sorvad
June 14, 2025, 13:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901428

Quote:

What evidence do we have that the RAT was deployed? All I can find is people talking about a "noise" which seems very thin evidence indeed.

Enhanced audio files from 2 independent people, one of whom has experience in forensic audio evidence, and a screen grab from one of the videos, albeit very blurry. So both visual and aural evidence which given the circumstances I’d say is fairly compelling if not completely conclusive.

Subjects RAT (All) RAT (Deployment)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 14, 2025, 17:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11901658

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonty

I disagree. I think the lines of the underneath of the aircraft are quite obvious and its clear there's no RAT. Given it drops on the wing to body fairing just behind the main landing gear on the starboard side of the aircraft, it should be very obvious in this photo.

How about here….

Subjects RAT (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 15, 2025, 10:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11902306

Quote:

Originally Posted by amsm01

(Sorry, Airbus here and not familiar with Boeing) Flap 5 to 1 reduction on the Boeing triggers autothrust reduction, is that correct? If so, are there any other conditions that need to be met for this to happen like being in some kind of takeoff mode? Just thinking whether this would have potential otherwise in other regimes to cause issues, discontinued approach perhaps.

Am slightly puzzled as to why if flap reduction triggering climb thrust is part of the standard logic (and presumably clean-up technique) then partial dual thrust loss wouldn’t be immediately recognised as the classic symptom of gear / flap retraction handling error? I presume Boeing pilots / air India are just as aware of this it as everyone else, strikes me as odd that one would immediately go into full dual EF mode. My instinctive reaction without knowing the Boeing would be to firewall both TLs, would this have worked in the early flap retraction logic scenario? Many thanks all

Well I’m a triple driver so can’t be sure for the 78, but during the preflight we can programme thrust reduction either at and altitude or at flap 5 or 1. The company I’m with at the moment it’s an altitude, the one I was at before was usually at a flap setting. I’m not sure it’s got anything to do with this accident though. I guess you could enter 150ft instead of 1500ft in the FMC for the thrust reduction which would be alarming when it happened for sure but doesn’t explain the RAT or the gear observations….. unless someone did something like the memory items in response to what they perceived to be a double engine failure, but at that altitude, with no confirmation of any failure? I wouldn’t have thought so but never say never.

Last edited by sorvad; 15th June 2025 at 11:15 .

Subjects Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) Memory Items RAT (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 15, 2025, 13:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11902431

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shep69

So for those getting in the weeds with one in several trillion (or lower) probabilities of systems failures have you considered that that improper RTOW (with or without improper flap setting), flap retraction / climb thrust trigger, is of much higher probability and has actually happened ?

Anyway I think we’ll find out soon if a systems failure was involved.

The FLCH Hold thing (Asiana) was never an issue and well known (at least on our line). And for a crew of 3 (or 4) to press a destabilized approach getting 40-ish knots too slow (!) isn’t a systems problem — it’s a breach of basic airmanship.

Have you considered that what you have described won’t deploy the rat, initiate the gear retraction sequence or cause the auto start of the APU, all of which there is a fair bit of compelling evidence for?

Subjects APU

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 15, 2025, 18:19:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11902647

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuntPilot

After hours of reading I conclude that so far nobody has the slightest clue about what happened.
1: Flaps were down
2: The RAT story is based on a single unsharp video frame. Earlier frames were much sharper but the RAT could not be seen (although there was a sound).
3. Lack of evidence

I could be wrong, in that case please link QUALITY evidence so that we can learn something new.
This way thousands of people are wasting countless hours.

Visual evidence the rat was deployed, audio evidence the rat was deployed, evidence the APU inlet door was open, evidence the gear retraction was interrupted, evidence there was very little engine noise after departure, very obvious evidence that the aeroplane didn’t have enough thrust to stop it descending into the ground. All of this strongly suggests that both engines were to all intents and purposes, and for want of a better word, ‘failed’ now that could be intentional, accidental or because of some sort of technical malfunction or external factor. Nothing conclusive and no answers as to how or why, but not quite as wildly stabbing in the dark as your post would infer.

Last edited by sorvad; 15th June 2025 at 18:35 .

Subjects APU RAT (All) RAT (Deployment)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 15, 2025, 20:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11902740

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuntPilot

We agree that there was a lack of thrust. Possibly caused by a dual engine failure. But the sharpest frames in the video do NOT show the RAT and this is counter evidence to the RAT theory. If there were substantial technical failures who knows what sounds could be generated. I find the evidence weak at best. And we immediately get into a chicken-egg problem: did some power issue of unknown nature cause an engine failure or did a dual engine failure occur, resulting in a power loss? Both are extremely unlikely and need to be backed by quality evidence. The video is not it, in my opinion. I don't know the APU intake mechanism and whether it could open after the impact.

