Posts about: "RAT (Sound)" [Posts: 17 Pages: 1]

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).

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.

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).

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.

for those saying to RAT sound in the video, it's because that video was a screen grab / phone recording of a screen.

the original video with original sound is here and you can clearly hear RAT sound at the beginning of the video just as the plane passes next to the cameraman

https://www.reddit.com/r/ahmedabad/c...t=share_button

The latest hi res video does have audio and very clear. You can hear a RAT sound as it passes by or certainly a deep propeller sound, And a blob where the RAT would be. Only the FDR will help here, That would point to total power loss. But the sudden loss of lift apparent in the video doesn't look like power loss.

a few things stated as fact there without any evidence to support the assertions.

very late rotation - stated several times on this thread but zero evidence for it and some analysis suggests the rotation was at roughly the same location as previous departures of the same flight

no RAT - others, including one with a lot of experience with the sound of a deployed RAT, insist that it was deployed. The video evidence is unclear.

Not saying you\x92re necessarily wrong about anything but I take issue with those that state as fact things that are not (yet) supported by any evidence at all

Jump to 1:48 in this video (if the link doesn't automatically put you there): You can't hear that RAT sound at the very beginning of the flypast?

Yeh I mean it's pretty conclusive, the sound is exactly the same. And there's clearly no engine noise in the crash video.

Confirmation bias is a very strong thing though. Once some people have put a theory out there on the internet they really really don't want to accept it might be wrong. Or form some that maybe the plane was at fault rather than being able to scapegoat a couple of dead guys.

If this is not the RAT spinning then I will eat my shoes....
Something else, there have been discussion about not much engine noise heard. Causes could have been poor mic, a lot of background noises etc. What stands out to me listening to this video is how clearly we can hear the crash itself, even from behind the buildings, but there is absolutely none/zero/zilch/nada engine noise to be heard whatsoever, not much other background noise either for that matter.
This non-aviation related engineer is now convinced that the RAT was out spinning and the engines was either shut down/flamed out/whatever or alternatively at not much more than idle power setting. Considering the deployed RAT I would go for shut down engines.
Now, what the cause for all this might be I have not much idea about, except possibly some very significant electrical system malfunction.

I've only heard RATs in the wind tunnel, and the sound does not jump out at me as being a RAT.

We're all shouting each other down with two main different theories on why the aircraft lost lift so shortly after takeoff.

1) Incorrect flap retraction causing the aircraft to lose lift and unable to recover the energy in time. (Not unheard of and plenty of reports where this has happened - albeit usually not to a crash).

2) Loss of engine thrust backed up two potential pieces of evidence that back up the RAT was deployed (apparent RAT sound, potential RAT seen on low res video).

It is impossible to know which of these is the case. Considering this summary of memory items is there the potential for a combination of both theories to have taken place?

Inadvertant flap retraction by PNF leading the PF to sense a sink and loss of lift. Pushes the thrust levers forward to the firewall and still the aircraft sinks. PF looking through the HUD and so very much 'outside focused' and doesn't realise that PNF has instead moved the flaps. PF defaults to memory items for loss of thrust on both engines before PNF can realise or communicate to PF what they've done, start switches are cut off which drops the RAT and from that point they're only heading one way. This would satisfy the strongly held belief that the RAT was extended, whilst also following the more likely initial cause of an action slip by PNF starting the sequence, rather than a dual engine failure.

Why the need to make the two theories fit in such a convoluted manner? Inadvertent flap retraction was theorised because people assumed that was most likely to have caused the loss of lift - hardly anyone believed dual engine failure was possible. Now we know that the loss of lift was indeed almost certainly caused by a loss of engine power, why all these awkward attempts to reverse engineer it to still fit the flap retraction theory? People need to realise they are only trying to make the flap retraction theory fit because of cognitive biases. If we had all been told immediately, there was dual power loss and the RAT deployed, no-one would even be considering flaps. Its confirmation bias of past assumptions, that's all.

As has been said many times as well, the landing gear retraction process appears to start as the bogies tilt, and then suddenly stops. Which rather suggests they did pull the gear lever. Based on the videos and the amount of speed the plane lost in the very brief sequence ovents, I'd say that the plane lost power a lot earlier than it would have in your theory.

I haven't managed to read every post in this thread, just a large percentage, so please excuse me if these points have already been raised. I'll post each separately in case the mods deem them irrelevant or redundant, in which case, my humble apologies.

