Yeah, very little acceleration until the plane is well past the camera.
Something that went into the V1 calculation was incorrect, or changed, and the takeoff wasn't rejected right away when it was noticed? Like I said, seems like very little acceleration for a long time, almost like they had the thrust levers in the wrong spot. Easy RTO if you reject when you first notice. If you correct the mistake instead, now you're hitting V1 later than expected but you no longer have enough space to reject.
I looked at the leading edge and saw those. At a third look, I guess I see some flap, but it doesn’t look like much. But whadda I know about a 787, not much. But given runway length, altitude and a guess at weight, do you think not enough Flaps could have made a difference?Flaps and slats look extended to me.
Yep, I saw a photo where the left (?) mains left skidmarks that appeared to have ABS-esque pulses off the runway and through the overrun.
I wondered the exact same thing. I know prior accidents in the region have demonstrated that CRM doesn’t translate well into many Asian languages.
What's that mean, "Since you're new to this plane, follow me through on the controls?"
According to the flight crew's statements, they reported that the speed briefly stopped increasing before V1 then increased through V1 and again slowed.
Black box data will be interesting on this one.
news.tuoitre.vn
Where did you come up with that? Are you implying the thrust never be reduced?
Ya think?
Well, somone with more knowledge can correct me if that's wrong -- but in order to get the FAA certification, Boeing had to perform a test where the a/c is accelerated to V1, and then brought to a full stop using brakes only -- with takeoff thrust still applied. The the a/c must taxi for a certain amount of time after that with normal thrust setting for taxi. This usually destroys the entire landing gear assemblies, but the FAA requires it, I believe.
No, at V1 (plus a designated hesitation) the thrust is reduced to idle, speed brakes and ground spoilers deployed and maximum braking applied. The brakes and tires are at their replacement limits as well.
I'm looking at this in the context of this incident. The crew stated that acceleration paused twice during the takeoff roll. I was wondering if that could be explained by the brakes being fully applied through whatever means (malfunction or human error), or if fully applied brakes would have actually caused the a/c to decelerate instead.
One scenario that could possibly explain it is whether both pilots had their feet on the rudder pedals, say one was following the other intentionally (bad idea, so probably a stretch) for familiarization purposes (I've not heard all the experience levels of the four crewmembers, only three who do not seem to be candidates for this possibility). Say the pilot flying needs to apply right rudder and thus the left pedal comes aft while the other pilot has a foot on it, thus causing the toe brakes to be engaged on the left side.
Aren't you the one who posted how unqualified some Asian crews are? If someone had their feet up on the pedals, which in my experience flying a Turbo Commander I was taught to do to make use of the hydraulic steering through the toe brakes, if the wind pushed the rudder, the pedal would come back on one side and cause me to unintentionally apply brake due the geometry of my foot. It didn't take long to figure it out, though, and from then on I only used one foot at a time on the pedals. I never could taxi it the way the checkout pilot advised with both feet up on the rudder pedals.In the 727, 737, 747, 757 and 767 one would have to move your foot up to press the toe brakes. With heels on the floor the ball of the foot rest right about where the bottom of the pedal is.
Here's a pic of the 787 rudder pedals which follow the same pattern in other Boeings.
Moving the pedals right or left doesn't affect the toe brakes unless the foot moves up.