Insaneclown271@reddit

Yeah I’m leaning towards sabotage too. On the flight deck even. Pulling both fuel control switches to cut-off.

[-]

albafreetime@reddit

They called mayday, not exactly a sabotage thing to do

[-]

Insaneclown271@reddit

Unless the jumpseat pilot shut the engines down. This is all just speculation obviously.

[-]

albafreetime@reddit

Jfc

[-]

Trawggagain@reddit

I hate how many human brains jump straight to conspiracies like this. No one is fully immune, but so many people have this need to ad-lib conspiracies in to every gap in information.

WVVVWVWVVVVWVWVVVVVW@reddit

https://youtu.be/fwzAeGp9iZk?feature=shared

This video shows the 787 RAT sound. I think it's pretty similar

[-]

Insaneclown271@reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/yiMq1qImMZ

[-]

adx931@reddit

Even large birds are relatively small compared to a passenger jet.

chemtrailer21@reddit

So Airbus's ECAM stops someone from using the wrong switch?

Interesting

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

It’s WAY more clear than what a Boeing displays. Yes.

Airbus

Boeing

Airbuses is very clear, very visual, and laid out well.

Boeing’s is less overt, less clear, and does dumb shit like putting the text on the right side of the screen which is known to contribute to pilots picking the wrong side under pressure.

[-]

jamvanderloeff@reddit

Fully blanked and oranged only happens when the data is missing, you'd generally only see that long after the engine failure once you've pulled the master switch and fire handle.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

I was mainly highlighting the ECAM here, not the actual engine indications.

[-]

jamvanderloeff@reddit

As in the ECAM actions vs the here's the title now read the ECL/QRH philosopy? Both ways have their own downsides, if Airbus style really had a safety advantage you'd be seeing anyone else adopting it, yet nobody has.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

As in the wordy ECAM actions vs the here's the short title now read the ECL/QRH philosopy?

I like how you shit on the ECAM for being wordy, when the EICAS just tells you what exponentially more wordy paper book page you need to flip to.

The ECAM is comprehensive, interactive, and much more concise than a QRH. You’re hating just to hate. Is it news to you that A320s don’t have paper QRHs anymore? I bet you didn’t know that. You do the ECAM steps, then you’re done. And you know you did them properly because it’s an interactive list (unlike a paper QRH) where it doesn’t move to the next step of you did the previous step improperly.

if Airbus style really had a safety advantage you'd be seeing anyone else adopting it

The only downside of ECAM is that it is much more complex for the manufacturer to implement. There are absolutely zero safety downsides to the ECAM, especially compared with EICAS.

[-]

jamvanderloeff@reddit

I don't think the wordy is a shitty thing, it's just a tradeoff.

The move to paperless in the A320s doesn't go ECAM only, the former paper QRH content is now in your EFB instead, the same basic flow of memory items -> OEBs -> ECAM -> STS -> resets/procedures -> back to ECAM -> QRH -> FCOM still applies.

There are downsides to being forced to be consise and only telling you what the plane can detect for itself, that's the whole reason why the QRH still exists, and why not doing what ECAM tells you blindly can still be the correct thing to do.

Why do you think no other manufacturer has done something ECAM-like?

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

I don't think the wordy is a shitty thing, it's just a tradeoff.

No. It’s just ridiculous to call it wordy when there is no QRH.

the former paper QRH content is now in your EFB instead, the same basic flow of memory items -> OEBs -> ECAM -> STS -> resets/procedures -> back to ECAM -> QRH -> FCOM still applies.

Except when you actually look at it, there are only about 40 items total in the EQRH now. So the vast majority of emergencies won’t have anything in the QRH at all. Engine fire and single engine failure are NOT in the EQRH for example. And for those 40-ish things that are, Airbus still says the ECAM alone is sufficient. The EQRH is just supplemental.

There are downsides to being forced to be consise and only telling you what the plane can detect for itself,

I could not disagree more. As a pilot I don’t want to be bothered with any iota of information that does not directly lead to me safety landing the plane.

why not doing what ECAM tells you blindly can still be the correct thing to do.

I’m sorry, what’s this scenario where I’m ignoring what’s on the ECAM?

Why do you think no other manufacturer has done something ECAM-like?

Because it is a massive pain the manufacturer’s ass to develop and implement it. That’s all. It’s certainly not because the paper QRH has any advantages in any way.

[-]

outworlder@reddit

You have been downvoted but there's at least one instance where the ECAM text on the right side added to the confirmation bias and the pilots ended up shutting down the wrong engine.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Was it a literal ECAM? Because ECAM is an airbus thing. Do you mean EICAS?

[-]

outworlder@reddit

sigh you're right, EICAS.

I'm off Reddit until I get my coffee.

[-]

Pickelstif@reddit

I saw all those X's and my first thought was, "right, that's the engine not to touch"

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Then you aren’t a pilot.

Blanked parameters + Xs + yellow/red color = “failed” for any pilot.

In no aircraft ever flown does Xs mean “do not touch this one” and touch the other one.

This is pitiful, dude. Come on.

[-]

chemtrailer21@reddit

1 and #2 are the same in every airplane ever built. We know nothing of what may have happened but in classic internet fashion its already a A vs. B debate.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Engines 1 and 2 are the same in every airplane ever built.

Doesn’t matter. Your brain sees the scary text off to one side. And your brain starts biasing that side subconsciously. I’ve literally made that mistake during an EP sim. The Boeing plane I was flying has both bleed warning lights on the left side of the cockpit. And I got a right bleed warning light (that popped up on the left side of the cockpit), and I instinctively started manipulating the left throttle.

its within a hour and the discussion is already a A vs. B debate.

Take that up with u/rvr600 who decided to sarcastically frame it about “Boeing evil.”
This kind of crash literally doesn’t have but one realistic possibility. Literally every other dual engine failure on takeoff in commercial aviation was pilot-induced.

[-]

chemtrailer21@reddit

Speculation.

Lets let the dust settle for 5 minutes.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

We know enough to speculate that it’s a dual engine failure. Dual engine failures one takeoff are always pilot-induced. It’s literally never not been pilot-induced.

