the hydraulics? Does hydraulic fluid ever 'go off' in very hot conditions. Or maybe there wasn't as much fluid in there than there should have been? How would hydraulics systems be compromised if indeed that was the case.
All speculation - but forensic system analysis is a bit like that.
Finally - what was the noise the survivor heard? Was it before or after the lights flickered? It may have been a bit of the airframe hitting something and snapping.
The survivors in the doctor's hostel heard a noise too which may be jet engines running. They would know the difference between that and other noises being close to an airport. Need a timeline for everything here.
Apologies for the long post. Just my thoughts.
RIP to all who didn't survive.
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-15T11:16:00
permalink Post: 11902370
Retired engineer here. Following my post a while ago on the avionics electrical system I have read all the posts and also noticed mention of the hydraulics system.
Returning to my original source, which is Book 1 Introduction to B787 Avionic/Electrical, I read on p. 96 that the RAT will deploy if any of three condions are met.
Maybe the URL will work this time
https://fliphtml5.com/quwam/qhdw/Boo...ics_Electrical
These conditions for deployment of the RAT specifically are:
Loss of both engines
Loss of power to the instrument buses
Loss of all three hydraulic systems
The latter one may be worth a close look because it would appear that problems took place when the wheels left the runway and I assume there was a change of states in various sensors. I surmise these sensors are different from the engine systems where both commands and power are needed to force a change of state in, say, fuel pumps. Is it the same for thrust control?
It says there are three hydraulic systems but is there a common reservoir? I'm not an expert in that field but google tells me that B787 has a bootstrap reservoir system which I understand to mean that a pressure of 5000 psi is maintained using a piston arrangement.
At this point think timeline, and changes of states.
There is an operational change when the wheels leave the ground. The associated sensors would send that data to the CCS. What was sent? Maybe the CCS read Hydraulic L + Hydraulic R + Hydraulic C = incorrect or fail, which would trigger deployment of the RAT. What would the electrical and control system do then? More importantly what exactly did all the systems do on this aircraft following such an event.
Was there a problem with the fluid in the hydraulics? Does hydraulic fluid ever 'go off' in very hot conditions. Or maybe there wasn't as much fluid in there than there should have been? How would hydraulics systems be compromised if indeed that was the case.
All speculation - but forensic system analysis is a bit like that
Returning to my original source, which is Book 1 Introduction to B787 Avionic/Electrical, I read on p. 96 that the RAT will deploy if any of three condions are met.
Maybe the URL will work this time
https://fliphtml5.com/quwam/qhdw/Boo...ics_Electrical
These conditions for deployment of the RAT specifically are:
Loss of both engines
Loss of power to the instrument buses
Loss of all three hydraulic systems
The latter one may be worth a close look because it would appear that problems took place when the wheels left the runway and I assume there was a change of states in various sensors. I surmise these sensors are different from the engine systems where both commands and power are needed to force a change of state in, say, fuel pumps. Is it the same for thrust control?
It says there are three hydraulic systems but is there a common reservoir? I'm not an expert in that field but google tells me that B787 has a bootstrap reservoir system which I understand to mean that a pressure of 5000 psi is maintained using a piston arrangement.
At this point think timeline, and changes of states.
There is an operational change when the wheels leave the ground. The associated sensors would send that data to the CCS. What was sent? Maybe the CCS read Hydraulic L + Hydraulic R + Hydraulic C = incorrect or fail, which would trigger deployment of the RAT. What would the electrical and control system do then? More importantly what exactly did all the systems do on this aircraft following such an event.
Was there a problem with the fluid in the hydraulics? Does hydraulic fluid ever 'go off' in very hot conditions. Or maybe there wasn't as much fluid in there than there should have been? How would hydraulics systems be compromised if indeed that was the case.
All speculation - but forensic system analysis is a bit like that
Left and right hydraulics have an engine driven pump that will keep turning as long as the engine is turning unless explicitly disabled.
Low reservoir levels are both a maintenance check and something that will raise an EICAS warning.
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-15T12:52:00
permalink Post: 11902440
I'm a bit bemused by all the confidence that a few days passing means anything other than operational error can be ruled out. These are a few "serious flaws" (you can quibble about the definition of "serious") involved in fatal catastrophe that I can recall:
- The DC-10 cargo door issues involved in the loss of Turkish 981
- The 747 cargo door issues involved in the United 811 accident
- The 737 rudder issues involved in the loss of United 585 and USAir 427
- The 737 MCAS issues involved in the loss of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 302
I would mention Lauda Air 004, but in fairness the loss of the flight data recorder hampered the investigation.
