Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 Last Index Page
| T28B
July 14, 2025, 13:49:00 GMT permalink Post: 11922174 |
Quick mod / admin note:
We should not turn this into a "camera in the cockpits, yes or no" hamster wheel. That particular topic can be posted about on the Rumors and News page. You can expect a robust discussion of it. There seems to be some strong positions both for and against (which is fine Thank you all in advance T28B PS: as regards the now removed (off topic) assertion that pilots don't design aircraft, I'll offer the example of the Rutan brothers as but one data point against, and ask that this derail to the topic also be addressed elsewhere. Subjects: None 14 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
July 15, 2025, 14:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 11922915 |
With Airbus it is required. However, I cannot speak about Boeing's operating philosophy.
To quote from Airbus' Flight Crew Training Manual: In flight, the PF and PM must crosscheck before any action on the following controls: ‐ ENG MASTER lever (With Boeing this would be the fuel cut-off switches) ‐ IR MODE selector ‐ All guarded controls ‐ Cockpit C/Bs. Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Switch Guards
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
July 15, 2025, 18:39:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923110 |
1982 JAL350, confirmed
1994 RAM630, confirmed 1997 SilkAir 185, NTSB says confirmed, Indonesian NTSC says undetermined, private investigation blames a technical fault 1999 EgyptAir 990, confirmed 2013 LAM470, confirmed 2014 MAH370, no report, no evidence 2015 Germanwings 9525, confirmed 2022 China Eastern 5735, media reports of pilot suicide strongly rejected by investigating agency, no report. Excluding the last one because the investigating agency explicitly called reports of pilot suicide false we have 7 cases since the beginning of commercial aviation. 2+1 suspected cases since 2000. That's 1:300.000.000 to 1:200.000.000. Actually I erroneously included the last one in my previous posts. I don't think including a case where the investigating agency explicitly refuted claims of suicide is valid. Subjects
NTSB
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
July 15, 2025, 20:40:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923208 |
He perhaps used the wrong turn of phrase there.
Something like sabotage/hacking would be in the realm of what's addressed in a criminal investigation. Our topic in this thread is the preliminary report of the accident investigation team. (That's a reminder for all, not just D Bru). Last edited by T28B; 15th July 2025 at 20:43 . Reason: (I need to stop trying to answer two posts at once). Subjects
Preliminary Report
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
July 15, 2025, 21:07:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923228 |
The report is linked in the first post of this thread, and is attached to post # 3 in .pdf format . Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Preliminary Report
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
July 15, 2025, 22:02:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923261 |
On this forum (unlike some other internet sites) you cannot unlike a post. Speculation on Maintenance Actions/Ground Crew Actions: We must accept that there is very little hard information in the Preliminary Report addressing maintenance actions before this flight. When the final report, or perhaps an interim report, is issued then more detail on the activity by the ground crews between the successful flight from Delhi and the unsuccessful flight to Gatwick will become available. I ask that we all refrain from spinning the hamster wheel regarding 'What if they removed or repaired that gizmo-thingamajig?' unless there is something to anchor that to from the report. Thank you all in advance. Subjects
Preliminary Report
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
July 16, 2025, 00:29:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923347 |
For GroundedSpanner:
You seem to have left out the fatigue bit.
Originally Posted by
Garage Years
Originally Posted by
someone
Is it possible the switchers were improperly installed and it wasn't noticed/reported? I'd suggest yes since the SAIB was issued at all.
