Page Links: First 1 2 Next Last Index Page
fdr
2025-06-13T01:14:00 permalink Post: 11899895 |
Firstly, condolences to all those involved.
Secondly the above is a load of rubbish, as someone who also 'trains and checks' pilots and also has many years of Safety Investigation within large airlines it is a semi regular occurrence to depart with incorrect or no data. Tiger took off in Sydney with NO data in the FMGC, Singapore had a tail strike in AKL after inserting the ZFW as the TOW Emirates almost crashed in MEL for similar reasons. Not saying that this happened here Air NZ a few years ago almost put a 787 in the water out of Rarotonga as they had 100' in the FCU, took off, engaged autopilot and the aircraft pitched down and thrust came off, pilots recovered it at 60agl. Emirates has done similar, so these things happen. Clearly we don't know what happened here but I think it fair to assume it went wrong at rotate given the gear stayed down which would suggest a distraction at that point.
PPRuNe, mate, and that gating has long since ended - since about when Danny sold the site.
I empathize with your frustration, and you have no idea how much has already been scrubbed. There are some wise engineers, ATC pros, and GE/RR experts who are not pilots but who do post here, and whom we'll not bar from discussion. Do you understand why? (Yes, we also have examples of Sturgeon's Law in action as well). A low altitude in the MCP can become pretty interesting, as will a TAT probe failure to the ATR thrust limit. Both cases will have the thrust levers moving back rapidly. There is no obvious failure of the engines at this point save the question that the RAT may be deployed. A transient electrical fault tripping the logic for the RAT is hard to imagine, but that would possibly end up with an ATR fault and power coming back to idle. Fuel contamination is not impossible, but it is improbable, the engines would have been on their TO configuration from the engine start, and the taxi and turnaround takes enough time to flush the fuel lines, being longer than the selected tank sampling time that sits behind the SOPs. Boeing aircraft are easier for the crew to detect anomalous thrust commands compared to the Airbus, however, if the RAT is out... then more was happening. The flaps are in the correct position, we are looking at a time critical failure for the crew, they appear to have around 10 seconds between onset and impact, and they have rotated the aircraft in the later stages, as any reasonable pilot would do, and that certainly does not indicate a crew initiated problem on the available information. Unlawful interference is unlikely, given the RT calls that have been made. The IDGA AAIB is not known for rapid response, this event is of international importance, it appears that it is being treated as such by the authorities involved. The EAFRs on the 787 will tell all soon, and we need that information, this is a globally important aircraft type.
Spoiler
18 users liked this post. |
aox
2025-06-13T01:45:00 permalink Post: 11899914 |
The IDGA AAIB is not known for rapid response, this event is of international importance, it appears that it is being treated as such by the authorities involved. The EAFRs on the 787 will tell all soon, and we need that information, this is a globally important aircraft type.
2 users liked this post. |
AirScotia
2025-06-14T16:36:00 permalink Post: 11901633 |
I read that the 'AAIB' will be investigating. I presume that's AAIB (India)? Do we know what facilities the AAIB (India) has for reading FDRs?
|
A0283
2025-06-14T16:41:00 permalink Post: 11901642 |
reported were India AAIB with support from NTSB, earlier report was about UK AAIB ref the 50 plus UK passengers, other report mentioned Boeing and GE supporting.
