Is the RAT automatically deployed on the B-787 when the computer determines it's needed?
As Larry mentioned double-engine failure, total loss of hydraulic pressure and a few other things would lead to RAT auto deployment.
I don't have any 787 experience, just the 737 and 757/767.
The 737 does not have a RAT as the flight controls have manual revision (handles like a truck, but works).
The purpose of the RAT is to provide flight controls after the loss of all hydraulic pressure. This would normally happen with a dual engine failure because you'd lose the engine-driven hydraulic pumps as well as the 3-phase A/C that runs the electric hydraulic pumps. There would be some logic that determines when those conditions are met which would result in the RAT automatically deploying. A backup manual deploy feature is also available in case the automatic system deploys. An inadvertent deployment of the RAT should not cause any significant problems, just a return to landing.
Someone mentioned birds and both engines out. Not totally reliable, but that’s what I heard.
If you can engines failures due to bird strikes you should have seen the intermittent flames out the tailpipe from compressor stalls. I didn't see that in the video.
Just looking at our 787 manual, Flaps 5 is the minimum for takeoff
I couldn’t see flaps in the video. NEVER heard of a flaps up takeoff, hard to believe there isn’t a takeoff configuration warning system, not that it can’t be over looked.
It depends on the airplane. I had heard, from someone who I thought knew, that the 787 could do Flaps 1 takeoffs. Now that I search, it looks like Flaps 5 is the minimum.
On Boeing, Flaps 1 is leading edge slats and zero trailing edge flaps. I've done Flaps 1 takeoffs on the 737 and DC9 variants (where it's called Slats extend, Flaps zero).
Using more flaps shortens your ground run but decreases your initial climb rate. Using less flaps extends your ground run but increases your initial climb. The flap setting for takeoff is determined as part of the takeoff performance calculations. On short runways, more flaps are generally used; on long ones, less. On Denver's long runways, Flaps 1 takeoffs are frequently used to allow a higher takeoff weight in the high density altitude. I did a Flaps 25 takeoff from Jackson, WY earlier this week due to the short runway.
As long as an authorized flap setting was used, we can't draw any conclusions without knowing what the performance calculations were.
If this was the case, would it have been better
Generally speaking, it is better to run off the end of the runway that liftoff then come right back down. See the L1011 crash at JFK of TWA 843.
In the high-speed regime, above about 100kts, you also reject for an engine failure, fire, windshear, or if the airplane is unable to fly. Above V1 (Takeoff decision speed) you don't reject. At that point, it is almost always safer to continue, work the problem inflight, and return to land. There can be severe outlier cases where that isn't the case but they are extremely rare. An MD80 with damaged elevator, from excessive wind gusts while parked, come to mind. Ameristar Charters Flight 9363. That above-V1 reject improved the outcome.
If takeoff roll is inadequate, hit the brakes and reverse thrusters and get it stopped by the end of the runway?
It's much more proceduralized than that, as I described above.
Is a severe weight & balance issue a real possibility here?
Unlikely to be balance as their pitch attitude was reasonable. ~15° to 20° pitch is normal for the initial climb.
Weight could have been an issue if they had run their performance calculations for a significantly lighter weight than their actual weight. That would produce a takeoff thrust setting that is too low and, possibly, an incorrect flap setting for the takeoff.
Not a 787 guy, is deploying the RAT a procedure one might follow if a loss of thrust is suspected?
Not for a loss of thrust. It would be for a loss of all hydraulic pressure and A/C electrical power which would be due to a double-engine failure. The RAT provides backup hydraulic power for the primary flight controls and backup electrical power for some of the instruments.
Short of pulling the fire extinguishers, how does one/how can both engines shut down so quickly?
Pulling the fire extinguishers only (if you could) does not shut down the engine. The fire retardant is not spray inside the engine, it is sprayed around the outside of the engine to put out the uncontained fire. Fire is normal inside the engine.
You can't pull the fire extinguisher only, though. You must first pull the fire handle which shuts all the spare valves for fuel, hydraulic fluid, and pneumatics to isolate the engine. This does not shut down the engine quickly. It takes some time for the fuel already past the spar valve to burn and the engine to flame out.
The shutdown the engine quickly, you move the engine start lever to CUTOFF. That shuts the fuel off at the engine and shuts down the engine immediately. There is never a reason to do that so quickly after takeoff. Even after an engine failure, it's several steps down the checklist.
If a lack of thrust, due to actions in the cockpit, was a factor, it's far more likely that the thrust was never pushed up high enough or that the thrust levers were pulled back.
Look at Palm 90, the Air Florida 737 that crash into the Potomac in 1982. They had set their thrust far too low due to bad EPR readings due to iced up pressure sensor probes in the engine. When their takeoff performance was in doubt, neither pilot pushed the thrust levers any higher. Significant additional thrust was available, they just didn't know it. Now, in such a situation, we're trained to push them up to the mechanical stop.
