Posts by user "WillowRun 6-3" [Posts: 12 Total up-votes: 37 Pages: 1]

CNN reporting (quoting Reuters as its source) that death toll is at least 290, including people who were in the medical building. Terrible - RIP

You're referring to Pakistan Int'l Airlines 8303, accident date May 22, 2020, presumably; in which 97 of 99 persons on board the aircraft were killed, with one additional fatality of a person on the ground.

Nothing about "legal" whatsoever in what follows.

In the 12 years during which I have followed, and posted on, threads on this forum occasional objections to excessive uninformed posts and posters have been lodged. Recently the reasons for these objections have increased, and without question are acute on this thread (and maybe unprecedented).

People in the aircraft piloting profession speak in a language in which laypeople generally do poorly, even when they sincerely try. The terminology or lexicons are one thing, and the bigger problem is that being a professional pilot means that the person has mastered (at any particular experience level of the profession) the process of thinking and reasoning . . . as a professional pilot. The useless and at times ridiculously incorrect stuff posted by laypeople often seems to have been written performatively. "Keyboard warriors" might be an outdated phrase but it lives on. But as one layperson who has learned a great deal here I hope the pro's will stay engaged.

As fdr said just a few posts ago, this accident and investigation has "international importance" and the 787 is a "globally important aircraft type." Big aviation accidents do indeed capture the public's imagination, because they provoke [insert title of risque novel by Erica Jong, circa 1974], because they negatively affect a cross-section of people in the places connected by the flight in question, and because governments generally take them quite seriously. The junk-posters would be wise (though when hell freezes over) to recall that the people who care the most about getting the right answers through the investigation are the . . . . professional pilots.

WSJ reporting black boxes recovered
....
mods please delete if redundant

At this time I think whether or not the 787 fleet will be subjected to a grounding order is indeterminate. The recorder units have been available for enough time so that it is reasonable to believe the fundamental "what" of the accident has been identified, even though the "how" and "why" will require more information than will be found in the recorders. I don't think the status of this component of the investigation points one way or the other to a grounding order.

However, the fact that the very highly authoritative poster fdr has anticipated a grounding order, and if I understood the very succinct (adjacent) post by another such authoritative person, PJ2 also anticipates it .... while I do not claim to understand their reasoning or the aeronautical or systems information on which it is based, but despite anything else I'm not going to disagree.

Several prior instances have been referenced. The deferral of a grounding order following Lion Air 610 strikes me as part of the overall MCAS debacle; regulatory capture, "narrative management" by the OEM. This accident has happened in a considerably different context. The previous grounding order that gives some concern is the one issued after American 191.

Not the order itself. Rather, after the non-U.S. operators had inspected their fleets and were able to report whether or not any engine-attachment structures (I don't want to get it wrong so I'm not specifically referring to "pylon" or "bolt" etc.) were damaged, they sought lifting of the order. The FAA Administrator kept it in place. The non-U.S. operators sued in federal court, arguing (at hopefully only slight over-simplification) that the U.S. was obligated by international convention to accept the airworthiness certificates of the other States in which those operators were legally organized. They won their case, too. . . . .

But at the time British Caledonian among other non-U.S. operators challenged the FAA Admin. to lift the grounding order, were any of those non-U.S. operators aware only of the proper maintenance condition of their engines' attachments, or were they also aware of the change in the aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft resulting from the asymmetric slats caused, in turn, by the severance of the hydraulics? If they did not yet know about the fact that the asymmetric slats caused the stall speed to increase, then their airworthiness certificates should not have been given legal deference. (If anyone knows the state of knowledge of the non-U.S. operators when they first challenged the FAA's grounding order, any information (or reprimand either for my lack of knowledge or thread drift) via PM will be greatly appreciated.)

So if the 787 fleet is in fact subjected to a grounding order, one hopes that the conditions for lifting it will be determined with great clarity. Not to drift over the edge, but the MAX order and its lifting might not give great confidence on this point.

Related to all this is the suggestion, way upthread, that Annex 13 is no longer fit for purpose. Respectfully stated, but I disagree. What would be proposed to update it? Until this tragic accident is resolved, what prospect is there to engage Member States (of ICAO) plus all the credentialed observer organizations in the process to rewrite it? Also, since Sully changed retirement careers the U.S. has not had a Permanent Rep to ICAO (let alone one confirmed by the Senate for Ambassador rank).

What about keeping the investigation process and results insulated from the pressures for drawing into the litigation process? Early disclosures of partial information would tend to erode that insulation - and for what gain?

The phrase by Icarus (post at 09:25) is one I would like to borrow - though giving attribution to an anonymous callsign could get tricky . . . . "narrative management, damage control, and pass the liability parcel."

The contrast to the previous inspection order is noteworthy.

SLF/attorney here, and staying in (what I hope will be seen as) very narrow limits for posting here.

Disclosures of information by unofficial sources during on-going Annex 13 investigations would not seem to be unusual - not to excuse the occurence. If I'm reading OldnGrounded's post (at 10:04) correctly, it isn't really unexpected.

