Posts about: "RAT (Deployment)" [Posts: 361 Pages: 19]

Matt2725
2025-06-12T10:04:00
permalink
Post: 11898987

That very much sounds like the RAT is deployed as the aircraft goes by the camera.

1 user liked this post.

Porto Pete
2025-06-12T10:24:00
permalink
Post: 11899028
Originally Posted by Matt2725
https://x.com/krok7517100/status/1933089931347345596

That very much sounds like the RAT is deployed as the aircraft goes by the camera.




Hard to say and the noise could be a fake. It's hard to tell what's real these days.

3 users liked this post.

drdino
2025-06-12T10:37:00
permalink
Post: 11899041
Comparing the sound at the beginning of this video:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ahmedabad/s/Oz5hQzDiu5

With the sound of the 787 at the 1:14 mark


It sounds like it had the RAT deployed?

1 user liked this post.

nomess
2025-06-12T10:39:00
permalink
Post: 11899042
That sure sounds like a RAT is deployed on that video, unless it\x92s a vehicle passing by.

I think I can somewhat see it deployed during the pitch up.
FullWings
2025-06-12T12:12:00
permalink
Post: 11899143
How horrible. From what has surfaced so far, it does appear that the aircraft became airborne and got to a reasonable height and groundspeed, within parameters for a normal takeoff. The video with RAT-like audio and the snapshot from another video showing hints of RAT deployment seem to be the biggest clues so far: flaps and gear are a minor issue compared with a serious power loss, although loss of electrical power would trigger the RAT if it uses the same logic on the 787 as earlier Boeings.

That you can hear the RAT on the video over what should be engines at takeoff thrust at that point adds credence to the theory, as does reports of a MAYDAY.
Spunky Monkey
2025-06-12T12:14:00
permalink
Post: 11899148
For an aircraft that will likely have TOGA pressed and be at a high power setting (plus the RAT deployed) it sounds awfully quiet.
Perhaps the gear was down because they knew they were going to force land due to lack of thrust.
(Only a 738 driver), but the electric pumps to drive the hydraulics is much slower than the engine driven pumps and so flap selection / re-selection could be not as expected.

RIP to all involved.

1 user liked this post.

Someone Somewhere
2025-06-12T12:34:00
permalink
Post: 11899162
Originally Posted by Spunky Monkey
For an aircraft that will likely have TOGA pressed and be at a high power setting (plus the RAT deployed) it sounds awfully quiet.
Perhaps the gear was down because they knew they were going to force land due to lack of thrust.
(Only a 738 driver), but the electric pumps to drive the hydraulics is much slower than the engine driven pumps and so flap selection / re-selection could be not as expected.

RIP to all involved.
787 gear and flaps/slats are both on the centre system, powered by 2x big electric pumps and no EDPs, so retraction should be minimally impacted by engine failure assuming electric power was still available and reconfiguration worked. Note the 787 has two generators per engine so generator failure is also unlikely to contribute, unless both engines failed taking out all four generators (and presumably no APU running).

Originally Posted by The Brigadier
Assuming we're not facing a repeat of the Boeing 737‑800 crash at Muan International Airport when loss of loss of both engines apparently also cut power to Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)
From that thread, I believe it was discussed that on most/all other large transports, deploying the RAT re-powers the CVR/FDR. The 737 didn't have that happen because no RAT. You may still get a few second gap while the RAT deploys.

The 787 has 2x Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFR), which each record both cockpit voice and flight data. I expect they are also fitted with the dedicated batteries that the Jeju was a year or two too early to require. Per the NTSB , the forward recorder has a 10-minute backup battery.

Hopefully flight data is not going to be an issue for this investigation.

Originally Posted by Sriajuda
Also, what is this discussion about the RAT? Unless someone has extremely quickly faked the audio on the video, it is pretty clear that the engines were running. (Both of them, there is some slight interference pattern I (maybe imagine) to hear.
The suggestion is that the buzzsaw/propeller sound is the RAT; it does sound a bit like an interference pattern, but you don't get the engine roar with it.

It's also maybe visible in a few stills (e.g. post 64).

Last edited by Someone Somewhere; 14th Jun 2025 at 06:01 .

2 users liked this post.

YRP
2025-06-12T13:00:00
permalink
Post: 11899183
Originally Posted by FullWings
How horrible. From what has surfaced so far, it does appear that the aircraft became airborne and got to a reasonable height and groundspeed, within parameters for a normal takeoff. The video with RAT-like audio and the snapshot from another video showing hints of RAT deployment seem to be the biggest clues so far: flaps and gear are a minor issue compared with a serious power loss, although loss of electrical power would trigger the RAT if it uses the same logic on the 787 as earlier Boeings.

That you can hear the RAT on the video over what should be engines at takeoff thrust at that point adds credence to the theory, as does reports of a MAYDAY.
The audio is not great and kind of whiny. Even at the end when the crash happens, it does not sound robust.

Likely: this is not the RAT sound; it is just poor audio pickup.
A320 Glider
2025-06-12T13:16:00
permalink
Post: 11899202
Just to confirm.
The 787 is an aircraft which likes to, performance wise, use all of the available runway for takeoff. Sometimes you can be sat in the 787 and as you are rolling down the runway, you start wondering if Rotate has been called or not. It loves taking up all of the runway.

Nevertheless, there are some interesting speculations over on X. One guy even claimed the Captain was in the lavatory during the accident...