These same switches are used on about 7,000 aircraft. A new part (766AT614-3D) with a new locking mechanism that could not be installed incorrectly was made for the 737. The 787 uses an entirely different part number (4TL837‑3D). Read the entire Preliminary report, and pay particular attention to pages 5 through 9. Five different buildings were damaged, badly, because this aircraft hit five buildings as it came down with forward momentum. Parts of the aircraft hit some buildings and not others. There was a fire. The debris field was spread out over a large area. There were whole, and broken, and burned parts of this aircraft all over the place at the crash site that the investigators needed to identify and sift through, and then try to use, to come up with the who, what, where, why, when and how of this accident. The flight deck was found about 650 feet from the initial impact point. The overall extent of the debris field was roughly 1000 feet by 400 feet. That's about three football pitches/fields long (plus a bit) and one football pitch/field wide (plus a bit). Cut the investigating team a break, if you please, and exercise a bit of patience. Subjects
Preliminary Report
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
July 16, 2025, 01:06:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923357 |
EXDAC:
I will thank you for that response, and note that the SAIB was issued for the installation on the 737. I'll go and edit my post. Done. And no, I am not impugning the decisions of the investigators to consider that as a possible contribution. I'd say (having investigated more than one accident) that it's a decent idea to look into that based on similarity of function. Subjects
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
July 25, 2025, 15:53:00 GMT permalink Post: 11928262 |
https://aviationweek.com/air-transpo...N1000041876164
From the article by Guy Norris of Aviation Week... Air India 787 Crash Being Investigated As ‘Criminal Act,’ Says Safety Expert Guy Norris July 23, 2025
LAS VEGAS—India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is now looking into the June 12 crash of an Air India
Boeing
787-8 as an intentional act, says
veteran safety consultant and former NTSB investigator Greg Feith
. The AAIB’s preliminary report on July 12 revealed that fuel cutoff switches for the 787’s two GE Aerospace GEnx-1B engines were transitioned from “run” to “cutoff” around three seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad Airport. Although both fuel switches were turned back on within a further 14 sec., the aircraft was too low to recover and impacted trees and buildings, killing 241 of 242 occupants on the 787 and 19 on the ground.The AAIB has criticized subsequent western media reports as “irresponsible” for indicating the fuel cutoff switches were likely deliberately moved by one of the pilots.
However, Feith says: “It has become very apparent, especially now with information I know and what's come out about the cockpit voice recorder—where the question is heard ‘why did you cut off the fuel?’—[that] somebody had to have seen that action to make that statement. You just wouldn’t have a dual-engine failure.” Speaking at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Aviation forum here in Las Vegas, Feith says: “Something had to prompt that type of comment. Now we get into the psychology part of it, and that's really where this investigation is going to go. “And oh, by the way, it's no longer an accident. It's investigated as a criminal event, just like EgyptAir, just like Germanwings, just like SilkAir. These are criminal events—intentional acts,” he adds, referring to three fatal crashes deemed to have been deliberately caused which occurred in 1999, 2015 and 1997 respectively. Feith, who participated in the investigation into the SilkAir crash—where a Boeing 737-300 traveling from Jakarta to Singapore was downed—says other theories continue to persist in the face of contradictory evidence provided by the AAIB. “To this day, people are still talking about this as a dual-engine failure, despite the fact that the AAIB came out with a preliminary report which gave some initial findings. They said at this stage of the investigation, there are no recommended actions for the 787-8 or the engines. They just exonerated the airplane. They just exonerated the engines.” “The junior investigators and the trolls are still making a big deal about engine failure, software issues, FADEC problems. They're not part of the process,” Feith continues. The AAIB “had a team of subject matter experts dissecting all of this in that 30-day period. You think they didn't look at that? It makes no logical sense,” he adds. “The fact is that now we have people all spooled up looking at the wrong thing instead of looking at, 'is this an isolated problem or a systemic event?' It's the first major accident for a brand-new airplane [type]. This is the kind of controversy that gets stirred up and distracts us from really looking at where we need to be and what we need to be doing to enhance aviation safety,” Feith says. Referencing the SilkAir accident, he says: “I've been down this road. I spent two years working on SilkAir in Palembang, Sumatra. I took a team of investigators over with me from Boeing and the engine manufacturer, the FAA and a variety of others, and we determined in concert with their National Transportation Safety Committee, that this was an intentional act.” Subjects
AAIB (All)
Engine Failure (All)
FAA
FADEC
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
NTSB
Preliminary Report
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
August 06, 2025, 13:36:00 GMT permalink Post: 11934147 |
Where did I leave my hamster food?