[-]

chemtrailer21@reddit

You where there? In the cockpit?

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

now do US Airways 1549.

That was at 2500 feet, not 400 feet. That’s objectively not “on take off” at 2500 feet.

FWIW they also reported immediately that the mishap was caused by a flock of birds.

[-]

chemtrailer21@reddit

Cool so we admit its possible to lose both engines thats never not literally caused the flight crew.

Shutting down the wrong engine at 600 feet doesnt pass the smell check to me but I wont pretend to know what happened. I'll wait for the facts and hopefully we can all learn something as the best possible result of this tragedy.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Cool so we admit it’s possible to lose both engines thats never not literally caused the flight crew.

I said on take off.

Shutting down the wrong engine at 600 feet doesnt pass the smell check to me

Why not? Its happened before

[-]

chemtrailer21@reddit

So about a 60 second difference? You heard the ATC tapes on this one?

[-]

BandicootNo4431@reddit

There are other plausible failure modes.

Fod on runway

Bird strike

Unlikely, but potentially a fuel contamination issue

Maintenance errors

Shutting off the wrong engine is the most likely but not the only way to get there.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Fod on runway

Both engines? Show me just one instance of that happening. Sully had to hit an entire flock of geese (and was trailing smoke btw).

Bird strike

I feel like that would have been the first bit of information released. Besides, that’s a 1 in 1000 situation. The 999 in 1000 situation is pilot error in response to mechanical failure.

Unlikely, but potentially a fuel contamination issue

Which doesn’t appear until 60 seconds after takeoff thrust is applied? And hits both engines at the same time? Come on.

Maintenance errors

Where both engines fail AT THE SAME TIME? Dude…

Shutting off the wrong engine is the most likely but not the only way to get there.

Well if it’s not remotely likely then why talk about it? Otherwise we might as well throw out there, “what if both pilots died of heart attacks at the same time on takeoff.” That’s technically not impossible…

[-]

brucebrowde@reddit

You're playing with probabilities / odds in a very funny way.

Both engines hit by fod? Unlikely, but this could be that 1 in a million occurrence.

1 in 1000 situation? Same thing, just more probable.

60 seconds after takeoff thrust applied? Do you tell your fuel contaminants to stay put if they don't march into the fuel lines unless they do it exactly when you start rolling?

Maintenance errors which causes both engines to fail? Would you fly a plane if your A&P told you they did not lubricate the engine?

After all, google tells me there are 100k flights daily in the world. 1 in a million is an issue every 10 days. Unlikely and "technically impossible" doesn't mean "practically impossible", even though it may seem like that to you.

Also, if you happen to be correct and the issue was that the pilot shut down the wrong engine, that still doesn't mean the other events could not have caused it.

People are more than terrible at judging probabilities. You're not the exception. It may be good to internalize that.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Do you tell your fuel contaminants to stay put if they don't march into the fuel lines unless they do it exactly when you start rolling?

Fuel contaminants tend to settle in the tank. So you’d either notice on startup or as soon as there’s a high fuel demand like at takeoff. And especially to have them both fail at the same time?

1 in a million is an issue every 10 days.

That’s not the probability I gave you. It’s not 1 in 1000 flights. It’s 1 in 1000 mishaps.

that still doesn't mean the other events could not have caused it.

Your whole response is basically a straw man. I never said anything along the lines of “contaminants cannot bring a plane down.”

You keep trying to frame this is what is theoretically possible. I’m trying to talk about what likely happened. Those are no the same thing at all.

[-]

brucebrowde@reddit

It's not a strawman at all. Unlikely doesn't mean "only theoretically possible". Black swan events happen all the time and human brain is woefully unprepared to understand that. Being 10 or 100 times less likely still doesn't make it practically impossible. I'm sure you can find examples of any of the causes we discussed - and many others we did not - in some NTSB report or whatever.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

It's not a strawman at all.

Yes, it is. You’re trying to twist “here is what most likely happened” into “ anything that isn’t my theory is literally impossible.” And you’re trying to refute the latter. Textbook strawman.

Being 10 or 100 times less likely still doesn't make it practically impossible.

…dude that is the definition of a practical impossibility.

[-]

brucebrowde@reddit

You should re-read your original comment

Well, pretty much the only possible explanation for a dual engine failure on takeoff is having a single engine failure, and shutting off the wrong engine. That’s literally it.

and

So yeah, legitimately the only explanation is pilot error with a side of “Boeing bad.”

As evidenced, that's literally not the only explanation. You trying to twist that comment into a much softer "here's what most likely happened" is the issue.

I agree what you're saying is possible, but there are so many other failure modes - many discussed, even more not discussed - that it's just funny to suggest you know what happened. Wrap it up buys, case closed. Yeah, right.

Also, given an event X and a 100 less likely event Y, claiming that Y is "practically impossible" just because X is not likely is just funny. I bet you think nobody won the lottery because of its 1 in 65 million chance is 100 less likely than 1 in 650,000 chance of getting a royal flush, which is already unlikely. Right, must be true?!

So yeah - you can continue with insisting on attacking others for apparent strawmanning or you can perhaps look at what you're saying and realize everything you've said has very little basis in reality.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

As evidenced, that's literally not the only explanation

YOU need to actually read. Because I didn’t say “literally the only explanation” as you misquoted. I said “ the only possible explanation.” Meaning what is realistically possible.

You trying to twist that comment into a much softer "here's what most likely happened" is the issue

No. That was always my point.

but there are so many other failure modes

Name them. Because everyone else who’s tried had named farcically unlikely theories.

I bet you think nobody won the lottery because of its 1 in 65 million chance is 100 less likely than 1 in 650,000 chance of getting a royal flush, which is already unlikely. Right, must be true?!

You aren’t properly applying that metaphor. If you wanted to do a lottery metaphor, it would go like this:

“Jeff suddenly has $100,000,000 and didn’t tell anyone. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that Jeff just won the lottery because there’s realistically no other way he could come into that money.”

And then people like you say “well we don’t know that he didn’t have a secret oil baron relative that inherited it to him. Or it could have been a mob heist gone wrong, and a $100 million brief case got thrown out of a car near here house. Or he could have gone to Vegas and won big.”

