tumtiddle
2025-06-13T08:16:00
permalink Post: 11900154

Quote:

Originally Posted by shared reality

Are you kidding? The RAT is deployed (at least on Airbus) when you lose normal electrical supply. This will most likely never (or maybe once) happen in any pilots career.. So you most definitely have not heard "many hundreds" of 777/787 in that abnormal state.

As to the no flaps / flaps debate, time will tell. But what is definitely obvious is that they never raise the gear. Now that is tangible, and to me it seems that initially the aircraft is climbing at a somewhat steady climb until it doesn't.
Having flown both Boeings and Airbus+ numerous other types over the years, on every type I have ever flown the initial action once positive climb is determined, is to raise the gear.
This goes for every takeoff, normal or with failure of any sort (with the exception of a dual engine failure at rotation, which is not the case here, as they initially climbed to xxx hundred feet).
So, initially the gear should have been retracted in order to minimise drag, and the question is, why was it not?

Of course, once the gear is up, and in an instance where you get a dual engine failure at low level (highly rare) over land, then it is good arimanship to extend the gear in order for it to take some of the impact when a forced landing is inevitable. But why they did not raise the gear after rotation is a mystery to me.

I'm afraid you've waded in without reading the rest of the thread. The poster you quoted has already explained he lives on the flight path in Everett or Paine, and so hears the test flights of all the aircraft before delivery to airlines.

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

23 users liked this post.

tumtiddle
2025-06-13T09:29:00
permalink Post: 11900243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret

Not going to get drawn on possible reasons for this crash (that's for investigators), but I would encourage you to make a complaint to the BBC regarding the fact that the BBC News reporters trespassed onto the crash site and probably contaminated it. Their reporter was up-front in admitting that they explored it before the police kicked them out. And even more fundamentally, if they weren't helping with the rescue then they were getting in the way of emergency responders.

Regardless of whether or not the cause is clear cut or not, they should know better than to go trampling around a crash site when they could easily film from the edges. Normally I'm very happy with BBC News as a source of information but this was unacceptable, in my opinion.

While I agree with the cause for complaint, having seen some of those videos from the immediate aftermath (and generally recommending you don't go looking for them unless you want to see the charred remains of people being moved), it was crowded with many civilians all over the crash site trying to help. I'd suggest a better complaint may be to Indian authorities who should perhaps have secured the scene a lot faster.

Subjects: BBC

2 users liked this post.

tumtiddle
2025-06-13T10:10:00
permalink Post: 11900286

One has to assume that, given the seeming lack of lateral deviation from the flight path, and with no obvious yawing or rudder input visible on the videos, there's only two realistic conclusions here? Simultaneous dual engine failure of unknown cause if the RAT was indeed deployed; or flaps reduced too early leading to a stall if the RAT wasn't deployed.

Evidence in this thread would lean me toward the RAT deployed and therefore dual engine out scenario. As for the cause of that, well, only a couple of likely scenarios exist that could cause simultaneous shutdown of both engines, including mistaken or intentional use of the fuel cutoff levers.

Subjects: Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff RAT (All) RAT (Deployment)

3 users liked this post.

tumtiddle
2025-06-13T10:36:00
permalink Post: 11900322

Have I missed news on retrieval of the black boxes (or more precisely, one of the EAFRs in the case of the 787)? The tail section sticking out of the building looks reasonably intact, so I was rather hoping one of them was in there!

Subjects: None

tumtiddle
2025-06-13T14:19:00
permalink Post: 11900559

Quote:

Originally Posted by smith

Just remembered this video of a787 with its RAT deployed. You can certainly hear it. A lot of people said you could hear it in the AI video but I couldn\x92t.

Jump to 1:48 in this video (if the link doesn't automatically put you there):

You can't hear that RAT sound at the very beginning of the flypast?

Subjects: RAT (All) RAT (Deployment) RAT (Sound)

3 users liked this post.

tumtiddle
2025-06-14T08:10:00
permalink Post: 11901236

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgrieu

Is there a better version of the well-known 23" video on X (formerly twitter), showing the end of the flight from the right of the path, with audio?
The URL has /krok7517100/status/1933089931347345596

This seems to be the clearest version of this video around. There are others in worse quality which seem to be someone filming a screen showing this original video.

Subjects: None

1 user liked this post.

tumtiddle
2025-06-14T14:59:00
permalink Post: 11901551

Quote:

Originally Posted by auldlassie

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/i...-b2770031.html
latest update here says second black box found.

One has to assume the second blackbox will now just be used as a confirmation of data from the first one? In the 787 they're combined units (EAFRs to be precise, combining FDR and CVR) and effectively duplicated, with one at the front and one at the back.

Subjects: CVR FDR

tumtiddle
2025-06-15T07:48:00
permalink Post: 11902201

I can understand dismissal of the RAT theory from the single frame image being passed around, but if you watch the video in context, you can see it there. If the dark spots as circled in the YouTube preview above were only there in a frame or two, they could still be dismissed as a video/compression artefact, but they're not. They're there on several frames and move perfectly with the rest of the airframe. It's hard to see how that is anything but the RAT.

