Page Links: First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last Index Page
| appruser
July 15, 2025, 22:09:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923308 |
That's on the EAFR. With their headsets on, are B787 pilots even able to hear the engines on the flight deck, over the wind noise and their headset sidetone? Genuinely asking - I don't know.
|
| DutchRoll
July 16, 2025, 05:22:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923430 |
Well..... having read through the discussion here and looked at the critical info in the prelim report, this former Boeing (now current Airbus) pilot is confident the elephant can safely hide in his dark little corner for a while yet.
Lots of stiff competition for "most implausible theory" going on but I think my favourite so far is "could've mistakenly moved fuel control switches to cutoff when going for gear up selection". Geezus. 🤦♂️ Plenty of others, including engineering related ones, around this level of plausibility too. The phrase recorded on the CVR by one of the pilots involving questioning why the fuel control switches were moved to cutoff needs to be taken very, very seriously. |
| fdr
July 16, 2025, 05:25:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923431 |
With the image of the aircraft from the SE corner of the airport, it is pretty clear that the aircraft was performing admirably in compliance with Part 25 Subpart B up until the time that the music stopped. The rotate rate in the earlier video from the NE camera is nominal, and the SE camera shows a height and position along the runway that would have been appropriate for the certified performance. The operation was nominal until it went pear shaped, and at that point, even ol' Chuck Yeager hisself would have had a bad day too.
Well..... having read through the discussion here and looked at the critical info in the prelim report, this former Boeing (now current Airbus) pilot is confident the elephant can safely hide in his dark little corner for a while yet.
Lots of stiff competition for "most implausible theory" going on but I think my favourite so far is "could've mistakenly moved fuel control switches to cutoff when going for gear up selection". Geezus. 🤦♂️ Plenty of others, including engineering related ones, around this level of plausibility too. The phrase recorded on the CVR by one of the pilots involving questioning why the fuel control switches were moved to cutoff needs to be taken very, very seriously. Last edited by fdr; 16th July 2025 at 05:41 . |
| jpsingh
July 16, 2025, 07:14:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923479 |
The deployment of RAT has announced Double Engine failure. Also the AutoStart of APU pretty much indicates the same thing . Release of CVR will definitely help.
|
| sabenaboy
July 16, 2025, 07:16:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923480 |
|
| DutchRoll
July 16, 2025, 07:48:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923494 |
There are still possible factors that would have resulted in the information that has been provided to date that do not involve elephants. It is unreasonable to withhold judgement when there are enough curiosities in the event to keep the investigators busy? The issue of switch locking problems necessitates an in depth understanding of what that may have resulted in. That 2 switches would have the same fault type at the same time is.... unlikely, but stuff happens. Losing a Concorde due to a titanium fillet on a reverser cowl coming adrift on a preceding aircraft is also, stuff happens. Power levers walking back on some types is also a stuff happens event, one that should not occur, it comes up about every second year, and has done for decades. A single point failure remains the likely cause of this disaster, and there are only really 2 that make any sense; a failure of the electrical circuits for the fuel switches, which there is only one remote possible cause, and a cognitive/overt act by the crew.....
I have to totally disagree with that. Publicly released CVR transcripts are edited to remove things like swearing, shouts, screams, etc. Basically stuff which investigators consider not directly relevant to the chain of events in the cockpit and determining actions taken or not taken. Nor do I necessarily trust that brief transcript released is all that was said. If one pilot had said "why did you move the switches to cutoff you *******!!!!!" and if he had shouted it, none of that tone or colourful language would be in the public transcript. You would get exactly what was released in this case. |
| tdracer
July 17, 2025, 07:46:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924194 |
I'm confident I'm far from alone. I do take objection to the connotations of your suggestion that my motivation is to "just to satisfy [my] curiosity". If you read what I wrote, my motivation has nothing to do with anything as trivial as satisfying my curiosity. But I'm assuming you meant no offence.