We are discussing the "News" and "Rumor" (R and N) aspect at the moment, given that it's a show, but let's remember to keep it professional (the P). Subjects: None 3 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
August 09, 2025, 02:48:00 GMT permalink Post: 11935527 |
The fuel system of an aircraft should never have a restriction to fuel being supplied to the the settings of the pilot in a power setting unless he stops it in an emergency. The first thing I was taught on fuel systems on my conversion course from RAF airframe to RAF Mechanical 18 years ago, Guess what? If the thrust level is set at take off power, no switch bar the one in the fire handle should have the authority to shut fuel or FADEC control off, unless the engine is at idle. My type will not allow the engines to be killed without the thrust lever placed at Idle or Fire Handles pulled. All visible to the other person on the flight deck. FAA may look at improving their CFR14 as a safeguard.. Boeing may start thinking like Embraer. They design idiots out on their airframes. I mean that statement too. Seen gash work by Southern Europeans saved from disaster, by Brazilian common sense in design.
Subjects
FAA
FADEC
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
October 02, 2025, 19:53:00 GMT permalink Post: 11963312 |
For Abbas Ibn Firnas, and your objection to using the well worn and easily understood term "brain fart"
(The above post is from much earlier in the thread, numerous others subsequently also used that term). As pilots (and other professionals in the industry) are human, they also use less formal terms from time to time. Subjects
Action slip
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
October 04, 2025, 02:13:00 GMT permalink Post: 11964118 |
Thank you all for your reviews, it appears that the Discovery Channel didn't add much signal, but rather more noise.
Closed until better information is available. Subjects
Discovery Channel
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
November 28, 2025, 11:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11997149 |
Hi all
My first post in this forum. This article (or the link to it) came up in my newsfeed the day before yesterday (but I have just found out I'm not yet allowed to post URLs) so try this and take out the 2 spaces at the beginning - https:// www.msn.com / en-in/news/india/ahmedabad-crash-ai-171-suffered-multiple-failures-in-48-hours-before-fatal-flight-reveals-report/ar-AA1R8TbF?ocid=socialshare and I was just about to post a message saying 'it appears to be a broken link - does anyone have the right one?' and then when I googled AI171 multiple failures 48 hours it did finally take me to what appears to be the article. Treat with caution.
Originally Posted by
the cited article
Newly emerging details however suggests that the Dreamliner may have been struggling with technical issues for multiple days before its fatal final flight.
With that said, the investigation isn't completed (the final report isn't due out until a year after the crash) and they may uncover all kinds of details that were not reported upon within the body of the interim report. But, you may also wish to consider that if something does crop up that is worthy of the attention of all 787 operators, they will issue either a bulletin (or other such amplification from the interim report) via formal channels in order alert those whose fleets have that aircraft in them. I note a lack of reference to any such official information in the article you linked to. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/india...id=socialshare Last edited by Pilot DAR; 29th November 2025 at 00:25 . Reason: Corrected 777 to be 787 [operators] Subjects
AI171
Preliminary Report
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
November 30, 2025, 14:07:00 GMT permalink Post: 11998248 |
Leonakua, you are confusing the tort process with the formal, ICAO based, accident investigation process.
Merging the two is a bad idea, which is why it isn't done. There is a thread running now here on PPRuNe about AF 447 (an accident that happened in 2009) and the civil suit attendant that accident. The final report has long since been published and the BEA have it upon their site. You are getting push back from people in the profession because you are making a basic mistake: confusing the 'civil suit' aspect of an aircraft accident with the formal accident investigation. Please stop with that line of posting, because it is off topic to this thread: Preliminary Air India crash report published. Subjects
ICAO
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| T28B
December 03, 2025, 12:54:00 GMT permalink Post: 11999724 |
This thread is about safety, everything else WR 6-3 has mentioned should rightly put in its own thread \x93Litigation action over Air India Flight\x94.
I don\x92t need to read a thread which conflates legal shenanigans about process with critical flight safety facts. As has been noted in the multiple threads regarding this accident, and certainly in this thread once the interim report came out, there are some ambiguities and unknowns that have combined to frustrate the assessment of this tragedy. Subjects: None 2 recorded likes for this post.Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |