• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Boeing problems...

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
igor_kavinski said:
Maybe not under the seat per se but maybe squatted on the floor and pulled the tray over his head?
Click to expand...
Have you ever been on a commercial airliner? You barely have enough room for your feet much less your body. It's basically impossible to squat on the floor as a full grown adult. Even most children would have problems.
 
NWRMidnight said:
Have you ever been on a commercial airliner? You barely have enough room for your feet much less your body. It's basically impossible to squat on the floor as a full grown adult. Even most children would have problems.
Click to expand...
I was surmising. Seems he was near the emergency exit door and when the plane broke apart, he was flung out instead of getting baked inside.

I've been on a plane. I'm not tall (hardly 163 cm) so one way it could work for me would be, crouch down, butt against the back of the seat in front of mine, head on my seat and the tray over my head. Could afford "some" protection. I don't know. Simulations required to be sure.
 
igor_kavinski said:
I was surmising. Seems he was near the emergency exit door and when the plane broke apart, he was flung out instead of getting baked inside.

I've been on a plane. I'm not tall (hardly 163 cm) so one way it could work for me would be, crouch down, butt against the back of the seat in front of mine, head on my seat and the tray over my head. Could afford "some" protection. I don't know. Simulations required to be sure.
Click to expand...
Sorry to break it to you, but the most likely thing that would happen in that scenario is a few tons of steel, plastic, fabric, and human come behind you at 200-400mph and turn you into layer 37 of an aircraft lasagne.
 
Boeing is clearly a decrepit state welfare case but so far I’m not convinced they were the problem. This seems to be bad maintenance practice from what I’ve seen.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Sorry to break it to you, but the most likely thing that would happen in that scenario is a few tons of steel, plastic, fabric, and human come behind you at 200-400mph and turn you into layer 37 of an aircraft lasagne.
Click to expand...
Possible but let's assume that it was just an impact and it caused people's heads to bang against the seat's back in front of them, causing neck injuries or worse. In my case, the tray would fly off, hit the back of the seat and come crashing down on my head, probably giving me a nasty bump and my entire back would strike the soft back of the seat against which I'm leaning so maybe possible bad back but maybe nothing too serious?
 
igor_kavinski said:
Possible but let's assume that it was just an impact and it caused people's heads to bang against the seat's back in front of them, causing neck injuries or worse. In my case, the tray would fly off, hit the back of the seat and come crashing down on my head, probably giving me a nasty bump and my entire back would strike the soft back of the seat against which I'm leaning so maybe possible bad back but maybe nothing too serious?
Click to expand...
At aircraft speeds, even takeoff speeds, your head disconnects rather easily from your torso.
 
fskimospy said:
Boeing is clearly a decrepit state welfare case but so far I’m not convinced they were the problem. This seems to be bad maintenance practice from what I’ve seen.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, or pilot error, but that seems pretty unlikely. The # of alerts and alarms that would have gone off would have alerted them to their problem. I don't "think" this is a plane problem, but who am I guess. In one of the videos you can even hear the RAT which indicates the pilot was trying everything to recover.
 
IronWing said:
What is RAT? 🐀
Click to expand...
Ram Air Turbine. They are used in emergencies in cases where there may be some kind of engine/power failure. It almost sounds like the 747 becomes a prop plane.

aeroptimum.com

Ram Air Turbine: An In-Depth Look at Its Function and Applications %%sep%% aeroptimum

The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) is a crucial component in modern aviation, providing emergency power and hydraulic pressure in the event of an aircraft system failure. This article d elves into the intricacies of the RAM, exploring its design, applications, and the role it plays in various...
aeroptimum.com
 
igor_kavinski said:
Is that tiny fan able to float a huge plane with no engines?
Click to expand...
From my understanding it is able to help one, or two engines, under very specific circumstances, to gain enough power to create lift to keep an aircraft from going down.

This was not one of those circumstances. Though it does suggest the pilots were trying, which is good.
 
My theory is double engine failure, how that would occur on a modern 787 I have no idea (I’ve seen speculation of fuel problems as a potential cause). In the video clip of it flying closely overhead I do not hear any engines just what is likely the buzzing of the RAT. The engines would have been roaring at full thrust had they been operational.

Double engine failure is very rare. The only other plausible theory I’ve seen is a single engine failure where the pilot or copilot then accidentally shut down the remaining engine instead of the failing one. They wouldn’t have had time to start it back up.

It’s a huge tragedy, I feel for those people slowly dropping out of the sky. Not a way I’d want to go.

And if it was a double engine failure, it occurred during an extremely narrow window of time where recovery would have been impossible. A little sooner and they could have aborted the takeoff. A little later and they could have gotten enough altitude to perform an emergency landing. If they had only lost one engine they should have been able to complete takeoff and perform an emergency landing.

And then somehow a passenger not only survived, but walked out of that crash? There’s so many things that are against the odds here. The black box should reveal everything. I feel so sorry for everyone onboard and on the ground that was impacted.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
From my understanding it is able to help one, or two engines, under very specific circumstances, to gain enough power to create lift to keep an aircraft from going down.

This was not one of those circumstances. Though it does suggest the pilots were trying, which is good.
Click to expand...
The RAT is functionally a backup generator. It can be activated to provide power to the hydraulic and electrical systems so you can maintain control of the aircraft and potentially restart the engines.

It doesn’t produce thrust, it’s like a pop-out wind turbine.
 
yottabit said:
Double engine failure is very rare. The only other plausible theory I’ve seen is a single engine failure where the pilot or copilot then accidentally shut down the remaining engine instead of the failing one. They wouldn’t have had time to start it back up.
Click to expand...
Plausible enough for me. Rookie co-pilot maybe?
 
yottabit said:
The RAT is functionally a backup generator. It can be activated to provide power to the hydraulic and electrical systems so you can maintain control of the aircraft and potentially restart the engines.

It doesn’t produce thrust, it’s like a pop-out wind turbine.
Click to expand...
Exactly. In fact it robs the plane of kinetic energy (slows it down making it fall faster) to turn that energy into hydraulic and electric energy, so as you said, the crew can hopefully maintain control via the control surfaces and maybe restart an engine.
 
yottabit said:
The RAT is functionally a backup generator. It can be activated to provide power to the hydraulic and electrical systems so you can maintain control of the aircraft and potentially restart the engines.

It doesn’t produce thrust, it’s like a pop-out wind turbine.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I sometimes get confused when I see engine power (electricity) and engine power (thrust) used interchangeably.
 
Paratus said:
Exactly. In fact it robs the plane of kinetic energy (slows it down making it fall faster) to turn that energy into hydraulic and electric energy, so as you said, the crew can hopefully maintain control via the control surfaces and maybe restart an engine.
Click to expand...

They are also of course less effective at low airspeed. Even at cruse speed I think on many aircraft they will only power the essential avionics and provide some pretty limited hydraulic power. AFAIK most emergency procedures tell flight crews to start the APU after trying to restart the engines first so that they can better control the aircraft with greater hydraulic power.
 
Dulanic said:
Or bad fuel? I've read that as a possibility but its all guessing until they look deeper into it.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, the "bad fuel" possibility is what could lead to the double engine failure. Or at least one of the things that could.

I've also heard the theory about flaps/control surfaces not being properly deployed as well. To me, that one seems most likely.
 
Pens1566 said:
From my understanding, the "bad fuel" possibility is what could lead to the double engine failure. Or at least one of the things that could.

I've also heard the theory about flaps/control surfaces not being properly deployed as well. To me, that one seems most likely.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we can only guess, i mean it could had been a flock of birds taking out the engines for all we know. The flaps not being put in position could be due to a power/hydraulics concern, so guess we will just wait for the reports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top