June 12, 2025, 11:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899115
I\x92ve seen a few reports saying they got out a MAYDAY, seems unlikely to be a flap up instead of gear up if that\x92s the case imho
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): MAYDAY
June 12, 2025, 12:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899131
To add to the above:
https://x.com/akku92/status/1933114664923148455?s=46
https://x.com/akku92/status/1933114664923148455?s=46
I can\x92t say what link there would be between the commercial equipment not working and what could cause such a catastrophic loss but I submit this to greater minds than mine
I guess it\x92s also worth saying Air India\x92s renovation plans for their legacy wide bodies has fallen behind repeatedly (apparent supply chain issues) with the first only due to go into the shop by the end of this year (it was meant to be much earlier) so IFE issues on some of the first Dreamliners ever to enter service may not be related at all
https://x.com/akku92/status/1933114664923148455?s=46
https://x.com/akku92/status/1933114664923148455?s=46
I can\x92t say what link there would be between the commercial equipment not working and what could cause such a catastrophic loss but I submit this to greater minds than mine
I guess it\x92s also worth saying Air India\x92s renovation plans for their legacy wide bodies has fallen behind repeatedly (apparent supply chain issues) with the first only due to go into the shop by the end of this year (it was meant to be much earlier) so IFE issues on some of the first Dreamliners ever to enter service may not be related at all
Subjects: None
June 12, 2025, 12:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899150
To nip any talk of intersection take off (it’s been said a lot on social media) from someone on the ground that seems to know what they are talking about
:
interestingly he also seems to have been around to witness the TO roll and is mentioning a possible EFATO:
interestingly he also seems to have been around to witness the TO roll and is mentioning a possible EFATO:
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): EFATO
June 12, 2025, 15:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899306
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
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Engine Failure (All) MAYDAY
June 12, 2025, 15:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899322
Their CEO seems understandably shell shocked
Subjects: None
June 12, 2025, 15:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899390
For what it\x92s worth:
Subjects: None
June 12, 2025, 15:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899403
One of the buildings the aircraft crashed on top of was apparently a hostel for junior doctors, serious amount of casualties speculated
Subjects: None
June 12, 2025, 16:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899417
B787-9 LDG gear retraction
(That thread is illuminating in light of this loss for a number of reasons too)
in the video/images seen it doesn\x92t appear that the gear doors are down, does this further indicate an AC power loss?
(not sure if this applies to the entire 787 family though)
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): RAT (All)
June 12, 2025, 16:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899423
Ok, so...
Some have said the RAT appears to have been deployed. This would suggest a hydraulic/electrical failure on the plane.
A hydraulic/electrical failure could well make it impossible to retract the gear immediately.
But, what do flaps do in the event of a major hydraulic/electrical failure? Is there a default that they revert back to?
We can, I think, rule out engine failure, at least single engine failure because the rudder is still straight on in the
Video. You can also hear the engines..
Some have said the RAT appears to have been deployed. This would suggest a hydraulic/electrical failure on the plane.
A hydraulic/electrical failure could well make it impossible to retract the gear immediately.
But, what do flaps do in the event of a major hydraulic/electrical failure? Is there a default that they revert back to?
We can, I think, rule out engine failure, at least single engine failure because the rudder is still straight on in the
Video. You can also hear the engines..
I thought this was meant to the *professional* pilot\x92s forum
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Engine Failure (All) RAT (All) RAT (Deployment)
June 12, 2025, 16:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899447
This appears to be the slats out at least:
is it possible to set slats only for take off on the 787/boeing? For the Airbus we will get 1(slats)+F (flap) on the ground when selecting flap position 1
is it possible to set slats only for take off on the 787/boeing? For the Airbus we will get 1(slats)+F (flap) on the ground when selecting flap position 1
Subjects: None
June 12, 2025, 17:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899503
Subjects: None
June 12, 2025, 18:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899556
Obviously not confirmed but this is quite a prominent journalist in India reporting the words of the apparent mayday:
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): MAYDAY
June 12, 2025, 18:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899567
when some(most?) airlines are imploring their pilots to use lower flap settings to save 2-3kg in fuel per approach running an APU that can burn 20-40kg/min on take off\x85..
