Posts about: "The Aviation Herald (avherald)" [Posts: 10 Page: 1 of 1]¶

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.

https://avherald.com/h?article=528f27ec&opt=0

https://avherald.com/h?article=528f27ec&opt=0

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.

Even more serious incidents have occurred, such as the Luxair\x92s accidental retraction of the landing gear during takeoff rotation, leading to a failed liftoff:
https://avherald.com/h?article=48d1e3ae&opt=0

I'd like to say something here that might help us all understand what probably happened. It's sad, but now that we know some clear facts, I think this probably goes a long way to understanding this tragedy.

It's a bit long, but that's probably necessary. I hope you find it worth the read.

First up, I notice there's a tradition here to talk about "muscle memory". I understand it, but this is really quite the wrong term, and I think using the correct term will help clarify this a great deal. The muscles don't remember actions (at all, I think). It's part of the brain that's responsible (and I truly think that aircraft designers need to understand and take this fully into account when designing new aeroplanes/airplanes.)

The part of the brain in question is called the Cerebellum. It has been called "The Brains Brain" but again, that's inaccurate. The cerebellum is actually the brain's Automaton! Pretty close to automation, and in some ways, nearly the same.

The Cerebellum is located at the back, lower part of the brain. It looks quite different, and appears to have a stringy appearance. This part of the brain is responsible for all manner of physical (i.e. motor) actions. It is like an ECU or an EEC or a FADEC, or a GPU or all manner of sub-processing units in cars, planes, factories and so on, and I guess, in virtually all animals and humans. Basically, it is designed to take a lot of the workload off the brain itself. That's where the problem arises.

Just think about walking. You can work along without even thinking about it. In fact, if you do think about it, your walking is likely to become "unnatural". Just think about how it feels to nervously walk on stage in front of a big crowd. Am I even walking properly...? I feel like a robot! The conscious mind has taken control, and it's not as good at walking naturally as the cerebellum is. After all, it's been the one doing it, all your life.

So, think about talking, writing, signing your signature, typing, riding a bike, stirring your tea, driving a gold ball, playing a well-practised video game. Think of "Getting the hang of it" - it's the process of the cerebellum learning a new sub-routine. Slow to start, but capable of lightning fast action once learned. And some of its learning is evidently built-in from birth. Eye movement (& focussing?), for example.

So, having a cerebellum allows you to walk very successfully, while watching the traffic, talking to your companion, thinking up jokes, listening to the birds singing, etc etc. You don't need to think about it, because your cerebellum has learned since you were a toddler "How to Walk". It knows very well, and can even handle trips and especially slips. All you have to do is say "Walk to A" and the cerebellum does it, unless the thinking brain says "Hold on, stop."

This is where the term "muscle memory" comes from. Automated actions, not from muscles but from the cerebellum.

Now, the problem here is that in effect, what I'm describing is, in a way, two brains. Scary thought! Even more scary when you recognise that it's virtually true.

If you take a look at the anatomy of the brain in a suitable drawing, you'll see that the cerebellum is not fully connected to and integrated with the rest of the brain. It's actually a separate sub-unit which is not even wired directly into the brain (the cerebrum, just to be confusing) itself. It's attached / wired to the rear side of the brain stem, below the Main Brain:

https://teachmeanatomy.info/neuroana...es/cerebellum/ - scroll down to Fig 1.

Those of us who understand computers, networks, data-buses and so on will immediately recognise the problem. For a start, there's a bottleneck. And a source of latency. (The perfect word for this situation.) There's also a need for multiplexing - or, you could say switching. At least, there are two possible sources of control. Just like in the cockpit! Oh No!

Having the cerebellum where it is had/has a huge survival advantage. It means it's much "closer" to all the nerves that control the muscles - so that in life-threatening emergencies, the cerebellum can get the commands out much, much faster than the conscious brain can even think of them. If you're falling, the cerebellum will have reacted even before you've had a chance to think.

I learned this one day in England. I was riding an old bike to work, accelerating at a roundabout as hard as I could push. Suddenly, at full push, the chain came off. I don't (and didn't) even remember, maybe didn't even see, what happened next. One moment, I was up on the pedal, pushing hard. Next, I was in mid-air. Seriously, I remember this. I was in mid-air on the right-hand side of the bike, looking back towards the bike still rolling along beside me as I was falling. I was already about half turned, nearly onto my back. No idea how. (I was wearing a backpack, so apparently, it was my designated crashpad.) Next, I was on the road, completely free of any entanglement with the bike. It (cerebellum) didn't manage to get my right elbow out from under (maybe deliberately) but I landed mostly on my backpack, with my elbow pinned about under my right hip. The scars have faded now, but my forearm/elbow became a brake pad... Next thing I remember was sliding along a cold but fairly smooth section of road, head craned up, looking back down the road to see if anyone was going to run me over. A brown-haired young woman in a car was coming behind me, safely, watching, slowing. I firmly believe that my cerebellum was responsible for me landing so well. Nothing broken, just some skin off my elbow. Like I say, I didn't have a chance to even think about it.

