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

I originally was onboard with the truck tilt seen in the one video being proof that the gear handle was selected rather than the flap handle. But after watching several videos and an "endless" web search for info, I also have started to think that there was a problem before the gear handle was moved.

In a normal retraction, the main gear doors begin to open before the truck tilt is complete (roughly when the gear trucks are "level", seen around 8-10 second marks of this video ). The nose gear doors open at the same time the main gear tilt starts (seen in Jetstar video linked below). It's too blurry in the video/stills of the accident aircraft to definitively say the nose doors are not open, but I'd say no. And it's pretty much a certainty that the main gear doors are not open. And finally I think it is also pretty clear that the main gear trucks are tilted down to the retract position.

I have no confirmation of this, but I read (or heard someone say in a video) that the truck tilt actuator was a "single acting" actuator, meaning hydraulic pressure held it in the toe up position and it was spring loaded to the retract position. Which means if hydraulic pressure was lost due to loss of power to the electric driven center hydraulic system, then the main gear trucks would tilt forward on their own without moving the gear handle. The Jetstar burst tire video somewhat backs this up, in that the blown tire caused a leak to the center hydraulic system and an alternate extension was required (thus the reason the main doors are down during the landing). No hydraulic pressure means the main gear trucks remained pointing nose down during the landing. Video here

WHEN something catastrophic happens, like dual engine failure, that then creates a query about any "duality" between two standalone systems that really should have nothing whatsoever in common... except the PF.
Nothing in common? Is that really the case for the 787-8 in the Air India 787 crash?
Look at these three TCMA-related links in the order presented and note the proforma prescriptive caveats in the first two:

https://downloads.regulations.gov/FA...tachment_1.pdf
https://downloads.regulations.gov/FA...tachment_1.pdf
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6704630B2/en

TCMA is designed to detect and accommodate single failures within the EEC/FADEC, preventing a failure from jeopardizing the safe operation of the aircraft.
Implementation:
It involves implementing specific software changes within the engine's control system (EEC).
Regulation:
After some incidents, the design change was mandated by regulators, with a deadline for production aircraft by December 31, 2018, and a retrofit plan for existing aircraft.
Boeing 787 Application:
The TCMA feature is specifically relevant to the 787-8 equipped with GEnx-1B engines, but it may also be applicable to other 787 variants using the same engine type.

The first two links are respectively the request for and FAA affirmation/approval for a GENx-1b software system called TCMA (Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation). TCMA is the system that precludes High Uncommanded Thrust (HUT) after touchdown by fuel-chopping the engines. It is designed to avoid runway departures. One input is power-lever position. It's then fair to say that (additionally) Air/Ground sensing is quintessentially vital (as to when the system is "armed" and can do this fuel-chop). The third link is the complex description (with diagrams) of the patent application's design functionality of TCMA.
FROM THE 3rd link above:
"​​​​​​The method of the present invention compares the engine's actual power level with a threshold contour defined by the TCMA software package. When the TCMA software package determines that a thrust control malfunction has occurred, based on the engine's power level exceeding the threshold contour, the engine is shut down by the TCMA circuit." It is also notable that it says within the 3rd link that "Typically the aircraft is allowed to operate for a limited period of time with just a single operative processing subsystem."
That Air India 787 was not long out of maintenance.
We are then motivated to ask "what dictates the Air/Ground sensing". Is it just a Weight-on-Wheels microswitch or a RADAlt? (or both? or triplicated micro-switches?). We may then ask: "Did Air India implement the post-5G changes to their RADAlts that concentrated on maintaining their auto-land capability (in the face of 5G interference with RADAlts?) I seem to recall that the FAA's dictums on this pointed out that it was an individual nation's responsibility to both control their 5G frequency spectrums and implement changes to Radar altimeters that would work interference-free in critical phases of flight. What has the Indian regulator done in this regard as the responsible entity? The whole shemozzle, starting with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spectrum allocations, was an ongoing fight between the telecom giants and their getting their new mobile tech to market.

