Chesty Morgan
June 12, 2025, 10:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899050

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Duck

I've run the video posted on X through an AI upscaler to 8x resolution and posted a screenshot. It looks to me as if the lats are out but the laps are up. I can see no trailing edge discontinuity at either the wing root or wing tip.
Screenshot from X video upscaled

Can someone tell us the retraction schedule for 787 slats and flaps. I guess similar to the 737 where the slats retract after the flaps...?

Last edited by T28B; 12th June 2025 at 13:43 . Reason: you don't need to repeat the AI picture

Subjects: None

Chesty Morgan
June 12, 2025, 14:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Propellerhead

It\x92s obviously producing plenty of thrust as it rotates from the dust. It would take longer than that for the aircraft to lose lift if the flaps were retracted instead of the gear. It take a while for them to run.

The loss of lift would begin immediately.

It looks like they used up an awful lot of runway so potentially incorrect performance and thrust setting, incorrect flap setting, chuck in a temperature inversion or changing winds too if you like and mistakenly retracting flaps instead of the gear could well be the last orifice of the Emmental.

Subjects: None

Chesty Morgan
June 12, 2025, 15:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899310

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSINGH

hasn\x92t every jet had a take off configuration warning for about 30 years now? Surely the 787 has something far more advanced than that (electronic checklists) as well as airlines having various SOPs to catch that. Retracting flaps instead of gear is plausible (but as I said above doesn\x92t really align with the apparent mayday call they got out) but taking off with zero flaps would be unthinkable for anything as modern as a Dreamliner surely

Mayday call could just be a panicked reaction to not having a clue what was happening.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): MAYDAY

Chesty Morgan
June 12, 2025, 17:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899541

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

IME, admittedly going back a few years, a RAT being propelled into its deployed position does indeed make a humungous bang.

Is it anywhere near seat 11A on a 787 though?

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): RAT (All)

Chesty Morgan
June 13, 2025, 11:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900415

Quote:

Originally Posted by CW247

Some kind of thrust problem, whether real or incorrectly perceived, might have prompted for the DUAL ENG FAIL memory item being carried out. This calls for cutting off both engines and then on again.

Below 100 feet? Come on!

Subjects: None

Chesty Morgan
June 13, 2025, 12:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900432

Quote:

Originally Posted by CW247

Edit: How do we know it happened at 100ft?

I'm trying to explain the appearance of the RAT and the onboard green/white flashing lights. The alternatives right now are dual engine failure with no birds around.

I said below 100 feet, it didn't get higher than that. Are there any memory items, or indeed emergency checklists, to complete between V1 and 400 feet?

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) Memory Items RAT (All) V1

Chesty Morgan June 12, 2025, 10:46:00 GMT permalink Post: 11899050	Quote: Originally Posted by Iron Duck I've run the video posted on X through an AI upscaler to 8x resolution and posted a screenshot. It looks to me as if the lats are out but the laps are up. I can see no trailing edge discontinuity at either the wing root or wing tip. Screenshot from X video upscaled Can someone tell us the retraction schedule for 787 slats and flaps. I guess similar to the 737 where the slats retract after the flaps...? Last edited by T28B; 12th June 2025 at 13:43 . Reason: you don't need to repeat the AI picture Subjects: None
Chesty Morgan June 12, 2025, 14:53:00 GMT permalink Post: 11899296	Quote: Originally Posted by Propellerhead It\x92s obviously producing plenty of thrust as it rotates from the dust. It would take longer than that for the aircraft to lose lift if the flaps were retracted instead of the gear. It take a while for them to run. The loss of lift would begin immediately. It looks like they used up an awful lot of runway so potentially incorrect performance and thrust setting, incorrect flap setting, chuck in a temperature inversion or changing winds too if you like and mistakenly retracting flaps instead of the gear could well be the last orifice of the Emmental. Subjects: None
Chesty Morgan June 12, 2025, 15:04:00 GMT permalink Post: 11899310	Quote: Originally Posted by KSINGH hasn\x92t every jet had a take off configuration warning for about 30 years now? Surely the 787 has something far more advanced than that (electronic checklists) as well as airlines having various SOPs to catch that. Retracting flaps instead of gear is plausible (but as I said above doesn\x92t really align with the apparent mayday call they got out) but taking off with zero flaps would be unthinkable for anything as modern as a Dreamliner surely Mayday call could just be a panicked reaction to not having a clue what was happening. Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): MAYDAY
Chesty Morgan June 12, 2025, 17:52:00 GMT permalink Post: 11899541	Quote: Originally Posted by DaveReidUK IME, admittedly going back a few years, a RAT being propelled into its deployed position does indeed make a humungous bang. Is it anywhere near seat 11A on a 787 though? Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): RAT (All)
Chesty Morgan June 13, 2025, 11:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11900415	Quote: Originally Posted by CW247 Some kind of thrust problem, whether real or incorrectly perceived, might have prompted for the DUAL ENG FAIL memory item being carried out. This calls for cutting off both engines and then on again. Below 100 feet? Come on! Subjects: None
Chesty Morgan June 13, 2025, 12:16:00 GMT permalink Post: 11900432	Quote: Originally Posted by CW247 Edit: How do we know it happened at 100ft? I'm trying to explain the appearance of the RAT and the onboard green/white flashing lights. The alternatives right now are dual engine failure with no birds around. I said below 100 feet, it didn't get higher than that. Are there any memory items, or indeed emergency checklists, to complete between V1 and 400 feet? Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) Memory Items RAT (All) V1

Posts by user "Chesty Morgan" [Posts: 6 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 1]