Page Links: First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next Last Index Page
FullWings
2025-06-14T07:36:00 permalink Post: 11901205 |
Only on the electrically-powered centre system (which does gear and flaps). Left and right have engine-driven pumps which will provide plenty of power for flight controls provided the engines remain above maybe 30-40% N2.
Compromising both engines inherently compromises the electrical system: dropping below idle N2 (plus some safety margin) disconnects generators. 3 users liked this post. |
wonkazoo
2025-06-14T07:44:00 permalink Post: 11901210 |
Sometimes complex sequences can have very simple causalities. A lot of complex speculation in this thread so far focused on highly technical things. Yet the basic fundamentals of powered flight have not changed (despite our attempts to do so) over the past 100 years.
Fact 1: The airplane stopped going up because it lacked excess thrust necessary to sustain the climb, and; Fact 2: The airplane’s airspeed decreased constantly because they were trying to maintain either altitude or the climb, but lacked the thrust to do so, and; Fact 3: If they had prematurely raised the flaps, the climb rate would have decreased/possibly turned negative, but the airplane would have continued to accelerate. So where did the thrust go? Fact 4: There is no adverse yaw seen in any of the videos, so wherever it went the loss of thrust occurred (nearly) simultaneously in both engines. Fact 5: The only way to stop a jet engine from thrusting (sorry) is by either blowing it up or removing the fuel supply. If it blows up- like from birds trying to become a fuel source, there will be evidence. (See Jeju Air for a good example.) Fact 6: There is (so far) no evidence of either engine blowing up. (I’m deliberately using highly technical terms here…) Fact 7: There is unmistakably clear audible evidence of the RAT being deployed on the raw video from the right rear quarter of the airplane. Near supersonic propellor blades are an unmistakable sound- the RAT was definitively deployed no matter how much people want to argue to the contrary. Fact 8: In the same video there is silence from the engines when they should be thundering at full (or nearly full) power. (Yes, I know that isn’t a thing- I am a simple man alas.) Thus the only possible conclusions are (cringes as he waits for fdr to rip him a new ah):
There are a very finite number of possibilities to that answer- and I do have my suspicions, but I lack the qualification to opine on that one. I’ll leave the rest to the more experienced folk here. Warm regards- dce 27 users liked this post. |
SteinarN
2025-06-14T07:45:00 permalink Post: 11901211 |
Even after engines lost all power G could still vary quite a bit as the pilots tried to crash with as little energy as possible. Any passenger could feel this varying G as varying thrust instead. |
Aerospace101
2025-06-14T07:51:00 permalink Post: 11901217 |
How is misselected flap still being discussed? Misselected flap does not cause gear retraction to cease nor cause the RAT to deploy. Both of which are (subjectively) evidenced in the videos. What is the supporting evidence for misselected flap?
Taken together, it seems that there was an event (or events) shortly after rotation that compromised both engines and the electrical system. There is no evidence yet of birdstrikes and continued engine operation *should* not be affected by the aircraft electrical system as they are independently/internally powered, so logic would have the engines failing first leading to a cascade of other problems. Something that affects all engines pretty much simultaneously is a rare beast but it has happened in the past; outside of a deliberate selection of the fuel and/or fire switches for both power plants there is fuel contamination, FOD and not much else.