|
ATC Watcher
2025-06-14T17:03:00 permalink Post: 11901662 |
The investigation is being led by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India in accordance with ICAO Annex 13. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as the respective State of Design for the aircraft and engines is expected to participate
|
Locking Nut
2025-06-14T20:59:00 permalink Post: 11901828 |
Here\x92s an unprocessed frame from the video
The are now numerous social media sources for copies of the flyby/crash smartphone video. Many of them are actually a repost (or possibly multiple independently made iterations) of a second generation recording - made via a smartphone filming the original video playing on a monitor and via the monitor's (likely very poor) speakers. This version has been incorrectly assumed to be (and described as derived from) "CCTV" in some posts. The "screen recorded" nature of this particular version of the video is obvious from the camera movement (including showing the bezel and edge of the screen it is filming), moire patterns etc. The original (or rather, what *appears* to be a first generation, but compressed, copy of the original) version of the video has *also* been posted on social media (and thereafter, here) with both then being dissemanated across multiple social media accounts and at varying video resolution and compression ratios. There are further posts of the "screen recorded" copy of the video in which AI enhancement and other filters have been used to try and "improve" the video quality. Anyone even attempting to filter the video in that way doesn't understand the way such filters operate (i.e. they are trying to make the picture "more watchable" rather than sharpen it/make it more *accurate*), and anyone trying to draw conclusions from such "enhanced" versions needs to think carefully about what they are looking at. The framegrab you have posted above is clearly from the "screen recorded" video. The original version (with its attendant much higher video *and* audio quality) *does* appear to show an object beneath the airframe where the RAT hub would be - and also - albeit only for a handful of frames - appears to show the motion blurred impeller disc. The fact that this artifact is only visible for a few frames is explicable via the heavily compressed digital video but it is consistent. The "full" video itself is also longer than the "screen recorded" version and starts earlier in the incident timeline. And a distinctive propeller-type beat *is* audible, both before *and* after the aircraft comes into frame, at near identical pitch to the various examples we've seen of a 787 passing a camera with the turbine deployed. One would imagine that the first generation copy of the video as it exists on the device that recorded it is noticeably better quality than *any* of the downsampled/overcompressed social media versions we have seen. And one also sincerely hopes that the Indian AAIB are already in possession of it. The prevalence of smartphones and social media means this sort of footage is more immediately accessible and more easily dissemanated than at any time in the past. However, anyone trying to draw solid conclusions from a clip posted on social media - especiallly with limited quality, and even more, "enhancement", needs to remember the limitations of what they're seeing. (Not a pilot, but a former aero electronics engineer with significant subsequent digital forensic experience) 13 users liked this post. |
za9ra22
2025-06-15T13:24:00 permalink Post: 11902469 |
I agree. I cannot imagine the pressure investigators are under right now if the apparent cause is pointing to another systemic failure from Boeing. In the wake of the MCAS and Door Plug design & QC debacles, another Boeing issue would be a catastrophe for the company, with attendant consequences to the USA's national security. Because of that, as with MCAS and the Door Plug, it will likely be slow-walked & obfuscated as long as possible...
1 user liked this post. |
Callisthenes
2025-06-15T15:33:00 permalink Post: 11902561 |
A flight recorder was found 28 hours after the accident, so it's been in the AAIB's possession for nearly 2 days, but not a word has been said about its physical condition. I recall in other recent accidents that the physical condition has been publicised quickly, perhaps not least to manage the public's hunger for information.
This leads me to suspect that it is in good condition, has already been downloaded, what happened (if not why) is clear, and it is embarrassing. In an ICAO Annex 13 investigation, interested states and experts are invited to participate. In this investigation, investigators from the US and UK are participating (there may be others as well), and experts from Boeing (and possibly component manufacturers) have also been invited. The lead investigators will often hold off on recovering data from the CVR and FDR, or examining the data, until there's agreement between the interested parties on how to go about doing it. With the distances involved, travel logistics could easily delay examining the data by a couple of days. In some cases, the board leading the investigation doesn't have the internal expertise to recover data from the CVR and FDR. In these cases, agreement needs to be reached on which technical experts are going to take the lead on recovery. I don't know if the Indian AAIB has internal expertise or if they need to find external expertise to recover the data. In some cases the CVR and FDR can be damaged and technical experts need time to come up with a plan to repair the recorders and recover the data. Annex 13, Article 5.12 prohibits the release of CVRs and analysis/opinions from FDRs, unless the investigators decide that the benefits of the disclosure would outweigh the adverse impact that release would have on future investigations. This rule exists to encourage full cooperation in investigations from participants in the industry, including pilots and operators. India's accident investigation rules are consistent with Annex 13: see section 17 of the Aircraft Investigation of Accidents and Incidents Rules, 2017. So even if the CVR and FDR have been analyzed, it may well be that information isn't being disclosed to the public because they haven't reached any definitive conclusions yet that they're confident will end up in the final report. 17 users liked this post. |
Pinkman
2025-06-16T09:17:00 permalink Post: 11903301 |
With the information we have accumulated so far, is the following a possible scenario? Normal departure up to VR, then a total electrical failure at lift off (possibly as the ground/air logic switches to air.) All hydraulics lost and cabin lights flicker plus RAT deploys. All fuel boost pumps fail so engines only have suction feed. Engines roll back. The aircraft seems to me to have gone too far to have suffered a total loss of thrust at lift off. There must have been some energy being provided by the engines? Such a system failure "can't happen", of course but nothing is impossible!
|
Lord Bracken
2025-06-16T09:34:00 permalink Post: 11903315 |
Quick example, EK 521 accident in DXB:
1.11 Flight Recorders The Aircraft was equipped with a Honeywell sold-state flight data recorder (SSFDR) and an L-3 Communication cockpit voice recorder (CVR). Both flight recorders were found mounted in their original locations on the Aircraft, with external signs of prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures. However, temperature indicators within each crash-survivable memory unit indicated that the memory components themselves had not been exposed to significantly elevated temperatures. The flight recorders were sent to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) facility in the United Kingdom for data retrieval in the presence of the Investigation Committee.