So where are we going with this line of causal reasoning? The only commonality/duality between left and right engines is the software driving the TCMA as monitored by the TCMA software incorporated in each engine's EEC. Most pundits have identified the gear-tilt as evidence that only the centre electrically-driven pump can do the gear-tilt if the engines' other two hyd systems are suddenly both in QUIT mode (which accords also with the instant RAT deployment and loud noise heard by the sole survivor) - and an ensuing transition from climb-out to a deadly sinking and commensurate attitude change for speed maint.
My unavoidable conclusion is that the selection of gear UP and the breaking of the gear downlocks (and WOW sensing and energization of the RADALTs) called upon the TCMA to fuel-chop the engines (via the TCMA functionality in each engine's EEC).
We could start by looking at the No Break Power Transfer (NBPT) tech used in modern airliners. This has led to Gen Control Panel meltdowns in 777's due to GEN contact meltdown. I know of one instance when a 773 was reduced to a RAT only landing enroute and another where a disastrous MEC fire occurred after start on pushback at LHR. A description of the systems glitch often experienced is at the following link. It's quite apparently a "gear-up" hiccup with potential damning consequences for smooth TCMA operation. As to be seen in the quality videos, a fuel-chop provides no real clue (such as engine failure/smoke/fire classically does). An uncommanded "reset" of the two engine's TCMA's upon gear retraction (link below) is trackable to be the sought after "duality" leading to a "both simultaneously quit" engine failure. These momentary electrical glitches and instant "resets" are described in the two links below. Food for reasoned thought?

https://tinyurl.com/yn5ce4tz

https://tinyurl.com/3kkh6n3d

One comment here, and maybe I am mis-understanding your comment, but the landing gear only operates via the center hydraulics. It does not matter whether the Left/Right engine driven hydraulic systems are operative or not. The RAT will only pressurize the primary flight control portion of the center hydraulics.
No idea. I only got that info from the Master MEL on the FAA website. According to the MMEL the aircraft can be dispatched as long as there is one of each type sensor working on each main gear. (AIs MEL could be more restrictive)

The RAT provides hydraulic power only to the flight control portion of the C hydraulics. Wing and tail flight controls only. Non return valves prevent power to other C hydraulic powered systems like the gear.

The RAT provides electrical power only to critical flight instrumentation (mostly Captains), navigation and communication. The same critical equipment that the Battery will provide. If all electrics was lost, the main Battery would provides standby power until RAT is fully deployed. The RAT electrical power would not be able to power C hydraulic electric pumps.

Not an avionics specialist, but electronics / software engineer here, with extensive experience in hardware fault tracking, protocol monitoring and software debugging in embedded systems : mods, feel free to delete this post if I am completely out of track (and thank you for the huge amount of work you've done trying to keep this discussion clean).

After I have read the whole thread, I think most of the community agrees about a lack of engine thrust being the cause of the crash. Searching in that direction, I'm trying to "think out of the box", discarding the usual suspects (birds ingestion, TCMA, human mistake...), and to find a plausible single point of failure among the various subsystems involved. I was thinking of reversing the causality of the event, i.e. exploring a case where the engines would have behaved unexpectedly because of a major electrical failure, instead of the already explored case where both powerplants went AWOL first.

Therefore, I have a couple questions for tdracer / fdr / other informed contributors (BTW, fantastic contribution guys, please keep the good info coming):

1. From the scarce info available, is it reasonable to conclude that the engines were totally shut down? Could they have just been set to idle or reduced thrust instead?

2. In the second case, if (and that's a big IF) a major electrical failure happened first (which could have triggered RAT deployment), and considering this plane is a FBW aircraft, could there exist a case where the FADECs would command idle thrust -- or significant thrust reduction -- because they receive invalid input data from the throttle controls? Kind of a garbage in-garbage out case?

The associated scenario would be: major electrical fault (with subsequent RAT deployment) -> major protocol disturbance on ARINC/AFDX buses -> FADECs detect invalid data from the controls -> FADECS enter some kinf of safe mode and command reduced or idle thrust.

Does it make sense or is it pure fantasy?

No. The throttle position sensors (dual per engine) are part of the FADEC. The throttle position data is not transmitted through the ARINC busses of the aircraft.

But would any of that trigger the RAT and/or cause the emergency lights to come on? (I know, there is only anecdotal evidence from the sole survivor of this).

That came from a 787 pilot friend. Under the assumption that the RAT deployment is still an assumption.

Do we know yet what stop
altitude was set on the FGP?

Suppose they had left it at zero prior to final departure briefing?

Not 787 rated but is it possible that they selected FLCH after take off and the aircraft targeted the zero altitude selection?