they\x92ve gone TO power all the way to rotate, no power issues, no eng fuel issues, but as soon as its wheels off they lose all power. That can\x92t be coincidental. TCMA certainly fits this scenario especially with ground/air logic. 1 user liked this post. |
Flyingmole
2025-06-14T07:55:00 permalink Post: 11901220 |
RAT Deployment
As so much of the analysis hinges on whether or not the RAT was deployed, I notice that back in 2015 on another forum somone posed the question
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/119812-787-deployed-ram-air-turbine/"I wonder why so many of these 787's land with their Ram Air Turbine deployed?" Ttere are a number of videos around showing 787s landing with RAT deployed and it appears that this happens with 787s more than other types. Can any knowledgeable Pruner answer this? Is there a problem with the 787's RAT and its deployment, or is the deployment a symptom of a problem within the 787s systems? 1 user liked this post. |
hanche
2025-06-14T08:01:00 permalink Post: 11901228 |
Regarding the sound believed to be the RAT: Some people suggest that the sound might come from the street, not the plane. I'd say the apparent doppler effect heard would indicate otherwise. It would be interesting to do a spectral analysis to check if the frequency drop is indeed compatible with the expected doppler effect. I wouldn't be surprised if several readers have the software and know-how to perform a simple analysis.
|
1stspotter
2025-06-14T08:13:00 permalink Post: 11901237 |
As so much of the analysis hinges on whether or not the RAT was deployed, I notice that back in 2015 on another forum somone posed the question
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/119812-787-deployed-ram-air-turbine/"I wonder why so many of these 787's land with their Ram Air Turbine deployed?" Ttere are a number of videos around showing 787s landing with RAT deployed and it appears that this happens with 787s more than other types. Can any knowledgeable Pruner answer this? Is there a problem with the 787's RAT and its deployment, or is the deployment a symptom of a problem within the 787s systems? 2 users liked this post. |
Lord Bracken
2025-06-14T08:25:00 permalink Post: 11901248 |
Regarding the sound believed to be the RAT: Some people suggest that the sound might come from the street, not the plane. I'd say the apparent doppler effect heard would indicate otherwise. It would be interesting to do a spectral analysis to check if the frequency drop is indeed compatible with the expected doppler effect. I wouldn't be surprised if several readers have the software and know-how to perform a simple analysis.
Occam\x92s Razor is in play here. 3 users liked this post. |
Smooth Airperator
2025-06-14T08:30:00 permalink Post: 11901251 |
A summary of the more certain things we know about the accident so far:
The takeoff run was from the full length and appeared normal, even after comparing with the same flight on previous days. This very much reduces the likelihood of it being a performance issue, e.g. wrong flaps, derate, ZFW/TOW, etc. Shortly after takeoff, the gear started retracting but stopped in an early intermediate position. At the same time the aircraft climb rate dropped off, then it started a shallow descent. This is consistent with a loss of electrical power causing a loss of hydraulic pressure and total engine thrust from both engines reducing below that generated by one engine at the takeoff setting. The position reporting also went offline at that moment, indicating that it was likely load shed due to an electrical malfunction. What exactly caused the engine/electrical issues remains speculative. An action slip mistaking flaps for gear seems much less likely as due to the above, the correct selection was probably made. From the videos of the last moments, there is strong evidence that the RAT was deployed, which has a very short list of possible triggers. The sole eye witness from inside describes power issues which lends credence. Taken together, it seems that there was an event (or events) shortly after rotation that compromised both engines and the electrical system. There is no evidence yet of birdstrikes and continued engine operation *should* not be affected by the aircraft electrical system as they are independently/internally powered, so logic would have the engines failing first leading to a cascade of other problems. Something that affects all engines pretty much simultaneously is a rare beast but it has happened in the past; outside of a deliberate selection of the fuel and/or fire switches for both power plants there is fuel contamination, FOD and not much else. Its seems at least one FDR has been recovered so depending on where they take it for read-out, we should get some initial facts fairly shortly. This indeed is the best summary till now 3 users liked this post. |
Sisiphos
2025-06-14T08:36:00 permalink Post: 11901258 |
Hmm. Not sure where the idea comes from the gear was partially retracted... I can't see any signs for it on the video, nor can I see a RAT. and just to say "some event" must have happened is not very helpful, is it? Of course "something" has happened, but the question remains what.
