Posts by user "OldnGrounded" [Posts: 77 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 4]

OldnGrounded
July 15, 2025, 19:15:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923192
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
The authors of the report have access to the full cvr. They have chosen to only release a synopsis of one fragment. Who knows what the rest of the cvr discloses but the decision to release that one fragment must be to convey an understanding...they want it known.
You're making things up, attributing motive where you cannot possibly know motive. You're just guessing, and conveniently making your guesses match your preferred scenario. It is entirely possible, indeed it is the way it is supposed to be done, that the investigators have included what is known with reasonable certainty, and known to be relevant, at this point and not included other things about which they are uncertain.

It's certainly possible that we will someday learn that the Indian investigators have been conducting a manipulative campaign and using the preliminary report as an instrument of that campaign, but there is absolutely no evidence of that currently available to us now.

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

OldnGrounded
July 15, 2025, 19:34:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923204
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
I think you misunderstand me. I agree with your first paragraph. The point I thought I was making is that the investigators wish to convey that the evidence points to human action. ( and not, for example, the number of poles on a switch).
Why the person in charge of the hand did that is unlikely ever to be known.
OK, if I misunderstood, I apologize. I'm getting a little grumpy with the ongoing efforts here to impute nefarious intent to pilots, investigators, etc. when we simply do not have evidence for those claims. I try to refrain from snippy accusations myself, but I'm not always successful.

Subjects: None

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 00:41:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924075
Originally Posted by 1stspotter
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.
That might be the case, but it is certainly not certain. Indeed, we'd have to know a lot more than we do to even be reasonably confident that the AAIB knows what you claim it knows.

Lots of leaping to unwarranted conclusions around here.

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

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 01:11:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924081
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Undoubtedly from someone not authorized to comment, but the WSJ just issued a breaking news piece. As it is behind a paywall, here\x92s the pertinent excerpt,
From your excerpt, which I've verified by checking the WSJ story:

". . . according to people familiar with U.S. officials\x92 early assessment of evidence uncovered in the crash investigation."
Not just unnamed sources, but unnamed sources allegedly familiar with the assessments of other unnamed sources whose relationship to the investigation, if any, is unspecified. Later in the WSJ piece and definitely also pertinent:

"When asked to comment on the Journal\x92s reporting about the pilots, a press officer for India\x92s Ministry of Civil Aviation and AAIB called it one-sided and declined to comment further."

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AAIB (All)  Wall Street Journal

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 12:07:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924349
Originally Posted by sabenaboy
It really baffles me how the French prosecutor was able to come out just two days after the Germanwings 9525 crash and lay out the likely cause in remarkable detail \x97 even identifying it as an apparent suicide by the co‑pilot. Yet here we are with the Air India 171 crash: it took the AAIB an entire month to release a so‑called \x93preliminary\x94 report, and even then it\x92s vague, incomplete and raises more questions than it answers.

To me, this is unacceptable. If the French could piece things together and be honest about it in 48 hours, the AAIB should have been able to do better than this.
The French prosecutor wasn't running an Annex 13 investigation. The Indian AAIB is.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AAIB (All)  AAIB (India)  Annex 13

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 13:32:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924407
Originally Posted by KSINGH
WSJ being leaked to again and they are not even trying to hide the fact that it is US officials doing the leaking as with the leaks in the days before the preliminary report

it\x92s hard to justify this and it does just make the AAIB\x92s job more difficult, would the NTSB appreciate Indian entities leaking to the Indian media before a preliminary and then final report?

im not saying it\x92s correct but it does only fuel the simmering Indian (domestic) audience\x92s views of a US/Boeing \x91coverup\x92

what new details were actually revealed here, it didn\x92t counter the facts laid out by the AAIB prelim at all so it\x92s not like we can claim the AAIB is covering up and the US has to issue counter factuals (as with the China Eastern 737)

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.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AAIB (All)  NTSB  Preliminary Report  Wall Street Journal

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 13:48:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924420
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Perhaps it follows that Annex 13 investigations aren't the 'be-all-and-end-all' of accident investigations? Are you able to identify any error in the French prosecutor's investigation or how it did damage to anyone that should not have been done?
Of course they aren't the "'be-all-and-end-all' of accident investigations." And whether or not I can identify errors in the prosecutor's investigation \x97 and indeed whether there were any errors \x97 is entirely irrelevant to the issue here.

