June 12, 2025, 22:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11899800
One example of fuel contamination causing a significant loss of thrust on both engines at low altitude.
But it seems extremely unlikely for contaminated fuel to impact both engines at exactly the same time, with no asymmetry and no surges or smoke.
What can cause a sudden catastrophic loss of thrust on both engines at exactly the same time?
Birds (but no apparent surges)
Inadvertent movement of the fuel cut off switches (which would be an incredible error but I suppose it could conceivably be muscle memory having done so recently after the last leg\x85weirder things have happened. Remember the 767 events of the late 80s)
Intentional shutdown of the engines (pilot suicide has happened before)
Some catastrophic electrical/FADEC/engine interface failure (which I highly doubt is feasible in a modern 1309 aircraft)
I can\x92t think of any others\x85
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Muscle Memory
June 13, 2025, 10:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900272
About the only way that could happen would be some catastrophic software 'hole' in the GEnx-1B FADEC software. By design, the only thing the engine control really needs to adequately the engine is:
1) Fuel
2) Thrust lever position
Everything else is 'goodness'. The FADEC has its own dedicated (gearbox mounted) electrical generator (actually alternator), so even a 100% aircraft power loss wouldn't affect the FADECs ability to control the engine. It was right at takeoff - 'suction feed' would be more than sufficient if the aircraft fuel pumps failed, FMC and other aircraft inputs have only a secondary effect on the thrust setting, it's primarily determined the thrust lever position.
So there is no known way that a fault in the engine/aircraft interface could cause a large loss of thrust.
1) Fuel
2) Thrust lever position
Everything else is 'goodness'. The FADEC has its own dedicated (gearbox mounted) electrical generator (actually alternator), so even a 100% aircraft power loss wouldn't affect the FADECs ability to control the engine. It was right at takeoff - 'suction feed' would be more than sufficient if the aircraft fuel pumps failed, FMC and other aircraft inputs have only a secondary effect on the thrust setting, it's primarily determined the thrust lever position.
So there is no known way that a fault in the engine/aircraft interface could cause a large loss of thrust.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FADEC Fuel (All) Generators/Alternators
June 13, 2025, 12:56:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900487
Question is why both engines lost power . Foreign object ingestion , contaminated fuel or both cutoff levels operated ? We do not know .
Any autothrust discussion is misleading since every pilot in that situation will firewall the levers whatever thrust reduction was selected for TO . the same is true for the RAT discussion- if enough hydraulic pressure was generated or not . The plane pitched up last second so there obviously was control until the end . Of course , without energy pulling alone will not bring you anywhere .
Why did both engines fail the same second as they would be cut off ???
Any autothrust discussion is misleading since every pilot in that situation will firewall the levers whatever thrust reduction was selected for TO . the same is true for the RAT discussion- if enough hydraulic pressure was generated or not . The plane pitched up last second so there obviously was control until the end . Of course , without energy pulling alone will not bring you anywhere .
Why did both engines fail the same second as they would be cut off ???
Let\x92s be careful about absolutes. Emirates 521 and Turkish 1951 are both examples of crews not firewalling the thrust levers despite low energy. The late pitch up could be due to the onset of a stall not an order from the crew.
TCMA is function which can reduce thrust on both engines simultaneously. It had done so in error in the past resulting in an AD. It uses air/ground logic so that it only operates on the ground, however note that at the point of thrust loss the gear is still down without any movement of the gear or doors. I would expect gear retraction to start before that height. Could we imagine an air/ground logic fault inhibiting gear retraction and allowing TCMA, which triggered (for whatever reason!) causing dual thrust loss? I would expect this to be in the realms of a combination of failures shown to be extremely impossible, but\x85
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Air Worthiness Directives Dual Engine Failure Engine Failure (All) Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Hydraulic Failure (All) RAT (All)
June 13, 2025, 18:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11900812
OK, another hour spent going through all the posts since I was on last night...
I won't quote the relevant posts as they go back ~15 pages, but a few more comments:
TAT errors affecting N1 power set: The FADEC logic (BTW, this is pretty much common on all Boeing FADEC) will use aircraft TAT if it agrees with the dedicated engine inlet temp probe - but if they differ it will use the engine probe . The GE inlet temp probe is relatively simple and unheated, so (unlike a heated probe) a blocked or contaminated probe will still read accurately - just with greater 'lag' to actual temperature changes.
TCMA - first off, I have to admit that this does look rather like an improper TCMA activation, but that is very, very unlikely. For those who don't know, TCMA is a system to shutdown a runaway engine that's not responding to the thrust lever - basic logic is an engine at high power with the thrust lever at/near idle, and the engine not decelerating. However, TCMA is only active on the ground (unfamiliar with the 787/GEnx TCMA air/ground logic - on the 747-8 we used 5 sources of air/ground - three Radio Altimeters and two Weight on Wheels - at least one of each had to indicate ground to enable TCMA). TCMA will shutdown the engine via the N2 overspeed protection - nearly instantaneous. For this to be TCMA, it would require at least two major failures - improper air ground indication or logic, and improper TCMA activation logic (completely separate software paths in the FADEC). Like I said, very, very unlikely.
