Posts by user "Musician" [Posts: 88 Total up-votes: 95 Page: 5 of 5]¶

To clarify, I did not mean to imply that a "miracle" was possible. There was always going to be a high chance (inevitability?) that the fuel would explode, especially with the engines relit.
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.

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.

Inasmuch as a scientific enquiry is based partially on rumors and conducted before all the evidence is in, yes.

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? )

And that did relight the engines, as the preliminary report notes.

AI171 reached 600 feet MSL (barometric), which, due to air pressure, temperature and field elevation, turns out to be approximately 200 feet AGL (or above airfield elevation, the ground does not slope a lot there). Watch the CCTV video of AI171 taking off, considering that the wing span is ~200 ft, to see this for yourself.

It is reasonable to think that 3 seconds into that flight is where "positive rate" would've been evident.

Antoine de Saint-Exup\xe9ry notwithstanding.

That's not what it was about.

From the Reuters article: So the question was: did the preliminary report blame the Captain?
I agree with the judge that it did not.

It's a father who wants a court to tell everyone that his son did nothing wrong.
It's understandable, but I'd rather wait for the facts to emerge.

But given this legal climate, I fear the AAIB might withhold the final report, as they're likely to get sued over it if they publish.

original source: https://thefederal.com/category/busi...failure-217674 .
As yet unconfirmed.

Edit: I should probably explain that I posted this so we can reference what The Federal actually wrote, and don't need to discuss secondhand paraphrases of it. As long as it's unconfirmed, I don't believe any of it.