Annex 13 investigations are the way international aviation, via the ICAO, has agreed to investigate accidents. The Annex provides for procedures, rules and standards. The integrity of the investigations, generally, is undermined when parties step outside that framework. Whether or not the French prosecutor's actions in the Germanwings case did particular damage to "anyone," and whether or not there were errors in that criminal investigation cannot be the basis for an assessment and/or rejection of the Annex 13 provisions and procedures \x97 because sensible and deliberate analysis of systems is not based on single elements or incidents.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Annex 13  ICAO

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 16:26:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924511
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3
It's the last sentence which prompts me to comment further. First, the relevant excerpt from the Journal item:
"An NTSB spokesman said Homendy has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Air India investigation, including the cockpit voice recording and details from the flight-data recorder.

Homendy said her goal in working with Indian authorities was 'to quickly determine whether the crash presented any immediate safety concerns to the traveling public.'" (internal quotation as in original)

It's quite unlikely the NTSB spokesman would have said more than Chair Homendy had authorized. The content as to the scope of her review isn't the substantive part, but it does set the context for the quote from Ms. Homendy. Her statement refers to "quickly" making a determination about "immediate safety concerns." I read this as not referring only to the time after the Prelim Rpt was released, but all of NTSB's interactions with AAIB as of July 12.

We know no emergency (or other similar labels) ADs have been issued. Early on, when no such emergency ADs were issued, some people speculated that cover-up could be the reason why. And, recalling back to the first days as of July 12, there was wide recognition that a grounding order would have immense impact and consequences, given the widespread numbers in airline fleets.

But now, the Board Chair provides an attributable on-the-record statement about the need for immediacy, had there been an aircraft or engine problem. What I read as substantive is the confirmation from such an official source that no such problem has been shown to exist. Not a large segment of the "traveling public" let alone the public at large reads Accident Board reports, let alone preliminary editions. So in her giving an attributable statement, I read an intention to reach a wider and more general audience with the message, in effect, that the causal chain of this accident does not stem from an aircraft or engine problem implicating safety of flight.



Are you referring to a different or updated (after 19:00 US EDT 7-16-2025) WSJ article? Because that was the date and time of the piece headlined "New Details in Air India Crash Probe Shift Focus to Senior Pilot" and previously discussed here. This is the entirety of references to Homendy in that article:

Contents of the flight\x92s cockpit voice recorders have been tightly held by Indian authorities and seen as key to helping fill out the sequence of events in the flight\x92s final moments.

Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, has sought to listen to the recording herself , according to people familiar with the matter.

An NTSB spokesman said that Homendy has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Air India investigation, including the cockpit voice recording and details from the flight data recorder. Homendy said her goal in working with Indian authorities was \x93to quickly determine whether the crash presented any immediate safety concerns to the traveling public.\x94
Emphasis mine.

Could you share a citation to the article (s) that include the Homendy statements to which you refer, please?

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): AAIB (All)  NTSB  Wall Street Journal

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 18:35:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924563
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3
I didn't note the time of the website article from which I took the (exact) quotes. The same website article now refers to the article published in the print edition of today's date (July 17). Why do you ask?
Why do I ask? Because I want to read the article you cited, which seems to report statements by Homendy not included in the article we were previously discussing, at least as of the date and time I cited. Perhaps you didn't realize that you were referring to a different article, or to an updated version of the original article. As you know, updates, corrections, changed headlines, etc. aren't always made with crystal clarity, so it can be difficult to track changing content.