Fuel contamination/filter blockage: The fuel filters have a bypass - if the delta P across the filter becomes excessive, the filter bypasses and provides the contaminated fuel to the engine. Now this contaminated fuel could easy foul up the fuel metering unit causing a flameout, but to happen to two engines at virtually the same time would be tremendous unlikely.
Auto Thrust thrust lever retard - the TO lockup in the logic makes this very unlikely (it won't unlock below (IIRC) 400 ft., and even that requires a separate pilot action such as a mode select change or thrust lever movement). And if it did somehow happen, all the pilot needs to do is push the levers back up.
Engine parameters on the FDR: I don't know what exactly is on the 787 FDR with regards to engine parameters, but rest assured that there is plenty of engine data that gets recorded - most at one/second. Getting the FDR readout from a modern FDR is almost an embarrassment of riches. Assuming the data is intact, we'll soon have a very good idea of what the engines were doing
I won't quote the relevant posts as they go back ~15 pages, but a few more comments:
TAT errors affecting N1 power set: The FADEC logic (BTW, this is pretty much common on all Boeing FADEC) will use aircraft TAT if it agrees with the dedicated engine inlet temp probe - but if they differ it will use the engine probe . The GE inlet temp probe is relatively simple and unheated, so (unlike a heated probe) a blocked or contaminated probe will still read accurately - just with greater 'lag' to actual temperature changes.
TCMA - first off, I have to admit that this does look rather like an improper TCMA activation, but that is very, very unlikely. For those who don't know, TCMA is a system to shutdown a runaway engine that's not responding to the thrust lever - basic logic is an engine at high power with the thrust lever at/near idle, and the engine not decelerating. However, TCMA is only active on the ground (unfamiliar with the 787/GEnx TCMA air/ground logic - on the 747-8 we used 5 sources of air/ground - three Radio Altimeters and two Weight on Wheels - at least one of each had to indicate ground to enable TCMA). TCMA will shutdown the engine via the N2 overspeed protection - nearly instantaneous. For this to be TCMA, it would require at least two major failures - improper air ground indication or logic, and improper TCMA activation logic (completely separate software paths in the FADEC). Like I said, very, very unlikely.
Fuel contamination/filter blockage: The fuel filters have a bypass - if the delta P across the filter becomes excessive, the filter bypasses and provides the contaminated fuel to the engine. Now this contaminated fuel could easy foul up the fuel metering unit causing a flameout, but to happen to two engines at virtually the same time would be tremendous unlikely.
Auto Thrust thrust lever retard - the TO lockup in the logic makes this very unlikely (it won't unlock below (IIRC) 400 ft., and even that requires a separate pilot action such as a mode select change or thrust lever movement). And if it did somehow happen, all the pilot needs to do is push the levers back up.
Engine parameters on the FDR: I don't know what exactly is on the 787 FDR with regards to engine parameters, but rest assured that there is plenty of engine data that gets recorded - most at one/second. Getting the FDR readout from a modern FDR is almost an embarrassment of riches. Assuming the data is intact, we'll soon have a very good idea of what the engines were doing
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Engine Failure (All) Engine Shutdown FADEC FDR Fuel (All) Parameters RAT (All) RAT (Deployment) Weight on Wheels
June 20, 2025, 11:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11906865
I had been wondering the same until I read that there is a forward and a rear pickup within the tank. Each pump in the centre tank draws from it's own pickup and is piped to the spar valves and then onto the engines.
In a well designed boat, you'd have each engine feeding from a different tank for the utmost in redundancy, but seemingly not so in all aircraft.
In a well designed boat, you'd have each engine feeding from a different tank for the utmost in redundancy, but seemingly not so in all aircraft.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Centre Tank Fuel (All) Spar Valves
June 21, 2025, 15:42:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11907854
Resubmitting following some Mod Feedback and a significant re-write. Yes, it is speculative
I have a theory that I'd like to share. It brings together various pieces of known information, along with 30+ years of my experience as an aircraft engineer that forms a plausible (IMO) explanation of what may have happened.
We Know - From the Video's and the ADSB Data:
That up to and for the first few seconds after take-off appears relatively normal.
The AC appears to lose thrust without e.g. birdstrike or other spectacular smoke /fire producing event.
That the RAT deployed.
That the pilot reported 'Thrust not achieved'
We can see that the AC had a relatively busy schedule in the few days prior to the accident flight, so there was no significant downtime for maintenance activities that could have caused incident.
