Air India Crash

squerble said:
See my post above. You can get some basic electrical and hydraulic power back with the RAT, but not the engines. They need an APU (or lots of airspeed) to attempt start. You can't do that 100ft off the ground.
Click to expand...

I know about APU as it was previously mentioned in this thread, my concern was the APU takes as you say 90 seconds to come online.

Is there no safety backup that could be made to come on immediately seems like this is needed for a scenario like this.
 
bingham67 said:
Is there no safety backup that could be made to come on immediately seems like this is needed for a scenario like this.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest could be done? These jet engines need high pressure air or loads of amps to start the engines again. A dual engine failure a couple of hundred feet after takeoff is one of the most remote possibilities and probably not worth trying to account for. Normally you'd potentially lose one engine, and the remaining engine has enough power to keep the aircraft climbing (but slower than usual). This gives time for things like attempted restarts etc. With barely 200' of altitude there's nothing you can do, and nothing you can do to try and mitigate it (shy of sitting in seat 11A, it would seem).
 
squerble said:
What do you suggest could be done? These jet engines need high pressure air or loads of amps to start the engines again. A dual engine failure a couple of hundred feet after takeoff is one of the most remote possibilities and probably not worth trying to account for. Normally you'd potentially lose one engine, and the remaining engine has enough power to keep the aircraft climbing (but slower than usual). This gives time for things like attempted restarts etc. With barely 200' of altitude there's nothing you can do, and nothing you can do to try and mitigate it (shy of sitting in seat 11A, it would seem).
Click to expand...

Im not suggesting im merely asking as I dont know about these things, but anything to improve safety has got to be a good thing right.
 
squerble said:
With barely 200' of altitude there's nothing you can do, and nothing you can do to try and mitigate it (shy of sitting in seat 11A, it would seem).
Click to expand...

bingham67 said:
Wow that mental.

In a twist I always sit at 11C on Ryanair flights as creature of habbit obviously a totally different plane though.
Click to expand...

I think you need to consider moving a ccouple of seats over in the future...
 
bingham67 said:
Im not suggesting im merely asking as I dont know about these things, but anything to improve safety has got to be a good thing right.
Click to expand...
Diminishing returns. Extra systems can add complexity which adds to pilot cognitive load right when they don't need any more stress, not to mention cost.

Nah, like I said, dual engine failure at this height is so remote it's not even worth trying to mitigate/compensate for.
 
bingham67 said:
I know about APU as it was previously mentioned in this thread, my concern was the APU takes as you say 90 seconds to come online.

Is there no safety backup that could be made to come on immediately seems like this is needed for a scenario like this.
Click to expand...

The batteries would power the flying controls for a short time as well as the RAT but with no thrust and the height it was at its not a recoverable situation if both engines failed.
 
bingham67 said:
Surely as a safety precaution some immediate backup should kick in and not take about a minute to activate? or am I just living in a dreamworld safety scenario.

At least give plane enough power to go back around and land.
Click to expand...

Nothing but the two main engines. Everything else would take time to come on line (or slow you down faster as air resistance in the case of the RAT).
 
Last edited:
As soon as I saw the very first video, I said flaps. The behaviour looks exactly as though the ‘positive rate, gear up’ call was made and the flaps were commanded to retract instead. The immediate effect would be to increase the stall speed and with the gear down, it would immediately stall and start dropping. Pilots pulls back, exacerbates the situation and it drops.

That’s exactly what the flight path looks like.

The gear control is in front and shaped like a wheel, the flap control is on the pedestal by the throttles and shaped like a flap. It should never be possible to confuse them but that’s what I think has happened. If the flaps had been in the wrong place for takeoff, there would have been all kinds of warnings going off.
 
Feek said:
As soon as I saw the very first video, I said flaps. The behaviour looks exactly as though the ‘positive rate, gear up’ call was made and the flaps were commanded to retract instead. The immediate effect would be to increase the stall speed and with the gear down, it would immediately stall and start dropping. Pilots pulls back, exacerbates the situation and it drops.

That’s exactly what the flight path looks like.

The gear control is in front and shaped like a wheel, the flap control is on the pedestal by the throttles and shaped like a flap. It should never be possible to confuse them but that’s what I think has happened. If the flaps had been in the wrong place for takeoff, there would have been all kinds of warnings going off.
Click to expand...
No expert but PPRUNE saying wreckage shows flaps down and doesn't explain the RAT being deployed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom