The Jeju recorders were okay if I recall correctly, they just had no input, was that the case?
They're not OK if they don't have the information on them that they "should" have had, aka they were stuffed, probably by a major electrical glitch, 4 minutes before the crash itself; they were blank from that point on.
Point taken about the radio.
Somoeone made a good point above about the German Wings FDR/CVR being available the next day after the aircraft was aimed at the ground like a missile. These things are built tough, as you know, this may be type specific but….
They are both down the back in the A320 I think. The CVR was damaged and the FDR wasn't found for almost week after because it was blackened/camouflaged by fire, according to the press linked-to on Wiki.
SubjectsCVRFDR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
In response to removed posted video link about drifting ADs since 2022, not finished yet but remarkably, seems to be 100% accurate:
I'm not suggesting he's wrong about the ADs, I'm just saying that water in the avionics bay (which I'm sure has been brought up already) is pure speculation.
Subjects:
None
The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
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:
One Engine Inoperative (OEI) just before take-off(Assumption).
The Take-Off Speed at rotation is estimated at 160 KIAS (167 KTAS, 170 GS), which is higher than normal and expected in an assumed OEI take-off.
The rotation point requires a runway ground roll of 2,540 m, which is longer than normal due to an assumed OEI take-off.
The climb gradient is estimated at 5.09%, which is slightly above the normal range of 3% to 4%at TOGA for a Boeing 787-8, but within limits
True airspeed was under-indicated due to low density, in other words the aircraft was moving faster through the air than the airspeed indicator showed, because there were fewer air molecules hitting the pitot tube in the hot, thin air
The aircraft peaked early, then levelled off and started descending while passing over obstacles. It barely cleared Obstacle B by ~50 feet, which is tight, but sufficient. This explains the visibly profile in video and supports the notion of degraded climb due to hot/high conditions, heavyweight, and limited thrust margin
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.
Switch over to the centre tank to feed all engines typically takes place at 10,000'
Hold your horses, Megan, that doesn't mean you do it at 10,000, only that IF the message shows, turn them on. Here's part of the
Before Start
procedure (very early FCOM):
SubjectsCentre TankFCOM
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
I've heard of conspiracy theories, but thinking that Boeing and the FAA have allowed the 787 to be certified with a non-compliant fuel system operation is going a bit far. And what about EASA? Plenty of European operators of 787s; EASA must agree it's compliant. "A320/737 does this" is totally irrelevant.
SubjectsFAA
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
So, we have a Memory Drill with a non-numbered thing you have to remember first, being sub-idle, and an FCTM that pumps the idea of getting those switches off and on ASAP, before the revs drop off too much, at any speed or altitude.
Great.
Subjects:
None
The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
This might have been discussed but as has been suggested upthread; a possible scenario is that at some point, PIC took their hands off the thrust levers and/or placed them in a guarding position behind the thrust levers at their base - but by doing so unfortunately nudged the Fuel cut-off switches to 'Off' - perhaps 'helped' by there either being incorrectly fitted locking mechanisms or worn locking mechanisms ?
Seriously??
Originally Posted by
Uplinker
On this flight, the relative drop in noise and calm that follows the landing gear doors closing after the gear retracts during the initial climb, might have caused an action slip by PIC to perform the engine shut-down procedure used when parking on stand.
Come on! The gear never moved! You're an Airbus pilot; do you really think that could happen? If so, would the captain then sit there fat, dumb and happy wondering what was now going on... for 10 seconds? Even I would say "Sh1t" and whip those fuel switches back on quicker than the FO could say "WTF!".
Mods, if you don't lock the thread, I'm going back to Facebook!
This is a discussion forum, of course there is (and should be!) significant discussion about a bizarre crash of a modern widebody aircraft. There will naturally be speculation and some nonsense but this is a discussion forum and that is to be expected.
This is a
Professional Pilot's
Forum. Nonsense and bizzaredness doesn't live here.
Originally Posted by
Firesok
I posited this very thing weeks ago but it was immediately removed by mods.
And the CVR? "why did you cutoff?" ... "I didn't, the ipad did!".
Regardless of what actually happened in that cockpit, reasoning like this seems completely backwards to me. Since when do humans reliably, instantly recognise that they've just made a mistake?
For goodness sake, both engines just stopped and the backside is falling out of the jet! Come on.
Subjects:
None
No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').
@Maybeitis,
how about we leave the total redesign of the fuel switch locations and operation (which have been moved billions of times in thousands of aircraft without a hitch) until the final report is out.
These were deliberately moved. It wasn't a brain-fart. Unless the interim report omits crew calls which turn the scenario on it's head.
SubjectsFuel (All)Fuel Cutoff Switches
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
I
understand, to some extent, the reasoning for not publishing the actual recording as a general rule, but from my perspective the usual outcome is speculation that can be just as critical of the actions and skills of the crew, and be just as inviting to 'ambulance chasers' keen on litigation, as ripping the band aide off the sore and dealing with the truth. I remain of the view that the least bad way to get to the awful truth - whatever it may be in the circumstances of this tragedy - includes publication of the raw recordings of the cockpit and ATC.
No. As amply demonstrated over and over on this forum, 95% of people have NO IDEA what goes on in commercial big-jet aviation, and a release of the raw-recordings would just cause chaos for the family of those left behind, the crew if there were any left eg a survivable midair, as well as friends and colleagues. Social media would go crazy. For no benefit. And I can assure you that from that point on, every pilot would keep their trap shut about anything to do with safety for fear of incriminating themselves. Safety would be put back decades.
On the other hand, the Indian authorities have shared minimal information, and if there's a determined investigation going on, they're keeping it amazingly quiet.
I cannot understand the almost paranoid desire to have all the information known about this prang spewed out by the investigators as soon as they get some. Why? What purpose would it serve apart from satisfying the apparently ghoulish desire of some?
We've got the preliminary report; hypothesise all you like but to expect more info is just being na\xefve. As for
Originally Posted by
AirScotia
if there's a determined investigation going on, they're keeping it amazingly quiet.
That attitude is a bit of a worry coming from a professional pilot.
SubjectsPreliminary Report
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
