• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 days ago

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

    • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It’s always hard to judge AoA unless you’re looking side-on with a horizon for reference, but excessive nose-up attitude caused by cargo incorrectly loaded or not secured properly so it shifted aft during rotation could have caused an aerodynamic stall.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s a passenger plane. I don’t think 200 people slid to the back of the plane after rotation.

    • 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.

      • ShadowRam@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          This has to be pilot error. Even at stall, it looks like pilot didn’t even try to level out

          They were like less than 200m from the ground. There was literally no space to recover from the stall. You need some altitude to pitch the nose down and recover from a stall.

        • SoGrumpy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          bird strike taking out both engines? nah.

          Why not? That’s the reason Sully had to land on the Hudson.

    • 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
      ·
      2 days 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
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days 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?

  • JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I don’t get what you mean by “and no one figured that out yet.” As you said yourself, no one knows what happened yet. Pretty much all we have at this point are the videos, and all we can confirm from them is a rough flight path of the plane and that the landing gear remained down after what appeared to be a normal takeoff. I haven’t seen any footage that clearly shows the state of the flaps with any certainty, but please correct me if I’ve missed something.

        In my mind, that leaves us with three possible scenarios:

        • Pilot error (retracting the flaps instead of the landing gear)
        • Dual engine failure at the critical moment (there’s no evidence of this in the videos, but also nothing ruling it out)
        • Something else (we don’t know what we don’t know)

        From the two scenarios (pilot error, engine failure) that fit the flight path from the videos, the option one seems more plausible to me. But that’s just my armchair opinion, it doesn’t mean anything. All we can really do is wait for the investigation and the preliminary report.

        • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I don’t get what you mean by “and no one figured that out yet.”

          I mean there’s many experts watching the same footage who are not making an assertion that the pilots got confused about the landing gear and the flaps.

          • JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            24 hours ago

            They’re also not saying it couldn’t have happened, are they? They’re waiting for investigators to gather all the facts before making any statements, just like they should.

            Meanwhile, we here on the internet are just speculating based on the limited information available (basically just the video footage). Based on the current information we have, my opinion is that pilot error is the most likely cause.

            You’re free to disagree about the likelihood of different scenarios, but right now we have no evidence that makes the theory of the pilots accidentally retracting the flaps instead of the gear impossible or “absurd.” It’s really counterproductive to start ruling out scenarios without concrete proof.

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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?

      • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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

      • JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        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.

      • JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • kcuf2@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Also gear should probably be retracted first (though I don’t actually know for certain for this aircraft)

          • JRaccoon@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Usually the gear is retracted almost immediately after takeoff, as it creates a huge amount of unnecessary drag if left out when not needed.

            • kcuf2@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Ya that’s true for multiengine in general. I just didn’t know if there was any other sequencing needed for the 787 (like move flaps from 5 to 4) because I know nothing about flying such large planes.

  • susi7802@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I guess this is news, although it does little for me. Or for the people mourning the victims.