Subjects: None

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 20:08:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924627
Originally Posted by 3FG
Is the article you're looking for linked via archive in post 1245?
Thanks, but no, that's the article that I read yesterday, quoted from and referred to in my question for Willow Run. I haven't yet found the article he quoted.

My access to the WSJ is via my Apple News+ subscription. Sometimes, Apple's presentation of the headlines, in a gallery format, makes it difficult to be sure I've found all of the ones I'm looking for. I have reviewed the three or four WSJ articles on the crash from the past few days and haven't found those quotes yet. I'll keep looking and I expect Williow Run will share the headline from the one he's citing, which will help.

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

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 20:20:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924640
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3
I'm close to being confused (but that wouldn't be even R&N).

I didn't open the link to the article archived in that post.... until just before this reply. I read the article last evening (Chicago time) and again this morning. I noted no changes.

I also noted no changes in the print edition article compared to the website.

I marked the quotations from Homendy quite clearly (I thought). I'm not clear what you're referring to. I don't think you're mistaking my comments in the post for statements attributed to Chair Homendy ...(?).

But I appreciate your evident assumption that I would want to correct any error I may have made in citation - I would, yes. It's definitely an over-the-hill lawyer thing.
I'm definitely confused, which is not even a little unusual at my advanced age. It's probably a good thing that I'm not in charge of critical systems these days. ;^)

Am I correct in my understanding that the article at the archive is not the one you read? I assume it's not, because it's the one we were discussing here before your post with the expanded Homendy quotes. It's the one I quoted from, above. If you have perhaps, the headline of the story you have been citing . . .?

In any event, assuming the expanded Homendy quotes are accurate, which I expect is the case, trusting as I do both you and the WSJ to get those right, I think the most interesting question is about the propriety of those statements, at this time. But I'll wait to see what others think.

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

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 20:47:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924653
OK, I finally understand, thanks to WillowRun's assistance, that I was wrong — we are indeed referring to the same WSJ report. And my confusion has been because I misunderstood this in his original post on the article:

But now, the Board Chair provides an attributable on-the-record statement about the need for immediacy, had there been an aircraft or engine problem. What I read as substantive is the confirmation from such an official source that no such problem has been shown to exist . Not a large segment of the "traveling public" let alone the public at large reads Accident Board reports, let alone preliminary editions. So in her giving an attributable statement, I read an intention to reach a wider and more general audience with the message, in effect, that the causal chain of this accident does not stem from an aircraft or engine problem implicating safety of flight.
Emphasis mine.

This is the only quote attributed to Homendy in that article:

Homendy said her goal in working with Indian authorities was “to quickly determine whether the crash presented any immediate safety concerns to the traveling public.”
I thought that WillowRun was referring to a different article or an updated version of the one I read, because I do not, at all, see Homendy's quoted statement as a confirmation that "no such problem has been shown to exist" or as a "message, in effect, that the causal chain of this accident does not stem from an aircraft or engine problem implicating safety of flight." I don't think that understanding proceeds from the plain meaning of the words quoted. It appears to me to arise from inference and interpretation.

Last edited by OldnGrounded; 17th July 2025 at 21:00 . Reason: Correct misspelling of two-letter word. ;^(

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

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 21:33:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924681
Originally Posted by za9ra22:
I suspect it is written as it is because at this point, there is no evidence the investigation can provide as to how the switches 'transitioned', let alone why.
Originally Posted by OPENDOOR
You mean other than the glaringly obvious fact that they are switches designed to be switched from one state to another by a human hand?
As has been previously pointed out, there's a lot of confusion in these threads about what evidence is and is not. Staying away from legal dictionaries, because we aren't engaged in a lawsuit or criminal trial here, I like this, from Oxford:

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
The fact that "they are switches designed to be switched from one state to another by a human hand" is not evidence indicating how the switches "transitioned" in this incident. It tells us how they are intended to be operated and it tells us a way that they could have been "transitioned" and that's all it tells us. By itself, the fact of the intent of the designers tells us nothing valuable about what happened on this tragic Air India flight. It doesn't help us to decide, based on evidence, whether human hands actually did move those switches or, if they did, how or why those hands moved those switches. It just isn't evidence for answering those questions, one way or another.

