Posts by user "Compton3fox" [Posts: 27 Total up-votes: 90 Pages: 2]

Compton3fox
2025-06-13T06:46:00
permalink
Post: 11900071
Originally Posted by rFlt
No the RAT is behind the wing box, 11A at the very front of the A/C.
11A is just in front of the LE, by door 2 left. So not that far away..

Subjects: RAT (All)

Compton3fox
2025-06-13T07:24:00
permalink
Post: 11900099
Originally Posted by Waterbomber2
My theory on this is a wrong weight/temperature entry, too much derating, attempted take-off in too low an energy state and subsequent departure stall.

From the airport cam video, the aircraft seems to stick off just at the end of the runway.
Both engines are working at full blast until at least obstacle clearance height, they kick up unusual amounts of dust for a take-off.

Theoretical sequence of events:
1. Pilots entered the wrong take off perf data
2. During the take-off roll they realize that the aircraft isn't picking up enough speed but too late to reject and firewall the throttles
3. They use up the whole runway and get the aircraft off the ground in ground effect
4. Ground effect ends and they fail to maintain a positive rate of climb, hence gears stay down
5. Aircraft stalls and sinks into the ground

Textbook departure stall and failure to pitch down to recover from it.
So why did the RAT deploy?

Subjects: RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)  Takeoff Roll

Compton3fox
2025-06-13T11:45:00
permalink
Post: 11900402
Originally Posted by Ngineer
I didn\x92t think this could be a dual engine failure related accident until reports of RAT deployment started to gather steam.
A few years back a B787 previously had a dual engine shutdown after rollout when the TR was deployed too quickly and not allowing the air/GND logic time to transition to ground mode before the TR deployed. If the TCMA had inadvertently latched the TR deployment from the previous rollout then it theoretically could be possible to shutdown on transition back to air mode.
Anything is possible with these high tech machines.
I had wondered about TCMA being involved. Software is extremely complex and there have
been examples in the past where it does something it wasn't supposed to do, causing an incident.

Subjects: Dual Engine Failure  Engine Failure (All)  Engine Shutdown  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)  TCMA (All)

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T13:58:00
permalink
Post: 11901509
Originally Posted by Sisiphos

My guess remains inadvertant flaps retraction for what it's worth.
How do you explain the pictures of the flaps clearly set at the accident site? Oh, not to mention the RAT being deployed..

Subjects: RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T14:50:00
permalink
Post: 11901548
Originally Posted by InTheHighlands
And it seems likely that an "out of the ordinary" noise prompted the guy to start filming
Originally Posted by directsosij
I don’t agree with either of those assessments at all. One strongly pushing the flap scenario and the other a software fault. The flap one has been done ad nauseam, I won’t repeat it. A sudden software glitch on a decade plus old model is a stretch and likewise a call to ground the entire fleet immediately.

of course like everyone else I have absolutely no idea what actually happened but I am willing to bet the explanation will be simpler than everyone is expecting.

I am not going to speculate further as I believe it is a waste of time without further information.

For the record I am not b787 rated but I do have Boeing and airbus narrow body and wide body time and i struggle to forsee a situation where the aircraft falls out of the sky at 200ft without a very serious error of some description.
Having worked in the software world for many years, I can state with 100% certainty that bugs can appear 30 years after the original code was written and tested. And if I had a quid for every time a programmer told me it wasn't the software and that turned that it was, I'd have enough to buy a round in a Mayfair Club! I agree it's unlikely but aviation is full of unlikely events, until they happen.

Last edited by Compton3fox; 14th Jun 2025 at 14:53 . Reason: added a line

Subjects: None

13 users liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T15:28:00
permalink
Post: 11901574
Originally Posted by B2N2
Just to throw another wrench in the gears, the airplane flew in so it should fly out.
Except it didn\x92t.
We can over analyze for another 1000 replies, fact remains the airplane flew in without major issues and spend two hours on the ground at the gate.
Catastrophic failure just doesn\x92t randomly happen.

The elefant in the room is Boeing.
If this turns out to be an airplane issue rather than a crew action it may be the end of them.
You can\x92t have a plastic electric airplane where the engines randomly stop.

Auto throttle thrust reduction can be perceived as power loss.
If it was caused by a Software fault, it most certainly can! It may seem random to us mere mortals but deep in the code, there will be a reason. I am not saying it was a SW fault but the nature of very complex SW systems can hide issues for a very long time...

Subjects: None

2 users liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T15:33:00
permalink
Post: 11901579
Originally Posted by Kraftstoffvondesibel
It\x92s the elephant in the room regarding the audio, isn\x92t it, but I am not prepared to say either way. There simply is too much city background noise/ambience to discern this from the engine noise from a landing 787.

Of course one taking off would have a different signature. If anyone can point point to one taking off with the rat out we could compare.

