June 12, 2025, 13:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899207
Fuel contamination?
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All)
June 13, 2025, 00:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899881
Here's another video taken from a different angle.
https://youtu.be/2zi0HHGA4Ak?si=j3lVInUt1BFPQQZ8
Similar to the Emirates crash following the attempted go around in DXB, momentum can be converted into altitude until speed runs out and gravity takes over.
On the Airbus, if we take off in anything other than 1+F, I'm watching the F/Os left hand very carefully when I call for flap retraction.
https://youtu.be/2zi0HHGA4Ak?si=j3lVInUt1BFPQQZ8
Similar to the Emirates crash following the attempted go around in DXB, momentum can be converted into altitude until speed runs out and gravity takes over.
On the Airbus, if we take off in anything other than 1+F, I'm watching the F/Os left hand very carefully when I call for flap retraction.
My 2 cents: this accident will be a catalytic event.
It will soon come to light pilots crashed a 100% working aircraft. Boeing and Airbus will present a near automatic airplane as a consequence very soon.
This accident will be the gravestone for the handling ( and thinking) pilot.
Last edited by Sisiphos; 13th June 2025 at 01:08 .
Subjects: None
June 13, 2025, 02:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899927
Of course, but the next question should be: what does the fact that they communicated before they aviated tells us? One possibility could be that they watched passively in shock rather than actively engaged in trouble shooting.
Subjects: None
June 13, 2025, 04:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899970
Unless you were in the cockpit of the aircraft in question and moreso the actual human who was facing the situation unfold, it\x92s simply your opinion and pure conjecture. I fly with and train 777 pilots in the sim. These are pilots with thousands of hours and some who have decades of experience. \x93Aviate, navigate and communicate\x94 is a basic tenet of flying, taught at the very beginning of one\x92s aviation journey but you would obviously be surprised at how sometimes when the stress level is high, that basic things have to be pointed out to these individuals, when the fit hits the shan.
I learnt a long time ago, not to judge accident pilots, unless I\x92d walked in their shoes.
I learnt a long time ago, not to judge accident pilots, unless I\x92d walked in their shoes.
PS I am a senior widebody pilot with 30 years experience. Maybe start by refraining from judging me to set a good example ;-)
Last edited by Sisiphos; 13th June 2025 at 04:28 .
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): MAYDAY
June 13, 2025, 05:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899998
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AI171
June 13, 2025, 07:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900085
To me the radio call signals possibly helplessness and confusion.I do not think a pilot who understands what is going on would make the call. He would be too busy trouble shooting. It could be a sign that is was NOT an engine failure or a bird strike ( in both cases they would have mentioned it). Nor a deliberate crash. They had no idea why they could not climb and that tells me they most probably retracted the flaps. Time will tell.
Last edited by Sisiphos; 13th June 2025 at 07:22 .
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 13, 2025, 09:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900222
Subjects: None
June 14, 2025, 06:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901175
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.
1) The flap retraction would immediately result in progressive less lift, not only after full retraction . The time in the air could have been longer than your estimate, maybe enough time for full retraction
2) if 200 feet in MCP, why would that lead to a descent? Shouldn't that result in level flight?
3) wrong TOW / too low power setting sounds like a plausible event.Happened before. But with full power / TOGA set in the air ( which surely must have happened)I would expect at least a longer struggle rather than the constant descent. Just a gut feeling though, busdriver, no experience on 787. Maybe already in a power on stall. The only problem with this hypothesis is that it does not explain the gear down since there definitely was positive rate after rotation.
4) double engine failure too remote, no signs of flames etc. Forget it, agreed.
My guess remains inadvertant flaps retraction for what it's worth.
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, 08:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901258
Hmm. Not sure where the idea comes from the gear was partially retracted... I can't see any signs for it on the video, nor can I see a RAT. and just to say "some event" must have happened is not very helpful, is it? Of course "something" has happened, but the question remains what.
Would it not make more sense to assume there is no RAT if no RAT is visible?
Could it be that we as pilots are in general biased to find a technical reason, although we all know the vast majority of accidents are down to human error?
Would it not make more sense to assume there is no RAT if no RAT is visible?
Could it be that we as pilots are in general biased to find a technical reason, although we all know the vast majority of accidents are down to human error?
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Human Factors RAT (All)