2025-06-12T13:59:00
permalink Post: 11899240
Incidental, but I wonder the camera operator was actually trying to capture. Did the aircraft fly into his shot or had something occurred which made him, (sounds like a him), grab his device and start recording? The footage from X is not CCTV, its a hand held device, probably a phone, and not professional. Was capturing the final moments of this unfortunate aircraft a coincidence?
Subjects: CCTV
2025-06-12T15:00:00
permalink Post: 11899302
A British father has miraculously survived the Air
India
plane disaster, believed to have claimed the lives of hundreds of people in India.
Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, 40, spoke from the safety of a hospital bed after escaping from the fallen Gatwick-bound Flight 171 this morning.
The passenger, who was in seat 11A when the plane came down in a residential area, recalled: 'Thirty seconds after take-off, there was a loud noise and then the plane crashed. It all happened so quickly.'
Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, 40, spoke from the safety of a hospital bed after escaping from the fallen Gatwick-bound Flight 171 this morning.
The passenger, who was in seat 11A when the plane came down in a residential area, recalled: 'Thirty seconds after take-off, there was a loud noise and then the plane crashed. It all happened so quickly.'
Subjects: None
2025-06-13T10:00:00
permalink Post: 11900270
This is a quote from the sole survivor so don't shoot the messenger: "When the flight took off, within five to 10 seconds it felt like it was stuck in the air. Suddenly, the lights started flickering \x96 green and white \x96 then the plane rammed into some establishment that was there".
This might indicate evidence of a possible major electrical issue which could have disabled critical aircraft systems.
This might indicate evidence of a possible major electrical issue which could have disabled critical aircraft systems.
He also states, 'soon after take off . . . maybe 5 to 10 seconds, and it felt like the plane was struck, it felt like something had happened . . . the pilot was trying to give it a bit of a push, but it was struggling . . .'
Not sure what the witness means by pilot trying to give it a bit of a push, does he perhaps mean he heard the engines getting louder.
We of course understand witness reliability, particularly with trauma, but he is the only human witness present in the aircraft that is able to speak.
Subjects: Electrical Failure
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T10:09:00
permalink Post: 11900284
The emergency exit sign on a B787 at the exit rows. Illuminates with loss of electrical power.
Subjects: None
6 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T10:58:00
permalink Post: 11900349
Behind the horror of this accident there will be people and organisations secretly discussing whether to boycott Air India or ground B787s.
In the meantime the majority of us are considering the horrendous human cost regardless of the cause being faulty pilots or faulty planes.
Subjects: None
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-15T19:10:00
permalink Post: 11902735
As a witness, I would be shocked if he were not interviewed and every question and response carefully considered. All in good time of course, whereas right now we seem in a hurry for answers, and in that mode, more likely to jump to conclusions than properly arrive at them from evidence.
That said, the problem with witnesses is that they commonly report what they expect to have been rather than what actually was. Years ago, in a carefully staged accident, witnesses were asked to describe what they had seen. The results were startling - at least in as far as they differed widely. This included details which had not been present, interpretations of sights/sounds rather than factual details, and even a number of people who hadn't even been there to actually witness the event first hand, reporting what they had seen 'first hand'.
Witnesses in a situation such as this tend to have strong confirmation bias and can be very unreliable. Not that in this case the survivor should not be taken seriously and respectfully, but that what he can tell investigators will have to be woven into the evidential fabric of the event to make sure the right things can be learned from him
That said, the problem with witnesses is that they commonly report what they expect to have been rather than what actually was. Years ago, in a carefully staged accident, witnesses were asked to describe what they had seen. The results were startling - at least in as far as they differed widely. This included details which had not been present, interpretations of sights/sounds rather than factual details, and even a number of people who hadn't even been there to actually witness the event first hand, reporting what they had seen 'first hand'.
Witnesses in a situation such as this tend to have strong confirmation bias and can be very unreliable. Not that in this case the survivor should not be taken seriously and respectfully, but that what he can tell investigators will have to be woven into the evidential fabric of the event to make sure the right things can be learned from him
However it is the small details which do not conform to, for instance, a survivors idea of a crash. In this case the detail of a green and white light coming on after take off. I don't speak Gujarati so I rely on the translation of Sky News.
https://news.sky.com/story/air-india...o-die-13383080
During the thread it has been stated that the lights were flashing, flickering or came on and off. The Sky translation states a green and white light came on. I can identify this as the emergency exit sign on the B787. It is located at all exits, one of which the witness was sat at.
I offer no suggestion as to what occurred or why the aircraft crashed. But in considering the available evidence, the illumination, after take off, of a green and white light, identifyable as an emergency exit sign, must be given weight. Further the functionality of that sign must be examined.
Subjects: None
2 users liked this post.
2025-06-16T08:56:00
permalink Post: 11903277
Very early on I pondered why the person filming the aircraft from a building did so, as have others. Did something specificly out of character cause him to start filming and could that be evidence.
The answer is no. He was simply in the right place at the wrong time.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../121862125.cms
The answer is no. He was simply in the right place at the wrong time.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../121862125.cms
Subjects: None
2025-06-17T18:04:00
permalink Post: 11904524
As more days pass without the FAA/EASA issuing an emergency Airworthiness Directive re. the 787 Dreamliner, it does appear more likely the cause of the crash was specific to the Air India aircraft (as per speculation on fuel contamination, bad maintenance, crew error etc. etc.)
If the data is readable there may be a lot of politics and reputation on how that data may be interpreted. Behind the veneer of international cooperation vested interests will be being considered, advocated and agreed.
It, unfortunately, is naive to think that politics will not have a silent presence in agreeing a press release. Boeing and GE are flagship USA companies. Air India is the flagship carrier of India.
Investigations of all types first establish what happened, then how and why, before recommendations and actions. There is a possibility that they know the what, but the how and why incur liability.
Subjects: Fuel (All) Fuel Contamination
5 users liked this post.
2025-06-17T18:30:00
permalink Post: 11904541
Without incurring the wrath of the moderators, can I add another improbable and maybe with current understanding impossible possibility.
Electro magnetic interference. Intended or accidential.
I apologise that it might be another rabbit hole, but at present, and to quote the esteemed tdracer, 'never say never' and 'this is perplexing'.
Electro magnetic interference. Intended or accidential.
I apologise that it might be another rabbit hole, but at present, and to quote the esteemed tdracer, 'never say never' and 'this is perplexing'.
Subjects: None
2025-06-18T15:31:00
permalink Post: 11905336
"
On JUn 18th 2025 the DGCA stated, that the inspection of Air India's Dreamliners did not find any major safety deficiency. Aircraft and maintenance were found in compliance with existing safety standards."
https://avherald.com/h?article=528f27ec&opt=0
https://avherald.com/h?article=528f27ec&opt=0
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.
Subjects: AAIB (All) AAIB (IDGA) DGCA
1 user liked this post.