The AC flew DEL-CDG on 11 Jun with quite a racy turnaround in CDG of 1h12m. The centre tank would have been empty at CDG on arrival, and would have been partially filled for the return CDG-DEL.
CDG-DEL Arrived 01:47 am IST. Again the Centre Tank would have been empty. But quite a bit of fuel in the wings.
8 Hrs later, at 09:48 am IST the AC departed DEL-AMD. For such a short-hop, Fuel upload would have been minimal, merely a 'topping up' if at all. Certainly nothing into the Centre Tank.
DEL That night was fairly hot and humid - 57% at 02:30, 54% at 05:30, 44% at 08:30. That wing tank fuel could have picked up a fair amount of water.
The flight DEL-AMD would have only used the wing pumps. Thus any water in that 'overnight' fuel would have been vigorously stirred and evenly suspended. At concentrations that would cause no ill-effect at all.
The AC was on the ground at AMD for 2 Hrs, from 11:17am to 1:17 pm IST. The AC would have re-fuelled, first filling up the wing tanks to the top, then filling the centre-tank to whatever quantity necessary. There was enough time for water in the wing tanks to settle out.
The B787 Fuel system has pumps in the wing tanks, and pumps in the centre tanks. The Centre Tank pumps are also known as 'override' pumps because they output a higher pressure than the wing tank pumps, thus ensuring that with all pumps running, the centre tank fuel is used first.
Should the centre tank pumps stop, due to either filure or running out of fuel to pump, the wing tank pumps then produce the pressure.
In the event that all pumps stop running (e.g. an electrical failure), the engines will suck the fuel from the wing tanks. The 'sucked' fuel comes from a dedicated pipe in each tank through the 'Suction Feed Check Valve' (so that pumped fuel doesn't just exit through the suction tube). The suction tube pickup is in a slightly different position to the wing pump pickups.
It is conceivable to me that the suction tube pickup could have been immersed in water, settled out from the fuel in the wing tanks.
Then - at start-up of the aircraft in AMD, The engines would have been supplied with fuel from the centre tank. Fresh Fuel. All OK. Wing pumps running and doing not much. But, I speculate, the suction pick-ups immersed in water. Waiting.
Start up and taxi out was all normal. Runway acceleration up to v1 appears normal. V1 - Rotate - (positive rate - Gear up? - Not my debate).
But somewhere around that time, I speculate that a significant electrical failure occurred. Enough for the RAT to deploy. Enough for the fuel pumps to stop. I'll not speculate on the cause. We know that it can occur, that's why the RAT was designed to operate.
The engines at that point were at TOGA thrust. In a significant electrical failure, the engines will keep on doing what they were last told. Keep that thrust stable. So the AC climbed for a few seconds more. The pilots did what they were trained to do for a power failure, manage that, thankfully the engines were still going well...
But there was only so much 'good' fuel in the lines. The engines sucking fuel themselves, the fuel would now be coming from the suction pickups, a different supply. A supply likely heavily water contaminated. It would take a few seconds for that contaminated fuel to actually reach the engines, but when that contaminated fuel hit, Thrust would have been significantly reduced. The EEC's would have been doing their best to maintain the thrust, firewalling the throttles would probably have little effect at that exact moment. The engines would have likely worked through that bad fuel in a shortish period of time, but a period of time that our crew did not have. A fully loaded aircraft producing less than take-off thrust, is not sustaining enough thrust for continued flight. The rest - is down to the skill of the crew in deciding exactly where to hit the ground within the very narrow range of choice they had.
I have a theory that I'd like to share. It brings together various pieces of known information, along with 30+ years of my experience as an aircraft engineer that forms a plausible (IMO) explanation of what may have happened.
We Know - From the Video's and the ADSB Data:
That up to and for the first few seconds after take-off appears relatively normal.
The AC appears to lose thrust without e.g. birdstrike or other spectacular smoke /fire producing event.
That the RAT deployed.
That the pilot reported 'Thrust not achieved'
We can see that the AC had a relatively busy schedule in the few days prior to the accident flight, so there was no significant downtime for maintenance activities that could have caused incident.
The AC flew DEL-CDG on 11 Jun with quite a racy turnaround in CDG of 1h12m. The centre tank would have been empty at CDG on arrival, and would have been partially filled for the return CDG-DEL.
CDG-DEL Arrived 01:47 am IST. Again the Centre Tank would have been empty. But quite a bit of fuel in the wings.
8 Hrs later, at 09:48 am IST the AC departed DEL-AMD. For such a short-hop, Fuel upload would have been minimal, merely a 'topping up' if at all. Certainly nothing into the Centre Tank.
DEL That night was fairly hot and humid - 57% at 02:30, 54% at 05:30, 44% at 08:30. That wing tank fuel could have picked up a fair amount of water.
