Posts about: "AvHerald" [Posts: 10 Pages: 1]

Luc Lion
June 13, 2025, 14:05:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11900549
Originally Posted by Ngineer
I didn\x92t think this could be a dual engine failure related accident until reports of RAT deployment started to gather steam.
A few years back a B787 previously had a dual engine shutdown after rollout when the TR was deployed too quickly and not allowing the air/GND logic time to transition to ground mode before the TR deployed. If the TCMA had inadvertently latched the TR deployment from the previous rollout then it theoretically could be possible to shutdown on transition back to air mode.
Anything is possible with these high tech machines.
This was handled in this PPrune thread:
ANA 787 Engines shutdown during landing
and in AvHerald:
https://avherald.com/h?article=4c2fe53a&opt=0

Just to clarify one point: the ANA B787 was powered with RR Trent 1000 engines while the Air India had GEnx-1B67 engines.
So, the Air India thrust failure may still have its source in the TCMA system, however, if it's the case, the logical path must be somewhat different than for the thrust reversers of the ANA airplane.

appruser
June 15, 2025, 01:40:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11902038
Originally Posted by nachtmusak
Question: regardless of the intricacies of various aircraft-specific systems, is it possible to establish from sheer aerodynamics what can/cannot have happened here? Or to put it another way - leaving aside any and all rumours, theories, plausible sights/sounds, and other extraneous details, and focusing solely on the flight path, can loss of thrust be conclusively ruled in or out? Several times now I've seen someone put forth the argument that it's impossible for the flight path to have been as short as it is if the flaps were retracted but the engines were still producing (even derated) takeoff thrust. It might be helpful to reach a consensus on whether this is true or not - if it's inconclusive then we're back to where we already are, but if a conclusion can be reached it would probably save everyone a lot of breath going down various theoretical rabbit holes.
IMO

In the CCTV video, the aircraft stops climbing at 00:28. 3 seconds after, it starts visibly descending. At peak altitude, using the 197ft wingspan as a measure, the altitude is around 200ft or below. The fireball is at 00:48, 17s after descent starts visibly.

Per google maps and the impact location mapped at avherald, the impact point is ~3990ft from the airport boundary road and about 4200ft from the midpoint of the runway threshold and the airport boundary road.

16:1 to 25:1 is what I could find for the 787 glide ratio range (unpowered) with main landing gear down and flaps 5. So the aircraft could cover 16 to 25 ft horizontally for every 1 ft of descent.

With a starting altitude of 200ft, that would imply it could have covered 3200ft.to 5000ft during unpowered descent.

The actual distance covered, around 4000ft, certainly seems to suggest that the descent was unpowered.






Tailspin Turtle
June 15, 2025, 03:47:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11902079
Originally Posted by appruser
IMO
In the CCTV video, the aircraft stops climbing at 00:28. 3 seconds after, it starts visibly descending. At peak altitude, using the 197ft wingspan as a measure, the altitude is around 200ft or below. The fireball is at 00:48, 17s after descent starts visibly.
Per google maps and the impact location mapped at avherald, the impact point is ~3990ft from the airport boundary road and about 4200ft from the midpoint of the runway threshold and the airport boundary road.
16:1 to 25:1 is what I could find for the 787 glide ratio range (unpowered) with main landing gear down and flaps 5. So the aircraft could cover 16 to 25 ft horizontally for every 1 ft of descent.
With a starting altitude of 200ft, that would imply it could have covered 3200ft.to 5000ft during unpowered descent.
The actual distance covered, around 4000ft, certainly seems to suggest that the descent was unpowered.




Thanks for those numbers. Note, however, the max 787 L/D, flaps and gear up , is reportedly 21 (best in class), which casts shade on the credibility of those L/Ds, certainly 25 with the gear down. What is your source? IF the actual L/D with the gear down and flaps 5 is somewhat lower than 16 and given that starting height and distance traveled are correct\x97and considering that the aircraft might not have been at the speed for max L/D with the gear down and the possibility of a headwind\x97then there must have been some thrust during the descent (it did look to me to be somewhat flatter in that video taken from one side than I would have expected with the gear down, a relatively slow initial speed, and no thrust) or the engines were spooling back up at the end.
limahotel
June 15, 2025, 15:45:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11902574
Seat sliding backward during rotation?

Do all 787s come with electrically adjustable seats, or is that still an option like on older models?

There\x92s a comment (user jepper) on AvHerald mentioning that the captain\x92s seat inadvertently slid backward (due to failure of the aft locking mechanism - is there such a thing on electrically adjustable seats?), which supposedly caused the captain to pull the thrust levers to idle during rotation. That said, I\x92m struggling to understand why his hand would even be on the thrust levers at Vr.
Furr
June 15, 2025, 17:27:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11902651
Glide range compatible with total loss of thrust?