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): APU
June 13, 2025, 17:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900749
A lot of weird things about this incident but I feel like it cannot be as complex as some are making it.
That said I am still yet to see ANY evidence those big engines were screaming which they should\x92ve been if the flaps were retracted inadvertently, in fact in the one video we have the plane seems eerily silent
That said I am still yet to see ANY evidence those big engines were screaming which they should\x92ve been if the flaps were retracted inadvertently, in fact in the one video we have the plane seems eerily silent
Subjects: None
June 13, 2025, 18:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900807
I still don\x92t understand the flap retraction theory
It happens- in every airline in the world, ask any of their training/FDM departments. There are reported incidents of it from almost
Every major airline I can think of. Humans are incredibly fallible, I\x92ve spoken to a captain who did this on the 737 back in the day (now flies Airbus) and on that day he caught himself. He said in the debrief after the flight he could not explain why he did it, absolutely no clue.
The issue I have is why one of the most modern aircraft in the world, a thoroughly 21st century clean sheet design with every protection under the sun would not have the adequate protections or performance to deal with this scenario. Surely the 787 has high AOA and low speed protections- those engines should\x92ve been screaming at TOGA LK (or the Boeing equivalent) and the pitch should have been limited regardless of the weight, density altitude etc
Airlines and manufacturers will always try and blame the pilots but I would be truly shocked to learn a FBW aircraft (Boeing or not) designed this century could get itself into such a catastrophic state so innocently. We KNOW many crashes have been prevented by Airbus FBW protections (a few Wizz examples come to mind
It happens- in every airline in the world, ask any of their training/FDM departments. There are reported incidents of it from almost
Every major airline I can think of. Humans are incredibly fallible, I\x92ve spoken to a captain who did this on the 737 back in the day (now flies Airbus) and on that day he caught himself. He said in the debrief after the flight he could not explain why he did it, absolutely no clue.
The issue I have is why one of the most modern aircraft in the world, a thoroughly 21st century clean sheet design with every protection under the sun would not have the adequate protections or performance to deal with this scenario. Surely the 787 has high AOA and low speed protections- those engines should\x92ve been screaming at TOGA LK (or the Boeing equivalent) and the pitch should have been limited regardless of the weight, density altitude etc
Airlines and manufacturers will always try and blame the pilots but I would be truly shocked to learn a FBW aircraft (Boeing or not) designed this century could get itself into such a catastrophic state so innocently. We KNOW many crashes have been prevented by Airbus FBW protections (a few Wizz examples come to mind
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FBW TOGA
June 13, 2025, 19:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900826
This guy doesn’t sound like a pilot so I’d take what he has to say about technical issues with a bucket of salt- cabin crew often get incredibly dumbed down explanations for their level of knowledge
Either way air India hasn’t had a terminal technical issue leading to a hull loss that I can seem to find, and it is over 60 years old. Shoddy legacy cabins has almost nothing to do with air safety and all those conflating the interiors of old air india planes with maintenance of critical items are being disingenuous at best
Either way air India hasn’t had a terminal technical issue leading to a hull loss that I can seem to find, and it is over 60 years old. Shoddy legacy cabins has almost nothing to do with air safety and all those conflating the interiors of old air india planes with maintenance of critical items are being disingenuous at best
Last edited by T28B; 13th June 2025 at 21:46 . Reason: no need to replicate that picture
Subjects: None
June 13, 2025, 23:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901008
Speaking as a B787 Captain..... There is so much rubbish and stupid suggestion being written here.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
the ALT capture is what caught EK\x92s 777 out in DBX right? I still can\x92t think of a logical reason why they continued to allow ALT capture below thrust reduction height (depending on your operator 400-1000 AGL), that seems like a latent threat.
