• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    Looks like it stalled due to lack of thrust. What could have killed both engines right after takeoff?

    • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • philpo@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        I just saw that video and it is really strange. Not so much that rat hasn’t been deployed, I don’t think they lost hydraulics or electronics and I’m not sure they even reached the minimum speed where the rat would really help.

        The strange thing is that it didn’t really look like there was very much yaw or rolling which you would expect to see with a fuel system failure. They seemed to be flying straight as an arrow and gliding it down?

        Maybe something wrong with thrust control? Kinda crazy.

        • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Is it common for CCTV to track and follow all planes as they take off like the camera in this video seems to be?

        • philpo@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah,I am not sure if there is a safety interlock with Boeing RATs(and the video is really bad)…so it might be intentional.

          It’s strange. Personally I currently go with water in the fuel system as the “most likely guess by a armchair pilot”(me),but wouldn’t also be surprised being it an electronic error. When that would be the case Boeing would be fucked beyond repair,imho.

          • torrentialgrain@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Dude the plane is 13 years old. If there was a mechanical problem with the plane its on Air India, and I say that as a certified Airbus fanboy.

            • philpo@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              No. Faults often don’t get detected early,need certain circumstances (swiss cheese model) or quite simply, are caused by replacement parts. There is a long chain of things that could fall into Boeing responsibility - and even if it doesn’t the market does not always react reasonably.

              • torrentialgrain@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                We will see I suppose. Your last sentence is most certainly true in any case but I will stand by the fact that after 13 years a mechanical problem will much more likely be due to bad maintenance- especially given AIs difficult track record in that regard.

                • philpo@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Yeah, absolutely, AI has issues- that’s why I narrowed my “Boeings fa**ult” down to electronics/software. There isn’t too much maintenance they can fuck up in that department that can kill both engines(afaik). In other parts like fuel,fuel distribution,etc? Totally different.

                  My bet is still on sometimes with the fuel, though. Maybe water in the fuel.

                  • torrentialgrain@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    My suspicion is fuel contamination as well. Just terrible all around. Hope we get some facts from the investigation rather soon.

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Something wrong with the fuel system was my initial armchair guess, but I’m not so sure based off the second vid. One would expect to see some yaw or rolling in an underpowered or lost of power take off with a jet.

            Guess we’ll have to wait until someone more qualified explains it.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      “Did I fill the water in the right hole on that plane?” – Guy at the airport driving the freshwater tanker.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Maybe, maybe not.

      What’s way weirder is that he’s got zero flaps and gear is still down, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do when climbing out. Maybe pilot error (control inversion)?

      • torrentialgrain@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Slats are 100% deployed, you can see that in the videos, indicating the plane was in Takeoff Config. Now, the flaps themselves are hard to make out in the grainy videos and they don’t extend much on takeoff. Edit: https://imgur.com/a/JzS3ro9

        Much more important is the lack of engine noise. We can also see the rat turbine was automatically deployed, indicating a complete loss of power only seconds after they rotated. Which is also why the landing gear did not retract.

        I don’t know what could’ve caused a dual engine failure, simultaneously, immediately after takeoff but that seems to be where everything is pointing to. Possibly problems with the fuel?

        • thefartographer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • philpo@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.