Posts by user "1stspotter" [Posts: 31 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 2]

1stspotter
June 13, 2025, 13:17:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11900509
There is a summary of all possible causes plus what indication supports the cause in this article

Subjects: None

1stspotter
June 14, 2025, 08:13:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11901237
Originally Posted by Flyingmole
As so much of the analysis hinges on whether or not the RAT was deployed, I notice that back in 2015 on another forum somone posed the question
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/119812-787-deployed-ram-air-turbine/"I wonder why so many of these 787's land with their Ram Air Turbine deployed?"

Ttere are a number of videos around showing 787s landing with RAT deployed and it appears that this happens with 787s more than other types.
Can any knowledgeable Pruner answer this? Is there a problem with the 787's RAT and its deployment, or is the deployment a symptom of a problem within the 787s systems?
Each Boeing 787 will perform at least one testflight at Boeing before delivery to the customer. This flight has the RAT deployed as a test. Most if not all videos you see were made at Boeing Everett Factory. You will see a couple of times a B787 in the Boeing livery.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

1stspotter
June 14, 2025, 18:27:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11901706
Originally Posted by Compton3fox
We can debate over a poor quality photo but the audio evidence presented earlier today is pretty conclusive.. The RAT was out.
Extremely likely the RAT was out:

1. there are multiple frames of the video showing ' something' at the position where the RAT is located under the fuselage
2. the sound in the video which is very similar to a deployed RAT
3. the sound analysis posted here by multiple people
last but not least
4. the aircraft stopped transmitting ADSB data shortly after the rotating. This indicates an electrical failure. Other aircraft ADSB data was picked up by FR24 receivers indication there is a good reception of the signal in that area.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSB  Electrical Failure  FlightRadar24  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

1stspotter
June 14, 2025, 20:07:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11901788
Originally Posted by nachtmusak
There are more data messages than that, which FR24 shared on the day of the accident and which have been posted a few times in this thread. I'm pretty sure there's also been a comparison of this + previous flights posted in this thread that shows that while the coverage at the airport itself is spotty, it's reasonable to expect further messages to have been received before impact.

Not sure how permanent the content at this URL is, but here's a link to FR24's update which has a CSV with all frames received https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/f...rom-ahmedabad/


Somebody on this forum did some analysis with FR24 data of this flight and other AI171 B787 flights.
See this article for an overview of all scenarios. It all looks very like to an commanded dual engine shutdown. Why nobody knows.



Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AI171  Dual Engine Failure  Engine Failure (All)  Engine Shutdown  FlightRadar24

1stspotter
June 14, 2025, 20:13:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11901794
Originally Posted by EXDAC
The independent ADS-B Exchange receiver(s) didn't pick up the signal at all during the departure.
I suggest to read this blog by Flightradar24. It does show the receiver(s) picked up signal after rotation of the aircraft.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/f...rom-ahmedabad/

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSB  FlightRadar24

1stspotter
June 14, 2025, 20:19:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11901798
Originally Posted by QDM360
People really need to stop using FR24 data if they don't understand it.
This FR24 recording of AI171
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../ai171#3ac3097
only consists of 4 unique ADS-B data messages. The first two were on the apron/taxiway. Then one at the runway intersection. And the fourth and last one just after the aircraft became airborne. That's all.

The two last ADS-B data messages are more than 4 minutes apart. It was 8:04 UTC when they entered the runway at the intersection. The next and last data point was received at 8:08 UTC.

The map view connects these dots, so it looks like a proper track. But in reality the ADS-B receiver barely received anything. It's therefore silly to argue the aircraft stopped transmitting ADS-B data based on this poor recording. The only thing you can say with certainty is that FR24's ADS-B receiver at Ahmedabad has really, really poor coverage...
Flightradar24 published the CSV with all received data. It had EIGHT datapoints of the aircraft after its rotation showing its altitude. https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/f...rom-ahmedabad/

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): ADSB  AI171  FlightRadar24

1stspotter
June 15, 2025, 09:25:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11902276
Originally Posted by guided
Can we focus on theories explaining the facts? Specifically:
  • Aircraft used almost the whole runway (3500m)
  • Flaps found on the ground in setting 5
  • RAT deployed
  • Mayday that they lost power
this rules out flap up instead of gear up , selecting wrong autopilot setting, gear up causing electrical faults (as problems started earlier - using up all runway). Something must have happened on the runway (after v1?) that led to loss of electrics (and dual engine failure, maybe later?)
Define facts! Reported by an eyewitness, reported by Indian media? The ' mayday that they lost power.' is not a fact but invented by a journalist. The " aircraft used the whole runway" is not officially reported by the investigators but noted by an Indian newspaper. In the same article of today this newspaper wrote about the fake mayday call.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Dual Engine Failure  Engine Failure (All)  MAYDAY  RAT (All)  RAT (Deployment)

1stspotter
June 21, 2025, 15:26:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11907842
Originally Posted by CloudChasing
according to multiple Indian media sources, refuelling at AMD took longer than usual as the plane was fully refuelled, despite only needing 53% for the journey
Mm, wondering what the source is. The only reference I could find is on the Facebook page of Indian Express. No mention of ' fully refuelled' though.

" A source at the airport did indicate that refuelling took longer than usual (at 42 minutes), but a few others indicated that this was not really an out-of-the-ordinary occurrence for a long-distance international flight with full load."

Subjects: None

1stspotter
July 14, 2025, 15:14:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11922290
Originally Posted by barrymung
I disagree.

It was a very small "window of opportunity", maybe 30 seconds longer and the plane could have been saved. Also there's no guarantee the other pilot wouldn't work to prevent it. Indeed, it was deemed that checking the safety latches on the switches was not necessary.

If a pilot were feeling suicidal it would have been so much easier for them to drive off a bridge on the way to work.

The chance of any flight crashing due to pilot suicide is 1 in 122 million. Very, very unlikely.
While the chance of a pilot committing suicide and multiple murders is extremely low, there are six examples of pilots letting their Airbus, Boeing crash on purpose.
Logical thinking by a pilot murdering his passengers, crew and himself is non existent.

Suicide is the number one likely cause of this crash. Fuel control switches do not move by itself of an iPad hitting it. A pilot needs to move the switches by hand.
I cannot find any other cause for this crash. Especially the question ' why did you move the switches' is extremely suspicious. I bet the captain said that. He was the only one with his hands free to move the switches.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff Switches

1stspotter
July 15, 2025, 10:42:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11922821
Media in India are massively spreading disinformation. They mention a May 2025 CAA safety notice (based on 2015 FAA AD) on the fuel valve actuator but mention in the headline the fuel control switch. Two totally different parts of the aircraft. Seems to me coordinated damage control .
https://feitoffake.wordpress.com/202...trol-switches/

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Air Worthiness Directives  FAA

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 09:47:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923586
It is both fascinating and unsettling to observe how the media in India consistently refuse to acknowledge that suicide may be the most likely scenario. Key voices—such as former pilots and the airline pilots' union—continue to dismiss the possibility that a pilot could have deliberately moved the fuel control switches to the cutoff position. They rely on factually incorrect arguments and emotional reasoning. For instance, some suggest a potential defect in the Boeing 787’s fuel cutoff switches. However, the FAA's Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) they reference was specifically issued for the Boeing 737, not the 787.

An overview of public statements made by pilots in the media can be found here.
https://feitoffake.wordpress.com/202...room-in-india/

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff  Fuel Cutoff Switches  Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 10:33:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923620
Originally Posted by Dani
I cannot explain the most likely cause further without risking that this post gets deleted, so I don't explain further.

Dani
Please explain.

Fact is both fuel cutoff switches moved to the cutoff position three seconds after the wheels left the runway. While the speed was 180 knots. Nothing indicates a problem with the thrust of the engines.
So explain why one of the pilots , a ghost, an iPad set *both* switches to cutoff just after liftoff while the aircraft had a normal speed and no indications of a problem.
Mind there is no issue with those switches. The FAA SAIB was for the Boeing 737
https://feitoffake.wordpress.com/202...787-explained/

There is just one explanation: one of the pilots deliberately set both switches to cutoff.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FAA  Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff  Fuel Cutoff Switches  Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 10:46:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923627
Originally Posted by sabenaboy
I even saw a video of an Indian expert -I believe he claimed to be a B787 jockey- explaining how it would be physically IMPOSSIBLE to put both switches in the OFF position within 1 or 2 seconds. I'll try to find it again when I have more time.
That is Sharath Panicker. This is the video

Subjects: None

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 11:10:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923642
Originally Posted by aox
I wonder if the people who are so adamant that mistaken operation of the wrong control is simply impossible have ever had a windscreen wipe in a car while intending to use an indicator light. And if they have, have some of these occasions happened at higher than average stress moments, such as someone else behaving oddly at a junction.

(Of vehicles with two sets of stalk mounted switches adjacent to the steering wheel, some have lights on the left, and some have lights on the right. This may be, but isn't always, related to whether the home market of the car design drives on the left or the right. British drivers and owners of some Japanese cars may have more experience of both than Europeans only ever driving cars from their home country.)
Driving a car is totally different than flying an aircraft. Pilots are trained over and over again for certain scenario's. The hands of a pilot during the liftoff have no reason at all to be anything near the fuel control switches.
When the fuel needs to be cut because of an engine failure there is a strict procedure before the switch is set to CUTOFF. Both pilots need to confirm the location (left or right) of the engine. No pilot will without consent switch off the fuel. However this is what happened.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Engine Failure (All)  Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff  Fuel Cutoff Switches  RUN/CUTOFF

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 11:19:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923649
Originally Posted by Dani
I would love to explain, but my posts get deleted.