Many people have noted what appears to be the RAT deployed in the video footage suggesting dual engine failure. Possible wrong engine shutdown? But who diagnoses and actions an engine failure and shutdown below 400ft?
whatdoesthisbuttondo
2025-06-12T15:36:00
permalink
Post: 11899358
Originally Posted by nachtmusak
I don't really understand why so many people have latched so hard onto the theory that the flaps were not extended based off nothing but a poor quality video (while also ignoring other clues in that same video, such as what is almost certainly the sound of a ram air turbine - never mind that even in that video you can equally conclude that the slats and flaps are extended).

One would think it sensible to at least wait for higher quality images/video to emerge before saying it with confidence, given how incredible the claim and aspersions being cast on the crews' basic competence and professionalism are.
It looks like an action slip to me as the timing looks right ie \x93positive rate \x93 \x93gear up\x94 (someone raises the flaps instead of the gear) PF is looking through the HUD so just sees someone move their hand rather than the hand moving the correct lever

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

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

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

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

1 user liked this post.

L8ngtkite
2025-06-12T15:39:00
permalink
Post: 11899361
AD compliance?

aviationweek.com/aerospace/aircraft-propulsion/faa-boeing-787s-need-be-powered-every-120-days

aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/14494/in-what-circumstances-could-a-787-stay-powered-on-continuously-for-248-days


Loud bang heard by pax 11A suggests otherwise. (ie EFATO) but still\x85

Could It have been a compressor stall / flow reversal at the point of EEC shutdown? Loss of thrust on both engines?

The odds are slim but would the RAT deploy in such a scenario?

(or has the RAT deployment observation been debunked?)

1 user liked this post.

Golfss
2025-06-12T15:39:00
permalink
Post: 11899363
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas
No the plane barely took off the runway, low power setting/bad flaps. Unless you are saying a double engine failure before take off but seriously how likely is that? It's much more plausible to mess up the take off settings we have seen it many times before. But I think we will find out soon, no need to speculate too much.
But why is the RAT extended? Any 787 drivers able to confirm under what conditions the RAT automatically deploys?
ahmetdouas
2025-06-12T15:40:00
permalink
Post: 11899366
Originally Posted by Golfss
But why is the RAT extended? Any 787 drivers able to confirm under what conditions the RAT automatically deploys?
Who said it is deployed? I don't see it deployed. How would it even have time to deploy, it crashed within 30 seconds!
SloppyJoe
2025-06-12T15:44:00
permalink
Post: 11899373
Originally Posted by Matt2725
https://x.com/krok7517100/status/1933089931347345596

That very much sounds like the RAT is deployed as the aircraft goes by the camera.


This is a higher quality video posted earlier. That is not two engines at TOGA and sounds incredibly like a RAT. I think most commenting about not hearing a RAT are watching the more widely shared low quality vid with very poor sound.

8 users liked this post.

slacktide
2025-06-12T15:55:00
permalink
Post: 11899396
Originally Posted by Golfss
it is quite literally imaged, and the fact that the 787 passing in video sounds nothing like a jet and more like a T6
I have heard 777s and 787s pass overhead with the RAT deployed many hundreds of times. The sound in that video is 100% a deployed RAT.

9 users liked this post.

AirScotia
2025-06-12T16:15:00
permalink
Post: 11899420
What is the precise trigger for the RAT to deploy automatically on the 787? Full failure of both engines?
KSINGH
2025-06-12T16:15:00
permalink
Post: 11899423
Originally Posted by barrymung
Ok, so...

Some have said the RAT appears to have been deployed. This would suggest a hydraulic/electrical failure on the plane.

A hydraulic/electrical failure could well make it impossible to retract the gear immediately.

But, what do flaps do in the event of a major hydraulic/electrical failure? Is there a default that they revert back to?

We can, I think, rule out engine failure, at least single engine failure because the rudder is still straight on in the
Video. You can also hear the engines..
You are saying the RAT is deployed but we can rule out engine failure?

I thought this was meant to the *professional* pilot\x92s forum

1 user liked this post.

barrymung
2025-06-12T16:17:00
permalink
Post: 11899426
Originally Posted by Kerosine
Given the sound which clearly mimics the RAT, images and collective tech knowledge, what could lead to this symmetric loss of thrust/lift at 200ft?

Fuel supply/quality issues?
Gear unable to be retracted and flaps retracted due to no hydraulic pressure? It would certainly explain the RAT being deployed and the loss of lift.

1 user liked this post.

Speedbird744
2025-06-12T16:18:00
permalink
Post: 11899430
Originally Posted by KSINGH
You are saying the RAT is deployed but we can rule out engine failure?

I thought this was meant to the *professional* pilot\x92s forum

Of course the RAT will deploy if all three hydraulic systems have low pressure even with both engines running. This is the case on the 77/78.
7478ti
2025-06-12T16:18:00
permalink
Post: 11899432
Please all... let's get more facts and data before unwarranted speculation about cause or culpability.

That's especially pertinent about questionable aspects like flap extensions used for takeoff, temperature effects, limited runway distance, and other likely irrelevant circumstances.

The "bang", Mayday call, potential RAT deployment, and high alpha touchdown may prove significant, ....if and only if they are later verified by accident investigation.

It is most inappropriate to yet for any professional aviators be inferring any flight crew, airline, or OEM connections whatsoever. Only sympathy and aid for the crew, passengers, families, airline, and those impacted by this tragic crash, and support to the accident investigators, ....should be in our thoughts and prayers at this point.

6 users liked this post.