This post may contain Adult content.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Hinckley ·
I know nothing about a 787 But, I would be surprised if there weren't a low fuel warning .
SandWitch · 26-30, F
@Hinckley
There wouldn't be a low fuel warning if they took off with the remaining fuel in tanks from the previous landing the aircraft had made. This is because the previous flight would not have landed in a low fuel condition. They would typically land in a 'minimum fuel' condition, but not a low fuel condition.
If they took off without refueling however, the minimum fuel in tanks would all rush to the back of the tanks as the nose was lifted into the air on takeoff which would cause fuel starvation to occur if the fuel pickup points within the tanks suddenly became uncovered as the fuel rushed to the back of the tanks, thereby causing instant and simultaneous engine flameouts to occur.
In this accident, BOTH engines failed simultaneously which is always a fuel starvation issue, considering there was no smoke coming from the engines in the video as it glided to touchdown.
There wouldn't be a low fuel warning if they took off with the remaining fuel in tanks from the previous landing the aircraft had made. This is because the previous flight would not have landed in a low fuel condition. They would typically land in a 'minimum fuel' condition, but not a low fuel condition.
If they took off without refueling however, the minimum fuel in tanks would all rush to the back of the tanks as the nose was lifted into the air on takeoff which would cause fuel starvation to occur if the fuel pickup points within the tanks suddenly became uncovered as the fuel rushed to the back of the tanks, thereby causing instant and simultaneous engine flameouts to occur.
In this accident, BOTH engines failed simultaneously which is always a fuel starvation issue, considering there was no smoke coming from the engines in the video as it glided to touchdown.