Posts by user "SRMman" [Posts: 8 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 1]

SRMman
June 13, 2025, 18:08:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11900766
I rather thought the \x93green white\x94 flickering lights were the overhead ceiling lights, which I believe change colour on the 787, perhaps indicating a power supply interruption.

Subjects: None

SRMman
June 18, 2025, 10:37:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11905118
I wonder if the delay in announcing any preliminary findings is because of the enormity of the consequences.

Let us say the investigation team have discovered a unique technical fault that caused the accident, but don\x92t yet know why it happened, how would the team proceed? On the one hand they\x92ve uncovered a fault which could reoccur and cause another accident (but a fault that has only happened once in 14 years). On the other hand a grounding would have enormous commercial consequences worldwide, with the possibility that an inspection and/or rectification are not yet available.

What would they do?

Subjects: None

SRMman
June 18, 2025, 13:46:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11905266
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Normally, the preliminary report is released about 30 days, post- event. It isn\x92t late, they\x92re not dragging their heels. Slow down, the process takes time.
My point was IF the investigations team have already discovered that a technical issue caused the accident, and it could happen again, how would they balance the need to inform everyone quickly, against the commercial consequences of a grounding, especially if the reason for the fault wasn\x92t yet understood.

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

SRMman
June 19, 2025, 18:45:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11906259
To continue with some more speculation (hopefully not idle!) one of the areas I haven\x92t seen much discussion on is maintenance errors. Clearly all aircraft are under a continuous regime of maintenance, whether scheduled or unplanned. In my time long ago we had many specialist technicians on hand to deal with most eventualities, time was always of the essence, but there was a strict process of checking and sign-offs for every bit of technical work carried out. OK, it was the military, but I can\x92t imagine it\x92s much different today in the civil world.

But of course mistakes happen occasionally, leading generally to nothing worse than a cancelled sortie, or less commonly for the aircraft\x92s built-in redundant systems to \x91kick in\x92 or be switched in. On the ground the fault might be on the MEL, in the air a diversion might be necessary. And this was decades ago. What I\x92m leading to is this; on an ultra modern commercial airliner such as the 787, what possible maintenance error could cause such a catastrophic event as happened to AI 171?

We understand the right engine was replaced 3 months ago, and doubtless there have been other regular, routine activities necessitating disturbance of engine, avionic and other systems. One could imagine perhaps an electronic piece of equipment (we called them LRUs) not being fully located in its housing, ditto for plugs and connectors, and such equipment apparently working correctly at the time but failing at a later time. There are anecdotal stories of AirIndia 171 on earlier flights having air conditioning and in-flight entertainment issues. And we don\x92t know what, if any, maintenance/repairs were done immediately before the last flight.

But isn\x92t all this irrelevant, given that, we are told, the 2 engines and controls are uniquely independent of each other and will continue to work in the presence of aircraft major electrical and hydraulic system failures?

In summary, and assuming accidental rather than deliberate, there seems to be no way that double engine failure could result from maintenance error?

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)  MEL  Maintenance Error

SRMman
June 30, 2025, 15:53:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11913719
Originally Posted by Loose rivets
Someone Somewhere Re your Loose rivets quote. We seem to be talking about opposite ends of the flight.

Chiefttp , Richard Godfrey is a person of interest to people with minds like the late Richard Feynman. I'm at a loss to understand how he comes to some of his conclusions, though his past work has shown streaks of genius. Reading through benjyyy 's link leaves me uneasy about the ratio of assumptions vs facts.
I think there is mileage in Richard Godfrey's reasoning, and worth listening to. Here is the latest "Airline News by Geoffrey Thomas" from 6 hours ago.


Admin note: Mr Thomas is a thoroughly debunked Australian whose aviation experience was decades ago as a baggage handler. His narrative should be taken with a mug full of salt.

We are leaving this here as a caution, the YouTube clip was previously deleted.

Senior Pilot

Last edited by Senior Pilot; 30th June 2025 at 20:55 . Reason: Caution

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

SRMman
July 13, 2025, 13:04:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11921311
I still think that one of the most puzzling things from the Preliminary Report is the 4 second gap between Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch being returned to RUN, and that of Engine 2. It seems generally agreed one second is a reasonable time to operate both switches, so why did it take so long to move the 2nd switch?

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  Preliminary Report  RUN/CUTOFF

SRMman
July 13, 2025, 20:14:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11921600
Originally Posted by BrogulT
If it was an action by the captain, then claims that the plan was unlikely to succeed are disproven by the fact that it did succeed and probably with at least a few seconds to spare. He would have known that it would take a short bit of time for the FO to fully figure out that both engines had stopped and why. He would have known that shutting down for more than 10 seconds would spool down the engines far enough to make a relight either slow or unlikely and if need be, he could take further action. He also would have known that a crash into urban Ahmedabad would be catastrophic. I'm not saying his plan was perfect, but it is "reasonable" considering the stated goals and options available.
And of course it was the Captain\x92s decision to give that particular take off to the FO.

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

SRMman
July 14, 2025, 09:53:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11922013
Originally Posted by The Brigadier
Well, that certainly provides food for thought, not least as it's confirmed the Captain found time to communicate a Mayday call 4 seconds before impact.
Actually, we don't know who made the Mayday call.

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