What I find interesting is that I don\x92t see any evidence in the audio of the engine spooling down, which would leave a recogniseable pattern in the audio one should think. So either it is down so much that the fan rpm is down to windmilling already, or it is simply low enough in volume to be already masked by the ambience.

So taking this and moving into speculative territory for a moment, I think I read somewhere that the video with audio starts 17 seconds after the wheels left the ground.

Provided the engines were windmilling the video audio since I haven\x92t been able to find any obvious spool down, can anyone say anything meaningful on how long it takes for the engines to spool down to windmilling rpm?

we can then backtrack from the point the video starts. How does that timing then coincide with the ADS-B data ceasing to transmit, for instance?

Putting back in the more strictly data-driven hat, I am not prepared to say so far anything about the engine working or not. You guys know more anout why the rat is out.
Given the loads on the generators etc. at TO, I would say it won't take very long for the engine to spool down. Maybe around 5-7 seconds. Any differing opinions?

Subjects: ADSB  Generators/Alternators

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T17:42:00
permalink
Post: 11901687
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
Thrust loss from a loss of fuel flow is near instantaneous.
OK but the poster was asking about noise from a spooling down engine. I would have thought that would continue for a few seconds.. Thoughts?

Subjects: Fuel (All)  Fuel Pumps

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T17:53:00
permalink
Post: 11901693
Originally Posted by Kraftstoffvondesibel
I have seen your previous posts about this, and I happen to agree. Visually, as a lay man non visuals expert, I am in your \xabcamp.\xbb

However, the rat is small, and the artifacts are plentiful. Small sensor, compressed video, compressed upload, zoom, it is in short an awful source.

However, the RAT is a much better noisemaker, and the audio signature is much more obvious than it\x92s visual appearance in this case, and though the recording isn\x92t fantastic quality, there was more than enough information there to objectively conclude the RAT is out. And that is my professional, on the weekend, opinion.

I want to ask a pretty frank question for all of you, and I hope it is ok, from an audio specialist non-pilot:
Provided the engines spooled down. Provided the RAT is out. (There are no explosions, no bird strikes.)
Isn\x92t software and previous electrical failures a red herring too?Would anything but a complete fuel shut off lead to this result? That still leaves everything from the Fate is the Hunter plot, to Airbus A350 center consoles and Alaska 2059 open as root causes.
That leads to the next question.. Is there any system on the 787 that CAN shutdown the engines. We know there is at least one... But the A/C needs to be ground mode. However, if would not be the 1st time a system that should not deploy when the A/C is airborne, does! LaudaAir out from BKK is one example...

Subjects: Bird Strike  Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff  RAT (All)

3 users liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T18:01:00
permalink
Post: 11901698
Originally Posted by Jonty
I disagree. I think the lines of the underneath of the aircraft are quite obvious and its clear there's no RAT. Given it drops on the wing to body fairing just behind the main landing gear on the starboard side of the aircraft, it should be very obvious in this photo.
We can debate over a poor quality photo but the audio evidence presented earlier today is pretty conclusive.. The RAT was out.

Subjects: Audio Analysis  Gear Retraction  RAT (All)

17 users liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T21:57:00
permalink
Post: 11901873
Originally Posted by LTC8K6
IIRC, you would get a warning if you try to retract the flaps too early in the 787.

The gear and flap controls are not easily confused in the 787. They look nothing alike and are not near each other.
Not to mention the fact the flaps were selected when you view pictures from the accident site. Dare I mention the RAT being deployed too? That does not happed if you select flaps up at the wrong time.

Subjects: RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T22:01:00
permalink
Post: 11901878
Originally Posted by WITCHWAY550
That\x92s not a false conclusion if in fact hydraulics were lost. I dont think that was the case and if it was engine driven hydraulic pumps have normal output all the way down to idle and actually further. I dont think the RAT deployed for any reason and i am not sure that has been confirmed.
Read the thread about the audio analysis. Its pretty conclusive. The RAT was almost certainly deployed. Plane crash near Ahmedabad..

Subjects: Audio Analysis  Hydraulic Failure (All)  Hydraulic Pumps  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

1 user liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-14T22:13:00
permalink
Post: 11901888
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
From tdracer
However, TCMA is only active on the ground (unfamiliar with the 787/GEnx TCMA air/ground logic - on the 747-8 we used 5 sources of air/ground - three Radio Altimeters and two Weight on Wheels - at least one of each had to indicate ground to enable TCMA). TCMA will shutdown the engine via the N2 overspeed protection - nearly instantaneous. For this to be TCMA, it would require at least two major failures - improper air ground indication or logic, and improper TCMA activation logic (completely separate software paths in the FADEC). Like I said, very, very unlikely.
It's controlled by Software and I've seen enough very weird "corner case" bugs that I discount nothing when Software is involved. I am sure there are more likely explanations why all power was lost (Assuming that was the case) but nothing would surprise me!