However, the 'bottom line' is that you're almost certainly correct and this investigation will carry on for however long the investigators choose to take, while choosing to reveal or withhold whatever they chose to reveal or withhold, and ICAO will continue to do the things that bureaucracies tend to do. In the meantime, the thousands of family members and friends of the deceased will be at the mercy of speculation and leaks of unknown origin. Early releases of unvetted data can not only cause unproductive public reactions, it can result in external pressures being applied to the investigative team that can adversely affect their ability to come to the correct cause. Furthermore, I cannot recall a single preliminary report that contained anything like an actual CVR transcript. Those are routinely included in the final report, but not preliminary reports. About the only time you'll see unvalidated information is when there is a suggestion that there is an imminent air safety threat - in which case appropriate emergency inspections are ordered (sometimes even aircraft groundings). I have a pretty vivid memory: In the aftermath of the Chicago DC-10 crash when the engine ripped off the wing, a couple of days later some department head (I don't remember if he was FAA or NTSB) stood on the podium holding a broken bolt and pronounced that it was the reason the engine came off. Unvetted information that turned out to be complete BS - but resulted in massive outrage that 'the engine was held on by one bolt' - more BS. Fortunately it didn't derail the investigation - and even had a silver lining in that the order bolt inspections lead to the discovery of the actual pylon structural damage that had caused the engine mount to fail. Similarly, after the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster - I watched the clueless head of NASA stand in from of the TV cameras and state as fact that a piece of foam could never have punched a hole in the Columbia wing (obviously never studied that mass*velocity squared thing) - which of course we again know was complete BS. I've been involved in a few fatal accident investigations - the big one being the Lauda 767, where I was called in early. I was one of the first people to see the FADEC NVM readout that made it painfully obvious that the T/R had deployed at 23,000 ft. - something that we didn't think could happen. We (Boeing) had missed something, and a lot of people had died as a result. It really bothered me (more than once during that investigation, when I got home from work, I just sat down and drank a large glass of Scotch). And not being able to discuss any of it with anyone not involved in the investigation just made it worse. But I knew the rules, understood why there where there, and I followed them. |
| Mrshed
July 17, 2025, 07:51:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924197 |
I think the rest of that article adds nothing ("experts believe" etc), but that specific element on CVR, if true (which I suspect it is) would confirm which pilot said what (which in fairness is what has been broadly assumed for some time here anyway). I don't think it actually confirms anything else at this stage, perhaps other than the reported "panic" of the PF. The calmness of the PM could be attributed to a number of things - yes, perhaps intention and knowledge, but equally perhaps just experience. It all starts to contribute to a picture admittedly but no smoking gun here I don't think. It's the rest of the CVR outside of this conversation that would start to more definitively build the picture at this stage. |
| Icarus2001
July 17, 2025, 08:06:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924205 |
As I said very early on in the other thread about this accident, the party in the clear will leak against the other party.
I fully expect to see a transcript of the CVR in the next few weeks. It will be leaked. |
| paulross
July 17, 2025, 09:18:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924246 |
|
| Sailvi767
July 17, 2025, 12:02:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924345 |
I have not posted on here in many years, but I feel compelled to do so now. I am a current 787 pilot and I have previously flown most Boeing types and an Airbus too. I also have an extensive background and qualifications in human factors, training and assessment. Before anybody reads any further, perhaps acquaint yourself with the notion of Occam's razor. That is, the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. I was certain that after the preliminary report was released the preposterous conspiracy theories would finally cease, but no! It's 2025 and humans can no longer help themselves. In my opinion the captain committed suicide here. Simple.
