...I guess if no directives come from Boeing or the FAA in the next 2 weeks, it can be presumed that a systems failure from which recovery was impossible was unlikely.
I agree. The subject aircraft was fitted with two
Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders
(EAFRs), one of which is located forward and one in the rear. These recorders capture both voice (traditional CVR) and data (traditional FDR), and provide redundancy. One - presumably the one in the rear - has already been recovered.
Two weeks is likely long enough for the investigators to determine if a systems failure
might,
in any way, have been a possible cause. I am sure that if there is any reason to suspect that a systems failure may have been a probable cause, or even contributed in any way to the accident, Boeing, GE, the FAA, or the Indian DGAC will promptly advise 787 operators.
SubjectsCVRDFDRFAAFDR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
...the article asserts, in a thematic sense, that the timing of information release is not consistent with factual information about the investigation. (It also generally suggests that information typically is released by investigation authorities earlier within the initial 30-day time period provided for by Annex 13....
I think that it is understandable that the Indian accident investigation team leaders are being very cautious about when and what information to release. This is probably the first "really big" accident investigation they have done that has achieved so much international attention. I am sure that they want to be certain that when they do release information it is accurate and carefully presented, simply to avoid any embarrassment that might arise from a hasty or less than carefully thought out disclosure.
For that reason, I think we ought to give the Indian investigators the benefit of the doubt and assume that they simply want to make sure that when they do make a statement it is 'bulletproof' and reflects well on their skill, professionalism, and the processes that they have followed.
SubjectsAAIB (All)AAIB (IDGA)Annex 13
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
Can anyone suggest a good reason why the captain should issue a Mayday call at that point? The crew should have been extremely busy with the situation. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate is a mantra we are all familiar with. So why communicate?
I've been in a similar situation once when the
Twin Otter I was flying was hit by a surface-to-air missile
. I put out an initial Mayday call as soon as I had the heading & altitude under control (that took about 5 seconds) but before taking any other actions. I didn't have any intention of entering into a long conversation when I made the call, I just wanted dispatch to know that we had a serious problem - in case we didn't come out of it alive.
Fortunately, we did come out of it alive, and after completing all the appropriate checklists, picking a nearby airport to land at, and lighting up a cigarette, I called dispatch back and explained the situation.
To me, it is understandable that the pilot made a Mayday call.
SubjectsMAYDAY
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
The thread is closed so there are no user likes are available and no reply is possible.
Here is a link to a news story (a long story) on Indian TV today that discusses what they call the "leaked report" which they assert has already been provided to government officials. It is interesting to watch. It includes comments from the President of the Indian ALPA.
There has been discussion recently about a procedure that involves moving the fuel switches to CUTOFF and then back to RUN following a dual engine failure.
Attached is an image of a page from the Air India 787 Training Manual that discusses this procedure.