Subjects APU Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) RAT (All) RAT (Deployment)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 15, 2025, 20:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11902757

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIBO

I've been sitting on my hands for days now...but please stop linking RAT deployment evidence with some blurry cluster of pixelation, which proves nothing.
This Pprune-forensic audio analysis (and subsequent posts) by Kraftstoffvondesibel, although completely ignored by many it seems, is the only clear proof there was a deployed RAT sound recorded in the young boy's video clip. You may disprove the analysis as much as you like, but referring to blurry video regarding possible RAT deployment or not, is indeed " thousands of people are wasting countless hours "

I'm rather under the impression that many recent discussions are going backwards or h amsterwheeling.
But thank you for your valuable audio analysis

If you’ve read the whole thread, you’ll see that most of us who are acknowledging rat evidence are also citing this compelling audio evidence too.

Subjects RAT (All) RAT (Deployment)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 17, 2025, 11:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11904189

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

How could the CVR have been "read out" if the CVR hasn't yet been located?

This comment is from a low-budget news source.

Yes it has.

Subjects CVR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 17, 2025, 12:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11904210

Quote:

Originally Posted by framer

There is a possibility that doesn\x92t get much air time on this forum that satisfies all the \x91facts\x92 ( pprune facts mind you), and requires less mental gymnastics to believe than many of the theories put forward. I\x92m not saying it\x92s what happened at all but it seems much more likely than a TCMA fault to me.
This link is to a Japanese report on a Jetstar 787-8 with GE engines that had both engines drop below idle while airborne due to magnesium salts effecting the operation of the FSV spools. The Magnesium salts came from a biocide dose by maintenance two days earlier.
For some reason I can\x92t paste the link but if you google JTSB the report number is AI2020-2.
I think it\x92s quite easy to imagine that a simple maintenance error ( 1000ppm instead of 100ppm) combined with extremely bad luck on timing lead to this accident.
I think I\x92m favouring a theory like this for its simplicity and the fact that fuel is the elephant in the room when you are dealing with a dual engine failure.

That’s really interesting, I’d not heard of that incident. The report does say though that particular biocide had been withdrawn due to other engine thrust occurences.

Subjects Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) Maintenance Error

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 17, 2025, 20:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11904605

Couple of recent bits of news….

https://www.reuters.com/sustainabili...ne-2025-06-17/

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/...et-2025-06-17/

Subjects: None

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 18, 2025, 18:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11905409

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy Tomkins

If thre was a liquid invovlved, the rotation could be the trigger for a problem.

Water was mentioned earlier in the previous iteration of this thread, as I recall by one of the most well respected contributors on the forum and an expert in flight testing and certification issues. There have been a couple of well known incidents of flight deck screens going blank due to all sorts of electrical problems caused by water ingress into the E&E bay, fortunately in daytime vmc and not on particularly electric jets, and both I believe at rotation. The one I recall had it’s L1 door left open during a black rainstorm in Hong Kong. It’s also been said that total electrical failure can’t result in in a double engine failure on the 787, but I wonder what multiple sequelae could result from such water contamination with an aeroplane that relies so much on electrical power and software? Another very remote probability but many accidents and incidents are. I don’t even know if there was any inclement weather before this flight, maybe someone could confirm?

Subjects Dual Engine Failure Electrical Failure Engine Failure (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 18, 2025, 18:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11905416

Quote:

Originally Posted by sorvad

Just looked…..none by the looks of things so skip that theory, apologies.

Subjects Dual Engine Failure Electrical Failure Engine Failure (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
June 19, 2025, 07:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11905757

Quote:

Originally Posted by nachtmusak

Non-aviation engineer here: I have a question about the low level altitude capture theory that I've been a bit hesitant to ask, since no-one else seemed to be bringing it up.

My understanding of altitude capture is that the autopilot will automatically adjust both thrust and pitch to intercept the requested altitude. However to my eyes there is very little pitch adjustment in the CCTV video of the plane taken from behind, until the very end of the video when it pitches up somewhat (obscured by buildings, more visible in the smartphone video). Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'd have thought that if the autopilot was trying to capture a very low altitude it would start pitching down (quite noticeably!) to do so, not remain at what looks like 10+ degrees nose-up. I honestly struggle to reconcile what I'm looking at in the video with an attempt to level off at 0ft, 200ft, or any of the other mentioned low-level altitudes.

Also maybe I'm missing something 787-specific but generally doesn't the autopilot have to be activated for the aircraft to automatically attempt to capture the pre-selected altitude? That was the case in this incident involving a Dash 8 and a target altitude of 0 feet that I am reading about ( https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...-dash-8-g-ecoe ). I'd have thought the PF would still be hand-flying the departure at the point that things went wrong, considering that the gear hadn't even been retracted yet...