To those suggesting an electrical phantom turned the fuel control switches off without them moving: no. Ask yourselves this: what made one pilot (PF and F/O in my opinion) ask the other "why did you cut off?" Firstly, some context. The 787 fuel control switches make a VERY distinct metallic *CLICK* sound as they are operated. EVERY 787 pilot knows it and won't forget it. It is audible even at high thrust settings owing to the 787's exceptionally quiet engines and cockpit. After rotation the pilot flying is fixated on the HUD; rotating towards the TOGA reference line (~12 degrees pitch attitude) and putting the flight path vector over the flight guidance cue. One hand would be on the control column and the other on the thrust levers. Alternatively he could have had both hands on the control column. In either scenario, the pilot flying's (again, my opinion the F/O's) inboard arm would block his peripheral view (he's focused on the HUD, remember) of the center pedestal and the fuel control switches. HE WOULD NOT SEE THE PM TURN THE FUEL CONTROL SWITCHES OFF. Ipso facto. We know the F/O was PF from the report. If the F/O stopped flying the aircraft and reached down to move the FCS from cutoff to run the captain would've plainly seen the whole thing. I can't imagine "why did you cutoff?" would be his words of choice! More like "WTF ARE YOU DOING?!?" More to the point, if the PF (F/O) did stop flying and reach down to cut one engine off, the captain would have had time to either stop him flicking the second FCS off or at least quickly flick them both back to run and potentially save the day. This plainly did not happen. So it was almost certainly the PM (Capt) that moved the fuel control switches. So what would make the PF ask the PM "why did you cut off?" if he couldn't see it happen? You would never assume with a loss of thrust that the switches had been turned off. Never. It's not a procedure. It's not a thing. Bird strike? Sure. Fuel Contam? Maybe. But the point is, in the heat of battle at 150 odd feet, you'd never jump to the conclusion that the fuel control switches were off. Never. So what triggered the PF asking the PM why he cutoff? Because he HEARD the fuel control switches move from run to cutoff, that is why. He heard those distinctive *CLICK* sounds (and yes, you can easily flick them both in less than a second FWIW) followed by the engines immediately rolling back. He would then have looked down at the switches and noticed they were in cutoff. The point to be made here is that the switches were moved by the captain. They made their distinct sound. There were no phantoms. They cannot move on their own. They didn't simultaneously fail. This drew the PF's attention away from flying and triggered the question "why did you cutoff"? Inadvertent selection of the wrong switches? No. The PM was a training captain with thousands of hours experience on the jet. I asked one of our most experienced examiners how many times he'd seen that done. The answer was "zero". Even the stab switches next to them. They're red, guarded and are of a completely different shape and operation. Gear or flap? Come on. I think we're starting to stretch things a bit now. EVEN IF it was inadvertent switching. The INSTANT you'd made that error, you'd go "oh whoops", and flick them back to run. I know startle... I teach it. This is different. You don't flick the fuel control switches off, hear the engines roll back and sit there wondering what happened for 10 seconds AFTER THE F/O JUST ASKED YOU IF YOU CUTOFF! You did something that had an instant effect on the flight. The report indicates that "why did you cutoff" was asked just after both engines rolled back. But it took another 10 seconds to flick the FCS' back to run. If it was inadvertent, the instant the other pilot called out your error you'd correct it. The report makes it clear that there was 10 seconds between that happening. 10 seconds is a LIFETIME in that situation. The training captain knew what he was doing. He only switched the FCS' back to run once he knew it was moot. So, why did he respond that he didn't move the switches? As per other input from people on here, when people are suicidal they often want to throw authorities off their trail. Or maybe he wanted to confuse the F/O so he didn't flick them back to run himself, or to just buy himself more time while the F/O tried to wrap his head around things? Maybe he didn't want the F/O to die knowing it was a suicide mission. Maybe we'll find out more in the final report or police investigation if things proceed that way. Maybe we'll never know. I acknowledge that this is my opinion and of course there could be things we don't yet know about, but I must say I'm surprised that some of the theories on this professional pilot forum are no more coherent or logical than those being sprouted on social media. As to not putting out the CVR there is always tremendous outside pressure on an investigation of this scale. Air India is important to the nation. As someone else mentioned when the final report is published it will be old news. Time works for Air India in this case. They appear to finally be making solid progress on a return to financial solvency. The powers to be are not going to jeopardize that turnaround. The answers will come with the final report at a time when it will do far less damage to Air India. |
| Musician
July 17, 2025, 13:34:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924410 |
The issue of intent
Assumed: a pilot moved both fuel switches to CUTOFF, and that caused the accident.
