Posts about: "Wikipedia" [Posts: 19 Page: 1 of 1]¶

I think that fallacy was dispelled when the supposedly uncrashable airbus went into the trees on a demo flight.
On 26 June 1988, Air France Flight 296Q , the first passenger flight of the Airbus A320, flown by a Airbus A320-111 registered as F-GFKC, crashed into trees during a demonstration flight at Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport , France. Three passengers out of 136 on board died during the evacuation as the aircraft began to burn. This was the first fatal crash of the Airbus A320 family.

That aircraft was being hand flown and the pilot was too late applying thrust after going too low - which he never admitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_...ays_Flight_228
This happened in 1968, retracting the flaps and the wrong speed. CFIT!

Ah, thank you - while this wasn't the incident in question, reading about it did jog my memory enough to recall that there was a flight engineer involved which narrowed down the possible aircraft types by a lot. Looking through a list of notable 747 incidents turned it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympi...ays_Flight_411

Fascinating - I can't fathom the sheer sangfroid necessary to keep a 747 at near MTOW just barely airborne and under control for 5+ minutes (which was how long it took before they resolved the thrust issue).

This got me thinking about a report I read where an Auckland based maintenance facility added too much biocide to an aircraft fuel tank by a factor of ten. From memory the Engineer simply read the instructions wrong or calculated the additive amount incorrectly and the cross checking systems were either not in place or they failed. I searched online for it but could only find the following;

So my point is, if we are speculating about fuel contamination causing dual engine failure, it is possible that a fuel contaminant is specific to a particular airframe and not the supply system. Obviously not saying that is what happened here, but it goes to show how many possibilities exist.

They are electrically operated, and there have been known issues and incidents. See, e.g., LATAM 800. Edit: Just an old engineer, but the chances that uncommanded seat movement was causative in the AI crash seem vanishingly small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LATAM_Airlines_Flight_800

Baysian statistics play no role here, for the reason Lead Balloon identified: there are too many variables at play. Worse, Simpson's paradox identifies that, even in the circumstance where you know the key variables at play, you've still got to think clearly through what is going on.

You did stipulate that more causality factors can be calculated using Baysian means, but so what? Back to LB's first point: calculating all of them is not practical.

While the general public (i.e. The Simpsons) can be impressed with statements like "A billion flight hours without a mishap" what matters is the precise combination of factors that caused the earlier mishap, and how similar current circumstances are to that mishap. Viewed with such insight, mishaps are almost ordinarily common (aviation example being 178 seconds to live for a VFR pilot going VMC into IMC).

Yes, while there were other complications in play, this accident was caused by a single- throttle rollback after takeoff that wasn't detected by the crew:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAROM_Flight_371

To my way of thinking, if you are in the habit of having your hand on the TLs, you're more likely to push them up when needed.

I won\x92t debate if having hands on or off the trust levers is best practice. I will however point out that many airlines train to remove hands from the throttles at V1. This is supposed to reduce the chances of an inappropriate high speed abort.

Air India flight 171 now has its own Wikipedia site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_171

The 'Article' section contains to date nothing that hasn't already been covered in this thread.

The 'Talk' section contains a 'general discussion of the article's subject' and is full of similar speculation as has been discussed in parts 1 and 2 of this thread.

I have to agree with you PBL . It is amazing that people are still arguing about the height the aircraft reached during the first 11s of the flight. It is almost measurable to the metre from the aircraft wingspan on the video. Do not mistake the power required to reach Vr within in the TORA with the power required to maintain a stable climb at V2 to V2+10 in the second and third segments. They are very different numbers, that's why Perf A is one of the dark arts of aviation! It is quite probable that this aircraft rotated below a suitable Vr speed for the weight and ambient conditions and was unable to establish a stable climb due lack of applied power. Big engines take time to spool up, your immediate future depends on how late you recognise the situation and go for TOGA.

But you ask..... How can an aircraft possibly get airborne with a stalled wing? Look at Air France 7775 . At rotate the wing was already stalled (albeit for different reasons) but the airborne profile of the aircraft was rather similar to Air India.

The rotation in the video appears normal and tail clearance is normal as well. That suggests VR was correct as well as the flap setting.

There were simultaneous engine failures, but those were due to massive birdstrikes ( US1549 ) or due to epidemic engine failures on Il-62s of various versions (like LOT 007 or LOT 5055 ).

Fuel related total engine failures like Aeroflot 366 or Air Transat 236 at least had the decency to have the engines starve one after another as the fuel in the individual tanks depleted.