First, the RAT. There has been a lot of discussion about this, and I suspect the audio analysis a few posts above pretty well confirms that the RAT was deployed. However, I don't think the following question has been asked, and I believe it's further weight in support of RAT deployment.

Q: Why does the video of the plane passing at low altitude, (potentially taken from an apartment window or balcony door), even exist?

I have lived near an airport flight path for many years, and would never bother to video a passing plane unless I perceived it was truly exceptional. Normally, I don't even look, unless it sounds off course, very loud or some such reason. I have yet to take such a video. Here, of course, I'm assuming that the video-taker lived in or near the building concerned, and was therefore equally used to the sounds of passing planes. I submit that the video was shot purely because the camera man (by the voice sound, but an assumption - maybe not the camera operator's) recognised that the sound he was hearing was indeed exceptional. The video begins with the plane out of the shot, so he 'must' (assumption) have heard it coming, and had time to get his phone and starting videoing. Of course I'm saying that he was hearing the RAT...

Secondly, I have found that different versions of the same video play differently (on the same hardware). In some, I cannot discern the RAT sound - unless I reduce the playback speed. Then, it seems to be very distinct - but whether this is an artifact of the reduced playback speed, I can't say. I suspect that different playback applications and hardware will also have a major influence on the RAT audibility. I am 100% convinced that the RAT sound was captured, but is not audible to all, for one or more of these reasons.

Oh, lastly, I'm guessing the (AI) RAT frequency in the audio spectrum analysis was probably lower because the plane was travelling slower than in the other, more controlled cases. Equally, the load on the AI RAT could have been greater, for any number of reasons.

This to me makes more sense; perhaps I`ve got it wrong but in the video the trailing edge flaps definitely look up. Maybe there`s more and they weren`t.

On a flap 5 takeoff the FMS could be programmed to select climb power at flaps 1 which would seem like an apparent loss of thrust. Same as for F15 to F5 or further.

I`m not sure if they would have cycled the FCS switches or not. But the airplane certainly would have experienced a loss of lift would the flaps been inadvertently retracted. As well as perceived loss of thrust.

OTOH any castastophic failure which left the gear down would have essentially left the flaps where they were. They are hydraulically activated with electrical backup but it`s wayyyyy slow.

I've been sitting on my hands for days now...but please stop linking RAT deployment evidence with some blurry cluster of pixelation, which proves nothing.
This Pprune-forensic audio analysis (and subsequent posts) by Kraftstoffvondesibel, although completely ignored by many it seems, is the only clear proof there was a deployed RAT sound recorded in the young boy's video clip. You may disprove the analysis as much as you like, but referring to blurry video regarding possible RAT deployment or not, is indeed " thousands of people are wasting countless hours "

I'm rather under the impression that many recent discussions are going backwards or h amsterwheeling.
But thank you for your valuable audio analysis

If you’ve read the whole thread, you’ll see that most of us who are acknowledging rat evidence are also citing this compelling audio evidence too.

For those postulating the RAT was not deployed, what counter explanations do you have for the following clues?

• Distinctive RAT sound in the rooftop video, audio analysis here .
• RAT visible in rooftop video, example in this image .
• APU door open suggesting auto APU start, suggestive of a full electrics failure (one of the criteria for auto RAT deployment)
• Loss of ADSB data suggestive of a full electrics failure (one of the criteria for auto RAT deployment)
• Unusual gear forward tilt position, suggestive of hydraulic failure and/or full electrics failure (one of the criteria for auto RAT deployment).
• Loss of all thrust, ie dual engine failure (one of the criteria for auto RAT deployment)

Great summary. I've already mentioned the first below, but I'd add another:

• The existence (and timing) of the flyby video by a young lad who apparently lived where the footage was shot from. With planes flying past every few minutes, why would he choose to film this one, before he could even see it? The video starts with the plane still approaching, out of view, and his position suggests it was unplanned, before he could move to a better vantage point. I say he already knew it was extraordinary - from the sound.
• Eye witness account from the mother of the lad who filmed the flyby, apparently said that the plane was "shaking". I'll assume she didn't know how to describe it properly, and that maybe it sounded like it was shaking, from hearing the noise from the RAT. Or it's a translation issue of a word/s with multiple meanings or used colloquially.

One question - are there two exterior doors to the APU compartment, one on top, one below, presumably inlet and outlet of cooling airflow? I've seen photos showing two open doors, but the lower one could be something else, and busted open during the crash.