Just an observation but looking at the numbers the density altitude is around 3500 feet - I would find it hard to believe that any crew would take an intersection departure with nine hours ahead of them.
It was confirmed about 60 posts prior to yours that it wasn't an intersection departure (that was jumping to conclusions based on a 4\xbd minute hole in the ADS-B data).
Still, it's a useful indication as to who does or doesn't bother to read previous posts before posting ...
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSB
You can triangulate the camera location using the aircraft holding short for takeoff and the road sign. Then draw a line from there just to the right of the instrumentation building and you'll find the aircraft rotated with about 4000 feet of runway remaining (11000+ runway length).
That's interesting.
The single (so far) airborne ADS-B plot, with that widely-quoted pressure altitude of 625', is at a point more or less overhead the piano keys at the 05 end.
Adjusting for a QNH of 1001 hPa gives approx 285' AMSL or 95' AAL.
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSB
I think people on the ground have confirmed that the plane took off from the end of the runway, not the middle. So this is likely FR24 incorrect data.
No, the FR24 ADS-B data is accurate.
It's the conclusions that people have jumped to while ignoring the fact that there's a 4\xbd minute gap in the data that have turned out to be incorrect.
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSBFlightRadar24
Apropos pundits and charlatans, there has just been an interview on BBC2's Newsnight with Cranfield's Guy Gratton, who was at pains to distinguish between what was known and what wasn't known, and who resisted all invitations to speculate.
You seem very sure of that, whereas numerous other posts (which I trust you've read) reckon that the RAT could be both seen and heard on some of the many videos.
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): RAT (All)RAT (Deployment)
All to easy to surmise the contents will be tampered with at the request of politicians/investors
I think the word you are looking for is "inconceivable".
AFAIK
, both the NTSB and UK AAIB are by now onsite to assist the investigation at the request of the Indian AIB. The suggestion that they wouldn't notice, or would be party to, funny business with the flight recorders is ridiculous.
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AAIB (All)AAIB (UK)DFDRNTSB
Apologies if already discussed but I'd be interested to know
how common/unusual it is for a commercial aircraft to be "Stored for parts to be used on other 787's in the fleet" and then "Returned to Service"? These happened on 2019-01-23 and 2019-05-24 respectively according to this page.
If that site is correct, there was a fairly drastic cabin configuration change between those two dates, which would suggest that the aircraft may well have undergoing a heavy maintenance check at the time (which typically involves removal of all the cabin furnishings).
It is of course quite common for an aircraft in the hangar for a spell to donate parts to keep other aircraft flying while it's grounded - they are normally referred to as "Christmas trees", for obvious reasons.
The mods are doing a sterling job removing hundreds of irrelevant posts. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the one you're referring to falls into that category, but it's highly likely that the mods continuing valiant efforts have resulted in the post in question now having a different sequence number.
Much better to use the "permalink" facility - that's why it's there.
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Thread Moderation
The video from the NE of the airport shows that the TO run was not excessive, the ADSB data is erroneous.
The ADS-B data is incomplete and subject to interpretation. The media, for example, doesn't have a clue about the difference between pressure altitude and height AAL, and sadly some PPRuNers have also failed to make that distinction.
But "erroneous" ? In what respect ?
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSB
Do we have an idea of how long it will take for a preliminary report on the cause of the accident? Presumably Boeing and GE will want to know pretty quickly if there needs to be an urgent maintenance bulletin.
A preliminary report is supposed to be published within 30 days.
But I would fully expect some findings from the FDR and CVR analyses within the next few days, given the high profile of the accident and the fact that operators of 1000-odd 787s are waiting anxiously in case there turns out to be some previously undiscovered failure mode that could affect their fleets (though that's highly unlikely IMHO);
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): CVRFDRPreliminary Report
One has to assume the second blackbox will now just be used as a confirmation of data from the first one? In the 787 they're combined units (EAFRs to be precise, combining FDR and CVR) and effectively duplicated, with one at the front and one at the back.
Yes, the media (not only in the quoted article) are still having trouble with the concept that the 787 doesn't have a separate CVR and FDR.
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): CVRFDR
I did read and search this thread, but I found nothing about ADS-B loss just before the end of the runway and at 71 ft high, according to FR24. ADS-B coverage is poor on the ground on the north-east part of the airfield (hence the fake news about taking off from the intersection) but I don't think it would be lost once airborne, except if it has been shut off... electrical failure ?
There could be other reasons not connected with the aircraft systems,
But certainly loss of engines or electrics that caused deployment of the RAT (if that was the case) would be accompanied by a bunch of load-shedding, which would in all likelihood include the transponder.
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.
The status of the engines/hydraulics/electrics/RAT is likely to be one of the first findings when the FDR is read.
So get the arguments in quick as we'll probably know definitively within a couple of days.
Subjects
(links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FDRRAT (All)
