Posts by user "Airboard" [Posts: 6 Total up-votes: 6 Pages: 1]

Page Links: Index Page

Airboard
2025-06-12T23:50:00
permalink Post: 11899842
Wow love the theories. Ok why was the gear still down. Under all circumstances that comes up with positive rate. Can\x92t see the flaps but sure looks like they were retracted instead of gear coming up.

engine failure. Sure that would suck lift out but all parameters take thay into effect with the proper flap setting. And you can\x92t take off without the right flap setting per the performance data unless you ignore it.

Loss of lift. VNAV engages at 400 ft and targets airspeed in MCP.

Subjects: Engine Failure (All)  Flap Setting  Flaps (All)  Gear Retraction  Parameters  VNAV

Airboard
2025-06-13T00:09:00
permalink Post: 11899852
Originally Posted by T28B
Airboard, do you fly the 787?
Yes. But I have not flown this scenario in the sim. Way too many protection to take off without proper configuration which leads me to believe loss of lift due to flap retraction. 1100 hr FO ……..

Subjects: Flap Retraction  Flaps (All)

5 users liked this post.
Airboard
2025-06-13T01:01:00
permalink Post: 11899888
Originally Posted by Airboard
Yes. But I have not flown this scenario in the sim. Way too many protection to take off without proper configuration which leads me to believe loss of lift due to flap retraction. 1100 hr FO \x85\x85..
I\x92ll reply to my own post in light of the RAT deployment. If true then this opens up to a lot more. And simply guessing with grainy video a fools game. All I saw was gear down to high Into the climb. This should not happen under any circumstance . Dual engine failure would explain the loss of lift obviously. Early flap retraction also. One would hope it\x92s not a simple as that: cheers

Subjects: Dual Engine Failure  Engine Failure (All)  Flap Retraction  Flaps (All)  Gear Retraction  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

Airboard
2025-06-13T00:09:00
permalink Post: 11903705
Originally Posted by T28B
Airboard, do you fly the 787?
Yes. But I have not flown this scenario in the sim. Way too many protection to take off without proper configuration which leads me to believe loss of lift due to flap retraction. 1100 hr FO ……..

Subjects: Flap Retraction  Flaps (All)

1 user liked this post.
Airboard
2025-06-13T01:01:00
permalink Post: 11903706
Originally Posted by Airboard
Yes. But I have not flown this scenario in the sim. Way too many protection to take off without proper configuration which leads me to believe loss of lift due to flap retraction. 1100 hr FO \x85\x85..
I\x92ll reply to my own post in light of the RAT deployment. If true then this opens up to a lot more. And simply guessing with grainy video a fools game. All I saw was gear down to high Into the climb. This should not happen under any circumstance . Dual engine failure would explain the loss of lift obviously. Early flap retraction also. One would hope it\x92s not a simple as that: cheers

Subjects: Dual Engine Failure  Engine Failure (All)  Flap Retraction  Flaps (All)  Gear Retraction  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

Airboard
2025-06-13T05:11:00
permalink Post: 11903708
Originally Posted by a3twenty
Not trying to drift the thread away but the 8300 hours being quoted is apparently incorrect and is taken from the relatively new DGCA online database which requires pilots to upload their hours post 2019. None of the pilots have bothered filling up their entire logbooks prior to that. The operating captain was on the Airbus 310 fleet in air India, which probably dates back to him being in the company since the 90s

So it could be less\x85.regardless yes it might not be a contributing factor.

Subjects: DGCA

Page Links: Index Page