Doesn\x92t explain the RAT deployment but I have a feeling there maybe more than one hole in this Swiss cheese\x85

Did you not read my full post?

There’s been some debate over what electrical and hydraulic systems are powered. According to one unauthorized and Not For Flight -labeled FCOM copy that seems quite authentic:
The list of inoperative systems include most/all secondary fligh controls powered by the center hydraulic system. There we can conclude that centre hydraulic system electric pumps are not available when operating on APU RAT (or battery) only electrical mode.

Do you stand by your previous assertion :-

How does this explain the unusual forward tilt of the gear trucks as seen in the roof top video?

I appreciate some don\x92t want to speculate on the RAT deployment or APU auto start until further evidence, but the gear truck tilt is a massive clue to a non-normal hydraulic issue, most likely caused by electrical power problems since C hydraulics is only electric pump powered.

That is one conclusion (which I now suggest is unlikely), because you are assuming:

1. The hydraulic failure happened exactly when the truck had tilted forward but the split-second before the gear doors could open. That exact timing seems too coincidental.
2. The crew selected Gear Up. We have no proof of this. I speculate the crew never got as far as "Positive Rate...Gear Up" because they were already engrossed in flying the aircraft and processing their thrust problem. If an electrical problem had developed (as evidenced by the RAT deployment) the flight instrumentation would have been flickering and a flurry of silent master caution alerts would be very distracting.

I suggest it's more likely that the truck remained in a forward tilt from the takeoff run because the hydraulic failure happened prior to rotation, therefore keeping it in this unusual position. This answer does not rely on the gear lever position either. It also insinuates that their hydraulic problems occurred probably between V1 and VR. See my earlier post .

yeah the low MCP alt setting/alt capture doesn\x92t make a whole lot of sense- the plane didn\x92t pitch forward it just failed to climb/lost lift

that\x92s not conducive with what happened nor does it explain why the gear is still down (although seemingly selected up given the boogie tilt) or the RAT deployed (if it really was)

Salvi, just spitballing here, a low alt capture is simple to rectify, but if you’re not expecting it ( perhaps a wrong MCP alt setting) coupled with a HUD , which focuses your attention on it, not the thrust levers, and add to the mix an inexperienced F/O. I can
also see in the final moments of desperation, reaching down and turning the Fuel Control Switches, OFF-THEN-ON, in the hope that an engine will come to life, if they believed that the engine was dead. This may be the reason the RAT extended? Just thinking out loud.

I think the minimum autopilot engagement height is a FCOM limitation but not necessarily a limitation of the system, i.e. you can engage the AP lower than that but it hasn\x92t been technically qualified to work in all circumstances, although it might actually do that. Much like autolands on the B777 which specify F20 or F30 - it works fine with F25 in the field but it\x92s not certified. I know from personal experience that the AP on the 777 will engage below 200\x92 as I did it myself when the cockpit started filling with acrid smoke during rotation and needed to get the mask on ASAP. You used to be able to engage it on the ground (there was an RTO some while back due to \x93stuck controls\x94) but that might be inhibited now.

The ideas of mis-set MCP, AT modes, etc. were worth exploring but by this point, like the gear/flap/performance ones, there is enough convincing evidence now that a) the takeoff was normal until it suddenly wasn\x92t and b) none of the above would cause RAT deployment and a glide into the ground.

Hi all,

Disclaimer: I read this thread from hour 1, still scratching my head regarding perf though.

I know sound analysis points to higher odds being a dual engine failure with RAT deployed, however I still have some questions if anyone is available to enlighten.

So, my questions is related to T/O performance.

Is it possible on the 787 to calculate perf in the OPT for F15/20 T/O, and to enter F5 T/O speed on the FMC ?

By that I mean do normal procedure, but at the point where you are suppose to enter flaps, CG speed ect…. You, out of habit (if F5 is indeed a habit on the 787) enter F5, but F15/20 speeds ? Or would there be a warning that you have manually inputed speeds that are not correct for the selected flaps and conditions inputed in the FMC ?

Thanks for the help !

An FCOM available in the net says that the FMC doesn\x92t accept Vr entry lower than Vr min or V1 min.

The simplest answer: Lo Lvl Alt Cap; Thrust to Idle; Startle Factor; Inappropriate Memory Items : ( RAT deployed; insufficient time for Eng relight.