Posts by user "galaxy flyer" [Posts: 23 Total up-votes: 46 Pages: 2]

Originally Posted by ChiefT

I am curious how this can happen? The handle for the gear is on a completely different place in the cockpit that the flaps handle.
Possibly a B787 pilot could give us an idea?

What is nearby the flaps handle are the switches for the "fuel control".

Originally Posted by HarryMann

yes it was introduced/reintroduced by some airlines in the 70s I believe.

Originally Posted by GVFlyer

The RAT sounds to be deployed in some videos. Does the RAT deploy automatically on the B787?

Originally Posted by HumbleDeer

Right, that's because it's not not meant to be used during normal flight operations. Generally, usage of the RAT indicates #### has hit the fan(blades).


To corroborate this, one can note that the RAT cannot be stowed once it's deployed under these conditions. That's because the RAT is ultimately either deployed because it's "forced" out by an active signal, OR it's deployed because the electromagnetic system is de-energized and the spring loaded mount flaps it out. That's what happens when nothing is stopping the spring from doing spring action things, like you'd see when there's no power going to whatever usually holds it shut.

Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4

Sorry but before you make a statement like this, you better read up on the "complexity and sophistication" of the latest business jets like the Gulfstreams and Global Express.



The Global Express has 4 engine driven generators, one APU generator, one RAT generator that provide AC and DC power to the aircraft's systems. On the hydraulic side, the aircraft has 3 fully independent and redundant hydraulic systems which power all flight control surfaces the exception being, the slats and flaps are AC power driven and are available even with only the RAT providing power. The 3 hydraulic systems are powered from each engine backed up by 2 EDPs (system 1 and 2) and system 3 is powered by 2 EDPs only. The RAT powers system 3 via one of its EDPs. In the event of a dual engine failure the RAT would deploy automatically and power the AC essential plus DC essential busses and one EDP on system 3. The APU is available to you up to FL450 and will supply full AC power but bleed air only up to FL300.

Originally Posted by cncpc

Gear pins?

Originally Posted by fox niner

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\x92t 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\x92t 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.

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

Maybe a dumb question - A DA-42 went in with double engine failure when the gear was retracted, the additional load of the gear pump was enough to drop the bus voltages low enough to shut down both FADECs. They took off with a very low battery and no one had tested this scenario previously. Obviously a very different airplane, but still raising the gear probably is a significant load and may have caused an electrical problem to get worse.
* or Boeing thought of that, DA-42s got rewired and won't do that now.

Originally Posted by gearlever

"On Jun 17th 2025 an official, a former Air India Captain trained by the Captain of the accident flight, stated, that the CVR has been successfully read out, the voices on the CVR are very clear. It is becoming gradually clear from the newly emerging evidence that there was probably zero negligence in the cockpit, the crew did not give up until the very last moment. The probability of a technical cause is high. A preliminary report by India's AAIB can be expected in a few days."

AvH

Originally Posted by Icarus2001

Simply that the RAT is an electrical generator, that is all. What the electricity it generates powers is a downstreamm issue. The absolute rubbish being spouted on here is unreadable\x85viz\x85



Why? To achieve what? The people who write this have no clue about two crew jet operations. It is so sad. No crew would pull a shut off immediately after rotation. It makes no sense. Just stop with all this rubbish.

I am going to have a lie down.

Originally Posted by Lord Bracken

I was referring to CVR/FDRs in general being specialist equipment requiring specialist facilities to process. In any case, I would be very interested to find out where those from this accident are read. It appears from a post upthread there are new facilities in New Dehli that could be used. Having said that, for the EK 521 accident in Dubai the recorders were sent to the UK for analysis, despite a "flight data recorder centre" in Abu Dhabi being opened (again with much fanfare) by the UAE GCAA five years before the occurrence.

Originally Posted by Obba

I wonder if those reported eight Air Indian 787-8's pulled in for 'looking at', have had any issues with failed power systems, as in the reported and video of this aircraft, having no IFE systems working.,

Wasn't there a post by someone who claimed to have been a (ex) crew member of the aircraft who said that there have been a number a complaints about power issues in that aircraft and it was brough to management's attention, but nothing was apparently taken seriously...?

If it is an AI maintenance issue and considering that the Black Box has been looked at for days now.
AFAIK , there's two black boxes, each with identical data, so only one is needed (theoretically), Plus, AFAIK , the data can be retrieved remotely on these newer boxes.

And as mentioned, if it was a 'software' bug relating to engine cutoff's or other inherent engine issues, then the whole fleet would be grounded - HOWEVER - as in the 737 MCAS debacle, it was known for a long time before the crashes that 'something was wrong' with the pitch control - as was being reported on NASA's own NSRS database even IIRC years before.

And again (I made a post somewhere months ago), why on earth doesn't any airport that is say classed as international, have 4k cameras installed.
Look at how many pages have been "were the flaps out on takeoff", and such like, "Ran out of runway" - even (maybe), Engine thrust could be seen, bogey conditions, tire conditions,
Could answer a lot of information as to "Was the aircraft in good configuration on Takeoff/Landing',
The world has watched hours upon hours of potato cam footage of AI-171 taking off - plus a handheld phone footage taken by a kid, and that's the best a trillion $$ airline industry can do..?

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

That's an interesting possibility. The independent power supply for the forward recorder also powers the cockpit area microphone, but not the individual crew mikes, so working out who said what could well be dependent on being able to recognise the voices.

Originally Posted by tdracer

The gag rule is pretty much the first thing you're told when you get drawn into an investigation - and you can get in big trouble for violating it (even if inadvertent).
A Boeing management type got his hand slapped pretty hard not to long ago when he made the mistake of answering a reporter's question regarding the Alaska door plug blowout.
I was tempted to contact my friend who was my counterpart during the 787/GEnx-1B development, but I suspect he's already been contacted and is considered to be part of the investigation - so he couldn't talk to me about it anyway.

Originally Posted by SRMman

I wonder if the delay in announcing any preliminary findings is because of the enormity of the consequences.

Let us say the investigation team have discovered a unique technical fault that caused the accident, but don\x92t yet know why it happened, how would the team proceed? On the one hand they\x92ve uncovered a fault which could reoccur and cause another accident (but a fault that has only happened once in 14 years). On the other hand a grounding would have enormous commercial consequences worldwide, with the possibility that an inspection and/or rectification are not yet available.

What would they do?

Originally Posted by SRMman

My point was IF the investigations team have already discovered that a technical issue caused the accident, and it could happen again, how would they balance the need to inform everyone quickly, against the commercial consequences of a grounding, especially if the reason for the fault wasn\x92t yet understood.

Originally Posted by Non-Driver

So the BA 777 at LHR was pilot error then ?

Originally Posted by aerobat77

sorry if it was not clear : when you move the switches to cutoff and the thrust levers are above idle imho the engines would NOT cutoff , the command would be ignored .