Subjects: Engine Over-speed (All)  Engine Shutdown (Over-speed)  FADEC  GEnx TCMA Logic  N2 Over-speed  TCMA (Activation)  TCMA (Air-ground Logic)  TCMA (All)  TCMA (Improper Activation)  TCMA (Shutdown)  Weight on Wheels

1 user liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-15T05:47:00
permalink
Post: 11902128
Originally Posted by peterpion
But at some point software decisions converge to a single point, a single decision, to simplify for instance the subroutine where all of the decisions have been taken to trigger an output (a shutdown signal, for instance). And if, again for instance, you accidentally jump into this subroutine (whether because of buffer overflows or mistakes in the preceding logic), then you can trigger the output incorrectly.

Of course you can have two or three systems that are coded by different teams, using different languages, running in different hardware, even if they are fed from the same sensors, as long as you have many sensors (as tdracer has indicated, 5 inputs on the 747 for instance - although only needing 2 to be true does seem to reduce that margin for error somewhat).

If these two or three systems all have to send independent signals to the downstream hardware (the engine in this case) and the engine requires more than one signal to take the dangerous action like shutdown, then you're more protected, but that doesn't seem to be how the 787 works from the descriptions here by the experts like td and fdr. But please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Its hard to imagine how else you could simultaneously cut both engines any other way, as tdracer said, other than human action or by software command. And software command means software failure. So information and discussion about exactly how redundant the software that takes this decision is would seem a good direction to move this discussion in. Is it truly only redundant 'internally' to itself, the module that sends this message to the engines? We heard about the 32 bit overflow bug that can shutdown engines - is it really that hard to believe that it has no other similar bugs when that one slipped through the testing?
No it's not hard to believe having been around software development and deployment for many years. You could also argue that it's not the software that failed, it's the liveware's that were involved in its creation. The software, in this case (No AI) just does as it was "told" to do. And if that's a buffer overrun, an unexpected logic path etc that calls a critical function called engineShutdown, then all the ducks line up.

Subjects: None

4 users liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-15T06:14:00
permalink
Post: 11902138
Originally Posted by skwdenyer
Rather more importantly, a billion-to-one chance can happen on the first try with equal probability to happening on some much later test. Low probability events happen all the time. Humans frequently misunderstand this.
The problem with the way the probability of events is calculated, is that that can only be done with the available events/data that is known or can be foreseen or at least theorized. Throw in an event that wasn't foreseen and the whole 1 in a billion suddenly drops to something a lot more likely. The one that springs to mind is AA191. MD convinced the FAA that the LE Slats did not need a physical interlock to prevent inadvertent retraction in the event of hydraulic failure as the probability of multiple systems failing at the same time was 1 in 1 billion or whatever it was. But no one foresaw the airlines using forklift trucks to remove the engine and pylon assembly to save 100's of hours labour. When you add this into the calculations, the odds must drop dramatically. And on that day, the event happened. No 1 engine departed the aircraft over the port wing, the slats retracted, slat disagree warning system was disabled, the stick shaker and stick pusher failed on the Captains side (PF) and as he allowed the speed to decay to get to the SE climb out speed, it dropped below 162kts and the port wing stalled as the slats were retracted. If MD had fitted a physical lock on the slats, AA 191 on that day would have been an emergency but very likely have returned for a safe SE landing.

In summary, these billion to one events are only billion to one taking into account what we knew and predicted at the time. Throw in a wild or unpredicted event and all bets are off.

Also, a Billion to 1 event only happens 1 in a billion times. So if you run the sequence 10 billion times, then in theory, it will happen 10 times but it may happen 20 in the 1st 10 billion or 5 and as skwdenyer stated, it can happen at event 1! Toss a coin 20 times and probability says you will get 10 heads and 10 tails but all the tosses are independent, so you could get 20 heads or 20 tails or any other combination. The same applies to billion to 1 events.

Last edited by Compton3fox; 15th Jun 2025 at 07:44 .

Subjects: FAA  Hydraulic Failure (All)

9 users liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-15T06:25:00
permalink
Post: 11902143
Originally Posted by aeo
So are we now saying total loss of AC power for the RAT activation and activation of TCMA on two very independent engines for the power loss? What are the chances..

I can buy the AC power loss, but TCMA activation as well - That\x92s a stretch. TCMA is available on the ground and on approach and will activate if the engine thrust doesn\x92t follow the Thrust Lever command. On the ground it will shut the engine down (think RTO with engine stuck at T/O). On approach it will reduce the thrust if the engine doesn\x92t respond to the Thrust Lever command ala Cathay Pacific A330 (CMB - HKG) with the fuel contamination incident.
How about TCMA shuts down both engines for some unknown reason, then AC power fails and RAT deploys. I agree is very low probability but these very low probability events have happened in the past. I just posted AA191 as one example...