Argument against intent: 1. The CVR, taken at face value, reveals that neither pilot was aware he had moved the switch himself 2. On a G650 simulator, CUTOFF after 10 seconds (then RUN after 10 more seconds) was barely recoverable. ( See upthread. ) This suggests the "unrecoverability" window on the 787 was quite short, making a suicide plan risky. 3. Similar accidents were survivable (someone said upthread). 4. Typically, pilot suicides start with the pilot alone in the cockpit at cruise altitude. 5. "Shut down both engines" is an action that often occurs after a flight, and could thus be learned as "muscle memory", and be subject to an action slip. 6. The airline stated that the captain's medical records were found "unremarkable". Argument for intent: 1. It's the simplest explanation. 2. "I can't believe any pilot would do this unintentionally, and neither should you." 3. Pilot took 10 seconds to correct his "mistake" 4. Uncorroborated reporting has it that the captain did not sound panicked on the CVR. Did I miss any points? To be clear, given the facts in the preliminary report, I could not decide this question today. Whatever happened in Ahmedabad is not affected by the outcome of our discussion. I hope that the AAIB and the public prosecutor will gather as much evidence as possible, and then the question can hopefully be resolved from facts. Last edited by Musician; 17th July 2025 at 14:02 . Reason: link added |
| KSINGH
July 17, 2025, 14:07:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924430 |
Quite right. The NTSB upbraided, warned and sanctioned Boeing over unauthorized release of information (with a somewhat self-defensive spin) in the Alaska 1282 investigation just last year.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...lines-blowout/ I'm sure that the WSJ believes that its sources are qualified and knowledgeable and that the sources probably believe what they are leaking, but it's a terrible and damaging practice in accident investigations, in this case serving no purpose other than clickbait taking advantage of public curiosity. And there really is nothing new in the "breaking news" story, at least nothing of substance. the AAIB(India) doesn\x92t appear to have tried to play any evasive games and has allowed all stakeholders (OEM, fleeing investigators from multiple countries etc) to be a party the investigation as they are entitled to. That one specific party whether by intent or a lack of ability to keep control of their own personnel has continuously leaked behind the lead investigators and that too not actually providing contrarian views just leaking to present a specific narrative, for reasons we can all surmise, is a genuine concern I remember many questioning the AAIB(India)\x92s ability to run a competent and neutral investigation well it doesn\x92t seem like the US probe it being run in such a fashion there were no immediate safety bulletins recommended in the prelim report, the AAIB/Indian government has done nothing to harm the interest of any OEM, why this rush to create this targeted narrative when human factors investigations by their very nature are more complex and convoluted than pure technical ones? Why can\x92t the facts be determined by the lead investigators? Leaking CVR details is absolutely despicable and I would\x92ve thought a professional pilot\x92s forum would be more outraged by \x91persons familiar with the investigation\x92 mouthing off to the media |
| WHBM
July 17, 2025, 15:33:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924468 |
I do feel that for an established airline pilot to shut off the fuel at this point is such an extraordinary event that I would look for some positive evidence that they did so. What we are presented with to date is along the lines of "well it wasn't this and wasn't that so it must have been them". It's like the small child being quizzed by its parents "Well I didn't do it and your father didn't do it so it must have been you". Which is not really good enough.
There would typically be at least some pointers surely in the tone of the conversations between the crew on the CVR. Regarding mechanical issues, it is notable that in the parallel thread on the Southend accident there are multiple mentions by experienced crews on type of certain controls moving uncommanded just at liftoff, which one needed to watch for, something which the manufacturer surely never designed or documented. |
| Xeptu
July 18, 2025, 01:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924797 |
I believe the investigators are confident in their findings in what happened and that Homendy's request to hear the CVR concurrs with that finding.It won't be literally what was said in the report. It's probably a good thing that they are not oblidged to release it at this sensative time, I think we need to ask ourselves are you really ready to hear it and should we.
|
| Speedbard
July 18, 2025, 03:55:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924822 |
I posted a week or so ago, on the forums generally, suggesting that the moderation of the Air India threads had gotten excessive, and at that particular point, it might even be an opinion I stand by. But reading through the last 100+ posts, other than the above few comments, it's just garbage. I'm sorry, to those who think they're saying something meaningful, but it's just hot garbage.
