Posts by user "za9ra22" [Posts: 88 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 5]

Just a thought, but it is not difficult to find workers critical of their employers, and even less trouble to find those criticising former employers. This isn't all that useful as evidence, nor does it tell us anything about why a seemingly serviceable 787 which managed a take off and initial climb which appeared normal enough, then crashed.

Air India's business model and maintenance policies may have something to do with this, but cultural issues don't generally bring down a competent airliner. Nor does AI's accident record suggest this was inevitable.

The video does NOT indicate something falling off the plane. The individual presenting the video actually contends it is not an object coming off the plane, but something possibly being pulled up of a rooftop as the plane gets very close to it - and explains his reasoning.

Actually, the video (mentioned in posts above) shows an object that is flying upwards and to the left, pretty much as the aircraft is about it impact the ground. It doesn't look like it could possibly be directly related to whatever event caused the flight to transition from gaining to loosing altitude, because that would have been well before this element of the incident.

Nor can it be said with any certainty that this object was in any way in the same plane as the aircraft - there's no way to tell the depth of field - and it has already been mentioned that a YT 'analysis' suggests if anything, it is likely to be a piece of debris pulled up from a ground structure by the proximity of the aircraft. Either way, it doesn't show an object 'falling' until it has transited upwards and leftwards (in the video frame) from it's point of origin.

How do we know this?

The investigation is being led by the AAIB of India, not Boeing or US regulators. While the investigators will be mindful of a wide range of industry-related issues, I doubt they have any concern for what may or may not be 'consequrences to the USA's national security'. If there is any politics involved in obfuscating and delaying the investigation, they'll be Indian politics surely?

Per the Mayday call, the only direct quote I can find relating to it is in a Guardian report on June 14, where Samir Kumar Sinha, a secretary for India\x92s aviation ministry, is quoted as saying that the call was "Mayday, mayday".

That from a briefing by India\x92s aviation authorities on Saturday, which confirmed that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who was piloting the flight, sent the distress call, and that there was no response to ATC calls to the aircraft.

If that quote is accurate, there was no reference to power loss or any other factors in the Mayday call that was received.

(Edit to correct 'June 15 to June 14 when the briefing took place - apologies for the typo)

Generally speaking, drawing conclusions upon the lack of evidence is not widely productive.

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

Wholeheartedly agree. It is highly probable that the survivor's report of this green and white light is accurate, though the translation as to whether it flickers or comes on isn't entirely clear. But that then gives rise to the next question, which is - presuming the emergency exit sign was not previously lit - what caused it to light at this point?

Conjecture, based on the initial 'flickering' of the light was that it was the result of electrical faults/failures, but presuming it came on rather than flickered, what triggers it to do so?

(By the way, apropos of nothing Air India related: Good luck with your Barrister certification)

As regards the pixelation in the take off image that you posted, I'd say that is certainly well spotted, but I think we all have to acknowledge that pixelation really denotes the absence' of information rather than it's presence. I would say that if this image were followed by indications of asymmetric thrust and an irregular take off and initial climb, it would tell us something, even in the absence of bird remains. But it didn't, and the aircraft took off with all appearing normal.

To me, the video shows that whatever happened to the aircraft was symmetrical in as far as it continued in an (almost) straight line. That said, it is entirely possible that however grainy the video evidence is, somewhere within it there may well be a significant - even if momentary - clue, so this was a good catch, even if not the smoking gun.

This absolutely!

Even assuming that the investigation has begun, let alone concluded, retrieving data from the 'black box', this doesn't mean that data exists in isolation from all the other observations/data/evidence/loci of curiosity of the entire accident investigation.

There isn't just an impatient public that has to be satisfied here, nor necessarily a simple matter of a mistaken control input. The cockpit voice recorder may reveal lots of information which needs to be heard and identified, and inserted into the electro-mechanical function of the aircraft, let alone reveal complexities in equipment programming which might be easy to discover existent (and maybe not so easy) but which may well be extremely complex to unravel and understand.

Investigations are rarely easy, or quick, and competent ones are never in a hurry. And that's leaving aside the socio-political side of them and their findings, which as you say, are likely a part of this too.

We were taught (admittedly in a different area of investigative work) that we could be quick, or we could be right, but to not believe we could ever be both.