The flight DEL-AMD would have only used the wing pumps. Thus any water in that 'overnight' fuel would have been vigorously stirred and evenly suspended. At concentrations that would cause no ill-effect at all.
The AC was on the ground at AMD for 2 Hrs, from 11:17am to 1:17 pm IST. The AC would have re-fuelled, first filling up the wing tanks to the top, then filling the centre-tank to whatever quantity necessary. There was enough time for water in the wing tanks to settle out.
The B787 Fuel system has pumps in the wing tanks, and pumps in the centre tanks. The Centre Tank pumps are also known as 'override' pumps because they output a higher pressure than the wing tank pumps, thus ensuring that with all pumps running, the centre tank fuel is used first.
Should the centre tank pumps stop, due to either filure or running out of fuel to pump, the wing tank pumps then produce the pressure.
In the event that all pumps stop running (e.g. an electrical failure), the engines will suck the fuel from the wing tanks. The 'sucked' fuel comes from a dedicated pipe in each tank through the 'Suction Feed Check Valve' (so that pumped fuel doesn't just exit through the suction tube). The suction tube pickup is in a slightly different position to the wing pump pickups.
It is conceivable to me that the suction tube pickup could have been immersed in water, settled out from the fuel in the wing tanks.
Then - at start-up of the aircraft in AMD, The engines would have been supplied with fuel from the centre tank. Fresh Fuel. All OK. Wing pumps running and doing not much. But, I speculate, the suction pick-ups immersed in water. Waiting.
Start up and taxi out was all normal. Runway acceleration up to v1 appears normal. V1 - Rotate - (positive rate - Gear up? - Not my debate).
But somewhere around that time, I speculate that a significant electrical failure occurred. Enough for the RAT to deploy. Enough for the fuel pumps to stop. I'll not speculate on the cause. We know that it can occur, that's why the RAT was designed to operate.
The engines at that point were at TOGA thrust. In a significant electrical failure, the engines will keep on doing what they were last told. Keep that thrust stable. So the AC climbed for a few seconds more. The pilots did what they were trained to do for a power failure, manage that, thankfully the engines were still going well...
But there was only so much 'good' fuel in the lines. The engines sucking fuel themselves, the fuel would now be coming from the suction pickups, a different supply. A supply likely heavily water contaminated. It would take a few seconds for that contaminated fuel to actually reach the engines, but when that contaminated fuel hit, Thrust would have been significantly reduced. The EEC's would have been doing their best to maintain the thrust, firewalling the throttles would probably have little effect at that exact moment. The engines would have likely worked through that bad fuel in a shortish period of time, but a period of time that our crew did not have. A fully loaded aircraft producing less than take-off thrust, is not sustaining enough thrust for continued flight. The rest - is down to the skill of the crew in deciding exactly where to hit the ground within the very narrow range of choice they had.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSB Centre Tank Electrical Failure Fuel (All) RAT (All) RAT (Deployment) TOGA V1
July 11, 2025, 22:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919893
For those sky gods who confidently state they would reset the cutoff switches immediately I would say that 10 seconds is not a particularly unusual time for startle effect to impair cognition, especially for something as monumental and unexpected as a dual engine failure at rotation. One reference amongst many:
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/LOCI/P...Strategies.pdf
And for those who scoff at the possibility of the PM inadvertently operating the cutoff switches (which is done as frequently as operating the gear lever), I\x92d remind you that more than one Airbus has landed with its parking brake on after the PM inadvertently set it rather than arming the spoilers.
And for those who scoff at the possibility of the PM inadvertently operating the cutoff switches (which is done as frequently as operating the gear lever), I\x92d remind you that more than one Airbus has landed with its parking brake on after the PM inadvertently set it rather than arming the spoilers.
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) Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Switches Gear Lever Startle Effect
July 11, 2025, 23:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919970
The report proved that occams razor was right. Fuel switches acted which was the simplest explanation. And occams razor will not allow for a 15000h line check captain as PM to need over 10 seconds to reset fuel switches while both engines spooled down from TO thrust to sub idle within 5 seconds.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Switches
July 12, 2025, 11:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920527
You can always not read it.
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Preliminary Report Thread Moderation
July 12, 2025, 11:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11920542
Seriously??
Come on! The gear never moved! You're an Airbus pilot; do you really think that could happen? If so, would the captain then sit there fat, dumb and happy wondering what was now going on... for 10 seconds? Even I would say "Sh1t" and whip those fuel switches back on quicker than the FO could say "WTF!".
Mods, if you don't lock the thread, I'm going back to Facebook!
Come on! The gear never moved! You're an Airbus pilot; do you really think that could happen? If so, would the captain then sit there fat, dumb and happy wondering what was now going on... for 10 seconds? Even I would say "Sh1t" and whip those fuel switches back on quicker than the FO could say "WTF!".
Mods, if you don't lock the thread, I'm going back to Facebook!
Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Switches Thread Moderation