Looks like it stalled due to lack of thrust. What could have killed both engines right after takeoff?
It seems to climb OK for a little while then suddenly start sinking. There's no sign of an obvious engine problem. Not sure whether we'd be able to see any sign of a bird strike from this far away.
bird strike taking out both engines? nah.
This has to be pilot error. Even at stall, it looks like pilot didn't even try to level out.
It is a Boeing plane. We shouldn't jump to conclusions on the pilots being at fault.
Agree with your comment regarding the pilots but the plane has with Air India for 13 years. If there was a mechanical problem it’s likely to be maintenance at fault. And I say that as someone who goes out of their way to not fly Boeing.
not necessarily. John Barnett, the Boeing whistleblower which died after 2 days into his three day deposition, said that that the assembly line sloppiness would take about ten to twelve years to culminate in a crash.
Let’s see what the black boxes give us. We should have the first information soon. I’m not going to categorically defend Boeing (again, I am not flying on their planes myself) but right now we just have no information on what caused the likely dual engine rollback.
Fair Point
bird strike taking out both engines? nah.
Why not? That's the reason Sully had to land on the Hudson.
Yeah, it's rather strange. There is another one from a perspective where the aircraft almost "overflew" the cameraman (basically at a 5'o clock angle)- it shows them having aileron and elevator control right until they crash. And while the quality is poor, I am somewhat convinced that the RAT has not deployed (yet?)
A bird strike would likely have caused something visible So it doesn't sound like hydraulics or fuel(water in the fueltanks?) or something electronic wise with the engine control. Strange and sad.
is it going fast enough for the RAT to deploy?
"Did I fill the water in the right hole on that plane?" -- Guy at the airport driving the freshwater tanker.
I was just thinking about this, perhaps when the aircraft rotated, water or other contaminants got drawn into the fuel system?
Or shifting cargo damaged the fuel lines?
For multi engine planes it's pretty rare, most likely a fuel system failure, or less likely pilot throttling error. My money would be on something with the fuel system.
Wake turbulence?
Definitely not.
Why not? Genuinely asking. I thought I remembered wake turbulence being able to cause engine stall or complete shutoff, but I only see that anecdotally, not on the FAA’s website.
I also thought I'd remembered it being able to cause stalls, but I'm mostly only reading about it causing planes to roll on the FAA's website.
Wake turbulence requires something to cause the wake - usually another aircraft. Additionally wake turbulences autoregulate themselves - they don't stay "in the air" but rather disperse rather fast, especially close to the ground. VAAH is a pretty small airport that has no continual taxiway(which they once had,for some strange reason) so aircraft need to backtrack(Basically go in the wrong direction on the RW, then do a U-Turn) at the end of the runway if they go for a take-off runway of RW23.This leads to a long time for any wake turbulence to disperse.
Additionally the 787 is a mighty big aircraft and mostly wake turbulences affect aircraft that are smaller than the ones which caused it. (This is of course not fully accurate,but it gets complicated then) And the 787 is absolutely powerful enough to power through basically any wake turbulence.
Last but not least there was not a starting aircraft directly before the flight but a (very small) landing one - so even more time for any wake to disperse.
So in the end I would be pretty damn sure it wasn't that.
And one man walked away from that. The mind boggles.
No fucking way. IRL plot armour
More like staggered, but yes.
One theory circulating online is that the pilots may have accidentally retracted the flaps instead of the landing gear. Apparently that would result in kind of a flight path seen on the published videos.
While this cannot be confirmed or ruled out with the information we have, in my opinion the available videos seem to kinda support this theory. Initially the aircraft appears to take off and climb normally, but for some reason the gear is not being retracted when usually it would be retracted right after the takeoff.
Naturally the gear could be forgotten or left intentionally down if there were a dual engine failure right after takeoff, for example, but as the videos show no evidence of this, I'm more inclined to believe in simple pilot error.
I'm not an expert, but pretty much every plane crash expert on the planet is watching the same footage and saying they don't know what's happened.
It's absurd to suggest the pilots accidentally retracted the flaps and no one figured that out yet.
Damn, did I miss the plane crash expert unison chant again?
It's less that you missed it and more that they chose not to invite you
:(
This is what you get for questioning The Consensus
I did see one person commenting on the other video that they could see the flaps were in the wrong position. And it is conspicuous that the landing gear was not retracted - though could that be because the pilots realized they were in trouble and would need to attempt a crash landing, or were too busy with whatever else had gone wrong?
Are the 787's controls arranged in such a way that you could accidentally retract the flaps instead of the landing gear?
The plane was in takeoff config: https://imgur.com/a/JzS3ro9
According to type rated pilots the 787 doesn’t allow you to retract flaps immediately in critical flight after takeoff.
According to type rated pilots the 787 doesn’t allow you to retract flaps immediately in critical flight after takeoff.
That's interesting. Do you have the source for that? I wasn't able to find a definitive answer with google
Are the 787's controls arranged in such a way that you could accidentally retract the flaps instead of the landing gear?
Not in a sense that someone could just grab the wrong lever in the dark for example. The levers are in different parts of the cockpit and also shaped very differently. But we humans can do all kinds of weird mistakes that are hard to explain. Almost everyone has experienced this sometimes. Think something like searching for you phone while it's in your hand. Afterwards it's very hard to explain why would anyone do such a silly mistake but it still happened. This would be similar.
I think the simplest explanation, and the most likely one, is the pilots were too busy dealing with whatever shit was hitting the fan to raise the landing gear.
And, in my view, that's a loss of engine power for whatever reason, possibly bad fuel.
Flaps are typically retracted not long after takeoff anyway, every flight I've been on has done that.
There are minimum airspeeds the aircraft must reach before the flaps can be safely retracted. I don't know the exact numbers, but assuming a standard flaps 5 takeoff for B787, retraction to flaps 1 would occur around 1000 ft by earliest, that's typically 20 to 30 seconds after the takeoff.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/