Comment from a retired airline captain. I am type rated in the B737, but not type rated in the B787. Your comment about "the plane would need a near-full flaps setting to get sufficient lift on takeoff." is incorrect. The greatest flap setting for takeoff in the B787-8 is 15 degrees, typical for Boeing airplanes. The maximum flap setting for landing is 30 degrees. The B787 is a totally electric airplane, meaning the systems that are normally directly driven by the engines on most airplanes are electrically powered on the B787. This requires some pretty hefty generators on the airplane. The deployment of a RAT means there was some kind of electrical issue that meant the generators were not carrying the load. Remains to be seen what was happening in the "big picture."
I accept entirely your point. I have been listening to dozens of "experts." I think the deployment of the RAT was very significant, but of course it does not explain what went wrong. Following your information I made a couple of changes to the article. Thank you.
The video begins shortly after take-off, taken from a vantage point on the starboard side of the flight path. It's obvious when the video starts that the aircraft is much lower than you'd expect it to be at that point in the departure. However the aircraft more or less appears to be maintaining altitude, if barely. Then a few seconds later you can see the nose of the aircraft rise markedly, where after it plunges towards the ground and a huge fireball rises. Condolences to the families.
The aircraft was so far off its nominal flight path that we can say for certain that something went drastically wrong. If verified, the report that the entire runway was used is telling. That suggests either insufficient thrust or insufficient lift due to improper flight surface configuration. The fact that the landing gear are still down is also unusual. (If there is a problem at take-off, retracting the gear is a critical step.) I cannot see trailing-edge flaps extended on the aircraft, but I couldn't say for sure. Hopefully the PNF didn't retract the flaps instead of the gear after take-off.
Richard R: "However the aircraft more or less appears to be maintaining altitude, if barely. Then a few seconds later you can see the nose of the aircraft rise markedly ..."
Reminds me of a long-ago conversation with a pilot about a US air accident where the plane similarly ran into trouble while taking off, and then crashed. This guy blamed the disaster on the training of the pilot who, when the situation was critical, pulled up the nose and tried to gain altitude. The alternative training (which the pilot talking to me had had) emphasized that -- if you are flying, keep flying while you sort things out, even if you are uncomfortably close to the ground. Maybe the accident could have been avoided if the pilot had stayed flying level?
One other observation -- if the RAT did indeed deploy, that would have substantially increased the drag on the plane.
I don't want to be that guy who pontificates about why an aviation accident happened when all the facts aren't known. However there are some general things that can be said in this case.
A properly-configured aircraft like the 787 will climb at quite a steep angle even with one engine failed. This is true even if the engine failure happens when the aircraft has barely left the runway.
The aircraft in this accident is not climbing. Discounting drastic pilot mishandling, there's only two reasons why that would be so: either the engines are developing insufficient thrust or the aircraft is generating insufficient lift due to improperly configured flight control surfaces.
The engines could be developing insufficient thrust due to either the pilots setting the wrong thrust level, or due to mechanical failure. However the first thing a competent pilot would do to maintain altitude is to firewall the thrust levers to get maximum possible power. However if for some reason the engines are malfunctioning, they might not produce sufficient power even with the thrust levers at max.
Flight control surfaces can also be improperly configured due to pilot error or due to mechanical failure. The latter is a very rare event, because aircraft are designed not to have flight control surface failures due to the catastrophic consequences of such. (All other things being equal, a pilot would much rather have an engine failure than a flight control surface failure.) Unfortunately it's not unknown for pilots to fail to set their flight control surfaces properly.
A deployed RAT does create drag, but it's minor compared to the inherent drag in the aircraft itself.
The RAT deployment signals a major electrical failure. We don't yet know if the engines failed (both of them!) or the controls were improperly set, or my personal opinion that the pilots set them but for some unknown reason the settings command was not executed by the system because it was "dead"
I didn't fly the 787 so I'm not aware of the specific events that would cause the RAT to deploy. Nevertheless, an electrical failure of itself would not cause the aircraft to fail to gain altitude. That's an aerodynamic issue, with engine thrust and flight control configuration being the critical factors.
If it's true that the flight used all the available runway on departure, then that is a near-certain sign that either the thrust was insufficient or the flight control surfaces were not properly configured, or both. Those faults could be caused by mechanical/electrical failures or by pilot errors. However if the fault was in the airplane itself, it must have happened after decision speed was reached while the aircraft was accelerating for lift-off. Otherwise the pilots would've aborted the take-off.
It would take a sequence of major mechanical/electrical failures (all of which are statistically highly unlikely) to have caused the aircraft to crash as it did. It would also take a sequence of major pilot errors to cause the crash. Unfortunately such pilot errors aren't as statistically rare as the mechanical/electrical ones. Hopefully the facts will eventually be revealed, but that doesn't always happen, as in the Jeju Air crash in Korea.
Comment from a retired airline captain. I am type rated in the B737, but not type rated in the B787. Your comment about "the plane would need a near-full flaps setting to get sufficient lift on takeoff." is incorrect. The greatest flap setting for takeoff in the B787-8 is 15 degrees, typical for Boeing airplanes. The maximum flap setting for landing is 30 degrees. The B787 is a totally electric airplane, meaning the systems that are normally directly driven by the engines on most airplanes are electrically powered on the B787. This requires some pretty hefty generators on the airplane. The deployment of a RAT means there was some kind of electrical issue that meant the generators were not carrying the load. Remains to be seen what was happening in the "big picture."