For the legal types - stop quoting what is, and isn't, the burden of proof. This is a forum on the Internet. The topic being discussed is an international investigation into a plane crash. For both of those things, there is no possible relevance to the burden of proof in legal cases in <whatever your country is>. For the psychologists (both actual ones and those pilots who are moonlighting as one) - stop quoting psychological theory. Many of us know it, others don't, but we all have such an incredible lack of information about the pilots concerned that it's pointless mentioning it, except in passing. No one has time for pages of guesswork or instructions to the investigators on what they should be looking at. For the tech guys who are still talking about the possibility of malfunctioning switches, please, stop. The pilot saying "why did you do x" is not consistent with a switch failure, you don't say that just because of an unexpected run-down, you say something more generic, like "holy smokeballs, dual engine failure". The specificity of the comment implies clearly observed action, specific to the switches, which aligns with the data record. For everyone - just because something isn't absolutely mathematically impossible does not mean you can or should bring it out and eat up pages doing so. Investigations do not have to cover every single possible "what if", because in an unlimited universe no investigation would ever conclude. What they have to do is come up with the most likely scientifically derived assessed outcome for an already fairly unlikely event. I can accept people saying "We don't know for sure that the switches were operated deliberately" even though that's probably more likely than not. I can't accept the kind of argument which isn't dissimilar to: "Maybe there was a flaw with the switch detent, and a book fell off the console, and the previous crew had spilled water on it, making it slippery, and before that when the console was installed it was 1.5 degrees more inclined than it should be, and that caused the rollback. I accept that we're already in "unlikely event" scenario, but once the impossible has been eliminated, refusing to accept that there's probably 2-3 likely scenarios left, and instead inserting incredibly unlikely theoretical stuff... well that's just bad faith. Finally, it's personal taste, but I remain a bit disappointed with the deliberate blindness being applied to inconvenient truths by some on here. The two currently most likely rational explanations are simple - deliberate pilot action, accidental pilot action. Either way, it's pilot action . As frustrating as some of the wild theories are, the obfuscation being pushed out by the "circle the wagons" brigade is just as bad. Any pilot knows that their life - and those of their passengers - relies on clear sightedness and not avoiding uncomfortable data points. So let's trust our instruments. There should be no absurd rush to judgement but also, please, let's not hide behind the "they were professionals, treat them with respect" stuff, endlessly. Someone selected fuel on both engines to cut-off, mere moments after they left the ground. It won't be an engine restart procedure (too low, too early), it won't be some bizarre technical problem that hasn't happened in millions of flight hours on other 787s worldwide. The CVR says "why did you do X" and the data recorder says "X happened". The two line up. What we don't know for absolute certain is why, so the only sensible things now being examined are: 1) Deliberate pilot action (can only assume harmful intent at Vr + 3 sec) 2) Accidental pilot action (due to severe cognitive disconnect, or "wallet in freezer" stuff) I'm one of many being frustrated by the lack of CVR recording being released, because that will almost certainly identify whether it was 1 or 2. But it would be abnormal for that to happen, and I respect that until they're sure, if the CVR points to something, they will want it confirmed before releasing it, because whether it's 1 or 2, it's bad news for the families of that particular pilot. Oh, and to whoever said "Ask yourself if we are ready to hear it?".... come on. Hundreds of people died. Ignoring a piece of evidence related to that because it might be uncomfortable hearing it is unacceptable, and a bit childish. It might be uncomfortable, but professionals follow the evidence, wherever it may lead, however uncomfortable it might be. Sorry this sounds so angry. The cause is that having stuck my neck out and said "Why are you guys moderating so much" to the mods, a free run of the thread has revealed such nonsense being posted that I'm embarrassed about having said anything. Lock away, I say! |
Page Links: First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Last Index Page