Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 Last Index Page
OldnGrounded
July 15, 2025, 19:15:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923192 |
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 |
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. Subjects: None |
OldnGrounded
July 17, 2025, 00:41:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924075 |
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 |
". . . according to people familiar with U.S. officials\x92 early assessment of evidence uncovered in the crash investigation."
"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 |
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. 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 |
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 |
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 |
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.
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 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 |
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 |
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 |
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. 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.
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.”
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.
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
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 |
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.
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 |
Subjects: None |
OldnGrounded
July 18, 2025, 00:14:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924772 |
Subjects: None |
OldnGrounded
July 18, 2025, 02:18:00 GMT permalink Post: 11924801 |
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? Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Thread Moderation |