Would it not make more sense to assume there is no RAT if no RAT is visible? Could it be that we as pilots are in general biased to find a technical reason, although we all know the vast majority of accidents are down to human error? |
SR71
2025-06-14T08:38:00 permalink Post: 11901260 |
Sometimes complex sequences can have very simple causalities. A lot of complex speculation in this thread so far focused on highly technical things. Yet the basic fundamentals of powered flight have not changed (despite our attempts to do so) over the past 100 years.
Fact 1: The airplane stopped going up because it lacked excess thrust necessary to sustain the climb, and; Fact 2: The airplane\x92s airspeed decreased constantly because they were trying to maintain either altitude or the climb, but lacked the thrust to do so, and; Fact 3: If they had prematurely raised the flaps, the climb rate would have decreased/possibly turned negative, but the airplane would have continued to accelerate. So where did the thrust go? Fact 4: There is no adverse yaw seen in any of the videos, so wherever it went the loss of thrust occurred (nearly) simultaneously in both engines. Fact 5: The only way to stop a jet engine from thrusting (sorry) is by either blowing it up or removing the fuel supply. If it blows up- like from birds trying to become a fuel source, there will be evidence. (See Jeju Air for a good example.) Fact 6: There is (so far) no evidence of either engine blowing up. (I\x92m deliberately using highly technical terms here\x85) Fact 7: There is unmistakably clear audible evidence of the RAT being deployed on the raw video from the right rear quarter of the airplane. Near supersonic propellor blades are an unmistakable sound- the RAT was definitively deployed no matter how much people want to argue to the contrary. Fact 8: In the same video there is silence from the engines when they should be thundering at full (or nearly full) power. (Yes, I know that isn\x92t a thing- I am a simple man alas.) Thus the only possible conclusions are (cringes as he waits for fdr to rip him a new ah):
There are a very finite number of possibilities to that answer- and I do have my suspicions, but I lack the qualification to opine on that one. I\x92ll leave the rest to the more experienced folk here. Warm regards- dce The FMA\x92s will be: THR REF | LNAV | VNAV SPD 1 user liked this post. |
mechpowi
2025-06-14T08:48:00 permalink Post: 11901269 |
Hmm. Not sure where the idea comes from the gear was partially retracted... I can't see any signs for it on the video, nor can I see a RAT. and just to say "some event" must have happened is not very helpful, is it? Of course "something" has happened, but the question remains what.
Would it not make more sense to assume there is no RAT if no RAT is visible? Could it be that we as pilots are in general biased to find a technical reason, although we all know the vast majority of accidents are down to human error? Deployed RAT doesn\x92t rule out pilot error, so no bias there. 1 user liked this post. |
Auxtank
2025-06-14T08:55:00 permalink Post: 11901275 |
Jonty; "I can’t see a RAT hanging out." (Sorry Jonty for some reason I can't direct-Quote other people in my reply to posts)
It's difficult to see at the best of times - check this high-res pic of an un-connected Air France 787 with RAT deployed. The video compression and zoom going on with the accident aircraft footage would likely lose the RAT detail - look at the windows - just a suggestion of them - so until a better video emerges it's impossible to say. ![]() 1 user liked this post. |
Mrshed
2025-06-14T09:17:00 permalink Post: 11901294 |
Sometimes I think asking the simple questions is the best approach.
Regardless of flap state, RAT state, etc... Is there any scenario at all that would give the apparent flight path *other than* a lack of thrust? Personally struggling to see one although as a lowly SLF I'm interested in whether this is overly simplistic - thrust but lack of lift would (presumably) result in the same outcome, but further out. Appreciating that the data we have so far on actual flight path is patchy past a certain point. The very fact that this was so fast (and therefore relative lack of pilot correction possible or possible to take effect) means that the flight path itself should tell a story? Then of course, if true, one can speculate to death about *why* a lack of thrust. |
Kraftstoffvondesibel
2025-06-14T09:18:00 permalink Post: 11901296 |
I hesitate to chip in in these accident threads. Keep them clean. However, as as a few comments above brushes my audio expertise, I will comment.
