Posts by user "fox niner" [Posts: 11 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 1]

777/787 driver here.

With a block fuel of around 50 tons the engines will receive fuel from the center tank. Also during take off. Wing capacity is 16,5 tons per wing, thus 33 tons or more as block fuel requires center tank to be used.

Mate of mine ran the scenario in the 787-simulator:

Take-off with flaps 20, quite some weight added.
at the call positive rate-gear up: they left the gear DOWN and cycled the flaps from 20 to 1.

it was FLYABLE, RECOVERABLE.

albeit with both donks operating.

777/787 driver here.

Reading a few posts about an APU-to-pack takeoff, or a packs off takeoff on a 787, because of the hot weather, makes me shake my head.
There is no bleed air on the 787. A packs off takeoff, or an apu to pack takeoff, is never done. There isn’t a procedure in the fcom to describe it. It is also pointless. The packs are electrical.

Then the gear.
When you lift off the runway, the gear doors open REGARDLESS of gear lever position. If you do not raise the gear within 30 seconds, the gear doors close again and you keep the gear down as you apparently desire. In the video, the gear doors are closed again as the airplane flies into the suburb. This requires normal hydraulics in system C, which was apprently available as the doors are closed again.

takeoff performance:
I entered all relevant weather parameters into my performance tool for Ahmedabad VAAH, rwy 23, 42 degrees C and no wind, qnh 1005.
It comes up with flaps 10 as optimum, albeit for a 787-9 (don’t have the possibility to calculate for the 787-8) But even the 787-9 is able to depart with flaps 5 in those conditions. Max tow around 230tons.

Mate of mine ran the scenario in the 787-simulator:

Take-off with flaps 20, quite some weight added.
at the call positive rate-gear up: they left the gear DOWN and cycled the flaps from 20 to 1.

it was FLYABLE, RECOVERABLE.

albeit with both donks operating.

777/787 driver here.

With a block fuel of around 50 tons the engines will receive fuel from the center tank. Also during take off. Wing capacity is 16,5 tons per wing, thus 33 tons or more as block fuel requires center tank to be used.

777/787 driver here.

Reading a few posts about an APU-to-pack takeoff, or a packs off takeoff on a 787, because of the hot weather, makes me shake my head.
There is no bleed air on the 787. A packs off takeoff, or an apu to pack takeoff, is never done. There isn’t a procedure in the fcom to describe it. It is also pointless. The packs are electrical.

Then the gear.
When you lift off the runway, the gear doors open REGARDLESS of gear lever position. If you do not raise the gear within 30 seconds, the gear doors close again and you keep the gear down as you apparently desire. In the video, the gear doors are closed again as the airplane flies into the suburb. This requires normal hydraulics in system C, which was apprently available as the doors are closed again.

takeoff performance:
I entered all relevant weather parameters into my performance tool for Ahmedabad VAAH, rwy 23, 42 degrees C and no wind, qnh 1005.
It comes up with flaps 10 as optimum, albeit for a 787-9 (don’t have the possibility to calculate for the 787-8) But even the 787-9 is able to depart with flaps 5 in those conditions. Max tow around 230tons.

Placing the fuel control switches to cutoff is not \x93hard\x94 but you certainly need some force to do it.
They certainly can not jump across the safeguard by themselves. (in turbulence for example)

this whole scenario is simply far beyond my comprehension.
what happened to crew coordination when selecting fuel switches? Even in a perceived emergency situation, the switcher needs to confirm the perception.

I am relieved that:
1. There is no apparent design fault in the 787, otherwise the whole global fleet would be grounded.
2. The engines relit so quickly, albeit not soon enough in this case. The relight design basically works.

Sort of worried how much this accident will make pilot life more cumbersome when our regular medical checkups reappear on our rosters.

Well. Was there a “positive rate-gear up” exchange? This is SOP as we all know, but it does become relevant.
AFAIK you state the nature of any (perceived) failure when you select the gear to up.
They didn’t even get to that point. Action was already unilaterally done by someone, before that.
It is so incomprehensible that the fuel control switches were already in cutoff, before they even came to the pos-rate gear-up part.

The longer it takes before an investigative body (aaib, police) starts looking into both pilot\x92s motives for a possible maliscious intent, the more time there is to erase evidence, or to cover up something.
I am not saying there is any evidence pointing to this, but the clock is ticking.

I find this newly announced probe into the fuel control switches quite surprising. I dont expect anything to be found.

In the last 48 hours I have personally placed four (4) B787 fuel control switches from RUN to CUTOFF.
And as I did so, I had to think of this accident.
I struck me that in my personal way of operating in a cockpit environment, the switching of these fuel control switches is SO deliberate.

Even for me, a regular airline commander. It struck me that I simply can not fathom or believe the scenario wherein a collegue of mine can \x93accidentally\x94, as a slip of mind, place those switches in a position they don\x92t belong.
And I don\x92t buy the failure of one switch, or it\x92s wiring, on the most critical moment in flight.
Let Alone Both At The Same Time.