That\x92s a very good question, and clearly one that those postulating the theory haven\x92t thought about either.

Subjects CCTV

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
July 10, 2025, 17:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919111

Aaaaand here we go again 🤦‍♂️

Subjects: None

The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.

sorvad
July 11, 2025, 22:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919865

Quote:

Originally Posted by digits_

It would be nice to see a graph of g forces/turbulence. An awkward arm or hand position in combination with sudden turbulence and perhaps worn out switches could hit both of them.

Sleeves or lanyards that got caught while moving around? Perhaps there was an attempt to press a radio button, although it would be a strange time to do that. But perhaps an 'oh crap, I forgot to get that frequency ready' moment.

Oh please, really?!, I mean really?!

Subjects: None

15 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

sorvad
July 12, 2025, 08:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920296

Quote:

Originally Posted by physicus

Timeline of known events with source attribution from the preliminary report:

08:07:33 ATC: Takeoff clearance
08:07:37 A-SMGCS: Aircraft starts rolling
08:08:33 EAFR: V1 153kts
08:08:35 EAFR: Vr 155kts
08:08:39 EAFR: Gnd-Air mode transition
08:08:42 EAFR: Max IAS 180kts, Eng 1/2 Cutoff switches activate within 1 second of each other
08:08:42 CVR: "Why did you cut off", "I did not" (exact time not specified)
08:08:42 A-SMGCS: RAT deployed (exact time not specified)
08:08:47 EAFR: Both engine N2 below min idle. RAT hyd pwr commences
08:08:52 EAFR: Eng 1 cutoff to RUN
08:08:54 EAFR: APU inlet door opens (auto start logic)
08:08:56 EAFR: Eng 2 cutoff to RUN
08:09:05 ATC: Mayday call
08:09:11 EAFR recording stops

Fuel cutoff switches operated within 1 second of each other suggests to me that the locking mechanism wasn't working as per (SAIB) No. NM-18-33. Any loose item could have accidentally (or not) operated the switches (including hands).

Really? It suggests to me and I would imagine the vast majority of us who have flown modern Boeings that they were physically moved, by one of the crew, one at a time, the question is why.

Last edited by sorvad; 12th July 2025 at 09:03 . Reason: Clarification

Subjects APU CVR EAFR Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches MAYDAY Pilot "Why did you cut off" Preliminary Report RAT (All) RAT (Deployment) RUN/CUTOFF SAIB NM-18-33 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin Timeline (Preliminary Report) V1

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

7 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

sorvad
July 12, 2025, 09:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920339

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim

Spoken to a rated mate whom is current on 78s and he told me that inadvertent operation of a fuel shut off in flight has happened with a switch being knocked past its detent (lock) by the switch being caught by a crew bag.

Probably not during Takeoff I wouldn\x92t have thought.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Fuel Cutoff Switches (detent)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

6 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

sorvad
July 12, 2025, 23:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920888

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSINGH

unrelated objects interfering with the engine masters is what we were told

Why do you keep talking about engine masters? There\x92s no such thing in the 787, or 777, or 747, in fact no Boeing that I can think of. They have Fuel control switches and Engine fire switches.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

sorvad
July 14, 2025, 09:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11921964

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy_S

Given that there's no evidence that the Fuel Cut-off Switches, or indeed any other part of the aircraft functioned incorrectly, what exactly should such an Airworthiness Directive be saying?

I might be wrong but I imagine the OP is referring to the elephant in the room.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

sorvad
July 14, 2025, 17:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922332

Quote:

Originally Posted by nrunning24

Former Boeing Engineer who was in the room for some 787 AD discussions.... What exactly would you expect Boeing to put in the AD? "Don't put the fuel switches to cutoff unless you really mean to"? Let alone ADs are not in anyway a method for pilot training or actions, they are for the airline engineering and maintenance teams. What would you think Boeing should ask airlines to do in this proposed AD?

I'm sure the current team has already done the systems analysis to see if there was any possible way these weren't completely isolated systems (which I'm pretty confident they are). Let alone the initial report categorically says at this point there are no design issues found with Boeing or GE.

I said earlier that I don’t think this is what the OP is suggesting…he’s pointing out that given the preliminary report and the fact that there is no AD from Boeing, it’s highly likely that the switches were moved by someone on the flightdeck and not a problem with the switch itself.

Last edited by sorvad; 14th July 2025 at 22:11 .

Subjects Air Worthiness Directives Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Switches Preliminary Report

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts by user "sorvad" [Posts: 23 Total up-votes: 37 Page: 1 of 2]¶