Posts about: "TOGA" [Posts: 63 Pages: 4]

Originally Posted by Magplug

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.

Originally Posted by Good Business Sense

Couldn't agree more - never understood this - got to say, calling a mayday seconds into an event (particularly when still down in the dirt) does my head in - nobody is coming up to help. I think you need to keep the focus completely on the task at hand. In an emergency, external distractions destroy checklist SOPs, crew coordination etc etc - I try and keep ATC, company maintenance, etc etc disruptions out of the cockpit until everything is under control.

Originally Posted by Calldepartures

Are you thinking of the EK A340 that departed with a 100 ton descepancy entered in the box resulting in incorrect thrust derate and under cooked V speeds? That aircraft was saved by the flight crew that fire walled the thrust leavers with about 600M remaining. Tail strike and destroyed the LOC antenta, but was able to get Airbourne then return for landing at YMML. Is this a possibility? 100 ton gross error, resulting in incorrect thrust, speeds and flap setting? Pilot mistakes lack of thrust for partial engine failure? The confusion and startle factor as the aircraft is rotating with a surprising lack of thrust and the runway end fast approaching may account for the gear not being selected up. If there were a gross error in the weight entered in the FMC, no takeoff config warning. 40 degrees C, flaps 5 instead of flaps 15 or similar? Hopefully some initial data from the FDR may be a pretty good indication.

Originally Posted by Magplug

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.

Originally Posted by Pip_Pip

I agree it is helpful to seek a consensus on some of these matters.

The most productive responses would be along the lines of:-
(1) I too have read all previous posts and agree that your summary reflects the current consensus,
(2) I too have read all previous posts and agree your summary reflects the consensus HOWEVER I challenge that consensus because... [ [i]EITHER (a) reference to previous post that merits greater credence, OR (b) new evidence supplied],
(3) I too have read all previous posts but I do NOT agree your summary reflects the consensus [explanation required].

It is not necessary for everyone who thinks (1) to say it (although some initial feedback would be useful!). However, if any of the more experienced and informed PPRuNers are thinking either (2) or (3) then it would be instructive to hear that.

FWIW, yours strikes me as a reasonable summary of the best consensus I have been able to discern (as of ~30 minutes ago). There are multiple caveats to each line item, but I presume you've deliberately left those out for the sake of readability, so I'll do the same!

The only comments I would add are:-

- It's a stretch to say the RAT is seen or heard "conclusively". Doubts have been expressed about the video quality and there are dissenting views regarding the audio. If a few more people were able to wade in on the audio point in particular, this could be very beneficial in moving the discussion forward because the presence or otherwise of the RAT is significant to several competing theories.

- On the subject of audio, I am surprised there has not been more discussion regarding engine noise. In the primary eye witness video the (alleged) RAT can be heard distinctly, as can the sounds of distant impact. If the engines were working as expected when overflying the camera and then flying directly away from it, do we really not think the engine noise would be more conclusive, i.e. louder (notwithstanding quiet engines and derated takeoffs)?

Whichever way readers are leaning in the flaps versus power loss debate, surely these two points are pivotal, and we have actual evidence available to discuss?

- Gear bogies: I'm not sure a consensus has yet been reached regarding the angle of the bogies. (I am not personally qualified to comment on this - I am purely saying I don't see a clear consensus just yet among those who are)

- Mayday call: I don't recall seeing a confirmed source for the widely reported mayday. Others have brought this up in the thread but nobody appears to be able to confirm one way or the other. If accurate, its contents are informative. Am I right to presume that you have left it out of your summary due to a lack of confirmation?

Originally Posted by aeo

- The bogie could be explained by the Flap/Slat priority valve giving priority to the flaps if the PM suddenly realised his mistake and quickly put the flap lever back to the TO position and then selected the gear lever to UP. Those systems are both heavy hitters and would’ve sucked the life out of the CTR hydraulic system pumps.
- There is no way loss of AC (alleged RAT deployment) could've caused a spool down of both engines. Think QF A380 incident in SIN - The entire #1 engine wiring harness in the wing was completely severed and yet it continued (by design) to run at its previous thrust setting. They had to shut it down using a fire truck!
- History and design would dictate that a big 180 minutes ETOP’s twin such as the 787 having a dual engine failure or significant power loss at such a critical phase of flight would be a billion to one chance at best. Only the Airbus A400 had a software issue causing all 4 engine fuel shutoff valves to close causing it to crash killing the flight test crew - But this was during its development and flt testing.
- Wide body twin’s delivering in the region of 60,000 to 115,000 lbs of thrust at TO rarely , if at all, flame out from multiple bird strike(s) like the baby Bus’s and Boeing’s. If anyone has seen the frozen chickens at TO power video would know what I’m talking about. And the Fan Blade being ‘blown off’ as well. In both cases the engine was was able to maintain full TOGA thrust for significantly longer than the AI aircraft.

Originally Posted by Icarus2001

No evidence of engine failure

No evidence of RAT deployment from a poor image.

No evidence of electrical failure.

The teams of lawyers in the UK representing 53 grieving families will be working over the weekend to sign up said families to a class action.

This is going to get messy.

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

Perhaps?

• Takeoff proceeded normally, TOGA used.
  
• Autothrottle entered HOLD mode at 80 knots .
  
• VNAV or FLCH was NOT engaged after liftoff.
  
• Pilot assumed A/T was managing thrust, but it wasn\x92t.
  
• Pilot focused on pitch/flying manually.
  
• Thrust stayed fixed or decayed (if levers were moved).
  
• Speed decayed, aircraft climbed too steeply, energy bled off.
  
• Pilot assumed engine failure due to poor climb response.
  