While none of those suggestions are theoretically impossible, it’s perfectly fine to say “the only actually possible explanation is that he won the lottery.” Because any other time in the past when someone got $100,000,000 out of nowhere, that’s why.

or you can perhaps look at what you're saying and realize everything you've said has very little basis in reality.

What are you talking about? It’s based on concrete history. Find me instance in commercial aviation of dual engine failure in takeoff that was not because the pilot turned off the wrong engine.

[-]

BandicootNo4431@reddit

This attitude is terrible in an investigator.

You show up to the crash with an open mind and start looking at the evidence.

After a few days, then you start having some theories, and then you talk to technical experts and come up with a few ways the accident could have happened.

What you did is jump straight to year 2 where all possibilities have been run to ground and said "THIS WAS THE CAUSAL FACTOR".

That's not how this works.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

This attitude is terrible in an investigator.

I’m not an investigator. I’m not writing a report. People are not waiting on my findings. There is no reason I should be bound to the same burdens of proof an investigator would be. So I’m gonna offer my experience and wisdom.

That's not how this works.

I once was told I was wrong about the size/shaping of a part on a particular plane that I literally had sitting on my desk in front of me, as an employee for that aircraft OEM while commenting there.

Can you imagine, people speculating on the internet??

[-]

adx931@reddit

Pfft, when I was your age we had to call someone elses computer and type our long-winded idle speculation during our 20 minute time limit for that day, wait for all the BBSs on fidonet to send our message around the world and then only three days later would we get the most thoughtful of responses:

Your an idoit.

[-]

Tchocky@reddit

Pfft.

When I were a lad we had to write out our contributions and mail them in. It took weeks.

BoringThePerson@reddit

There wasn't a bird strike. Passengers who were on board the plane for the previous flight experienced electrical issues and no ac their entire flight. That points to a catastrophic mechanical issue.

[-]

Fabulous-Kanos@reddit

Thats a short taxi, so perhaps as little as 5 min. Though APU before that which feeds from the same supply.

[-]

TheDarthSnarf@reddit

787 can start from ground power without use of the APU - and some airlines prefer this option as it saves fuel, and wear on the APU (therefore money) by using a ground power unit instead.

[-]

Sure - I forgot to throw bird strikes in there. That’s possible. Enough birds to simultaneously kill 2 787 engines is going to be a lot though. And you’d think there would have been some mention of it on the radio. If that’s the cause it will be obvious once the wreckage is examined.

[-]

OsgoodCB@reddit

Apparently, Ahmedabad is notorious for bird swarm issues. According to the Ministry of Aviation, it has the 2nd highest rate of birdstrikes in India (a whopping 81 in 2023) despite being only the 7th busiest airport in the country.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/svpi-ranks-second-in-india-for-wildlife-strikes/articleshow/106106125.cms

Is this the real HarvesteR of KSP dev fame? Would never have expected to see you here lol

waronxmas@reddit

If BTC doesn’t cooperate, we can fly giant rings of drones emitting high-pitched noise to disperse birds and then fly planes through them on departure like in Starfox

[-]

Tchocky@reddit

Is it possible to design jet engines to be inherently more resistant to bird damage?

That would wipe out a few decades of huge efficiency gains, I would think

Best way to limit damage from birds is to keep them away.

After that, don't hit them.

After that is where aircraft design comes in

[-]

Stanley--Nickels@reddit

There’s another video showing the flight from takeoff to crash. The video isn’t very high quality, but no birds are visible.

[-]

Ron-Swanson-Mustache@reddit

Sasquatch-d@reddit

Odds of independent events don’t change just because one recently happened.

[-]

Zero_Abides@reddit

Contaminated fuel was on my radar here but the fact they got in the air seems means they had great thrust for a good while. Then the fireball looked pretty flammable too.

Ugh. Let's hope not.

[-]

skeptical-speculator@reddit

You can see the RAT here

Deep_Action_5976@reddit

Genuine question, but how easy it is to get the flaps/landing gear levers confused? Saw some pictures and they are fairly at a non-confusable distance. Also, the feel of each handle is different. I am reading lots of theories about this confusion, but its not like they are right next to each other.

[-]

-smartcasual-@reddit

Take-off procedure is a well-rehearsed series of behaviour, and it can happen that the brain can perform a step in the sequence out of order without consciously realising it (James Reason called this an 'action slip.')

So, for example, if there's no time to slow down, take cognisance of each step to make sure it's in the right order, and check with the PM - that's a big reason for verbal checklists - PF might accidentally select flaps up instead of gear up because they are next to each other in the takeoff procedure. And, crucially, they might not realise the mistake for some time.

[-]

Bunslow@reddit

the fact that they climbed that first hundred feet makes me doubt the no-flap hypothesis, and at any rate, if they were able to climb at all, then they could have continued climbing if flaps was the only issue

[-]

-smartcasual-@reddit

Ground effect would have been a factor, but probably not up to the aircraft's highest recorded altitude even if the takeoff was (as suggested by the video) faster than usual and they therefore had more speed to convert.

[-]

Insaneclown271@reddit

Yeah definitely. Birds? But unlikely in my opinion due to lack of smoke or engine surges. Malicious fuel control switch pulling?

[-]

-smartcasual-@reddit

PeteC123@reddit

Plane left the ground?

Flaps were set.
not possible for plane to leave the ground at that speed without flaps.

https://x.com/vikasmakwana111/status/1933162059556159903?s=46

New take-off footage doesn't seem to show any birdstrike

[-]

Fly4Vino@reddit

Strange that they never raised the gear.

Wild guess ( or thought) but had an old F-4 guy who who later flew charter freight over the Pacific during Vietnam war.

On one flight they had an extended takeoff run and then a number of hours out determined that they were using significantly more fuel than planned. Aborted and returned to the island.

It was so scary to watch. We practice stalls in GA all the time, of course, but in the US our training at the airlines focuses far more on stall awareness and detection. I have no idea how hard the 73 would fall in a stall, but knowing the size of a 78 and seeing it so that gave me a pit in my chest.