A very simple audio analysis give me this: The 3 segments horisontally, are of different videos of B787s passing overhead/landing. The vertical drop you see is the doppler effect. In other words, these are spectrograms over time which makes these distinctions easier than a simple static spectrogram. 1. B787 landing with RAT extended. 2.Air india crash 3. B787 landing without RAT It's a 5 minute laptop job, and it would look much prettier and clearer if I spent some time with it, (Gain to color match, and spectrally match to compensate for microphone placement and type), but it is 85% conclusive even when done as simple as this IMO. (I do have legal forensic audio experience) The RAT was out judging from the audio evidence. You can see the the equally spaced overtones of the propelller match when passing overhead resulting in the Doppler effect, the difference in length of the doppler is caused by distance and the slightly varying frequencies shown in the starting point is caused by a difference in speed. But the harmonic content match. In the 3rd segment you see none of these overtones at all. ![]() Last edited by Kraftstoffvondesibel; 14th Jun 2025 at 12:02 . 58 users liked this post. |
First_Principal
2025-06-14T09:19:00 permalink Post: 11901297 |
There has been much discussion here about RAT deployment. Various claims either way have been made, based on individual perspectives of available video and audio.
I am very mindful of just how awful a tragedy this is, and have significant misgivings about disproportionate interest in others misfortune where it carries no purpose, but also recognise that for some people knowing and learning what happened ASAP could be very important, particularly given the present circumstances. Thus while I sincerely hope that early detail from investigators will give some clarity, in an effort to reduce needless speculation regarding RAT deployment I have taken: (1) an audio sample from the video of AI171 passing by in which people claim to hear a RAT (2) an audio sample from a 787 video with RAT deployed on test by Boeing (3) an audio sample from a JAL 787 video with RAT deployed And passed these through a FFT in order to gain a more quantitative view of the noise spectra from each event. A spectrogram of the results is presented below. I hesitate to make any conclusions per se, but observe that there are similarities as well as divergences between them. In all three samples there is a relatively consistent signal roughly centered in the range 113-146Hz that could be what gives the characteristic 'buzz' sound of (apparently) a RAT in operation. JAL ~141Hz Test ~146Hz AI171 ~113-134Hz (prob doppler variation here) ![]() Spectral comparison AI171, B787 with RAT, JAL 787 with RAT ![]() Spectral comparison #2 AI171, B787 with RAT, JAL 787 with RAT These frequencies seem consistent(ish) with what I got from this video [[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1r3CuRwjPc] in which a 787 RAT is being tested - albeit in this case the blades are hydraulically powered and not driven as a turbine. This test showed a fundamental frequency of 135Hz with relevant harmonics above (the second harmonic at 270Hz is higher SPL, no weighting): ![]() It's important to note that the initial recordings are necessarily different; these are not controlled conditions, the recording equipment is probably quite diverse and almost certainly not ideal, and the environmental conditions will also be different. Moreover all of these audio samples have come from video files referenced here, one has no way of determining the provenance or veracity of these sources and, crucially, I have no prior experience of analysing/extracting RAT acoustic fingerprints (nor have I sampled 'control' audio of a 787 passing by /without/ RAT!). Additionally it's been quite a long time since I did any work with [turbine] noise so given these and other variables I'm not prepared to make any declarations per se, but perhaps more knowledgeable people could. That said, my feeling from what I see is that RAT deployment is not dis proven, and that the apparent fundamental frequency difference between the samples may be explainable by - amongst other things - difference in a/c airspeed, bearing in mind that AI171 was on TO, the others were landing. Ultimately what I've done here is extremely rudimentary and while it would be possible to go into much more depth I'd hope that more definitive answer would be forthcoming by then, however if anyone wants to discuss specific methodology etc off-line please PM, no wish to add to noise on this thread. FP. 18 users liked this post. |
Ninefornow
2025-06-14T09:23:00 permalink Post: 11901300 |