Subjects: Fuel (All)  Fuel Contamination  RAT (All)  TCMA (Activation)  TCMA (Air-ground Logic)  TCMA (All)

1 user liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-15T06:38:00
permalink
Post: 11902150
Originally Posted by bal00
In this thread there has been a lot of back and forth about whether or not the RAT is visible in the flyover video. I think some of the confusion may stem from the fact that people are watching different versions of the same video. There's a low quality version where someone is pointing a camera at a monitor. This is obviously not good enough to see anything. Then there's a higher quality version that seems to be a direct upload of the video in question. However, because it's hosted on X, there are different versions of that one as well. The player will auto-select the resolution that it thinks is most appropriate for your device, but this could very well be a lower resolution. The highest quality version that I'm aware of is 884x1564. I can't provide a direct link, but if you want to scrutinize the video, I would suggest using a website/app/browser plugin of your choice to download this version first. Don't rely on the X web player.

If people are saying that they can't see anything that looks like a RAT, that may very well be true, depending on which version they're watching.

I don't have the ability to post direct links, but I did take a frame from the highest quality version of the video, and what I see is a RAT-sized, RAT-shaped object protruding from the fuselage in the exact position where you would expect the RAT to be.The image in question has only been cropped and enlarged by a factor of 2. No other editing, processing, sharpening or AI enhancement has been done. If someone else wants to replicate it, the timecode is 00:08.05.

imgur. com/a/YE2q1e3

If someone with link-posting privileges wants to upload the image here, that'd be great.
Is this the correct image?


Subjects: RAT (All)

3 users liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-15T06:48:00
permalink
Post: 11902156
Originally Posted by bakutteh
Do not discount the mistaken early flap retraction scenario too easily. Mull on this:

PF commanded gear up on attaining positive rate of climb, fixating on the HUD.
PM mistakenly raise flap lever from 5 to Flap 1 gate. Thrust reduced to Climb Thrust. Landing gear remained deployed. Massive loss of lift misidentified as loss of thrust. If any one pilot just had a dual engine failure scenario on a recent sim ride, brain and muscle memory would jump to loss of thrust in dual engine, prompting them to accomplish the recall memory items which called for both engine fuel switches to OFF and then RUN, and physically deployed the RAT.

There would be immediate loss of thrust with the engine taking time to recover , if at all, at such low airspeed!
The rest is left for Ppruners’ imagination.😖🥴😬
If the photo of the flaps deployed at the accident site is actually F1 not F5 or if the flaps were pushed out during impact, then this is certainly plausible. I will look for the photo but it's in the thread somewhere. Others are stating they see a gap between the wing and the flap as an argument for the flaps deployed at F5. This was after the decent started..

However, I think their reaction would likely be to apply more power. I know mine would be. But anything is possible!

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

Compton3fox
2025-06-15T07:34:00
permalink
Post: 11902190
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
No evidence of engine failure

No evidence of RAT deployment from a poor image.

No evidence of electrical failure.

The teams of lawyers in the UK representing 53 grieving families will be working over the weekend to sign up said families to a class action.

This is going to get messy.
No evidence of engine failure - Not true. No engine noise on video where you would expect TO or TOGA power to be in use. Mayday call stating No Power

No evidence of RAT deployment from a poor image . - You can argue Not from the Image but...: 2 independent audio analysis of the video audio shows the sound comes from a deployed RAT plus JB's video. Plus the guys who live in SEA having heard 100's of RATs deployed during test flight have stated that the sound is a RAT.

No evidence of electrical failure . - Not true. Reported cabin emergency lights going off, FR24 feed stopped just as in the 737 South Korea incident in December. APU intake door partially open at crash scene, suggesting an APU autostart.

Now you can call into question the above evidence but to state there is none, is simply not true.

Last edited by Compton3fox; 15th Jun 2025 at 08:23 .

Subjects: APU  Audio Analysis  Electrical Failure  Engine Failure (All)  FlightRadar24  Mayday  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)  TOGA

12 users liked this post.

Compton3fox
2025-06-15T20:52:00
permalink
Post: 11902822
Originally Posted by StuntPilot
After hours of reading I conclude that so far nobody has the slightest clue about what happened.
1: Flaps were down
2: The RAT story is based on a single unsharp video frame. Earlier frames were much sharper but the RAT could not be seen (although there was a sound).
3. Lack of evidence

I could be wrong, in that case please link QUALITY evidence so that we can learn something new.
This way thousands of people are wasting countless hours.
if you had read the whole thread, you would have seen ths 2 independent audio analysis of the HQ video soundtrack, comparing with 2 other segments. It has been established that with 99% certainly that the RAT was deployed. Not to mention the ear witness who has heard 500\xd7 RATs close to Boeing field

Subjects: Audio Analysis  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

7 users liked this post.