Stay safe out there.

[-]

SnooWalruses5906@reddit

Possibly load shift?

[-]

JJAsond@reddit

highly doubt it

[-]

BubblyAvocado9@reddit

Might be the RAT dropping

[-]

DudeIBangedUrMom@reddit

Looks like a puff of smoke from at least one engine as it passes behind the shack that obscures visibility; but that could just be dust getting blown around.

Was there anyway for them to abort during those last moments? Before reaching the very end ot the runway or even slightly overrunning (which would indicate something was already off, right?).

Would the results be any less catastrophic?

[-]

GaiusFrakknBaltar@reddit

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree, it seems to have rotated very late, which could indicate a problem with thrust.

With a heavily loaded 787, V1 will likely be quite a bit lower than rotation speed.

The confusing thing here, is it should be able to take off with one engine. Go ahead and criticize me for speculating, but my first thought is the wrong engine was pulled back/shut down.

That being said, the survivor reported a loud noise after takeoff, which could indicate something else.

[-]

-smartcasual-@reddit

Go ahead and criticize me for speculating, but my first thought is the wrong engine was pulled back/shut down. But maybe not, my understanding is pilots aren't supposed to reduce power on a failed engine until they clear a certain altitude, like 800 feet or something.

Passenger manifest looked like someone (maybe a ground staff) took a picture with their phone.

This is a photo of a crash in Brazil in August 2024, not the air India crash. Literally words in the link.

[-]

superdookietoiletexp@reddit

That looks to me like a double engine failure just after liftoff.

Fuel starvation or bad actor in cockpit. This will be a long investigation.

Normal flaps for TO on 787 don't extend by much and if you watch take off footage from similar angles, it can look like a clean wing.

Flaps not set also results in a loud warning so it's very unlikely.

[-]

davidswelt@reddit

Do you see flaps? Do you see gear? At a time when the gear should be up or coming up, and the slats+flaps in takeoff position?

[-]

Dpeterson183@reddit

There's also video from a passenger on the previous flight from Dehli, showing the A/C and other electronics were not working properly:

https://x.com/KailashGWagh/status/1933145522795110596?t=JBe3UaQvywmzt8MdXy_ZaQ&s=19

[-]

XxVcVxX@reddit

None of that is relevant to safety of flight lol

[-]

RadicallyHonestLife@reddit

It is if it caused problems with instruments or fly-by-wire... An electrical problem in the cabin is not necessarily isolated to non-critical systems.

In the video, the pilot pitches down for a stall recovery waaaay later than makes sense - they would have felt the stall before then. But if the telemetry was broken (plausible with an electrical system problem), then that pilot was basically trying to recover a stall in a wide-body jet based on vibes. It's giving flow separation hysteresis.

But this also looks like potential pilot error. It looks like he started the stall recovery maneuver late, at which point it might have been safer to just try to get as slow as possible. But instead of making a call and sticking with it, he decided, after applying thrust and lowering the nose, that there wasn't enough altitude to complete the maneuver (and may have been wrong about this), and goes nose up again with what kinda looks like flaps deployed, but it's too late and his airspeed is really high for a hard landing.

Doesn't look like mechanical failure of engines or airframe. It does kinda look like telemetry and/or instrument problems + pilot error that's hard to blame on a guy who knows his instruments are wrong and has about five seconds to react. And it maybe looks like 787s need more thrust than their current engines provide - since the best way to increase the survivability of low altitude stalls is to make the engines be more.

[-]

VelitGames@reddit

Could be a red flag about general maintenance though.

LadderDownBelow@reddit

You can crash an automobile by mistakenly depressing the accelerator instead of the decelerator or visa-versa. You can fatally crash your own body by stepping when you should have stopped. I don't get your irrational fear

[-]

Charming_Airline5340@reddit

I know. Many fears are irrational. But I think the difference between automobile / stepping / flying is that a pilot is responsible of hundreds of people and therefore the plane should have so kind of systems to minimize the chance of human error.

I guess many systems have been developed to do just this, but still...

[-]

LadderDownBelow@reddit

Trains are stuck to tracks and can carry hundreds yet we still have derailments and crashes. You cant get much safer than a train and stuff still can go wrong. Hundreds of people and one conductor.

KOjustgetsit@reddit

Do you mind chiming in with two quick questions I'm seeing a lot of discussion about? Would love to hear from a real 78 pilot.

If incorrect flaps were used (e.g. Flap Up or Flaps 1 instead of Flaps 5), does the 787 have mechanisms to prevent the takeoff or is it just the takeoff config warnings that blare?
Would full TOGA power theoretically be able to compensate a Flap Up or Flap 1 config used for takeoff and climb?

[-]

GaiusFrakknBaltar@reddit

Solid point. There is a video of a 737 presumably taking off with improper flap settings. Just like you said, they wouldn't have gotten flap warnings if they loaded ZFW incorrectly.

https://youtu.be/s8ptLtYt7wk?si=CUejdwRcb2wlSSqZ

[-]

hanjaseightfive@reddit

If you rotate into a stick shaker/pusher scenario, the surprise of it can make all logic go out the window. “Gear up” could’ve inadvertently been met with the flap handle going from 1 to zero, retracting the only high lift devices (the LE slats) and committing them to a stall at 300’ AGL.

I don’t know if flaps 1 are approved on the 787, but they are on the 767, but my operator prohibits flap 1 takeoffs for tail strike avoidance.

If they loaded the box wrong and took off flaps 1 heavily loaded when a higher flap setting was needed, things could have gotten out of hand fast.

[-]

GaiusFrakknBaltar@reddit

Good point. Another factor I didn't initially consider is they could have fallen behind the power curve, especially with that AOA. When you fall behind the power curve, especially at a very low altitude, there's nothing you can do. Lowering the nose is the answer, but they didn't have that option.

[-]

185EDRIVER@reddit

Question for you though We've had losses before long ago when takeoffs were done without flaps but the plane was unable to get out of ground effect.

Here the plane is well past ground effect before it begins descending. Would that not mean that if it was a flap issue they would have had to accidentally retract them?

