Air India Crash

Penfold101 said:
I think a small amount of skepticism is warranted given the extraordinary circumstances of someone being the only person to walk away from a crash like that. Too much or too little isn’t a good thing, and as long as someone is willing to have their mind changed by evidence then it’s good to ask questions.

Just to move on from FADEc, Mover and Gonky (both former fighter pilots who now fly civil airliners, the former being a 787 driver) have had a discussion about which is worth a watch:

Click to expand...
Maybe but its been plastered all over the news. Not sure why people question it on here tbh.
 
200sols said:
Maybe but its been plastered all over the news. Not sure why people question it on here tbh.
Click to expand...

Many parts of this event have been plastered all over the news as they jump to be the first to publish it. Some are accurate, some are wrong, and all should be treat with a small amount of healthy skepticism.

Of them all, this is the one part I still have trouble getting my head around. I can accept it’s happened and don’t think it’s a conspiricy or anything, it still just blows the skeptical part of my mind.
 
Purgatory said:
Never used it before (ChatGPT), so was curious what it would throw out with such questions, I'm in same boat to be honest not an A.I fan but that was very interesting what it replied to these questions we had here that’s why I stuck one post above with all the questions I asked it and may answer other peoples questions too.
Click to expand...
AI is great if used correctly. The main issue is that its responses can be coached, it will change its responses based on bad input (whether deliberate or not). That then trains the model with bad information. It doesn't always call the person writing out, they seem modelled (excuse the pun) on making the person using it feel good, rather than doing actual fact checking.

For example in IT, if I'm feeding it some questions where I deliberately give it false info, more often than not it will go with it. Then you can train further down an incorrect path.

I've used various tools to save me a significant amount of time, where work policy allows it, and that's the part that's really good. But when people who have very little concept of how things work, like aerodynamics and aeroplanes for example start feeding in a lot of drivel its responses can be very questionable. Add in media frenzy and all of a sudden everyone is as knowledgable as someone who has worked in the industry and may hold engineering qualifications (or pilots) and false information starts spreading.

Like in IT when we do an RCA, let the logs do the talking. Logs are truth, FDR is truth, some random airline captain on YouTube or AI is not.
 
Last edited:
Captain Steeeve dives into what could cause a dual engine failure on final approach — a terrifying and rare event. The most likely culprits? Fuel contamination or vapor lock


 
aVdub said:
Captain Steeeve dives into what could cause a dual engine failure on final approach — a terrifying and rare event. The most likely culprits? Fuel contamination or vapor lock


Click to expand...

And yet the most recent dual engine failure on final approach was neither of those scenarios. BA Flight 38 back in 2008 had a dual engine flameout due to fuel icing.
 
Lopéz said:
Seemed a bit weird in what respect?
Click to expand...

That someone who was on the plane we see plough into a building at high speed and explode into a fireball just comes walking out of it like Bruce Willis in Unbreakable.

I think it’s strange too - I can accept it’s happened because it’s not impossible, it just boggles my mind.

The two who survived the Jeju impact I can accept much easier as they were right at the back of the plane so it makes more sense, but I don’t think I’ll ever wrap my head around the physics that happened exactly where this guy was sat that allowed him to survive and immediately get up and walk around!
 
Penfold101 said:
That someone who was on the plane we see plough into a building at high speed and explode into a fireball just comes walking out of it like Bruce Willis in Unbreakable.

I think it’s strange too - I can accept it’s happened because it’s not impossible, it just boggles my mind.

The two who survived the Jeju impact I can accept much easier as they were right at the back of the plane so it makes more sense, but I don’t think I’ll ever wrap my head around the physics that happened exactly where this guy was sat that allowed him to survive and immediately get up and walk around!
Click to expand...
Shoreham Airshow Crash was similar in that regard. Andy Hill flew the Hawker Hunter into the ground , 11 died and 16 injured, yet he also walked away
 
aVdub said:
Captain Steeeve dives into what could cause a dual engine failure on final approach — a terrifying and rare event. The most likely culprits? Fuel contamination or vapor lock


Click to expand...
He's not talking final approach.
He talks general reasons for engine shutdown, with a focus on vapour lock which is much more likely on takeoff than on landing.
 