Originally Posted by appruser
IMO

In the CCTV video, the aircraft stops climbing at 00:28. 3 seconds after, it starts visibly descending. At peak altitude, using the 197ft wingspan as a measure, the altitude is around 200ft or below. The fireball is at 00:48, 17s after descent starts visibly.

Per google maps and the impact location mapped at avherald, the impact point is ~3990ft from the airport boundary road and about 4200ft from the midpoint of the runway threshold and the airport boundary road.

16:1 to 25:1 is what I could find for the 787 glide ratio range (unpowered) with main landing gear down and flaps 5. So the aircraft could cover 16 to 25 ft horizontally for every 1 ft of descent.

With a starting altitude of 200ft, that would imply it could have covered 3200ft.to 5000ft during unpowered descent.

The actual distance covered, around 4000ft, certainly seems to suggest that the descent was unpowered.
A later comment cast doubt on the glide ratio. But flying below wingspan altitude, which it was, will extend glide range because of the ground effect. Plus the descent glide range may have started later than the airport boundary. It seems plausible that the glide range is compatible with total and rapid loss of thrust.
Musician
June 17, 2025, 09:56:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11904155
Bird strike ruled out

Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
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.
Agreed.
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.
A poster in the closed thread pointed out, properly I think, that the Times shouldn't be relied upon for presentation or interpretation of technical information. Like most general news organizations, their reporters and editors (mostly) just don't have the background to assess, filter and explain complex processes and technology. Unlike many, though, the Times can generally be relied upon to seek appropriate sources and report accurately what those sources say. I think it's very likely that Indian authorities have ruled out a bird strike, and I also think those authorities are competent to make that decision.
The problem with these reports is that the Indian AAIB and DGCA websites ( aaib.gov.in www.dgca.gov.in ) are mute on the subject of this crash, so even the DGCA inspection mandate quoted above is shakily sourced. On Friday, AvHerald had already updated with "On Jun 13th 2025 the DGCA reported, that initial preliminary findings rule out a bird strike as no bird carcasses have been found." I searched for a source for this, and found an "exclusive" which read, "The initial probe report of the Ahmedabad Air India crash, accessed by CNN-News18, reveals key findings from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation\x92s assessment led by the director of security." Other media simply quoted News18. There are two reasons to be skeptical here:
\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.
42go
July 12, 2025, 18:52:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11920747
Rather confusingly, AvHerald carries this today

"On Jul 12th 2025 (UTC) India's media report that the investigation is NOT focussing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure."

I have no idea what provenance to attach to that!
Herc708
July 13, 2025, 07:32:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11921086
Originally Posted by 42go
Rather confusingly, AvHerald carries this today

"On Jul 12th 2025 (UTC) India's media report that the investigation is NOT focussing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure."

I have no idea what provenance to attach to that!
Does the EAFR record the electrical / physical contact of the RUN / CUTOFF switch or, does it record a software 'EVENT' which has the same 'signature' as the RUN / CUTOFF switch being toggled. My thoughts are that the RUN / CUTOFF switch never moved but, the underlying software / hardware system mal-functioned triggering a scenario similar to both RUN / CUTOFF switches being triggered

Some Boeing SB's describe circuit board failures triggering all sorts of unexpected / unpredictable failures
paulross
July 13, 2025, 11:27:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11921247
AI171 Thread by Subject

I have rebuilt the site that organises this thread by subject here: https://paulross.github.io/pprune-th...171/index.html

It studies 3703 posts (and discards 1043 of them).

Changes:

- Add subjects: "Action slip", "AvHerald", "Human Factors", 'Pilot "Why did you cut off"'.
- Build threads up to July 13, 2025, 10:57:00 (built on July 13, 2025, 12:02:17).

Project is here: https://github.com/paulross/pprune-threads
Raise issues here https://github.com/paulross/pprune-threads/issues or PM me.
jimtx
July 18, 2025, 03:23:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924808
Originally Posted by tdracer
Yea DAR, it's time for another break. It's been days since anything really new has been posted - just hamster wheel arguments of the same theories, and even stuff that I thought had been thoroughly discredited, dead, and buried has come back to life (e.g. TCMA and the fuel condition switches both unilaterally changing state).

If something new comes up - then either reopen or someone can start a new one.
Yes, even the switch thing can go nowhere without "interim reports".
Spoiler
 


Last edited by T28B; 18th July 2025 at 13:32 . Reason: rant placed in the spoiler