1.11. Flight Recorders 1.11.1. The aircraft was equipped with solid-state DFDR and solid-state CVR. DFDR and CVR were recovered from the accident site and taken to BEA, France by Investigator In-charge (IIC) from AAIB, Pakistan on 1st June, 2020. Despite having crash and heat effects, both recorders were successfully downloaded by BEA experts.
4 users liked this post. |
Musician
2025-06-17T09:56:00 permalink Post: 11904155 |
Bird strike ruled out
It seems pretty unlikely that a bird strike that took out both of those
very big
engines simultaneously would not have been fairly obvious in ways that nearby observers (e.g., the crew, ATC, airport personnel?) would have noticed. Possible, of course, but I don't think we've seen any evidence that points in that direction.
Also, I expect the airport would've sent a car out to check the runway for evidence. Since we agree that the engine failure occurred near rotation, and that rotation occured well inside the runway ( see e.g. fdr here , or the granular ADS-B data), that car would've encountered a bloody mess, and we'd all know about it by now.
Also, for what it's worth, the
Times of London
June 15 story "
New clues point to engine failure for cause of Air India plane crash
" cited here in the closed thread includes this:
The Indian authorities indicated that a bird strike has been ruled out.
\x95 first, we have seen fake reports circulating; \x95 secondly, News18 rates badly on mediabiasfactcheck.com: "Launched in 2005, CNN-News18 (formerly CNN-IBN) is an English-language Indian news television channel based in India. We also rate them Questionable based on a poor fact-checking record with numerous false claims." That leads me to consider that this "exclusive" might be sloppy reporting based on a fake\x97I have no way to know whether it is legitimate or not. At this point, I feel we can only rely on information being official if it's published through an official website, or if there's independent reporting or a video clip from an official press briefing. I do believe the accident was not caused by an animal strike, for many reasons. But I wouldn't believe it based on unsourced reporting alone. 4 users liked this post. |
T28B
2025-06-17T18:43:00 permalink Post: 11904553 |
1. We can't afford him, even if we could do that.
![]() 2. Attempting to enforce a writing style isn't going to work. I was offered a link to an official report (allegedly by the AAIB in India) this morning from a retired pilot friend: he said it was dated 15 June 2025. I checked the official site and found nothing. I went to his link and got a 404 result. Even professionals (he's only been retired a couple of years) can be taken in by the avalanche of "information" running around. 6 users liked this post. |
DaveReidUK
2025-06-17T20:00:00 permalink Post: 11904606 |
I was referring to CVR/FDRs in general being specialist equipment requiring specialist facilities to process. In any case, I would be very interested to find out where those from this accident are read. It appears from a post upthread there are new facilities in New Dehli that could be used. Having said that, for the EK 521 accident in Dubai the recorders were sent to the UK for analysis, despite a "flight data recorder centre" in Abu Dhabi being opened (again with much fanfare) by the UAE GCAA five years before the occurrence.
3 users liked this post. |
OldnGrounded
2025-06-17T20:23:00 permalink Post: 11904625 |
AAIB sets up flight recorders laboratory
New Delhi, Apr 9 (PTI) Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has set up a flight recorders laboratory that will help it in carrying out more effective probes into accidents.
Civil Aviation Minister K Rammohan Naidu inaugurated the laboratory in the AAIB premises in the national capital on Wednesday. 2 users liked this post. |
Lord Bracken
2025-06-17T20:24:00 permalink Post: 11904626 |
I have no misgivings, I\x92m just challenging the assertion that because the recorders have been found, they have already been read. There\x92s any number of reasons why they may not have been read yet, in India or anywhere else.
1 user liked this post. |
unworry
2025-06-17T21:35:00 permalink Post: 11904689 |
2 users liked this post. |
tdracer
2025-06-17T21:41:00 permalink Post: 11904694 |
I was referring to CVR/FDRs in general being specialist equipment requiring specialist facilities to process. In any case, I would be very interested to find out where those from this accident are read. It appears from a post upthread there are new facilities in New Dehli that could be used. Having said that, for the EK 521 accident in Dubai the recorders were sent to the UK for analysis, despite a "flight data recorder centre" in Abu Dhabi being opened (again with much fanfare) by the UAE GCAA five years before the occurrence.
Usually when I hear of data recorders going back to the US NTSB or the recorder manufacturer, it's because the crash damage is such that specialized equipment is needed to download the data. The recorder in the tail would likely have little damage. While the AAIB may have held off on downloading the recorders until all the major players are present, it's been several days - I'd expect everyone who matters is already there. So I think it is reasonable to believe that the investigators have done a download and have had at least a preliminary look at the data. If there is a smoking gun, they probably already know (and the longer we don't hear something regarding the rest of the 787 fleet, or at least the GEnx powered fleet, the less likely it is that they suspect a systemic problem with the aircraft and/or engine). However the proviso that I posted earlier about potential data loss/corruption due to a sudden shutdown still applies - so maybe the data simply isn't on the recorder. As has already been posted, EMI is highly unlikely - the current cert requirements for HIRF are quite high, and due to the composite airframe construction of the 787, the lighting requirements are much higher than for conventional aluminum aircraft (the higher resistance of the composite airframe results is higher lightning induced currents). FDR has suggested a large slug of water hitting critical aircraft electronics at rotation - it is possible that resultant electrical short circuits could falsely signal the engines that the switches are in cutoff. Highly unlikely that it would do that to both engines, but possible. Then again, all the other plausible explanations are highly unlikely, so... BTW, I do have a life outside PPRuNe - and I'm going to be traveling the next several days, with limited to non-existent internet access. So don't be surprised if I'm not responding posts or PMs. 16 users liked this post. |
Magplug
2025-06-18T10:17:00 permalink Post: 11905107 |
Boeing will safeguard Boeing's interests, the NTSB will safeguard American interests. If the Indian AAIB start dragging their feet over publishing their initial report in an effort to protect Indian interests then Boeing and the NTSB will make a joint press release to the effect that the aircraft was serviceable right up to the point of impact. They have done it before.
4 users liked this post. |
PC767
2025-06-18T15:31:00 permalink Post: 11905336 |
"
On JUn 18th 2025 the DGCA stated, that the inspection of Air India's Dreamliners did not find any major safety deficiency. Aircraft and maintenance were found in compliance with existing safety standards."
https://avherald.com/h?article=528f27ec&opt=0 Does the statement imply that something noted on the crashed aircraft was not present on the remaining aircraft. If the investigative team are aware of what happened, are they also aware of why it happened. As noted elsewhere - surely far too soon to be certain. If they are not aware of the why or how, how can they be certain there are no safety deficiencies. Similarily, aircraft and maintainence comply with existing standards. It may well have been the case that existing standards were applied to the crashed aircraft. Does the statement imply that there was nothing wrong with either the Boeing aircraft or the Air India standards. What about the GE engines, are they considered part of the description of both aircraft and standards. Or was the entire exercise merely a PR wash which achieved nothing other than optics that 787s and Air India are safe because standards are being maintained and aeroplanes have no issues. I'm tempted to read nothing into the statement because it came from the DGCA rather than the AAIB of India. 1 user liked this post. |
DBYO
2025-06-18T16:29:00 permalink Post: 11905383 |
Fleet checks
An interesting statement.
Does the statement imply that something noted on the crashed aircraft was not present on the remaining aircraft. If the investigative team are aware of what happened, are they also aware of why it happened. As noted elsewhere - surely far too soon to be certain. If they are not aware of the why or how, how can they be certain there are no safety deficiencies. Similarily, aircraft and maintainence comply with existing standards. It may well have been the case that existing standards were applied to the crashed aircraft. Does the statement imply that there was nothing wrong with either the Boeing aircraft or the Air India standards. What about the GE engines, are they considered part of the description of both aircraft and standards. Or was the entire exercise merely a PR wash which achieved nothing other than optics that 787s and Air India are safe because standards are being maintained and aeroplanes have no issues. I'm tempted to read nothing into the statement because it came from the DGCA rather than the AAIB of India. It was surely a worthwhile exercise, whatever the outcome. It hasn\x92t come up trumps but it was at least possible that inspecting the other aircraft might have thrown up a clue to the crash. It would be interesting to know whether the crashed aircraft was used for parts around the Covid slowdown and whether this was exceptional or whether other inspected aircraft were similarly treated. |