Posts by user "Icarus2001" [Posts: 42 Total up-votes: 96 Pages: 3]

My information differs to yours, We do know the EAFR was recovered on Saturday. Are you suggesting that it sat in a room for three days?

Wow you seriously think a professional crew would shutdown an engine below 400 feet?
​​​​​​​Is there any yaw or rudder deflection in any videos?

No, no, no and again no.

This is a transport category aircraft. It will happily climb on one engine to a safe altitude where procedures are followed.

There is zero evidence of any engine "failures" or shutdowns by the crew.

However the gear is still down at around 500' agl.

You answered your own question. The units would have had power. One pilot made a radio call so electrical power was available at the very least at emergency level.

It has been established that the B787 utilises a EAFR, a combined CVR and DFDR.

My information differs to yours, We do know the EAFR was recovered on Saturday. Are you suggesting that it sat in a room for three days?

Wow you seriously think a professional crew would shutdown an engine below 400 feet?
​​​​​​​Is there any yaw or rudder deflection in any videos?

Should we talk about the RAT being an electrical generator? No? Okay then, carry on.

We DO NOT know that. If that had occurred how did the aircraft achieve initial climb?

No pilot is going to rotate with two engines running down. The engines were delivering thrust of some sort to at least 150’ feet or so.

The aircraft climb rate decreases, it descends, it crashes. Maybe the RAT was out. That is all we know.

That my friend is the billion dollar question. Which is the figure that the class action lawyers wrote on their whiteboard I think.

Every day that passes with no Boeing or GE bulletins reduces the chance of a design issue and suggests maintenance or operational error.

Without wanting to go down the MCAS rabbit hole, suffice to say Boeing thought that the MCAS did what they expected. They also expected a competent crew to follow the trim runaway memory item and turn off the trim motor, some crews did not. MCAS was made the bad guy due to a single pint of failure with the probe.
That is why it took two crashes. I think if there was a design failure here we would know about it by now.

As the Zen master said, we will see.

So to be clear, this was announced of Thursday 19 June. The one EAFR was recovered on Friday 13 June I believe and one on Sunday 15 June.

Seems a long while to wait to send it to the US.

No it would not revert back to HOLD.

​​​​​​​
Someone made a radio call near the end of the flight, so some power was available.

​​​​​​​I have a more optimistic view that recovery of TWO EAFR units will mean a great deal will be known on analysis of this data.

Walking away from a parked aircraft and not noticing that an engine was running? Wow, just wow. You cannot be serious.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, the EAFR is designed to withstand a crash and there being two helps, the fact that we can see a largely intact tail cone and stab is encouraging. There was some power as the radio was serviceable.

The EAFR will soon tell us WHAT happened but perhaps not WHY just yet.

I am not sure that is the case.

Under ICAO rules the AAIB has lead on this. It was an Indian registered aircraft that crashed in India, how could they not be?

The aviation minister ordered a “high level” investigation in to the accident. This is politics only.

This will make the minister feel he has control of the investigation and the narrative, in reality the EAFR data will be leaked by whichever party is in the clear.
If the aviation minister understood his portfolio he would know that the AAIB and DGCA are the accountable and responsible agencies here.

Watch carefully.

For what it is worth I completely agree with you on MCAS, a different rabbit hole I know.

Again, agreed. Which makes me more concerned that nothing has been forthcoming from either manufacturer, even insofar as a maintenance gotcha that needs to be remedied.

I think you missed the point of his question.

Because there are some times that the gear is left down after take-off for operational reasons. An automatic retraction is not desirable because the PF needs to know there is a positive rate of climb before calling for gear up, lest the beast settle back on to runway.

Have a look at Emirates in Dubai… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Flight_521

This was a go round accident but the positive rate principle is the same.

This is not true. The AAI could be at 50 feet and a pilot can set a suitable climb attitude and push the thrust levers forward to enter a “normal” climb. The flight director would be useless at this point as it is commanding the descent.
So no, the AAI does not need to be changed to commence a climb.

I completely agree. I imagine it relates to the ten minute max power limit on the live engine. Less and less relevant as the aircraft can give MCP easily. My current jet type does not have an engine failure memory item. I looked for a B787 EFATO memory item in the QRH but could not find one. Perhaps a current B787 pilot could confirm?

I am only asking about an engine failure memory item. Fire, separation or severe damage being a different beast.

Are you confirming that there is no specific engine failure memory item? When safe run the QRH?

​​​​​​​I completely agree.

​​​​​​​Unusual atmospheric conditions? Not around the middle of the earth, every day of the week.

Constructing ever more unlikely cascading failures to fit the very few known facts is unproductive.

Of more interest to me is the lack of word on the plan to interrogate the EAFR units. Where and when?

Also that the DGCA wants THREE managers removed from their positions at Air India. Unconnected to this accident however.


Imagine Qantas being told by CASA to do a similar thing, or BA by the CAA, amazing stuff.

ADS-B sends altitude on the ground as well, at sea level, at 8327 feet AMSL etc