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) Engine Failure Detection Time Hydraulic Failure (All) RAT (All) RAT (Deployment) TOGA V1
June 14, 2025, 01:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901049
This has been the norm for as long as I can remember, cycle back a decade they had been canabilising new aircraft for parts.
I understand where Wilson wants to position AI, and he has done a lot of cleaning out and fixing, probably one of the biggest and hardest jobs in Aviation, but the cancer will always lie under the surface. He fixes and improves one thing, but uncovers ten more problems along the way, that\x92s the sort of beast AI is. It\x92s going to take time to get the Flight Ops and Engineering departments up to Singapore or Hong Kong standard.
This one was certainly due for a D check. I\x92d be interested to see the outstanding issues and the patch jobs. I can\x92t imagine it would be too flash under the cover, they might have improved engineering standards under Wilson\x92s watch, but the prior years would be questionable.
I understand where Wilson wants to position AI, and he has done a lot of cleaning out and fixing, probably one of the biggest and hardest jobs in Aviation, but the cancer will always lie under the surface. He fixes and improves one thing, but uncovers ten more problems along the way, that\x92s the sort of beast AI is. It\x92s going to take time to get the Flight Ops and Engineering departments up to Singapore or Hong Kong standard.
This one was certainly due for a D check. I\x92d be interested to see the outstanding issues and the patch jobs. I can\x92t imagine it would be too flash under the cover, they might have improved engineering standards under Wilson\x92s watch, but the prior years would be questionable.
yes yes the one foreigner is is fixing it all whilst the lazy incompetent natives stand around beating hammers into tin
the airline has only been out of state ownership (where it was allowed to rot for decades with planes being cannibalised for parts) for ~3 years (taken over late 2022). The massive (gargantuan) turnaround they have to take will take a long time still to show results- in fact their wide body overhaul and refresh program that this knackered 787-8 was to be part of is very delayed due to external supply chain shortages, the first legacy AI 787 goes into overhaul later this year, almost a year behind schedule
- they have merged 4 airlines into 2 (AIX+Air Asia India, Vistara+Air India)
- they have ordered 570+ aircraft (yet to receive a single new build from these orders placed in 2023, 6 undelivered Russian A350s taken in)
- they have conducted a deep overhaul/refresh of about 60% of their legacy narrow body fleet (again hampered by supply chain issues)
- they have invested in a massive greenfield simulator facility in Delhi for their narrow bodies and wide bodies
- they are creating their own ab-intio flight training school in Maharashtra for their cadets
- they are creating a huge greenfield MRO in Bengaluru
this list isn\x92t exhaustive at all but as is apparent this is a very long term process that has all been implemented in the last ~30 months and obviously will not really show the full effects for many many years (after 2030 really would be my guess for a consistent top class product across the board). They can only do so much so soon , the state the TATAs found the airline in were horrific and you should watch some of Cambell\x92s interviews over the years to get an idea of how bad it was.
Off topic but somewhat relevant as the airline operator\x92s conditions do matter
Subjects: None
June 14, 2025, 08:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901266
I’m not a 787 driver so for fear of looking dumb in front of those that are this still confuses me. Even IF they’ve mis-selected the flap setting (I still don’t think it’s been cemented on here that there is in fact a FMS/flap setting disagreement warning but i believe there is), had the wrong de-rated take off settings, selected flaps instead of gear up the 787 with massive high bypass engines, FBW and full envelope protections surely cannot let itself be put in such a low energy/high alpha regime as we saw in the videos IF it has both fans functioning normally, surely?
the pilots may have messed up royally and numerous times so those holes lined up but the plane is the final block in the chain and a 21st century all digital entirely clean sheet design was sold as being immune to such catastrophic outcomes from a few minor (consequential yes) and fairly common errors- aren’t all the protections and our procedures designed after decades of mistakes?