Anyway, I don't recall the case being cracked and fleets worldwide being grounded within mere days of any of these accidents. In fact several of them had fingers pointed at primarily flight crew or ground crew error before deeper investigation brought these flaws to light. You can chalk the first three up to ancient times, but the MCAS saga is recent enough to have had all the telemetry and other fancy modern tools and methods that this accident's investigators will have at their disposal. And there's also (thankfully) non-fatal flaws like with the Pratt & Whitney 4000 that ultimately led to affected 777s being grounded, but not immediately after the first fan blade failure incident in 2018 either.
Again I'm not saying that this accident definitely falls one way or the other but that's my point really - closing your mind to the possibility of anything other than operational error because "we'd know by now" seems a bit premature. If anything it seems to me like a design/procedural/mechanical flaw would take more time to surface than simple pilot error.
- The DC-10 cargo door issues involved in the loss of Turkish 981
- The 747 cargo door issues involved in the United 811 accident
- The 737 rudder issues involved in the loss of United 585 and USAir 427
- The 737 MCAS issues involved in the loss of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 302
I would mention Lauda Air 004, but in fairness the loss of the flight data recorder hampered the investigation.
Anyway, I don't recall the case being cracked and fleets worldwide being grounded within mere days of any of these accidents. In fact several of them had fingers pointed at primarily flight crew or ground crew error before deeper investigation brought these flaws to light. You can chalk the first three up to ancient times, but the MCAS saga is recent enough to have had all the telemetry and other fancy modern tools and methods that this accident's investigators will have at their disposal. And there's also (thankfully) non-fatal flaws like with the Pratt & Whitney 4000 that ultimately led to affected 777s being grounded, but not immediately after the first fan blade failure incident in 2018 either.
Again I'm not saying that this accident definitely falls one way or the other but that's my point really - closing your mind to the possibility of anything other than operational error because "we'd know by now" seems a bit premature. If anything it seems to me like a design/procedural/mechanical flaw would take more time to surface than simple pilot error.
2025-06-15T13:16:00
permalink Post: 11902458
World wide grounding of the DC10 fleet after Chicago where maintenance had modified engine removal procedures which led to a wing engine loss taking out hydraulic systems that allowed the slats to retract ..aircraft stalled assymetrically and rolled inverted. Many other aircraft had damaged mounts/bolts not all were reported.
This accident too could well be down to a maintenance error, but given that the investigators are not magicians, I don't see how they'd be able to say so with confidence after just a few days. Surely they'd need to review logs, do some lab analysis, etc for that? Perhaps worth noting that an inspection of Air India's 787 fleet has been ordered, but I've seen it dismissed as a CYA move. Might not be...
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-15T13:29:00
permalink Post: 11902475
World wide grounding of the DC10 fleet after Chicago where maintenance had modified engine removal procedures which led to a wing engine loss taking out hydraulic systems that allowed the slats to retract ..aircraft stalled asymetrically and rolled inverted. Many other aircraft had damaged mounts/bolts not all were reported.
Last edited by OldnGrounded; 15th Jun 2025 at 13:37 . Reason: Typo. to not yo
2025-06-16T00:57:00
permalink Post: 11903017
From the detail in this video:
" Just a short video of the Boeing 787 RAT being driven by an attached hydraulic motor. This test is performed to check the RAT's hydraulic pump and electrical generator are functioning correctly. The motor that is bolted onto the back of the RAT is driven using an external hydraulic rig that is feeding the motor with hydraulic fluid at 4200psi at 40GPM ."
FP.
22 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T23:49:00
permalink Post: 11903714
Speaking as a B787 Captain..... There is so much rubbish and stupid suggestion being written here.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
Even though these are big engines with plenty of inertia, when you select engine shut off they spool down very quickly if on load. IE, The generators, two per engine and hydraulic pumps, etc, being driven by the (relatively) small mass of the N2 rotor will drag the speed down very quickly, the gennies will trip offine in seconds, the pumps will quickly reduce flow and pressure.
As for what went wrong.
If the engines have stopped working there has to be a common failure mode, fuel is one but as has been said, no other aircraft has had a problem, as far as we know. FOD? It would have to be something major to shut down two GeNX engines and there would be debris all over the runway, we would know by now.
I have no idea if the RAT has deployed, I can't see it in the video and the noise could be something else.
We shall see.
There is compelling evidence that flaps are set correctly and not retracted inadvertently.
I await further evidence.
Edit to add. LAE 40 years, type rated on 737 to 787 with lots of others in between.
2 users liked this post.