Mandatory hat wearing is a different thing. I get that. But when they are optional it’s a tell tale sign of a long trip.
Boeing down in India
- Thread starter Mr.BR
- Start date
Just added to the pile of knowns, as generally maintenance records are brought up in these situations.
I have learned something here, when I get on an airplane if anybody in cock pit is wearing a hat I’ve got a rip on them.
So not a pilot or an aircraft guy but what are the odds it was fuel related? Could bad fuel cause enough of a loss of thrust to result in the crash?
I’ve been on a boat that got bad fuel and after an hour of running it plugged the filters bad enough that it forced us to shut the engines down and change the filters before it would let us do anything more than idle. Could such a thing happen on a plane or do the system make it a highly unlikely occurrence?
I’ve been on a boat that got bad fuel and after an hour of running it plugged the filters bad enough that it forced us to shut the engines down and change the filters before it would let us do anything more than idle. Could such a thing happen on a plane or do the system make it a highly unlikely occurrence?
Last edited:
Possible but very highly unlikely…every truck load in and out of every storage tank is tested, and it may have changed but when I was flying almost every load on the plane has a small sample pulled to check for contaminants.
Plus, other planes would have been affected. I haven't seen any reports of that.
Could have been a fuel system failure though, likely pilot error if so…so many fail safes and redundancies built in.
I have problems with that.
The engines gravity feed at 150% with the high pressure pumps in the engine and that is a manufacturing spec required by the Feds under Part 23/25 (IIRC)
Both high pressure pumps failing at the same time? Extremely unlikely.
Well an aircraft is not a boat. There are filters in the fuel system that can be bypassed automatically due to contamination.
Much like the bypass valve on your car's oil filter. Can do it for a short amount of time but not recommended.
Fuel contamination in turbine aircraft is more about water and water freezing in the fuel line at altitude.
A turbine/jet engine can burn water. I saw an engineering video a few yrs back and was surprised about how much water a turbine engine can ingest and still keep running. Its a lot
Now if the contamination was a solid, that is another ball of wax.
Could it be fuel contamination? Possibly.
Maybe, maybe not. I could have been one fuel truck that was affected.
I haven't been through that area in a few yrs but I don't believe they have in-ground fueling.
Fuel trucks tend to come in the 10,000 gal and 50,000 gal flavor.
The 787 burns in the neighborhood of 12,500 lbs /hr. or roughly 1,865 gals per hour.
Its roughly a 9 hr flt (plus 1 hr reserves) so the fuel on board would be in the neighborhood of 18,650 gals
This is all napkin math.
So it could have been one or two truck that did the fuel uplift.
Last edited:
You forgot to factor in the India effect.
Lying and cheating is way of life there.
Never forget the one day they "forgot" how to refuel a 747 even though multiple 74 came through there daily.
Short story, I got on the ladder and refueled my own 74.
Yep, I was thinking in terms of in ground fueling, hadn't even thought about lack thereof/trucks.
You wanna take another look at your fourth line above ? I think you may have made a typo. Looking at your expression of "lbs/hr". Maybe it's just me, but I don't get what you are trying to say. "12,500 lbs/hr. or roughly 1,865 lbs per hour". I get what you mean on your fifth line.
As above, water in the fuel is not a problem and happens fairly frequently.
The main problem with water contamination is it can lead to the biological growth which can either block fuel filters, or worse cause corrosion in the tanks.
The aircraft is smart enough to know if the fuel filters are getting clogged and would've sent an alert to GE and/or Air India.
If it was simple fuel starvation you'd have thought it would've happened during take off, well before it got into the air.
It could be a freak event like what happened to flight BA38, but obviously not the same as icing is unlikely to have occurred.
The main problem with water contamination is it can lead to the biological growth which can either block fuel filters, or worse cause corrosion in the tanks.
The aircraft is smart enough to know if the fuel filters are getting clogged and would've sent an alert to GE and/or Air India.
If it was simple fuel starvation you'd have thought it would've happened during take off, well before it got into the air.
It could be a freak event like what happened to flight BA38, but obviously not the same as icing is unlikely to have occurred.
The earlier reports of electric issues, no a/c and the rat deployed leans towards a serious electric issue. But I've not heard anything that could take out both engines, especially since they have their own power redundancy.
Without knowing the exact specifics of the 787, is there someway that a pilot could induce a configuration where it attempted a takeoff with the center tank feeding both engines and there was a subsequent failure of the center tank system? Or do the wings always feed the engines and the center fuel is transferred to the wings.
I’m still on flap camp though for now but the RAT deployment gives me pause.
Which is why I personally think this is gonna fall back on Indian air maintenance, or lack there of. Pushing an aircraft through with a known squawk not fixed properly.
Kinda like lion air on the 737 max. That aircraft on the prior flight was doing the same thing that caused it to crash and it wasn’t fixed. Instead, everyone dog piled Boeing.
So, you are going to write off the pilots calling over the radio loss of power?
