The video upthread goes into specifics on the temperatures needed for vapor lock in a commercial airliner and is worth viewing.
Modern engines are much quieter than their predecessors and maybe couldn’t be heard above the RAT propeller noise. But I couldn’t hear them at all in the video.
Heheh, I saw a Stearman this morning. (The CAF is headquartered nearby)
Is the CAF unaffiliated with the Valiant Air Command in Titusville? I’m from that area and learned to fly at KTIX. They have a good collection, though not everything is airworthy.
My one regret moving to Australia is never making it to OshKosh.
I’m skeptical on vapour lock too but I guess we will know soon enough. Those pilots deserve a statute as heroes.
I agree there was no engine sound on the better video other than the RAT but the dust showed full power just after rotation …then nothing. 
Plausible 
I honestly don’t have any idea. But the CAF has branches all over the country, so I wouldn’t be surprise if they were associated in some way.
My favorite memory of it. Years ago they had a 25th anniversary of the Apollo program and had arranged an evening event at on open air stage with 15 of the astronauts in the program. The stories they told were epic. During the program there was a blimp from the Family Channel flying all around the theater. It looked like it was lit from the inside out like a giant light bulb. while all this was going on a Concord landed behind the crowd. The Moderator was smart enough not to compete against it with an audience full of pilots. He stopped the show and told everyone to turn around and watch it land.
Yeah, I don’t think anyone is married to the idea but it’s on the list of possible causes. If the plane made it to 600+ feet then any thermal issues in the fuel lines should have been lowered by fuel from tanks cooling them off.
I just can’t imagine a dual engine failure.
Well at least I got a flight on the Concorde - was a demo flight out of Toronto - half way across the Atlantic…what a rush when it took off.and see the fog over the wing as it rotated…see the faint curve of the earth through the tiny window and trying to register 2200 kph on the big speedo on the wall… 
••••
That would have been a treat to see that 25th celebration…it’s drifting into history …too few of my peers recall the real thing starting with Sputnik going over.
••••••
That last video made some sense as there is no arguing both engines had failed just after take off. An electrical failure that triggered the fuel pumps to cut off seems more plausible than actual engine failure. We shall see.
Engines should run fine w no electric fuel pumps. Especially w fullish tanks for a long flight.
My understanding it’s a gated valve that ONLY stays open when there is electrical power and slams shut when power is lost to reduce fire hazard. Apparently does not reopen when power is restored.
I envy you. I could have taken a ride on the same Concorde that came in during the Apollo celebration. And didn’t because I wanted to buy headsets.
While there may be a situation where that’s needed I would expect a bypass valve to override it.
How could it overide with no power available?
The one video explained that Boeing chose a different system than Airbus to manage fuel cutoff. Boeing had no redundancy, Airbus did.
You’d need to watch the video.
That’s what the RAT is for. Which deployed as it was supposed to. Your link is not a comprehensive breakdown of the 787’s systems.
I agree it is incomplete but if I recall there is a small gap when the RAT deploys before it restores power…enough of a gap for the fuel cutouts to occur…it seems plausible…more than most ideas for simultaneous engine power failure.
That’s a really wacky design if true. The airplane needs to be able to fly and the engines need to be able to run with zero electrons working anywhere. At least that was the historical design standard.
I’d be surprised anything could pass muster that included valves that close forever when all the electricity is off. I hate to suggest it, but if this turns out to be like MCAS, where Boeing goofed the design and was left in charge of approving their own designs, goofed or not, well … that is not going to go well. It would call into question literally every bit of 737MAX, 787, and 777X design approvals.
Must be some reason AirBus went with a different system. 
Seems to me he mentioned the pilots could restart the system …the idea it would never happen at take - off.
Needs more info and I’m not the guy…
This 787 pilot might be tho
Hello, this is my first post on pprune;
as a 787 pilot I’m also puzzled by this accident. All seem to agree that for some reason there was a complete electrical failure and RAT deployment. With a complete electrical failure all six main fuel pumps fail. Each engine also has two mechanically driven fuel pumps. On takeoff, if there is fuel in the center tank, it will be used first, pumped by the two center tank pumps.
My airline’s manuals don’t go into much detail, but I read on another site that if both the center tank pumps fail, the engine driven pumps aren’t able to suction feed well enough from the center tanks to sustain engine operation. If there was fuel in the center tanks, a complete electrical failure would soon lead to center tank fuel pumps failure (all fuel pumps failure as stated previously) and fuel starvation of both engines. A rescue from this situation would be an immediate selection of both center tank fuel pumps OFF (not if my airline’s non-normal checklists) and waiting for successful suction feed from the L and R main tanks to occur, this would take a number of seconds.
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/666581-air-india-ahmedabad-accident-12th-june-2025
Wow. That is an odd design by typical Boeing standards. Yes, normally you’re running all pumps and feeding from the center tank if it has fuel. Which would be the case for any long-haul takeoff.
But the idea there is valving which would prevent suction feed with center pumps switched on is just gobsmacking. Doubly so that such valves could fail closed in an electrical failure scenario.
The usual way that center tank fuel is preferentially consumed with all pumps on is simple: the center tank pumps put out a higher pressure than do the wing tank pumps. No valves needed. There are one-way check valves to prevent fuel flowing tank-to-tank, but those would not be an obstacle to suction feeding. By design. This is true in the 4 different Boeing and 2 MCD-D models I’ve flown. But I’ve not flown the 787.
From the 787 pilot’s post -
Might account for the inadequate thrust. The May day seemed not to indicate no thrust.
I just read my copy of my former carrier’s 787 manual. It says there are separate suction feed lines directly from the main tanks to the engines. it also says the center pumps are the typical higher-pressure override pumps like other Boeings.
Which further muddies the water about any valves which close under electrical failure or any connection whatsoever between center tank fuel pumps and suction feed.
It is generally true that modern pilot manuals really scrimp on details about how systems are built. Instead they present a simplified model of the actual system that makes it easy to grasp normal operations and that should not be invalidated by expected failure modes. But which leaves one really unable to reason about novel failure modes. Largely by design as there’s generally not time to do so.
Punchline here being that pretty much everybody is guessing. One would need the detailed maintenance manuals, and the training to use them, to really grok what failure scenarios are possible, much less which one occurred.
As a general rule, having dual low altitude engine failure is not a survivable accident for most / all of the occupants. Those pilots were screwed.
Sully and USAir 1548 was the exception that proved that rule. Luck handed him a situation where a happy path to an immediate survivable forced landing did actually exist. Then personal skill and preparedness on both pilots’ parts let them not only find that solution, but implement it correctly in the brief time available. Had his scenario started sooner in the same flight, or had they departed a different runway from LGA, or departed from a different airport, the outcome would almost certainly have been much less happy.