Subjects: RAT (All)

7 users liked this post.

tumtiddle 2025-06-13T08:16:00 permalink Post: 11900154	Quote: Originally Posted by shared reality Are you kidding? The RAT is deployed (at least on Airbus) when you lose normal electrical supply. This will most likely never (or maybe once) happen in any pilots career.. So you most definitely have not heard "many hundreds" of 777/787 in that abnormal state. As to the no flaps / flaps debate, time will tell. But what is definitely obvious is that they never raise the gear. Now that is tangible, and to me it seems that initially the aircraft is climbing at a somewhat steady climb until it doesn't. Having flown both Boeings and Airbus+ numerous other types over the years, on every type I have ever flown the initial action once positive climb is determined, is to raise the gear. This goes for every takeoff, normal or with failure of any sort (with the exception of a dual engine failure at rotation, which is not the case here, as they initially climbed to xxx hundred feet). So, initially the gear should have been retracted in order to minimise drag, and the question is, why was it not? Of course, once the gear is up, and in an instance where you get a dual engine failure at low level (highly rare) over land, then it is good arimanship to extend the gear in order for it to take some of the impact when a forced landing is inevitable. But why they did not raise the gear after rotation is a mystery to me. I'm afraid you've waded in without reading the rest of the thread. The poster you quoted has already explained he lives on the flight path in Everett or Paine, and so hears the test flights of all the aircraft before delivery to airlines. Subjects: Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) RAT (All) RAT (Deployment) 23 users liked this post.
tumtiddle 2025-06-13T09:29:00 permalink Post: 11900243	Quote: Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret Not going to get drawn on possible reasons for this crash (that's for investigators), but I would encourage you to make a complaint to the BBC regarding the fact that the BBC News reporters trespassed onto the crash site and probably contaminated it. Their reporter was up-front in admitting that they explored it before the police kicked them out. And even more fundamentally, if they weren't helping with the rescue then they were getting in the way of emergency responders. Regardless of whether or not the cause is clear cut or not, they should know better than to go trampling around a crash site when they could easily film from the edges. Normally I'm very happy with BBC News as a source of information but this was unacceptable, in my opinion. While I agree with the cause for complaint, having seen some of those videos from the immediate aftermath (and generally recommending you don't go looking for them unless you want to see the charred remains of people being moved), it was crowded with many civilians all over the crash site trying to help. I'd suggest a better complaint may be to Indian authorities who should perhaps have secured the scene a lot faster. Subjects: BBC 2 users liked this post.
tumtiddle 2025-06-13T10:10:00 permalink Post: 11900286	One has to assume that, given the seeming lack of lateral deviation from the flight path, and with no obvious yawing or rudder input visible on the videos, there's only two realistic conclusions here? Simultaneous dual engine failure of unknown cause if the RAT was indeed deployed; or flaps reduced too early leading to a stall if the RAT wasn't deployed. Evidence in this thread would lean me toward the RAT deployed and therefore dual engine out scenario. As for the cause of that, well, only a couple of likely scenarios exist that could cause simultaneous shutdown of both engines, including mistaken or intentional use of the fuel cutoff levers. Subjects: Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff RAT (All) RAT (Deployment) 3 users liked this post.
tumtiddle 2025-06-13T10:36:00 permalink Post: 11900322	Have I missed news on retrieval of the black boxes (or more precisely, one of the EAFRs in the case of the 787)? The tail section sticking out of the building looks reasonably intact, so I was rather hoping one of them was in there! Subjects: None
tumtiddle 2025-06-13T14:19:00 permalink Post: 11900559	Quote: Originally Posted by smith Just remembered this video of a787 with its RAT deployed. You can certainly hear it. A lot of people said you could hear it in the AI video but I couldn\x92t. Jump to 1:48 in this video (if the link doesn't automatically put you there): You Tube You can't hear that RAT sound at the very beginning of the flypast? Subjects: RAT (All) RAT (Deployment) RAT (Sound) 3 users liked this post.
tumtiddle 2025-06-14T08:10:00 permalink Post: 11901236	Quote: Originally Posted by fgrieu Is there a better version of the well-known 23" video on X (formerly twitter), showing the end of the flight from the right of the path, with audio? The URL has /krok7517100/status/1933089931347345596 This seems to be the clearest version of this video around. There are others in worse quality which seem to be someone filming a screen showing this original video. Subjects: None 1 user liked this post.
tumtiddle 2025-06-14T14:59:00 permalink Post: 11901551	Quote: Originally Posted by auldlassie https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/i...-b2770031.html latest update here says second black box found. One has to assume the second blackbox will now just be used as a confirmation of data from the first one? In the 787 they're combined units (EAFRs to be precise, combining FDR and CVR) and effectively duplicated, with one at the front and one at the back. Subjects: CVR FDR
tumtiddle 2025-06-15T07:48:00 permalink Post: 11902201	I can understand dismissal of the RAT theory from the single frame image being passed around, but if you watch the video in context, you can see it there. If the dark spots as circled in the YouTube preview above were only there in a frame or two, they could still be dismissed as a video/compression artefact, but they're not. They're there on several frames and move perfectly with the rest of the airframe. It's hard to see how that is anything but the RAT. Subjects: RAT (All) 7 users liked this post.

Posts by user "tumtiddle" [Posts: 8 Total up-votes: 39 Pages: 1]