No but they could be mistaking a loss of power for a lot of things in the heat of the moment. Maybe they never set takeoff power to begin with? Is that a loss of power or not enough power? Like I said the RAT deployment gives me pause to consider something else. But like many have said a dual engine failure is so absolutely incredibly rare.
The 787 fuel system is pretty much the same as the 737. Center pumps are "over ride" pumps and wings are "boost" pumps. The over ride pumps are higher pressure and "over ride" the wing tank boost pumps... You would take off with all 6 pumps on, which is what we do in the 737. IF you had a center tank pump failure the wing tank pumps are already running.
AND if all 6 pumps were off you will still get suction feed from the engine high pressure pump as long as the spar valve(shut off valve is open).
The only way on takeoff you could have a fuel starvation loss of power is if the spar valves were closed... Those are controlled by the fuel cutoff/start levers as well as the fire switches. There is talk of them closing in a loss of A/C power situation... Im digging back into my 737 systems knowledge here from 8 years ago, but I believe they are alternately powered off the standby power bus. So even if you lost main A/C power you still have power to the spar valves via standby DC power. 737 doesnt have a RAT so thats battery power. If the RAT deployed and is producing DC power then the spar valves would have remained open IMO... Again thats how the 737 works, maybe in the 787 something else has control of the fuel shut off valves...
Fuel starvation from a pump issue doesn’t make sense I guess anyway because you either get fuel or you don’t which would result in a flameout not loss of power. Certification requires gravity feed to supply adequate pressure in case of boost pump failures.
Have they recovered and analyzed the data/voice recorders yet ? How long does it take for the results to be made public ?
Haven't read the whole thread, was it verified that they actually fueled the plane? This is India were talking about.
From my research the 787 has 4 generator/starters connected through gear boxes. All 4 being mechanically linked with auto and manual disconnects.
Any plausible scenarios, an (1)engine failure, and pre-existing electrical issues could’ve caused all four generators to fail, or unintentionally be switched off. Which would deploy the rat, even if one engine was still going strong?
Recovered yes, analyzed no...
Typically preliminary reports share factual data from a FDR with CVR transcripts in the Public Docket before a Final Report is released, but I'm not sure how India's aviation agency does their investigations.
There is, but I dont know how the 787 electrical system works... I know its a full electric airplane with no bleed air so the electrical system is pretty stout I would think.
When I flew the 747 there was no checklist for loss of all A/C power i.e. losing all 4 generators at the same time. Boeing says its basically impossible. I heard of one where the E&E bay got soaked with water somehow and they lost all 4 generators due to a short from the water. The other couple are 4 engine flame outs due to volcanic ash. Another was supposedly mechanics blocked the generator cooling inlets while they were washing the engines and forgot to uncover them and all 4 generators over heated... 787 has liquid cooled generators I believe.
But to lose all 4 generators at the same time is a statistical improbability... I wont say impossible because, well...ill be proven wrong. The electrical system on the 787 SHOULD be designed so it doesnt have a single fault failure mode.
In 19 years in the airlines I have never lost a generator. I had a CSD drive light come on at idle power before on the 737, but the generator itself was still functioning. Low oil pressure in the CSD.
im surprised the engines on the NEO will run that long to go from the north east down to aruba.... The IDG is the least of your worries there LOL.
Touché. When they work they are pretty good. Apparently Pratt has got the fixes Now it’s just time.
Yeah, I mislabeled something that should have been in gals.
I am blaming the bourbon I was drinking at the time.
Fixed now...it should make more sense.
Can actually increase thrust in some cases.. I’m old enough to have 750 hours on the KC-135A with water injection for takeoff! LoL
The best I remember on the 777, when on the ground and flaps up and center pumps on the engines are feeding from the center tank. Select flaps 1 or greater and it goes to tank to engine. So a takeoff with fuel in the center tank and center pumps on the engines are feeding from the wings. IIRC at flaps up it switches to the center tank. The center pumps are over pressure and will over-ride the wing pumps.
I am trying to dig out some of my old training material and find out what kind of warnings you actually get.
The 787 system are very similar to the 777, so similar that Boeing tried to make it a common type rating but the Feds said no. I did my 777 type at Boeing and was told the the transition while I was there would take another 3 CBTs and 2 more sim session. I tried to get the additional type while I was there but the training center was backed up and could not entertain private customers at the time.
I worked for that place and I was supposed to be the Capt on that flight but I called in sick.
The F/E missed that on his walk around and it was an unapproved wash procedure...they put cardboard in the inlets.
Yup, I used to fly the Metro, you may know it as a C-26.
Shot the water many times.
Bum,bum,bum.....and a new theory is born. The center tank is empty, flaps are raised instead of gear....dual engine failure and rat deploys. Everything fits. Wing tanks go boom.
You obliviously do not understand how transport aircraft work.
Even if the center tank is empty and the pumps are on, the fuel is still coming from the wing tanks.
Its an over-pressure from the center tanks that stop the wing tanks from feeding.
Its all about positive pressure flow.
