Posts by user "87guy" [Posts: 8 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 1]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

I got the idea that with no (or very little) thrust, and with the aircraft falling, the pilot (may have) realized that he was in out of control flight , and falling.
In a pedantic sense: if you make control inputs, and the aircraft won't or can't respond to them, you are in out of control flight .
The whole event happened pretty quickly. How far into "we are doomed" that his senses told him they were can have informed his decision to say something about it. (the human mind is an interesting thing).
There's also the matter of temporal distortion which can happen during stress or high adrenalin events. (I experienced that during the course of an aircraft accident: not on topic for this thread).
As to conformance with ICAO, not all investigations make good on that.



I sincerely hope that this one does.

(Note: some of what I refer to as out of control flight seems to be called upset in commercial transport jargon).

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Richard Godfrey has completely ignored that fact that the speed was reducing all the way down the descent. He has hypothesised a steady descent angle at around 3.5:1 and therefore concluded that one engine had stopped and the other was on ~10,000lb of thrust because, at the initial speed they needed that thrust to counter the drag. But the AOA clearly increases markedly as the aircraft approaches the ground, which means that the speed was reducing significantly.

As for statements such as:






They make me take that whole spiel with a grain of salt.

In a nutshell, he's saying they had an engine failure before rotation, then got all the way up to 300-odd feet (following what looked to me like an initially standard low-angle/flat 787 takeoff, then ran out of puff and crashed with the other engine running at 15-18% Thrust.

Pure speculation aka WAG.

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

An "expert" who can't get something as basic as a runway slope calculation anything close to correct doesn't inspire much confidence in his other "analysis".

Originally Posted by Sailvi767

On the 767, 757 and A330 anytime you are in single generator operations the aircraft is load shedding. The 787 with a totally different electrical system might function differently.

Originally Posted by OliTom

Obvious questions, Is the procedure applicable to the GEnx engines installed on the accident aircraft and I assume this only applies if you realise the control switches are what the issue is, within seconds?

Originally Posted by ekpilot

If crew action is the root cause of this, then the above may be the "best" we, as a pilot community, can hope for.

Originally Posted by OhForSure

I have not posted on here in many years, but I feel compelled to do so now. I am a current 787 pilot and I have previously flown most Boeing types and an Airbus too. I also have an extensive background and qualifications in human factors, training and assessment. Before anybody reads any further, perhaps acquaint yourself with the notion of Occam's razor. That is, the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. I was certain that after the preliminary report was released the preposterous conspiracy theories would finally cease, but no! It's 2025 and humans can no longer help themselves. In my opinion the captain committed suicide here. Simple.

To those suggesting an electrical phantom turned the fuel control switches off without them moving: no. Ask yourselves this: what made one pilot (PF and F/O in my opinion) ask the other "why did you cut off?" Firstly, some context. The 787 fuel control switches make a VERY distinct metallic *CLICK* sound as they are operated. EVERY 787 pilot knows it and won't forget it. It is audible even at high thrust settings owing to the 787's exceptionally quiet engines and cockpit. After rotation the pilot flying is fixated on the HUD; rotating towards the TOGA reference line (~12 degrees pitch attitude) and putting the flight path vector over the flight guidance cue. One hand would be on the control column and the other on the thrust levers. Alternatively he could have had both hands on the control column. In either scenario, the pilot flying's (again, my opinion the F/O's) inboard arm would block his peripheral view (he's focused on the HUD, remember) of the center pedestal and the fuel control switches. HE WOULD NOT SEE THE PM TURN THE FUEL CONTROL SWITCHES OFF. Ipso facto. We know the F/O was PF from the report. If the F/O stopped flying the aircraft and reached down to move the FCS from cutoff to run the captain would've plainly seen the whole thing. I can't imagine "why did you cutoff?" would be his words of choice! More like "WTF ARE YOU DOING?!?" More to the point, if the PF (F/O) did stop flying and reach down to cut one engine off, the captain would have had time to either stop him flicking the second FCS off or at least quickly flick them both back to run and potentially save the day. This plainly did not happen. So it was almost certainly the PM (Capt) that moved the fuel control switches.

So what would make the PF ask the PM "why did you cut off?" if he couldn't see it happen? You would never assume with a loss of thrust that the switches had been turned off. Never. It's not a procedure. It's not a thing. Bird strike? Sure. Fuel Contam? Maybe. But the point is, in the heat of battle at 150 odd feet, you'd never jump to the conclusion that the fuel control switches were off. Never. So what triggered the PF asking the PM why he cutoff? Because he HEARD the fuel control switches move from run to cutoff, that is why. He heard those distinctive *CLICK* sounds (and yes, you can easily flick them both in less than a second FWIW) followed by the engines immediately rolling back. He would then have looked down at the switches and noticed they were in cutoff. The point to be made here is that the switches were moved by the captain. They made their distinct sound. There were no phantoms. They cannot move on their own. They didn't simultaneously fail. This drew the PF's attention away from flying and triggered the question "why did you cutoff"?

Inadvertent selection of the wrong switches? No. The PM was a training captain with thousands of hours experience on the jet. I asked one of our most experienced examiners how many times he'd seen that done. The answer was "zero". Even the stab switches next to them. They're red, guarded and are of a completely different shape and operation. Gear or flap? Come on. I think we're starting to stretch things a bit now. EVEN IF it was inadvertent switching. The INSTANT you'd made that error, you'd go "oh whoops", and flick them back to run. I know startle... I teach it. This is different. You don't flick the fuel control switches off, hear the engines roll back and sit there wondering what happened for 10 seconds AFTER THE F/O JUST ASKED YOU IF YOU CUTOFF! You did something that had an instant effect on the flight. The report indicates that "why did you cutoff" was asked just after both engines rolled back. But it took another 10 seconds to flick the FCS' back to run. If it was inadvertent, the instant the other pilot called out your error you'd correct it. The report makes it clear that there was 10 seconds between that happening. 10 seconds is a LIFETIME in that situation. The training captain knew what he was doing. He only switched the FCS' back to run once he knew it was moot.

So, why did he respond that he didn't move the switches? As per other input from people on here, when people are suicidal they often want to throw authorities off their trail. Or maybe he wanted to confuse the F/O so he didn't flick them back to run himself, or to just buy himself more time while the F/O tried to wrap his head around things? Maybe he didn't want the F/O to die knowing it was a suicide mission. Maybe we'll find out more in the final report or police investigation if things proceed that way. Maybe we'll never know.

I acknowledge that this is my opinion and of course there could be things we don't yet know about, but I must say I'm surprised that some of the theories on this professional pilot forum are no more coherent or logical than those being sprouted on social media.