Double power loss causality
A summary of the more certain things we know about the accident so far:
The takeoff run was from the full length and appeared normal, even after comparing with the same flight on previous days. This very much reduces the likelihood of it being a performance issue, e.g. wrong flaps, derate, ZFW/TOW, etc. Shortly after takeoff, the gear started retracting but stopped in an early intermediate position. At the same time the aircraft climb rate dropped off, then it started a shallow descent. This is consistent with a loss of electrical power causing a loss of hydraulic pressure and total engine thrust from both engines reducing below that generated by one engine at the takeoff setting. The position reporting also went offline at that moment, indicating that it was likely load shed due to an electrical malfunction . I personally think this is a good summary of what we can ascertain at this point from the evidence we have. I am not a 787 driver by any means but with a fair bit of aviation experience. I would be interested in any thoughts on this suggestion regarding loss of thrust: If we take it as a reasonable assumption as above that it is almost simultaneous loss of significant thrust, and for the good reasons already discussed, it is pretty unlikely that from what we can see/analyse, that the cause of this would be bird strike (expect to see some signs on video if it's significant enough to cause double engine failure) nor fuel contamination (reasons as above re: likelihood, other ac affected and simultaneous nature). TCMA I don't know enough about but it seems that the sensor redundancy/logic protection is so high it would not be the sole cause. On this basis, should we perhaps consider the causality of a total electrics failure of some kind first, leading to deployment of the RAT, gear retraction cease etc. Clearly the independent FADEC power generation systems would mean this doesn't on its own prevent thrust control of the engines but could we then be looking at cascading faults (possibly exacerbated by latent faults below the MEL/defect threshold) that contribute to dual power loss and sensor/system issues in throttle response not resulting in FADEC commands to the engines to increase thrust. So even at that point 'firewalling' the throttles could tragically not recover the situation? Very happy to be corrected by those with much more experience and understanding of big jets operations and systems! |
InTheHighlands
2025-06-14T09:24:00 permalink Post: 11901301 |
Reason for video
What else could it be? A motorbike\x85no. A power drill or other construction noise\x85no. An air conditioning unit\x85no. A cement mixer\x85no. I\x92m struggling to think of anything else you could find in an Indian urban area that sounds almost exactly like a RAT and just happened to be making a sound as an aircraft flew over at low level.
Occam\x92s Razor is in play here. |
freshgasflow
2025-06-14T09:35:00 permalink Post: 11901309 |
RAT RPM
I hesitate to chip in in these accidents thread. Keep them clean. However, as as a few comments above brushes my audio expertise, I will comment.
I am one of those who can't see the RAT in the videos. No sign. So my "pet theory" didn't include the rat. However, a very simple audio analysis give me this. It's a 5 minute laptop job, and it would look much prettier and clearer if I was paid to do it, but it is 100% conclusive IMO. (I do have quite a bit of legal forensic audio experience) The RAT was out judging from the audio evidence. |
Kraftstoffvondesibel
2025-06-14T11:51:00 permalink Post: 11901399 |
It was hard to let it go, so I spent a bit more time with the audio, using filtering and matching to see if I could be even more sure.
It's a pity uploading audio to this site isn't as easy as uploading photos, but I can say it took very little filtering and matching to make the Air India audio become nearly indistinguishable from audio taken of B787 with known RAT extended during landing. I can't see it in the photos either, but in these circumstances the audio is a lot more trustworthy, and from my audio point of view RAT deployment is 100% confirmed. In the off chance that the audio I borrowed from a confirmed RAT event was somehow faked, I plotted the technical data I could find of the B787 RAT (4000rpm, 2 blades) combined with a height estimate and asked the O3 model with deep research to estimate doppler shift and speed. The result matches the above documented 270-200Hz (in one of the harmonics) Doppler shift observed in 1.7 seconds. 33 users liked this post. |
Page Links: First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next Last Index Page