Posts by user "DaveReidUK" [Posts: 55 Total up-votes: 202 Pages: 3]

Page Links: First  1  2  3  Next  Last  Index Page

DaveReidUK
2025-06-12T15:11:00
permalink Post: 11899318
Originally Posted by beamer
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: ADSB

25 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-12T15:24:00
permalink Post: 11899334
Originally Posted by dragon6172
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: ADSB

DaveReidUK
2025-06-12T17:34:00
permalink Post: 11899523
Originally Posted by digits_
What does a RAT deployment sound like inside the cabin? Could the mere deployment be perceived as the 'loud bang' in a high stress situation?
IME, admittedly going back a few years, a RAT being propelled into its deployed position does indeed make a humungous bang.

Subjects: RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

6 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-12T21:11:00
permalink Post: 11899737
Originally Posted by LTC8K6
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: ADSB  FlightRadar24

5 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-12T21:57:00
permalink Post: 11899774
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.

Well done that man.

Subjects: None

20 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T08:13:00
permalink Post: 11900146
Originally Posted by NSEU
Flight Radar 24 gives altitude with standard baro 1013mb. You'd have to know the QNH at the time to get the correct altitude.
You would, and we do. See post #242.

Max height before the transponder gave out was around 95' AAL.

Subjects: None
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T09:30:00
permalink Post: 11900244
Graphic produced from GE and later FR24 data showing the 8 airborne plot points between rotation and the transponder dropping out:



Elapsed time between first and last points was 4.32 s, giving an average groundspeed of 179 kts.

Subjects: FlightRadar24

5 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T09:49:00
permalink Post: 11900263
Originally Posted by Screamliner
no RAT to be seen either
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: RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

4 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T11:17:00
permalink Post: 11900370
Originally Posted by The Brigadier
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: AAIB (All)  AAIB (UK)  DFDR  NTSB

14 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T14:18:00
permalink Post: 11900556
"The flaps of the plane appear not to have been extended when they should have been" - Nick Marsh, BBC Transport Correspondent on BBC News at One.

No mention of any source for that assertion.

BBC News at One

Subjects: BBC

1 user liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T14:25:00
permalink Post: 11900567
Originally Posted by scottish_aviator
No. Mainly because it relates to a 10 year old AD.

Subjects: Air Worthiness Directives

1 user liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T17:04:00
permalink Post: 11900696
Originally Posted by AndyJS
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.

Subjects: None
DaveReidUK
2025-06-13T22:07:00
permalink Post: 11900960
Originally Posted by pug
Out of interest, are you using ground speed or airspeed?
AFAIK , there is no available source of TAS data for this event, at least until we see the FDR traces.

Subjects: FDR

1 user liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T08:16:00
permalink Post: 11901240
Originally Posted by Old Boeing Driver
Everyone here should read post #867
Actually, nobody should "read post #867".

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: None

14 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T09:10:00
permalink Post: 11901288
Originally Posted by fdr
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: ADSB

2 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T13:53:00
permalink Post: 11901507
Originally Posted by sTeamTraen
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: CVR  FDR  Preliminary Report

2 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T15:11:00
permalink Post: 11901560
Originally Posted by bucoops
First catastrophic incident with a 787 (and first with a composite fuselage?)
First 787, but not the first composite fuselage hull loss.

PPRuNe: JAL incident at Haneda Airport

Subjects: None

3 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T15:14:00
permalink Post: 11901563
Originally Posted by tumtiddle
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: CVR  FDR

2 users liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T16:07:00
permalink Post: 11901611
Originally Posted by deltafox44
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.

Edit: Your own reply beat me to it ...

Subjects: ADSB  Electrical Failure  FlightRadar24  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

1 user liked this post.
DaveReidUK
2025-06-14T17:07:00
permalink Post: 11901665
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.
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: FDR  Gear Retraction  RAT (All)

Page Links: First  1  2  3  Next  Last  Index Page