Air India plane crash

Agree seems like little flaps… flap retraction not usually occurring below acceleration height.

Would seem odd that they got high enough to retract them and we’re just watching the final miles of them in a controlled descent unable to add them back.

But perhaps wrong from the start?
 
Current speculation is that the engines were not producing takeoff thrust. That is based on a) the apparent lack of noise in the video showing the aircraft prior to the crash, and b) the appearance of a pixellated smear below the aircraft, which is being speculated as a deployed RAT.

For high-AOA protection, the 787 has slat "autogap," which will fully-extend the slats (the normal position for Flaps 25/30) when they are already at their mid-extend positon (Flaps 1 through 20). I think there would be no accompanying movement of the trailing-edge flaps when active.

The minimum takeoff flap setting is Flaps 5.
 
Inverted said:
If it has the same takeoff config the 737 does, it doesn't check for proper flap position, just that flaps are selected. They could have selected an improper flap setting.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat of a problem on the 757-200 since Flaps 1 is an approved Boeing takeoff setting, so the config warning won't go off. However, at my shop, Flaps 5 is the minimum approved takeoff setting. A few times a year people take off with Flaps 1 instead of 5 (even though we're supposed to check it 3 times before getting to the runway), will get no warnings, and only realize it on flap retraction. However on the 767 the minimum flaps for takeoff is 5 so you will get a config warning if you try to take off with Flaps 1. Not sure how the 787 works.

On another forum they're saying it looks like the RAT is deployed, and while the video is super grainy, you can sort of make out something sticking out of the right side on some of the frames. I believe this is another one of those headscratcher accidents and I'm looking forward to more information being released. It looks more complicated (and possibly treacherous) than a simple TOFU or grabbing the flaps instead of the gear.
 
I’m sure I’m wrong but to me it looked like that thing was making no thrust. I don’t know how that could be the case it just looks that way to me.
 
Yea it is weird, very weird. It looks damn near like a controlled descent into the ground. Even with improper flap settings, two engines producing takeoff thrust should recover the airplane I would think.
 
Inverted said:
Yea it is weird, very weird. It looks damn near like a controlled descent into the ground. Even with improper flap settings, two engines producing takeoff thrust should recover the airplane I would think.
Click to expand...
Seriously right, even a heavy 78 with flaps at zero I imagine would at least fight to stay in the air.
 
luke3 said:
This is somewhat of a problem on the 757-200 since Flaps 1 is an approved Boeing takeoff setting, so the config warning won't go off. However, at my shop, Flaps 5 is the minimum approved takeoff setting. A few times a year people take off with Flaps 1 instead of 5 (even though we're supposed to check it 3 times before getting to the runway), will get no warnings, and only realize it on flap retraction. However on the 767 the minimum flaps for takeoff is 5 so you will get a config warning if you try to take off with Flaps 1. Not sure how the 787 works.
Click to expand...
That picture in the FCTM is probably my favorite Widget thing in a manual ever. “NO! YES!”

Also always “kerchunk kerchunk.”
 
Damn. This isn't very good. I could have been on that flight, as I was considering travel to the area. If I had gone, today would have been the return date.🤢

This was the first crash and, if I'm not mistaken, the first hull loss of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. When I first saw the headline, I feared it could have been a structural failure, given the safety concerns raised by whistleblowers.

I won't speculate on the cause, and they should be able to get the boxes quickly, given the accessibility of the crash location. It appears the plane is struggling to maintain thrust. Could bad fuel cause a jet aircraft to struggle in such a way?
 
it is notable that the phone video begins with the aircraft already past the observer.

To me that implies something was exceptional that inspired the videographer to grab their phone. Maybe the flight path or sound was different than they were used to. Maybe there were the characteristics bangs from an engine surging?
 
FWIW, flaps 5 on a 787 is barely visible from the trailing edge especially with the resolution on these videos. Not to mention this isnt an ATR, it would be much harder to imagine ever getting the flap and gear levers turned around. Plus as others have pointed out, flaps or no, that does not appear to be an AoA you’d have from anywhere close to takeoff/climb thrust.
 
luke3 said:
This is somewhat of a problem on the 757-200 since Flaps 1 is an approved Boeing takeoff setting, so the config warning won't go off. However, at my shop, Flaps 5 is the minimum approved takeoff setting. A few times a year people take off with Flaps 1 instead of 5 (even though we're supposed to check it 3 times before getting to the runway), will get no warnings, and only realize it on flap retraction. However on the 767 the minimum flaps for takeoff is 5 so you will get a config warning if you try to take off with Flaps 1. Not sure how the 787 works.
Click to expand...

Flaps 1 is actually a Boeing approved takeoff setting on the 767-200, but not the -300.
 
Minuteman said:
it is notable that the phone video begins with the aircraft already past the observer.

To me that implies something was exceptional that inspired the videographer to grab their phone. Maybe the flight path or sound was different than they were used to. Maybe there were the characteristics bangs from an engine surging?
Click to expand...

Or that it was just that low.
 
arkavgal said:
Damn. This isn't very good. I could have been on that flight, as I was considering travel to the area. If I had gone, today would have been the return date.🤢

This was the first crash and, if I'm not mistaken, the first hull loss of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. When I first saw the headline, I feared it could have been a structural failure, given the safety concerns raised by whistleblowers.

I won't speculate on the cause, and they should be able to get the boxes quickly, given the accessibility of the crash location. It appears the plane is struggling to maintain thrust. Could bad fuel cause a jet aircraft to struggle in such a way?
Click to expand...

The 3rd paragraph kind of conflicts with the 2nd....But hey....keep on keeping on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top