im having a hard time squaring how a fully functioning modern bird like this could allow for this outcome and almost whatever the pilots did outside of unbelievable inputs and the pilots are are a bit of a red herring IMO
Dale Winsley
@Winsleydale
No. The LE slats are deployed therefore the flaps are as well. This is an automatic linkage. The flaps are set at Take-Off. Hard to see from the angle but they are...if slats are out (easy to see) then flaps are set. Looks like Flaps 5. Also, the 787 has the highest Thrust-to-Weight ratio of any airliner on Earth. The change in Alpha and lift is a trifling matter for it, at these settings (1-5). It will fly out of it easily, even at that density altitude. The attitude change is - in the circumstances I describe, consistent with a massive power loss (both sides). I believe based on probability that simultaneous mechanical failure is not the cause. Fuel contamination or starvation is likewise unlikely based on the 787 fuel system. The common element is the FADEC/Autothrottle/TOGO. However, each engine FADEC is dual redundant two channels. So any such common failure must happen further upstream. From a design perspective, that would be unthinkable. But this is Boeing. Given what I can see with my own eyes, I believe the flap issue is a non-starter. Also, re the landing gear: Clearly the Positive Rate challenge would be met based on normal rotation and fly-off at V2. But since we know the flaps were set correctly, that rules out an "oopsie" moment. Just as likely there was at the challenge moment an indication that something was amiss, and the Gear Up call was not made. They see both N1s unwinding and it takes a second to get past the WFT factor. They cross-check and see the airspeed also unwinding. Then they unload the Alpha and pitch to gear down Vy. And they had another 6 seconds. Whatever it was, it was not a flap, mechanical or fuel issue. We will know soon enough. But this is Boeing. My gut says "software". All 787s worldwide need to be grounded, now.
6:10 AM \xb7 Jun 14, 2025
\xb7
53.8K
Views
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 14th June 2025 at 09:04 . Reason: Add X quote
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FADEC FBW Fuel (All) V2
June 14, 2025, 08:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901272
https://x.com/winsleydale/status/193...230524974?s=46
I\x92m not a 787 driver so for fear of looking dumb in front of those that are this still confuses me. Even IF they\x92ve mis-selected the flap setting (I still don\x92t think it\x92s been cemented on here that there is in fact a FMS/flap setting disagreement warning but i believe there is), had the wrong de-rated take off settings, selected flaps instead of gear up the 787 with massive high bypass engines, FBW and full envelope protections surely cannot let itself be put in such a low energy/high alpha regime as we saw in the videos IF it has both fans functioning normally, surely?
the pilots may have messed up royally and numerous times so those holes lined up but the plane is the final block in the chain and a 21st century all digital entirely clean sheet design was sold as being immune to such catastrophic outcomes from a few minor (consequential yes) and fairly common errors- aren\x92t all the protections and our procedures designed after decades of mistakes?
im having a hard time squaring how a fully functioning modern bird like this could allow for this outcome and almost whatever the pilots did outside of unbelievable inputs and the pilots are are a bit of a red herring IMO
I\x92m not a 787 driver so for fear of looking dumb in front of those that are this still confuses me. Even IF they\x92ve mis-selected the flap setting (I still don\x92t think it\x92s been cemented on here that there is in fact a FMS/flap setting disagreement warning but i believe there is), had the wrong de-rated take off settings, selected flaps instead of gear up the 787 with massive high bypass engines, FBW and full envelope protections surely cannot let itself be put in such a low energy/high alpha regime as we saw in the videos IF it has both fans functioning normally, surely?
the pilots may have messed up royally and numerous times so those holes lined up but the plane is the final block in the chain and a 21st century all digital entirely clean sheet design was sold as being immune to such catastrophic outcomes from a few minor (consequential yes) and fairly common errors- aren\x92t all the protections and our procedures designed after decades of mistakes?
im having a hard time squaring how a fully functioning modern bird like this could allow for this outcome and almost whatever the pilots did outside of unbelievable inputs and the pilots are are a bit of a red herring IMO
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FBW