While I fully understand that a normal working fuel cut off switch on a Boeing can not move to cut off by itself, I'm completly certain that it can when the locking mechanism is not properly installed. In such a case, the moving part of the lever could even stand on a "needle point position", meaning it's neither in the on or off position. Smallest movement of the aircraft or a hand can move the lever to on or off.
I also observed many pilots in my career holding their hand at the backstop of the thrust levers on the pedestal as PM. Comes from a certain mistrust to the other pilot (mostly captains do that). If this hand falls down by a gust or a bump on the runway, his hand falls down on the pedestal. Exact location of the cut-off switches. If the locking mechanism isn't installed, you don't even feel that you moved it.

Dani
Potential issue with the locking feature of fuel control switches of the Boeing 787 is a * red herring*. There is no such issue. There was an issue on some Boeing 737 aircraft. The FAA requested operators of other Boeing made aircraft to check if their aircraft had switches with a similar issue. No reports of such issue are known.
See https://feitoffake.wordpress.com/202...787-explained/

So your scenario is impossible.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FAA  Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff  Fuel Cutoff Switches

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 12:35:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923704
Originally Posted by Dani
You mean just because it never has happened, it's impossible? What a strange argument.
If you look closely at the picture in post no 262
Preliminary Air India crash report published
I see a perfect example of a wrongly installed locking mechanism.
How on earth do you think this argument is unthinkable, when there are even safety bulletins and mandatory maintenance orders about this very problem?
I understand that for you, as it is obviously for most Boeing pilot and anglosaxon pilots and forum members, a red herring. But that doesn't impair me from thinking logically. I'm on neighter side. That's why facts are more important for me than for many others.

Dani
If you look closely to the photo you will notice this is of a Boeing 737!
The Boeing 737 has the word IDLE on top of the switches, where the B787 has to word RUN on top.
Again read this https://feitoffake.wordpress.com/202...787-explained/

The fact is the switches on a Boeing 787 has a different part number than those of the B737. There is no replacement part for the B787.
The FAA SAIB does not mention to operators that the switches on a B787 needs to be changed.
The problem was on the Boeing 737 * only*

So your point is not valid. It is *impossible* these two switches were moved because of a malfunction of the locking mechanism.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FAA  RUN/CUTOFF  Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 12:40:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923708
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

HTH
You might want to carefully read the complete SAIB. The FAA wanted to make sure the issue on some of the B737 switches does not exist on other Boeing made aircraft.
It is here. https://feitoffake.wordpress.com/202...787-explained/





Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): FAA  Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 13:18:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923730
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
I don't think it's me who is having trouble reading the SAIB.

It calls for the switches on any of the types mentioned to be replaced if found defective, and for the older type of switches on the 737 to be replaced whether defective or not.
So how many fuel control switches on the Boeing 787 were since the release of this SAIB found with a faulty switch locking?

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff Switches  Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 14:49:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923781
Originally Posted by B2N2
What are the chances of both switches going bad on the same flight?
As stated many times previously the throttle quadrant was replaced well after the 2018 SB.
Quadrants can be replaced for a myriad of reasons, according to the report none that had anything to do with the switches.

If there was even a remote suspicion of the switches being at fault an emergency AD would already have been issued.



Everything in the preliminary report suggest one of the pilots moved both switches seconds after the liftoff to the CUTOFF position.
If there was a 0,0001 percent chance the switches were faulty and could have moved because of gravity of an object hitting is, there would be a safety bulletin released to all B787 operators

There has not been such a bulletin.

The reason why the report does not mention which of the pilots ask " why did you cutoff ? " is unknown. We also do not know why it was written the switches ' transitioned' instead of ' moved' .
My guess it was either for political reasons or because of a possible criminal investigation.

For a pilot there is no reason to set both switches to cutoff without any reason. There was no engine fire. There was no discussion in the cockpit about using the switches.
Nothing. A mistake is extremely unlikely. There is no reason why the hands of a pilot needs to be near the switches. I do not believe in a brain fart.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Air Worthiness Directives  Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff Switches  Pilot "Why did you cut off"  Preliminary Report  RUN/CUTOFF

1stspotter
July 16, 2025, 16:06:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923830
Originally Posted by za9ra22
That almost started so well!

I seriously doubt the report fails to identify which pilot asks 'why' and which says 'I didn't' for political reasons. There is too wide a constituency of members of the team and no purpose to be gained, but there would be a possibility it isn't mentioned due to potential legal/criminal investigation if it weren't for the fact that it clearly doesn't actually have that effect at all, and isn't in the AAIB-India remit anyway. If they have no evidence of mental health conditions for either pilot, it's a moot question at this stage in any event.

The only way you can read the report as an investigator is that they itemise all the material facts they know, and omit what isn't yet pertinent or known.
Lets focus on the omit of the report the name of the pilot who said " why did you cutoff" and the name of the other pilot.
Fact is there is a recording on the conversation recorded and available to the AAIB. There are multiple microphones in the cockpit. One for the cockpit, and one for each of the mic of the headset.
Even when the mics of the headsets were not working as a result of power failure, pure on the difference in voices the AAIB knows who said what.

So it was a choice not to write in the report what was known.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AAIB (All)  Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff Switches  Mental Health  Pilot "Why did you cut off"