I went back and reread the AvH report from which gear lever's post (at 4:27; AvH link at 4:43) was taken. Yes, AvH misidentifies an ELT. But consider: the content of the unofficially-sourced statement about the CVR-type portion of the forward recorder does not appear to have indicia of unreliability. To the contrary, as other posters have pointed out, by now the CVR-type portion of the recorder would have been read in all likelihood. Further, the rest of the June 17th unofficially-sourced statement aligns with the absence of any emergency ADs, or at least most all of that statement aligns that way. As for how the unofficial source was described, well of course that description would be vague or ambiguous - for one thing, the AvH wants to keep its source inside the flow of events and information.

As long as this post already is risking intrusion on the serious aviation-community discussion going on, I'll just add that the mods are to be greatly appreciated for many more forum hours into the future, for their incessant attention to the threads. Thank you!

Nothing has been officially reported. Perhaps down the timeline it will emerge that AvH made a bet about publishing unofficial statements which later are revealed falsified or even just erroneous.

On the closed thread, someone posted that soon the investigation will become immersed in "narrative management, damage control and pass the liability parcel." That's a good way to think about it, but maybe too good. And this post won't use the word that rhymes with shmolitics.

In a major aircraft accident such as this, several different hard-hitting law firms and attorneys who specialize in representing families of people who lose their lives in such accidents will be out in force. This will happen, even without knowing the outcome of the investigation and its analysis. But two factors (among possibly others) make the potential significance of the "games being played" now less than we might initially surmise.

The first is that regardless of the outcome, every significant potential defendant will become an actual defendant. I'm not saying to expect the ANSP in India to become a defendant, but certainly the three corporate entities will (and I mean no offense by stating this obvious point, but any unseen manuevering will turn out pointless if the object is to avoid being sued).

The second is that the results of the investigation will not be allowed as evidence in court, at least in the United States; I have to admit I'm not positive about whether the principle in International Air Law that accident investigation reports do not constitute evidence in court proceedings is actually observed in other countries. I believe it is observed, but I stand to be corrected.

I have tried to organize and phrase this post in such a manner as not to offend the grief and dignity of those in shocked mourning over the loss of loved ones. The post merely seeks to offer comment on the possible impacts of the delay, or apparent delay, in officially sourced updates and information about the tragic fate of Air India Flight 171, Ahmedabad.

Additionally, the lithium-ion batteries in the 787 design required compliance with "Special Conditions" in order to gain type certification. The addition of the Special Conditions at least strongly suggests that FAA's certification process brain-trust had maintained some vigilance with regard to the batteries once the type started operating, i.e., given their newness.

At this time, the fault or flaw at the root of this accident and how that fault or flaw worked through aircraft components and systems has not been identified publicly. It might not even have been identified .... I'm not convinced that separating "what" from "how and why" as a semantics exercise is enough to conclude the Annex 13 officials know the root cause yet. Maybe they do, maybe not.

And if they do not, then the contrast with the situation where FAA was, it seemed, keeping a close eye on battery issues in particular, is relevant.

The June 30, 2025 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology (reviewed from an email with "Editors' Picks" sent to subscribers) includes an article dated June 27 by Sean Broderick, about the investigation of Air India 171. It relates some new facts or factual infomration (as well as coverage of many facts in the public domain for some time already).

One theme of the article is that the timing of release of information, in general about the investigation and specifically about data discovered in the recorder(s), appears inconsistent with other facts about the investigation. In support of this theme, the AW&ST article quotes a former NTSB investigator (with specific aircraft accident investigation experience).

The article also refers to the progress of work at the accident site (including an estimate of the number of workers involved) and the presence of aircraft accident investigation professionals from highly experienced authorities and entities (U.S. NTSB, U.K. AIB, Boieng, GE). It is pointed out - certainly with respect and diplomatic tone - that the aircraft accident investigation authority of India has relatively less experience in such matters. And that the presence of more experienced participants in the investigation (as accredited representatives, if I hopefully recall study of Annex 13 correctly) would suggest that guidance to the India authority has been available.

As the foregoing suggests 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 .... but that generalization, while true in some cases, isn't backed up with anything specific of a factual nature.)

Mods, I hope this adds to the thread and if not please don't miss the bin when it gets tossed.

Regarding benefit of the doubt being warranted: While I agree, the more important point is the AW&ST writer probably would also agree. The message the article centers upon is that the relevance of, or need for, giving benefit of the doubt appears substantial. In that sense, the writer makes the same point as "This is probably the first 'really big' accident investigation they have done that has achieved so much international attention" - and citing that there have been three "fatal airline accident[s] in the country since 2000".

Among other facts supporting both the theme of article and the propriety of allowing benefit of the doubt, as the article notes, "Unlike their counterparts from Europe and the U.S., AAIB experts are not regularly dispatched as technical advisors in foreign investigations involving products built and certified at home."

Considering the difficulties so far in determining cause(s) of this accident and the relatively scant infromation released by the investigating authorities, this news item about actions by the DGCA, which could turn out to be relevant, caught my eye. It was published in Aviation Daily, June 25, with a by-line of a senior air transport editor at AW&ST.

​​​​​​​[End of quotation, w/o any alterations]

With apologies if this drifts too far from the current exchanges on the thread.