But all those are probably highly irrelevant when considering the Air India accident. An engine disintegration or a heavy birdstrike would have been visible on the videos, a sizeable bird would have left some remains. And gradual fuel starvation would have shown some yaw.

As much as I despise the thought, the issue that got AI171 must have come from within the aircraft, although this most decidedly does not infer any wrongdoing by any crewmember.

Shutting down the wrong engine is not extremely rare:

1. GoAir320 at Delhi
2. Transasia AT72 at Taipei
3. Alitalia A332 at Seoul
4. SA Airlink JS41 at Durban

Not saying it happened here!

I think you missed the point of his question.

Because there are some times that the gear is left down after take-off for operational reasons. An automatic retraction is not desirable because the PF needs to know there is a positive rate of climb before calling for gear up, lest the beast settle back on to runway.

Have a look at Emirates in Dubai… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Flight_521

This was a go round accident but the positive rate principle is the same.

There speaks an idealist who has never worked outside the western world! I speak only from the perspective of an aviator of 40-odd years experience during which time we have seen too many accident enquiries, but I admire your optimism. There is an enormous amount at stake here, national pride as well as huge corporate cost will ensue if this crash is demonstrated to be the result of a crime. The enquiry into the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 was put into the hands of the judiciary within hours of the primary cause becoming evident. I wonder if that will happen here?

Thanks! That induced a laugh!

Not only have I not been called an idealist at any point within the last 50 years or so, but you wiped out about 20 years of work outside the western world, all within one sentence.

I don't have anything to add in response that I haven't already posted, but I do appreciate your response!

I'll offer a guess as to why...later.
Why do you assume that improper installation?
How many times have you moved those switches, and the engines started without the switch being in the RUN position? (Either in the sim or in the aircraft).
Has anyone demonstrated to you something like
"watch this, Dani: if I pull the switch up and get it to hang on the little lock/cam, the engine will still start" ... in the sim or in the aircraft.
I'd be interested to read of your experiences with that switch and that non-standard positioning of it that you describe.

Beyond that, did you bother to look at the position of the fuel control switches that were in the preliminary report?
They were found in the RUN position. See page ten of the preliminary report.
Neither of them was cocked off, as in the picture of a misaligned switch from a 737 that you referred to.
On a 737.
The bulletin was Issued seven years ago. Why do you assume that people in the business sat on their hands for seven years?
Right. The facts are that the two fuel control switches were both found in the RUN position, not cocked to the side as your example from a 737 illustrates. Your entire line is unfortunately sunk by your attempt to challenge that fact.
You have established no basis for why you believe that the switches on this 787 were incorrectly installed, given that

1. the aircraft's crew (on the previous flight) successfully turned the fuel on and off on the flight from Delhi
2. the aircraft's flight deck crew successfully turned the fuel on, to RUN, before starting engines on the flight from Ahmedabad.

Your case is unsupported by the facts at hand.
As to post deletions: as with some of mine being deleted, we both seem to get involved in the running rodent machine despite any intentions to avoid it.

For DaveReidUK
Your post is, at best, disingenuous. (But thank you for posting an excerpt from the bulletin ).
The error was found on a 737, and the competent authority issued that alert having recognized that similar switches might have similar problems - they used the word potentia l - not because switches on all of those other models had been found to have that problem.
From your subsequent post:
I will also ask you whether or not you believe that airline companies the world over have sat on their hands for the last seven years, as regards fuel cutoff switches.
Given that this is the year 2025, (and the maintenance actions mentioned in the preliminary report) 1spotter's point on the "red herring" is a bit stronger than you allow. Please go back and read page 6 of the prelim report, top half.

Something else to think upon: how many 737s does Air India operate?
Does that have a relevance to this accident?
For the moment I don't think that it does, however, it might. The investigators have a variety of other rocks to turn over and see what crawls out from under them.
They may find evidence of various maintenance issues that have an impact on this accident.
As of today, though, such information has not been released (but I will offer you a guess that all of that is in the process of being collected and analyzed, even now, as a part of their investigation).

Full disclosure: I don't fly Boeings, I do not work for Boeing, I have no shares in Boeing stock, and I am still slightly pissed at Boeing for the MCAS screw up on the 737-MAX.

Korwa is a town in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh . It is home to HAL 's Avionics Division that has produced DARIN upgrade for the SEPECAT Jaguar and supplied similar electronic systems for MiG-27 aircraft. Ordnance Factory Project Korwa of the Ordnance Factories Board which manufactures products for the Indian Armed Forces is also located here.

Seems a logical place to look at the black box - and I can't see why you'd be worried about the risk of terrorism there TBH.