Also if they were attracted to the flaps wouldn't that just stall rather than a slow and gentle descent?

[-]

justgetoffmylawn@reddit

Are there any safeguards built in to those systems to flag suspect ZFW data or other settings?

[-]

chumbicwumba@reddit

For sure, valid point. There is no shortage of incidents related to mis-programming performance calcs etc. I was speaking to the people claiming we were looking at a no-flap takeoff

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

What are the takeoff flaps settings for the 787? On the 757 we could do 1, 5, 10, 15, or 20.

[-]

TravelinMan787@reddit

The -8 and -9 are different. We do not takeoff with flaps 1. Everything else is possible based off of conditions.

The X post has better quality video, but I was still struggling to discern the flap setting. Here's a reference video of a 787 takeoff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1XZHGGsfHs

The fact that the gear is down supports the possibility of them hitting the wrong control, although that would be pretty stunning for the crew of an international heavy flight.

The good news is that the FDR will clear all of this up. As horrible as this crash is, the relatively low impact speed leads me to believe that they'll be able to extract the data. Also, the CVR will show what calls were made for takeoff briefing and what was said leading up to the crash since it was so soon after takeoff.

[-]

WSJ_pilot@reddit

Assuming the government actually shares the CVR / FDR data with the NTSB

[-]

It is my mistake to call the “alpha floor protection” on the 787 to be just that. It works in a similar principle but it doesnt increase thrust like on an airbus. The Alpha Floor protection on an Airbus overrides the thrust setting commanded with the thrust levers to TOGA. Boeing does not do this. The autothrottles (if armed) will engage to prevent a stall, but the computer never overrides the actual thrust lever position in the cockpit:

With the autothrottle armed, the autothrottle automatically activates if not autopilot or F/D is active or and autopilot or F/D is in VNAV XXX, ALT, V/S, or G/S, and:

speed less than FMC calculated value for one second, thrust below reference thrust,airplane altitude above 100 feet RA on approach, or airplane barometric altitude 400 feet above airport on takeoff

Also, unlike an Airbus, this protection can be disabled by simply disarming the autothrottle using the switch on the MCP.

The Boeing 777 and 787 do however have Flight Envelope Protections. These also work a bit differently than in a modern Airbus, where sidestick inputs are simply ignored or limited by the computers. In a Boeing, the flight envelope protection will use artificial forces on the yokes to provide the following:

The flight envelope protection system reduces the possibility of inadvertently exceeding the airplane's flight envelope. The flight envelope protection system provides crew awareness of envelope margins through tactile, aural, and visual cues. The protection functions do not reduce pilot control authority. The protection functions are described later in this section and include:

stall protection overspeed protection roll envelope bank angle protection.

It says that the pilot control authority is not reduced because the pilots can always overpower the simulated forces on the yoke and command the aircraft to go beyond the protected flight envelope.

Essentially, the philosophy for the control authority differs:

Airbus will not let you do control inputs that might get you killed.

Stands for Ram Air Turbine aka wind-dynamo

Loss of All Three Hydraulic Systems - unlikely

Loss of Electrical Power to Critical Systems

Loss of All Four Electric Motor Pumps (EMPs) with Engine Failure

Or a manual deployment by the crew but given how quickly this all happened, also somewhat unlikely. Everything seems to point to a dual engine out situation. But pure speculation still.

[-]

Wooden_State_2187@reddit

Based on evidence from no electrical in the cabin on the previous flight (verified), I'm going with "Loss of Electrical Power to Critical systems"

[-]

Ok_Excitement725@reddit

Oh yeah good catch, could well be!

[-]

JJAsond@reddit

Loss of All Three Hydraulic Systems

KC135BOOMERJOHN@reddit

Aviation nut job here been flying for over four decades. I believe I see a flap setting issue. It does not look like they are deployed for takeoff, and cannot really see the slats and how they are configured. Landy gear should have definitely been up and stored. But I think the air crew had bigger problems to deal with. I just saw some cell phone video with the plane flying overhead and I could swear that I heard a propeller type noise but the image was so grainy I couldn't tell but it sounded like the RAT was deployed? I know I know that's odd that they would have time to do that unless it automatically deploys with loss of entire power systems, or maybe it came from the engine or engines, indicating some sort of failure in one of the blade sections. I know I am speculating, but I am leading up to some sort of a power failure, as it also looks to me as if they ate up a lot more runway, the way the aircraft was configured with the load and temperature it seems they should only need about 7,500 ft 8000 tops it looks like they used over 10,000 to me

[-]

TravelinMan787@reddit

the flaps are clearly at either 1 or up, and the gear is clearly down. this is a completely inappropriate configuration for every single 787 departure and an even more inappropriate configuration at 700’.

[-]

Grim3sy@reddit

On the 350 when you calculate T/O performance, it gives you an MTOW for the given conditions and weight, out of curiosity, do you get this on the 78 EFB too or something of the equivalent?

[-]

TravelinMan787@reddit

I wish, that sounds like a great gut check - our 787s can’t dispatch from the EFB, so all performance is datalinked from dispatch.

[-]

Grim3sy@reddit

Really interesting, I would have thought it would at least give an indicator or pointer. I mean it doesn’t matter, as obviously thrust + flap is calculated to account for all parameters, but it’s just an extra thing to quickly touch on in the brief and cross check with the final figures that you indeed fall beneath it.

[-]

Duckbilling2@reddit

I've heard of one engine out scenario

and then the opposite engine is (mistakenly) shut down.

Has taken place a few times regarding commercial flights

Thus causing complete loss of thrust, electric power, and deployment of the RAT

Pure speculation at this point.

[-]

RadicallyHonestLife@reddit

Could they have dumped fuel? It seems like they should have dumped fuel as soon as they went nose up the second time.

[-]

offtherighttrack@reddit

It takes a long time to dump a meaningful amount of fuel. This whole event took less than a minute.

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

Raising the flaps instead of the gear could be at play here. It's happened to me. And it was the captain (I was the FO as PF) who raised the flaps when I called for gear up.

sougata666@reddit

As per the discussion, the gear lever is on the panel and the flap lever is on the centre console. Please clarify if this is the case for 787.