Sinbad2000 said:
He's not talking final approach.
He talks general reasons for engine shutdown, with a focus on vapour lock which is much more likely on takeoff than on landing.
Click to expand...

They also pressurise the tanks with nitrogen to prevent explosions, it was something I considered but given they said centre tank is pressurised but not the wing tanks and that the engines mavity draw from the wings if the electrics fail, I didn't put it up as an idea.
 
aVdub said:
Captain Steeeve dives into what could cause a dual engine failure on final approach — a terrifying and rare event. The most likely culprits? Fuel contamination or vapor lock


Click to expand...
I'm struggling to get my head round a mechanical reason causing both engines to fail at exactly the same time - I just don't see how. I can see a software fault doing it though.
 
Penfold101 said:
That someone who was on the plane we see plough into a building at high speed and explode into a fireball just comes walking out of it like Bruce Willis in Unbreakable.

I think it’s strange too - I can accept it’s happened because it’s not impossible, it just boggles my mind.

The two who survived the Jeju impact I can accept much easier as they were right at the back of the plane so it makes more sense, but I don’t think I’ll ever wrap my head around the physics that happened exactly where this guy was sat that allowed him to survive and immediately get up and walk around!
Click to expand...
Oh sure I agree it's pretty wild - but what is the alternate theory other than he had a lucky escape? He beamed in from another dimension? He was hiding in the bushes? He's Iron Man? :D
 
esmozz said:
I'm struggling to get my head round a mechanical reason causing both engines to fail at exactly the same time - I just don't see how. I can see a software fault doing it though.
Click to expand...

The point with the vapour lock is that fuel will not flow into the engines and pumps would find it difficult to provide the required rate. You'd assume the vents were open and not bunged up by some mud-dobber wasps or a maintenance guy doing something wrong.

However I would agree - if the engines can operate without electricity - the flame is present, the oil pumps are mechanical and self contained to each engine, and the fuel is drawn from it's own wings' tanks by suction, then the only thing is valves not opening to the engines. Those valves are controlled by the engine's own management system powered by the engines two AC generators, and that leaves the computer telling it what the pilot is doing..

Perhaps someone AI'd the software patch.. either way the software should have an automated test suite for every time a change is made. So unless the error condition didn't have an appropriate automated test, and any spot testing didn't discover it.. it could still be software or the hardware of the computer itself.
 
Last edited:
NickK said:
The point with the vapour lock is that fuel will not flow into the engines and pumps would find it difficult to provide the required rate. You'd assume the vents were open and not bunged up by some mud-dobber wasps or a maintenance guy doing something wrong.

However I would agree - if the engines can operate without electricity - the flame is present, the oil pumps are mechanical and self contained to each engine, and the fuel is drawn from it's own wings' tanks by suction, then the only thing is valves not opening to the engines. Those valves are controlled by the engine's own management system powered by the engines two AC generators, and that leaves the computer telling it what the pilot is doing..

Perhaps someone AI'd the software patch.. either way the software should have an automated test suite for every time a change is made. So unless the error condition didn't have an appropriate automated test, and any spot testing didn't discover it.. it could still be software or the hardware of the computer itself.
Click to expand...

If you've been cutting corners on your software development that's what could happen.

My gut feeling is that this is going to lead back to the cost cutting culture at Boeing that lead to the Max disaster (as well as many other lesser incidents) that have never really been fixed.
 
esmozz said:
If you've been cutting corners on your software development that's what could happen.

My gut feeling is that this is going to lead back to the cost cutting culture at Boeing that lead to the Max disaster (as well as many other lesser incidents) that have never really been fixed.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, do you think Boeing will survive? I suspect not.
 
Under international rules set by the UN aviation body ICAO, external, a preliminary investigation report should be released within 30 days, with the final report ideally completed within 12 months.
Click to expand...

Hopefully not long then before we find out enough to dispense with all the speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom