Capn Bloggs
2025-06-21T15:06:00
permalink Post: 11907827

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabenaboy

I was wondering what the cockpit jumpseat policy in Air India is? Is it known if someone was flying along in the cockpit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by T28B

Were there another person, one expects that evidence will be found as the CVR data is deciphered by the investigating team.

And it should be on the loadsheet.

Subjects: CVR

Capn Bloggs
2025-06-22T10:06:00
permalink Post: 11908406

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iccy

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.

Quote:

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.

Subjects: CVR FDR

Capn Bloggs
2025-06-28T03:50:00
permalink Post: 11912317

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maybeitis

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

Capn Bloggs
2025-06-30T16:26:00
permalink Post: 11913745

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:

Quote:

One Engine Inoperative (OEI) just before take-off(Assumption).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

The rotation point requires a runway ground roll of 2,540 m, which is longer than normal due to an assumed OEI take-off.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Pure speculation aka WAG.

Subjects: Engine Failure (All) Self Proclaimed Experts TOGA

11 users liked this post.

Capn Bloggs
2025-07-01T04:06:00
permalink Post: 11914010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megan

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):

Subjects: Centre Tank FCOM

3 users liked this post.

Capn Bloggs
2025-07-01T07:15:00
permalink Post: 11914061

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megan

I said centre tanks were typically turned on at that altitude (using a certain 737 operator as a guide).

This isn't a 737, and the switches aren't "typically turned on at that altitude".

Subjects: None

2 users liked this post.

Capn Bloggs
2025-07-01T07:45:00
permalink Post: 11914074

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.

Subjects: FAA

9 users liked this post.

Capn Bloggs
2025-07-01T08:53:00
permalink Post: 11914121

Quote:

Originally Posted by AAKEE

The FAR/CS 25 doesn’t seem to require fuel from separate tanks during takeoff.

And nor does EASA, otherwise the 787 wouldn't be operated by Euro operators.

Time to give this certification stuff a rest.

Subjects: None

Capn Bloggs 2025-06-21T15:06:00 permalink Post: 11907827	Quote: Originally Posted by sabenaboy I was wondering what the cockpit jumpseat policy in Air India is? Is it known if someone was flying along in the cockpit? Quote: Originally Posted by T28B Were there another person, one expects that evidence will be found as the CVR data is deciphered by the investigating team. And it should be on the loadsheet. Subjects: CVR
Capn Bloggs 2025-06-22T10:06:00 permalink Post: 11908406	Quote: Originally Posted by Iccy 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. Quote: 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. Subjects: CVR FDR
Capn Bloggs 2025-06-28T03:50:00 permalink Post: 11912317	Quote: Originally Posted by Maybeitis 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
Capn Bloggs 2025-06-30T16:26:00 permalink Post: 11913745	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: Quote: One Engine Inoperative (OEI) just before take-off(Assumption). Quote: 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. Quote: The rotation point requires a runway ground roll of 2,540 m, which is longer than normal due to an assumed OEI take-off. Quote: 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 Quote: 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 Quote: 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. Pure speculation aka WAG. Subjects: Engine Failure (All) Self Proclaimed Experts TOGA 11 users liked this post.
Capn Bloggs 2025-07-01T04:06:00 permalink Post: 11914010	Quote: Originally Posted by Megan 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): Subjects: Centre Tank FCOM 3 users liked this post.
Capn Bloggs 2025-07-01T07:15:00 permalink Post: 11914061	Quote: Originally Posted by Megan I said centre tanks were typically turned on at that altitude (using a certain 737 operator as a guide). This isn't a 737, and the switches aren't "typically turned on at that altitude". Subjects: None 2 users liked this post.
Capn Bloggs 2025-07-01T07:45:00 permalink Post: 11914074	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. Subjects: FAA 9 users liked this post.
Capn Bloggs 2025-07-01T08:53:00 permalink Post: 11914121	Quote: Originally Posted by AAKEE The FAR/CS 25 doesn’t seem to require fuel from separate tanks during takeoff. And nor does EASA, otherwise the 787 wouldn't be operated by Euro operators. Time to give this certification stuff a rest. Subjects: None

Posts by user "Capn Bloggs" [Posts: 48 Total up-votes: 193 Pages: 3]