Boeing SOPs typically include a callout at 400 ft like:

"LNAV" - "VNAV" or "FLCH SPD"

To ensure:

• Proper navigation mode is active
  
• Autothrottle resumes thrust management
  
• Aircraft transitions smoothly into the climb phase
  

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

Perhaps?

• Takeoff proceeded normally, TOGA used.
  
• Autothrottle entered HOLD mode at 80 knots .
  
• VNAV or FLCH was NOT engaged after liftoff.
  
• Pilot assumed A/T was managing thrust, but it wasn\x92t.
  
• Pilot focused on pitch/flying manually.
  
• Thrust stayed fixed or decayed (if levers were moved).
  
• Speed decayed, aircraft climbed too steeply, energy bled off.
  
• Pilot assumed engine failure due to poor climb response.
  

Boeing SOPs typically include a callout at 400 ft like:

"LNAV" - "VNAV" or "FLCH SPD"

To ensure:

• Proper navigation mode is active
  
• Autothrottle resumes thrust management
  
• Aircraft transitions smoothly into the climb phase
  

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

• Takeoff proceeded normally, TOGA used.
• Autothrottle entered HOLD mode at 80 knots .
• VNAV or FLCH was NOT engaged after liftoff.
• Pilot assumed A/T was managing thrust, but it wasn’t.
• Pilot focused on pitch/flying manually.
• Thrust stayed fixed or decayed (if levers were moved).
• Speed decayed, aircraft climbed too steeply, energy bled off.
• Pilot assumed engine failure due to poor climb response.

Boeing SOPs typically include a callout at 400 ft like:

"LNAV" - "VNAV" or "FLCH SPD"

To ensure:

• Proper navigation mode is active
• Autothrottle resumes thrust management
• Aircraft transitions smoothly into the climb phase

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

I wouldn't be surprised.


The speed should be at least at V2 and probably higher. Why would the ATS not just hold that speed, albeit being a shock to the crew. Within a few seconds I'll bet the throttles would end up back in the forward position as the ATS says "hey, we're slowing down fast here!". It would be ugly but I can't see that the jet's going to drop out of the sky. The throttles aren't going to come right back and stay right back.

Originally Posted by Shep69

Because they are in `hold` after the takeoff thrust is set by engaging the TOGA levers. VNAV will engage at 400` AGL and set them at THR REF — referencing takeoff or climb thrust as programmed.

Originally Posted by PBL

I'd like to stick my neck out and say what I think I know. And I do mean "know", not what I think "likely" or "possible".

1. The aircraft reached an altitude AGL rather more than one wingspan. This can be clearly seen in the still from the CCTV video posted by Cape Bloggs on 2025-06-18 at 0401. The 787-8 wingspan is 197+ ft. So it got at least 200 feet up in the air. (Info from CCTV screen shot.)

2. (a) Ground effect on lift essentially disappears on TO when the wheels are at screen height. (Info from an eminent colleague who performed the analysis.) I believe it follows that (b) he didn't get up to 200 ft by performing a zoom climb on unstick. It further follows that (c) there must have been some initially adequate lift out of GE to establish for a few seconds positive RoC.

3. The FR24 graphic posted by Musician shows that the aircraft became initially airborne "as usual", compared with other TO profiles. (Info from FR24.)

4. The aircraft lacked adequate thrust even to maintain altitude shortly after unstick.

5. Flaps 5 is minimal for TO. If you don't set it, you are told very clearly that you are misconfigured, well before TO roll. (Info from others.)

6. At Flaps 5 and likely loading (fuel, PAX, token sum for baggage) and in the atmospheric conditions pertaining, there is more than enough nominal thrust available to establish positive RoC. That obviously also holds for Flaps-more-than-5. (Info from others.)

I am not au fait with audio spectral analysis so, unlike some others here, including some whose views and experience I value highly, I am agnostic at this point about the RAT. (This is neither to deprecate those who performed this analysis, nor the views of those who know more about practical spectral analysis than I do and are convinced by it.)

Now for my personal inference so far from this. Items 2 and 3 above suggest to me that the aircraft was adequately configured to conduct a normal TO and initially establish positive RoC for a second or two. For me, the big question is: why wasn't there adequate thrust to maintain that? (We've been talking about those possibilities for some days now - I won't attempt to summarise.)

PBL

Originally Posted by Magplug

It is quite probable that this aircraft rotated below a suitable Vr speed for the weight and ambient conditions and was unable to establish a stable climb due lack of applied power.

Originally Posted by Magplug

Big engines take time to spool up, your immediate future depends on how late you recognise the situation and go for TOGA.

Originally Posted by Magplug

I have to agree with you PBL . It is amazing that people are still arguing about the height the aircraft reached during the first 11s of the flight. It is almost measurable to the metre from the aircraft wingspan on the video. Do not mistake the power required to reach Vr within in the TORA with the power required to maintain a stable climb at V2 to V2+10 in the second and third segments. They are very different numbers, that's why Perf A is one of the dark arts of aviation! It is quite probable that this aircraft rotated below a suitable Vr speed for the weight and ambient conditions and was unable to establish a stable climb due lack of applied power. Big engines take time to spool up, your immediate future depends on how late you recognise the situation and go for TOGA.

But you ask..... How can an aircraft possibly get airborne with a stalled wing? Look at Air France 7775 . At rotate the wing was already stalled (albeit for different reasons) but the airborne profile of the aircraft was rather similar to Air India.

Originally Posted by hans brinker

Emirates 521 touched down at 162kts, presumably idle power, lifted off 8 seconds later, climbed to 85' and touched down 12 seconds after lift off. My best guess would be at least partial power after T/O for AI to get that high and far.