These threads are dominated by posters who are either certain they know how the fuel control switches were "transitioned" by human hands (and increasingly why) and by others who continue to explore and posit possible mechanical or system failures (although those posts seem to be fewer than they were). And then there are a few of us who continue to point out that we simply don't have sufficient evidence to know or decide what actually happened. I think there would be more of us with that view if more of us were more careful in considering what actually is evidence in this case and, if something is evidence, what it may be evidence of.

Last edited by OldnGrounded; 17th July 2025 at 21:36 . Reason: Typo

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

OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 22:30:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924722
Originally Posted by za9ra22
To add: You may think all I am doing is defending the indefensible in terms of culpability in this accident, but actually all I am doing is looking at evidence rather than commentary. If the WSJ have evidence via someone leaking the work of the investigation, they should at this stage be ashamed of themselves for undermining the process intended to best provide for airline and passenger safety.
Yes. Sadly, we can't really expect the news media to honor ethical boundaries such as this one, it just isn't how the institutions are constituted, although we wish it were otherwise and find the fact that it isn't deplorable. On the other hand, if the information being leaked is accurate, it must necessarily come, originally, from someone (or ones) inside the investigation in one role or another, and therefore cognizant of the relevant obligations and strictures and of the reasons for them. And the behavior of that unknown person or persons is truly reprehensible.

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

OldnGrounded
July 18, 2025, 00:04:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924769
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3
Of course, it can be said that it's still too soon, but that's not how I see the pieces fitting together. And I apologize for allowing my earlier post to be read as if my inferential reasoning was instead part of Ms. Homendy's statement.
No worries. The real problem was my thinking you were reporting what she had actually said, and I couldn't find it. I have no problem with interpretation and inference, even when the interpreter doesn't agree with me. You've been a valuable contributor here for a long time and I pay pretty careful attention to your posts.

Subjects: None

OldnGrounded
July 18, 2025, 00:14:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924772
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
If this thread has illustrated anything, it's that the number of posters supporting a particular theory doesn't necessarily have any correlation to its feasibility.
I think we have to admit that Dave wins the internet today.

Subjects: None

OldnGrounded
July 18, 2025, 02:18:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11924801
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
This statement has lots of merit.



Correct. And we're going to actively avoid getting near that theme in posts here. For reasons we can generally understand, the circumstances of this sad event have migrated away from being primarily aviation (the report does not suggest a defect with the airplane, and at least one pilot was obviously doing their very best). The report leads us into massive speculation territory, and outside the specialties of nearly all of us. None of us want to have PPRuNe become a source of information (correct, or otherwise) which may be used against a fellow pilot.

During a relaxing 36 hours away from the internet, away with Mrs. DAR, I'm wondering to myself what this thread can continue to do for us pilots? It is now a repository of some good, and some less than information. Are we contributing more to our industry by speculating, which theories may never be able to be validated?

Should we be closing this thread until something substantively new and authoritative can be added to the discussion? If keeping it open, what is served?
Not a pilot but, for me, the thread has become a struggle to discourage reckless and damaging speculation (and worse than speculation, IMHO). Some of the "accusers" are absolutely certain that their accusations are righteous and appropriate and they don't seem willing \x97 or perhaps able \x97 to back off. It appears that you and the other mods just don't have the bandwidth to weed out the worst in a timely manner. And we all know that speculation here doesn't stay here. Honestly, much as I find discussions here valuable and stimulating, I think it would be best to close this one for now.

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