What they would NOT do is first circulate the information in the public domain. In your scenario, 'knowing' the technical fault but not the why, the team would have to focus on the 'why' just as much as the 'what'. I would posit that the two things are both essential knowledge in the process of accident causality, and until they know how the 'what' and the 'why' interacted and combined to result in this incident, they couldn't really know enough to make any public announcement.

I do think there would be some tensions within the investigation team, given it comprises a number of different interests, which is why I suspect that critical knowledge wouldn't stay private within the team for overly long, but would at least in part leak out. However, I doubt the investigation is at all concerned about the pressure of social media demand for answers, so won't be in a hurry to draw conclusions.

There may be some feedback to the authorities from the investigation if they find something which indicates a predictable and correctable fault condition to be latent in aircraft or systems design/implementation so that inspections/maintenance can take place, but I'd presume we'd see that in directives being issued from transport regulators.

Others have suggested the investigation could attempt to obfuscate findings if they were politically or economically damaging, but I doubt that is likely. These are professionals doing a tough job, and will take some pride in doing it well. Plus, the disparate elements of the investigation team provies for a certain degree of checks and balances to help ensure this doesn't happen.

Self Loading Freight. In other words: Passenger.

Extracting meaning from what is NOT said isn't even speculation, it's pure guesswork.

Plus, what on earth would you expect of 'the boss' but that he talks up the competence of his company?

It seems likely (to me) that as of yet, investigators have not discovered anything specific which could point to a need for such a recommendation. My thought would be that they haven't got that far at this time.

It may be easy enough to assume (as some have) that the black boxes will have been read and their contents known by now, but much of the physical evidence on the ground is likely too damaged for such ready examination. If, for example, the CVR reveals that the flight deck crew were aware of a failure of both engines, but not a cause, investigators still have a lot of work to do with physical evidence to determine the cause.

Until that is done, or completed sufficiently to create high confidence they are on the right track, surely they can't provide much that would tell airlines or regulators what specific maintenance is advisable.

How do we know this? As far as I can find, the only direct quote of an official on the content of the MayDay call was from a week ago, when it was reported that the Captain was flying the aircraft, and called only "MayDay, MayDay". Also that there was no response from the aircraft to ATC calls after that.

It may be a moot point, given that one of the videos (from aft as the aircraft takes off) appears to show the jet exhaust cease as the A/C climbs out - 10-11 seconds into the video posted previously showing both rear and side videos side-by-side). To me, it appears as if the engines suddenly throttle down at that point, so I may only be quibbling over what the MayDay actually said.

Edit:
Combined video posted by Cptn Bloggs - post #839: Air India Ahmedabad accident 12th June 2025 Part 2 showing what appears to be loss of engine thrust at 10-11 seconds.

Guardian report on June 14 briefing including MayDay call: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ay-authorities

Sure:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ay-authorities

I can't say it is an authoritative report, but I tend to be more trusting of journalism where quotes are directly attributed to specific individuals.

India has become one of the foremost global centres of IT hardware and software development, so I'd agree that it seems quite probable that it would have the capability to work with data extraction at component level.

It seems likely also that in setting up a lab to allow the reading of data recorders, they would know in advance that in many instances, the devices would likely be in a damaged condition when recovered, and ensure they were equipped for that.

It seems to me more likely that any actual delay in retrieving data, presuming there is anything to retrieve in the first place, would be in the form of pressures from competing interests than in competing capabilities.

While suspecting that mods may consider this subject outside the realm of this thread - and I think it was raised previously - I have to say that to my mind, there would be significant questions over the integrity and reliability of data collected via third-party commercial businesses or agencies which may or may not have vested interests, and the vulnerability to any transmitted data to unauthorised and unknown outside access.

Just that last consideration, meaning the need to introduce information security 'experts' into the analysis of data might create far more problems than it solves.

On edit:
The reason why I think this is relevant to the Air India thread is that - as outlined in the discussion of FPGAs previously - aviation and avionics is becoming more and more sophisticated and specialised, and the need for rapid data analysis in an accident isn't just one of public impatience. Potential failure modes in increasingly complex systems make for an increasing need to pinpoint critical issues rapidly enough to mitigate them.

Totally true, no argument on that at all. However, I did not say, and didn't intend to imply, that India's emergent strengths in hardware and software engineering were consequent on the same individual(s).