[-]

ammo359@reddit

Do you think the engines were making normal thrust the whole time? I’m watching https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/JDn3uJcK9l and it seems like they pulled hard at the end of the runway, and just didn’t have the airspeed/power to maintain lift out of ground effect?

I’ve never even been in a widebody, just trying to learn.

[-]

Thomill12@reddit

So It looks like the RAT was deployed. on almost all videos. I seen a video where you see the plane moving from various angles and there is constantly a black dot under it. that can't be a bird in the distance or anything else but the RAT. Question is: what can cause dual engine failure? Angle of attack? Fuel problems would have surely manifested already on the runway.

[-]

Evitable_Conflict@reddit

A dual engine failure is almost impossible. The only possible causes are:

- A pilot shutting down both engines.

Or bad fuel like Cathay Pacific Flight 780, judging by the explosion they had plenty of fuel onboard. However like in Cathay Pacific Flight 780 generally bad fuel takes more time to manifest due to good fuel already in the system.

[-]

Ok-Advantage2678@reddit

Does this not scream take off stall? Why wouldn’t the pilot nose down to gain power and lift back instead of pulling back and making the stall worse? Just asking here obviously the truth will come out and not much room to work with but just saying….it clearly appears to be a stall to me but maybe it is a bird strike or engine failure that I’m not seeing or hearing

[-]

LadderDownBelow@reddit

Lolwut? Idk if you happened to notice that hard thingy below them that doesnt move for a miniscule jet

The maximum altitude was about 400 feet above the ground. Is it reeeally possible to recover a 787 with that?

I don't know the answer I'm not a pilot lol - serious question.

You might want to re-rewrite your statement....

"Nose down to regain power"

[-]

Evitable_Conflict@reddit

It seems the RAT was deployed so they have no hydraulic pressure on the 3 systems which makes me think the engines were not generating electricity so they were not working. With healthy engines your point is totally accurate, you just level off and push the throttles and you quickly build up the speed for a safe climb, that's one of the many things that makes the 787 so safe to fly.

[-]

Ok-Advantage2678@reddit

Ahhh that changes things

[-]

c402c@reddit

I would argue it appeared a little unrecoverable from the video. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. We’ll have to wait and see.

[-]

SlugsPerSecond@reddit

787 knower here. I just don’t see how flap 0 gear down would cause this bad of a stall, even with the high pitch angle you can see in the CCTV video, without at least some loss of thrust.

Then again, you can see a bunch of dust kick up upon rotation in that same video which indicates that the engines are still working at that moment.

My educated speculation is double engine failure immediately after positive VS quickly followed by severe stall. You can see in the vertical phone footage that 10 seconds from impact AOA was probably >20deg, maybe even 30. Primary flight control stall protection should have kicked in at 15 or so but a 2 engine failure might have prevented that, not sure exactly.

I have a hunch that the pilots hastened the crash by not pitching down after loss of thrust, but I also don’t think they could have saved anyone even with perfect piloting.

Literal nightmare scenario. I’ve been sick to my stomach all day. Rest in peace.

[-]

JJAsond@reddit

would cause this bad of a stall

I mean it never stalled, it just settled.

Primary flight control stall protection should have kicked in at 15 or so but a 2 engine failure might have prevented that, not sure exactly.

You should know if you fly the thing

[-]

invertedspheres@reddit

787 knower here. I just don’t see how flap 0 gear down would cause this bad of a stall, even with the high pitch angle you can see in the CCTV video, without at least some loss of thrust.

To clarify, it's more or less not possible the crew took off with the flaps in the incorrect configuration as they would have been inundated with alarm bells and master cautions upon advancing the throttles. If there had been some problem with the engines during takeoff, it's also likely they would have noticed it before reaching V1 and could have aborted. However, prematurely retracting flaps while slow on a heavy absolutely would cause a momentary loss of lift. And the loss of lift occurs right at the moment they typically would call for gear up. I really don't think this was some nightmare scenario. I think this was gross incompetence.

[-]

SlugsPerSecond@reddit

Based on what I know of the 787 flight control system, a power on stall is impossible regardless of configuration.

I’m not an expert in the primary flight control system (yoke to surface) but I do have some knowledge of how it works. Stall protection should have kicked in and taken the pilot out of the loop well before they started losing altitude, but it didn’t. That is an indicator that PFC dropped in to secondary mode which doesn’t have envelope protection IIRC. I think RAT power would cause a drop to SM but I’m not certain.

The flaps to zero instead of gear up theory is plausible but is such a tremendous fuckup from both pilots that I don’t give it much credence. My money is still on double engine out due to what I said above and the lack of engine noise in the vertical phone video.

[-]

inline_five@reddit

Also sounds exactly like the RAT is deployed

[-]

Traditional_Pair3292@reddit

What could cause dual loss of thrust like this? Only thing I could think of is a bird strike but I don’t see any evidence of that in the videos.

[-]

SlugsPerSecond@reddit

DBCooper211@reddit

That may be true for a plane at a higher altitude and faster airspeed, but not for a plane that just took off and can’t maintain altitude.

[-]

outworlder@reddit

What? If you are higher and faster, you have more energy. You can decide to burn that energy off and exchange for lift.

Dan007UT@reddit

I always say "reddit up/down votes are just as good as the points they get in the show "Who's line is it anyway " 🤣

[-]

rhapsodydude@reddit

Reminds me of that Russian a321 forced landing in the fields… this would’ve been survivable as well had it not been in an urban environment. Really strange to have rat out, no visible smoke or fire, flaps up, gear down, and fr24 Twitter said it used all the 11k feet runway….i hope it’s a quick investigation once the FDR is read out.

[-]

JJAsond@reddit

this would’ve been survivable as well had it not been in an urban environment.

Right off the top of my head

The Hawaii cargo 737 that went in the ocean a few years ago 2 military crashes that I’m prohibited to list but you can google them The Nepalese turboprop where the crew shut down both engines while on final The ATR in Asia that was filmed crossing the bridge at a 90 degree bank

engine efficiency scales up with size. two larger engines that produce similar power levels are four smaller ones will use less fuel.

SnooWalruses5906@reddit

Thank you for the explanation. I know cargo planes are wide open, but i honestly didn't know that shifting like that wasn't really possible in passenger planes.

I know a fair amount about aviation, but lots i don't, but I'm an aviation fanatic anyway.

Yeah, above acceleration height - not at 100’ just after rotation.

[-]

vee_lan_cleef@reddit

And of course, it's a Boeing again. Yes, Airbus and Boeing have statistically similar crash rates but I just don't just trust anything Boeing does anymore. 737 Max, Starliner, and a whole bunch of other incidents and problems within their company that have directly resulted in thousands of human death over the years.

I'm not a "if it's Boeing I ain't going" type at all, first and only recorded hull loss of a 737 in 13 years, but I have lost all faith in Boeing as an aerospace company that operates with passenger safety in mind whatsoever, specifically focusing on profits to save their failing programs. The rift between the engineers and the C-suite at Boeing has been on public display for a while now.

[-]

Bitter_Astronomer139@reddit

Dude. You have no idea what you are talking about. Just keep quiet.

[-]

vee_lan_cleef@reddit

Just keep quiet.

You guys use flap 1? I've never seen a takeoff solution with 1 before, only 5 as the lowest on the 737.

[-]

SubarcticFarmer@reddit

We use flap 1 all the time. We get it more than flaps 5 out of longer runways near sea level, especially on shorter flights. I understand that different operators pay for different performance levels though and it doesn't surprise me if not everyone has it. For takeoff we can do flaps 1,5,10,15,25. Flaps 1 and 5 are the most common for us. For normal landing we can do flaps 15,30,40. I understand it's another Boeing add on to get two engine flaps 15 landing as well.

[-]

JasonThree@reddit

We can land 15 just no takeoff on 1. Probably didn't want to pay.

[-]

SubarcticFarmer@reddit

I only recently learned that some carriers have single engine autoland too (we don't).

Bombardier actually allowed a flap setting to be delete optioned on the CRJ 200.

Could be. In the original version of the video you can hear a very distinctive propeller-like sound that could be emanating from the RAT https://x.com/krok7517100/status/1933089931347345596

[-]

SubarcticFarmer@reddit

That sounds more like a 2 stroke motorcycle etc to me. Those things are loud and I'd expect that if close by. Explosions are also quite loud.

Really there's way too little information yet. You think the engines aren't spooled up. Someone else pointed out gear down but no trailing edge flaps deployed.

[-]

Tubkal@reddit

I did rewatch the video and the flaps do seem to be retracted…

Regardless of all this speculation from the safety of our cellphones, this is a very odd occurrence and quite frankly, losing complete thrust at that stage of flight is just unimaginably scary.

[-]

SubarcticFarmer@reddit

Agreed and someone posted an image of one of the takeoff flap configurations and it doesn't have much trailer edge deployment. It is usual for the gear to still be down but again we don't actually know anything yet.

[-]

Tubkal@reddit

https://x.com/vikasmakwana111/status/1933162059556159903?s=46

[-]

Successful-Yak-5734@reddit

Okay, that way.

[-]

Grandtheftwars@reddit

Programmed thrust reduction altitude incorrect maybe??

[-]

sirpsychosexy8@reddit

It looks a lot like the Air France mishap of the A320 during that demo flight a few decades back that descended into the trees at a high AOA and reduced power. My guess is they had the wrong performance data in, reduced thrust Takeoff, something happened that startled them like a late lift off and the PM accidentally retracted the flaps instead of the gear then they tried to preserve airspeed but their proximity to the ground had them pulling back instead as an natural impulse. The autothrottles weren’t at TOGA but reduced

[-]

KC135BOOMERJOHN@reddit

I don't see any flaps ? why is the gear still down? They got that elevator slammed, I don't see any yaw, so one engine failing may be out the window. But both engines failing who knows?

Whatever it was it seemed to have happened instantly because they yank that stick back as far as it would go right away. I have a feeling something happened just before takeoff and they didn't get to their next checklist for flaps and gear Catastrophic electrical or engines failed?

like the next guy I am just speculating and confident that the results of an investigation will find the cause

[-]

aenima396@reddit

The flaps on a 787 are going to be near implosive to see in these videos. https://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ZA006b-400x266.jpg

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

A lot of the noise you hear in normal flight is the sound of the air hitting the intakes, and the sound of the fans spinning (which would be windmilling in most situations). If they had even one engine, they wouldn’t have gone in.

[-]

Belowmda@reddit

Gear down but flaps up right after takeoff? I'll let you draw your own conclusions there...

[-]

Insaneclown271@reddit

https://imgur.com/a/CElWKzQ

[-]

fataldarkness@reddit

As the other commenter mentioned, not that close, you barely have time to think clearly about the situation if something happens this soon after takeoff.

That said there is a procedure to dump fuel in an emergency if you have time to run the emergency checklists, but it's not really to mitigate fires, it's more to eliminate weight before coming in for an emergency landing.

[-]

grahamsimmons@reddit

It had only been in the air for a few seconds, there's no way to dump thousands of litres in seconds (not to mention the impact on population on the ground)

[-]

DiabolicallyRandom@reddit

https://x.com/vikasmakwana111/status/1933162059556159903?s=46

Low quality still, but another angle.

[-]

Bonyred@reddit

Is that just the engine jet or are there flames on the tail-end just before it lands?

[-]

sidechaincompression@reddit

If I dumped the contents of this chat as plaintext into a deep reasoning ChatGPT, we’d have this solved by tomorrow. That’s a compliment to you all, I think?

[-]

butthole_lipliner@reddit

Took a look at the wx for 8:00 UTC at the field…ADSB (if accurate) showing last recorded airspeed is 174kts at 625ft baro. Here’s what’s striking me - the ambient temp is 38C and QNH is 997hPa. That is very low pressure, hot air, mid afternoon, you’re now turning a 189ft MSL field into one that functions as a ~1400ft field. You’re gonna have a long takeoff roll with that DA. Any failure to produce sufficient lift in such conditions would be catastrophic in an incredibly short amount of time. Now, I am not super familiar with the wx and/or topography for this respective part of the globe but I can only assume it’s normal to be hot and dry this time of year, and I can also bet that crews are used to dealing with thin air and potential thermals, but man 29.44 is low…here in PHX you’d be outrunning the front side of a massive dirt wall in those conditions, trying to avoid being gust crushed. Holy shit their AOA as they sink below the building line is horrific.

Incredibly sad for the families of the crew and all aboard. A 787, wow…

[-]

randombrain@reddit

29.44 is low, but not crazy low. About half an inch below standard. Just for comparison, there's an area of low pressure off the coast of Labrador, Canada right now, and poking around at the METARs I see:

A2948, 21G31KT
A2928, 10KT
A2929, 07KT
A2927, 20G28KT

And that's not to mention that the METARs from the airport itself were only showing single-digit wind speeds at the time.

As for the ADSB-reported altitude, you need correct what's shown (their flight level, FL006.25) into an AMSL altitude. Rule of thumb is that 00.01 inHg translates to ten feet of altitude. Per Ogimet above, the altimeter was about 1000 hPa at the time of the incident, or 29.53ish inHg; that's a difference of 00.39 inHg from standard, which is about 390 feet. When the altimeter is below standard that means the actual altitude will be lower than the flight level. So in this case, FL006.25 was about 235' MSL.

And we have a survivor. Truly an incredible fact: if there are survivors of such a terrifying crash like this one there’s ALWAYS exactly one or two… I can come up with at least five or six disasters just off the top of my head when there was exactly either one or two survivors

[-]

css555@reddit

Truly an incredible fact: if there are survivors of such a terrifying crash like this one there’s ALWAYS exactly one or two…

Didn’t know they had said that. Thanks for the clarity

[-]

theehammy@reddit

Is it possible that the loud bang the surviving passenger heard was the RAT deploying? I understand they deploy with a lot of energy.

The tail section is largely intact so hopefully data removal from FDR and CVR are extracted quickly.

[-]

kil0ran@reddit

Reminds me of AF296 which at least gives some hope for survivors (most survived despite a similarly big fireball)

https://youtu.be/9zY2hz2K4UM?si=AGHNdj5fBB65Z4vQ

Context: Pilot was doing a low pass/go around for an airshow, claimed the FBW throttle wouldn't give him throttle up. This was very early days of FBW on passenger planes, around the same time there was footage of an Airbus doing phugoid cycle over Paris as the logic fought the pilots' inputs.

[-]

nincumpoop@reddit

This was one of if not the first demo flight in Mulhouse of the A320. The crew survived but barely. No one else onboard. Sadly, in this case survivor prospects are really grim IMO

[-]

kil0ran@reddit

Sadly you're mistaken. It had around 140 SOB. 4 pax died including a paraplegic child. I think it might have been families of Airbus workers? Similar in that regard to a fatal accident in the French shipyard which built the cruise liner Queen Mary 2

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

No one else onboard.

130 pax.

[-]

tollbearer@reddit

I think there will be more survivors than most people expect, but less than in this instance, as the trees slowed it down, reducing the g forces of the final impact. The fireball gives a bad impression, but if the cabin is relatively intact, large numebrs could have survived.

[-]

jcepiano@reddit

To the ATPs who fly these new generation Boeings, is it possible that they entered inaccurate weight or performance numbers, which caused the derate to be insufficient for the high temp/low pressure? I assume there are safeguards against having bad numbers in the normal pre-takeoff checklist but I can't help but think that if derate was wrong and there was an early flap retraction, it could be the perfect combination of errors to cause this incident.

[-]

Evitable_Conflict@reddit

If the engines are healthy there is no mistake you can't solve by just pushing the throttles to TO/GA and leveling off the plane for a few seconds, the 787 will build up the speed almost immediately and you can then climb safely.

[-]

leetrout@reddit

This and lipo battery fires are my fears in flying.

Alaskan had that software bug where they went too slow and rotated too early with two takeoffs years ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/11c1lb2/a_software_bug_caused_two_alaska_airlines_flights/

[-]

Drunkenaviator@reddit

That is very possible. That exact error has come very close to killing people at multiple airlines across the world.

Add to that the fact that India is generally a challenging takeoff performance wise due to the temperatures and density altitudes you get with them, and it's entirely possible. I've used every inch of the runway leaving Delhi in a loaded 747.

[-]

Grim3sy@reddit

It would be interesting to see what the investigation says and what the pilots briefed. Normally each pilot would do the takeoff calculation by themselves, entering the conditions and weight, then will convene and and cross check that what was entered matches what the other entered and that the values are in fact the same.

[-]

KeyboardGunner@reddit

The Associated Press is reporting 1 lone survivor.

https://apnews.com/live/air-india-plane-crash-ai171-ahmedabad-london

[-]

pentagrid@reddit

BBC has this video https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6drp96zo

[-]

Comfortable-Goal-994@reddit

According to the footage that is shown, it seems like it was the pilot's fault, if you closely look at the wing, the flaps were not extended by the pilot, so no lift could be generated, in my opinion this was all a human error and Boeing should not be called out for this.

[-]

barcode-username@reddit

Why you would blame that on the pilots if it were a dual engine failure? No one would be able to recover from that, regardless of who was flying. But you don't know that it dual engine failure, or that the flaps were not extended. You're just throwing around blame when the facts of the accident haven't even come out yet.

[-]

Agreeable_Flight4264@reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1l9no7u/new_video_of_take_off_to_the_crash_of_air_india/

I have sourced more videos

New video from aside the runway.

https://x.com/bobinsabraham/status/1933165723213512815?s=46&t=Bg2ORoQlDZfHhQG74676Lw

The flaps don't look retracted. Leading edge devices are out. That's a normal takeoff configuration for the 787.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Since Spanish airliner crash, new planes have audible warning if flaps are not opened before take off.

Airliners had takeoff config warning well before that accident.

total power loss immediately during takeoff which somehow retracted the flaps automatically

You still need to move the lever for the flaps to retract.

[-]

Throwawayyacc22@reddit

787 hull loss. Tough, and prayers to the families.

Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.