I accept entirely your point. I have been listening to dozens of "experts." I think the deployment of the RAT was very significant, but of course it does not explain what went wrong. Following your information I made a couple of changes to the article. Thank you.
Let me guess, it is Putin's fault.
Video of the crash - https://x.com/upuknews1/status/1933089890654461973?s=46&t=EcFTqaB9iFzlSxC2Hd-pxA
The video begins shortly after take-off, taken from a vantage point on the starboard side of the flight path. It's obvious when the video starts that the aircraft is much lower than you'd expect it to be at that point in the departure. However the aircraft more or less appears to be maintaining altitude, if barely. Then a few seconds later you can see the nose of the aircraft rise markedly, where after it plunges towards the ground and a huge fireball rises. Condolences to the families.
The aircraft was so far off its nominal flight path that we can say for certain that something went drastically wrong. If verified, the report that the entire runway was used is telling. That suggests either insufficient thrust or insufficient lift due to improper flight surface configuration. The fact that the landing gear are still down is also unusual. (If there is a problem at take-off, retracting the gear is a critical step.) I cannot see trailing-edge flaps extended on the aircraft, but I couldn't say for sure. Hopefully the PNF didn't retract the flaps instead of the gear after take-off.
Richard R: "However the aircraft more or less appears to be maintaining altitude, if barely. Then a few seconds later you can see the nose of the aircraft rise markedly ..."
Reminds me of a long-ago conversation with a pilot about a US air accident where the plane similarly ran into trouble while taking off, and then crashed. This guy blamed the disaster on the training of the pilot who, when the situation was critical, pulled up the nose and tried to gain altitude. The alternative training (which the pilot talking to me had had) emphasized that -- if you are flying, keep flying while you sort things out, even if you are uncomfortably close to the ground. Maybe the accident could have been avoided if the pilot had stayed flying level?
One other observation -- if the RAT did indeed deploy, that would have substantially increased the drag on the plane.
I don't want to be that guy who pontificates about why an aviation accident happened when all the facts aren't known. However there are some general things that can be said in this case.
A properly-configured aircraft like the 787 will climb at quite a steep angle even with one engine failed. This is true even if the engine failure happens when the aircraft has barely left the runway.
The aircraft in this accident is not climbing. Discounting drastic pilot mishandling, there's only two reasons why that would be so: either the engines are developing insufficient thrust or the aircraft is generating insufficient lift due to improperly configured flight control surfaces.
The engines could be developing insufficient thrust due to either the pilots setting the wrong thrust level, or due to mechanical failure. However the first thing a competent pilot would do to maintain altitude is to firewall the thrust levers to get maximum possible power. However if for some reason the engines are malfunctioning, they might not produce sufficient power even with the thrust levers at max.
Flight control surfaces can also be improperly configured due to pilot error or due to mechanical failure. The latter is a very rare event, because aircraft are designed not to have flight control surface failures due to the catastrophic consequences of such. (All other things being equal, a pilot would much rather have an engine failure than a flight control surface failure.) Unfortunately it's not unknown for pilots to fail to set their flight control surfaces properly.
A deployed RAT does create drag, but it's minor compared to the inherent drag in the aircraft itself.
The RAT deployment signals a major electrical failure. We don't yet know if the engines failed (both of them!) or the controls were improperly set, or my personal opinion that the pilots set them but for some unknown reason the settings command was not executed by the system because it was "dead"
I didn't fly the 787 so I'm not aware of the specific events that would cause the RAT to deploy. Nevertheless, an electrical failure of itself would not cause the aircraft to fail to gain altitude. That's an aerodynamic issue, with engine thrust and flight control configuration being the critical factors.
If it's true that the flight used all the available runway on departure, then that is a near-certain sign that either the thrust was insufficient or the flight control surfaces were not properly configured, or both. Those faults could be caused by mechanical/electrical failures or by pilot errors. However if the fault was in the airplane itself, it must have happened after decision speed was reached while the aircraft was accelerating for lift-off. Otherwise the pilots would've aborted the take-off.
It would take a sequence of major mechanical/electrical failures (all of which are statistically highly unlikely) to have caused the aircraft to crash as it did. It would also take a sequence of major pilot errors to cause the crash. Unfortunately such pilot errors aren't as statistically rare as the mechanical/electrical ones. Hopefully the facts will eventually be revealed, but that doesn't always happen, as in the Jeju Air crash in Korea.
Passengers on the flight reported extremely poor condition of cabin auxiliary equipment.
The dual engine failure could explain the failure of hydraulics for control surfaces and the deployment of the RAT.
As you say dual engine failure is hard to explain.
Given the current environment I wonder if terrorism isn’t the most likely explanation?
Did anyone take credit? If not, probably not terrorism. For that matter, I'd be surprised if nobody claimed responsibility, terrorism or no.
One survivor, 🤔.
What's Elijah Price up to these days?
I won;t even bother to comment on this nonsense.
The follow up reporting backs up my assessment, not yours.