July 18, 2025, 04:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924842
We're speaking here on the amount of luck available. As it turned out, even crashing into buildings, it sufficed for one passenger to survive. So there's more luck here than with a CFIT from cruise—and some bad luck in not missing the house they crashed into.
Last edited by Musician; 18th July 2025 at 05:46 .
Subjects: None
July 18, 2025, 05:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924846
Thank you for your reply,
appruser
, and apologies fur cutting most of it:
1. I don't know that the transponder lost power, because I don't have knowledge which electrical bus it is powered from on the 787. It may well have been powered from the main battery the whole time. The FR24 receiver may have stopped receiving data because it could no longer "see" the aircraft‐‐we know there are issues because it didn't even see the eastern half of the runway.
2. Altitudes are rounded, so this could be close to 75 feet gain‐‐or a gain and decline, if the data covers the top of the trajectory.
3. The first reading is definitely in the air, after rotation. FR24 does not report the altitude when the ADS-B data indicates that the aircraft is on the ground, and their data download confirms that.
The best bet to establish timing is to use rotation as datum, and then match the altitude/time estimates from the CCTV with position/time from the ADS-B and the estimated ground speed of the aircraft.
The fact that the ground speed is declining throughout the data sequence strongly suggests that it begins some time after the point, or at the point, when thrust was lost. And we know that didn't begin to happen until the aircraft was 3 seconds into the air.
Big questions in my mind:
1. If the loss of ADSB corresponds to the E1/E2Fuel Cutoff switches being moved from RUN -> CUTOFF, why is the airspeed declining for the prior 4 seconds?
2. In 4 seconds, why is there only 50ft of altitude gain? that seems odd.
3. To account for only 50ft of alt gain, if we assume the 1st reading is on the runway just before rotation, the intermediate +25ft alt gain is at rotation (Nose up but MLG still on the runway), and the last 4 readings are in the air (nose up an additional 25ft), that means that 1 second or less after lift-off, ADSB was lost - this is before E1/E2 FCO RUN-> CUTOFF.
It's just weird .
1. If the loss of ADSB corresponds to the E1/E2Fuel Cutoff switches being moved from RUN -> CUTOFF, why is the airspeed declining for the prior 4 seconds?
2. In 4 seconds, why is there only 50ft of altitude gain? that seems odd.
3. To account for only 50ft of alt gain, if we assume the 1st reading is on the runway just before rotation, the intermediate +25ft alt gain is at rotation (Nose up but MLG still on the runway), and the last 4 readings are in the air (nose up an additional 25ft), that means that 1 second or less after lift-off, ADSB was lost - this is before E1/E2 FCO RUN-> CUTOFF.
It's just weird .
2. Altitudes are rounded, so this could be close to 75 feet gain‐‐or a gain and decline, if the data covers the top of the trajectory.
3. The first reading is definitely in the air, after rotation. FR24 does not report the altitude when the ADS-B data indicates that the aircraft is on the ground, and their data download confirms that.
The best bet to establish timing is to use rotation as datum, and then match the altitude/time estimates from the CCTV with position/time from the ADS-B and the estimated ground speed of the aircraft.
The fact that the ground speed is declining throughout the data sequence strongly suggests that it begins some time after the point, or at the point, when thrust was lost. And we know that didn't begin to happen until the aircraft was 3 seconds into the air.
Last edited by Musician; 18th July 2025 at 05:38 .
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSB CCTV FlightRadar24 Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Switches RUN/CUTOFF
July 18, 2025, 05:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924853
[...snip...]
We are not conducting either a criminal trial, or a civil trial here. I would rather call it (perhaps optimistically) a "scientific enquiry". I think the standard to be applied is whatever we (individually or collectively) think is reasonable, is order to fairly reach a meaningful conclusion. The standard for a criminal trial need not apply.
[...snip...]
We are not conducting either a criminal trial, or a civil trial here. I would rather call it (perhaps optimistically) a "scientific enquiry". I think the standard to be applied is whatever we (individually or collectively) think is reasonable, is order to fairly reach a meaningful conclusion. The standard for a criminal trial need not apply.
[...snip...]
The disconnect in the discussion stems partially from some speaking to what is " reasonable " while others talk about what is possible , given that we don't have all of the evidence yet.
For example:
Is it reasonable to assume the switch was defective? No .
Is it possible that it was? Yes .
Could future evidence change what is reasonable? Yes, but it probably won't. Wait and see.
So all of this can be true simultaneously, and if you don't pay attention to the context, that "yes" and "no" clash. (Can we call that a hamster fight?
)
Subjects: None