So, there's a big advantage in having a semi-autonomous processor operating in parallel, alongside the higher intellect. But every advantage seems to bring with it a downside, as I think we might all be seeing.

The downside is, given a command by the cerebrum, the cerebellum will perform it. Accidentally, unintentionally, mistakenly, prematurely, casually, give it the wrong command, and guess what?

To tell you the truth, the older I get, the more often this happens. My wife and I jokingly call it Autopilot. We're out shopping or whatever, a list of places to go, me at the wheel. A to B to C... Suddenly, we're back home, and I forgot to stop at the Drug Dealers... I jest - I mean, who would forget that! But talking is a great way to facilitate this. The cerebellum knows the way home far better than the way to the Candlestick maker, so, when lacking clear direction, evidently, it reverts to the most familiar.

Exactly what happened here, who can really say? Not me. But this article (many thanks to https://www.pprune.org/members/198630-limahotel ) for this link.

It's totally relevant, the PF the obvious cause:

https://avherald.com/h?article=48d1e3ae&opt=0

I wonder what might have been the trigger here. Sudden high stress? Why didn't the gear go up? Who should have done that? When, compared with actual events? (Might have already been answered, sorry. I've been busy! )

slats11,

Sorry, you missed the risk I'm proposing to mitigate. It's not about malfeasance.

It's about saving us from ourselves - from our "smaller brain" - not what you're probably thinking! If you search this thread, you'll find a number of reports of highly-trained, highly qualified and normally highly competent pilots doing absolutely daft things, for no explicable reason. Even they can't explain how it happened. Here's another pretty good example, which I discussed a bit somewhere here.

https://avherald.com/h?article=48d1e3ae&opt=0

I think understanding the role of the cerebellum and what it does and how it apparently works goes a long way to explaining the seemingly otherwise inexplicable. Have a read up? .

Hello Capn Bloggs,

Happy to oblige.

TBH, I'm no longer so concerned with what really happened inside the cockpit of AI171. What the final report says won't make any difference. I can see some flaws in the Boeing design (don't know Airbus so can't compare), and propose a few ideas to deal with that, and with the fact that we humans are highly flawed. Sometimes, the brain doesn't know what the right hand is doing. That's a wee problem.

My theory FWIW, says this won't have been called at all. And that "it" was done entirely without intention. The intention was to do something else. So, in that case, was it deliberate? I say No. It was an accident.

It was IMO, done with the best of intentions, but resulted in a serious blunder, with the wrong switches getting turned off. By what has been termed here "a slip". I agree with that. As I've mentioned, I now believe that when you know someone (including yourself) is doing something wrong, you seem to be more likely to make a mistake yourself. It's as if you automatically become partners in crime. (Even you and yourself!) Did you read this article? Some of the comments are also well worth reading.

https://avherald.com/h?article=48d1e3ae&opt=0

This [i.e 171] accident (I think the correct term) has absolutely fascinated me, and caused me to think a great deal. My recent posts are not really about 171. Only a result of it.

For the benefit of all. You know how people who have lost loved ones want their death to somehow benefit others? I didn't lose anyone in this crash, but that's a beautiful thing about we flawed humans.

I'll shut up now. Thanks for allowing me to participate.

Mary Schiavo told a lot of utter nonsense on this crash. Someone should write an article about this lady.
The incident she refers to involved the uncommanded shutdown of both engines ***** after landing ****. So not during the approach.
https://avherald.com/h?article=4c2fe53a

The fuel control switches of Air India 171 transitioned seconds after liftoff from RUN to CUTOFF.
There is not a single source which states the fuel control switches of the ANA B787 moved to CUTOFF. It is simply impossible that software moves these switches.

If that is the lawsuit based on this filing , then you're in for a treat. Same crowd that delivered this 'report' , which seems to be a mash-up of all the various conspiracy theories (aft EAFR fire damaged so must have been a battery fire? Check).

Disappointing for someone with what seem to be remarkable credentials:
It is technically just garbage.