He should have stuck to his stance of not doing videos on “live” situations like this. And not had a stupid “it’s not this”, click bait video thumbnail.
Air India Crash
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,794
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
I think the YouTubers all wanna be that guy that cracks the case. He is just putting another theory into the pile with the endless others.
Many pretty much follow the last XXX massive clicks star and jump on the ....
It is a shame that some do this.
Last edited:
Not entirely sure how to take this one
You have a very level-headed view on things. I enjoy reading your posts because you actually put some logic and critical thinking in to them.
I'm also drunk, so there's that.
I just like the way he explains things without too much B/S.
Everyone thinks they know the answer but until the evidence is put forward it’s all speculation and guesswork too many possibilities. I’m sure someone will guess correct and then claim to be the aviation messiah…..lol
Everyone thinks they know the answer but until the evidence is put forward it’s all speculation and guesswork too many possibilities. I’m sure someone will guess correct and then claim to be the aviation messiah…..lol
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
I’ll have one of whatever you’re drinking.
Door's always open, beers are always in the fridge <3
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
Having checked your location, I may need some more information…
This is my local. Literally about 150m from our place. We also have a spare room for guests, and love a braai. As @bloodiedathame and @Hades and @Greboth and a few others will know. If you're keen let me know, we'll set something up!
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
No-one knows the answer except the two pilots as the boxes haven’t been downloaded yet.
I wouldn’t call it guesswork - there’s inferences and assumptions you can make from some known facts about the incident and systems knowledge of the aircraft. For example, it’s pretty much accepted that the RAT was deployed from the sound the aircraft was making and (to a lesser confidence) the pictures of it. We also know the possible scenarios the RAT will auto-deploy, and combined with the lack of engine noise in the video when the engines should be at take off thrust, we can sensibly assume that both engines have been shut down. We don’t know why though, and that is a completely different kettle of fish and a much longer list of possibilities.
Can confirm. Top braai.
I mentioned this on another forum and a pilot strongly disagreed with me saying 787 engines are exceptionally quiet. He also said he thinks the flaps were put into the wrong position which I think is pretty bizarre due to the warning systems etc, and they are completely different handles in different positions. But what would I know, I'm not a pilot.
I've been at Heathrow countless times with my wife who is ex cabin crew, and the staff car park is at the end (or beginning*) of the runway. I've stood in the car park many times waiting for the transfer bus and the noise as they go off at that height is deafening. Yes, there's a difference between say a 787 and an 777 etc, but they are significantly louder than the captured footage. Even when I've watched back recordings on my phone (because, I'm a bit of a nerd).
*I'm a bit drunk, I can't recall if they ever actually take off over that car park or it's just landing.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
Nothing is exceptionally quiet at takeoff thrust. And in fairness to you, they takeoff and land in both directions, and even on landing engine RPM is generally quite high to overcome the extra drag caused by the flaps and landing gear until a few seconds before touchdown. @esmozz can give some exact numbers or say I’m talking rubbish…
If you fancy some really nerdy stuff, a few years ago I did an interview with the bloke who founded the Grim Reapers DCS channel which would kill a couple of hours on a Saturday night!
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,019
- Location
- Midlands
Some valid points in here about the Fuel Shut-Off Valve (FSOV) getting triggered by a software failure, sounds plausible. Sounds like it's a known problem too, with an aircraft engines getting shut down on approach a few years back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 5,652
It does sound plausible. If you watch a video of the take off, like this one:
at 31s you can see the instant loss of thrust, and it must have been symmetrical as the plane remains level, i.e. both engines immediately shut down. As an amateur, I wasn't aware FSOVs existed, but you are looking for something that instantly cuts both engines at exactly the same time, and that's why this seems plausible.
I have to say that something related to electrical power delivery and software also seems to me the most likely area to be the cause of the crash. The problem with software is that it is very hard to model for all possible scenarios.
Last edited:
A pattern I've started to notice with all of the theories people have come up with is that they are all saying "This issue could have happened and it would have crashed the plane" or "The pilots could have made this error and it would have crashed the plane".
And in almost every single instance it's always pointed out that "of course it couldn't happen in an A350 due to the extra protection/failsafes".
I guess this is what happens when one manufacturer becomes the biggest in the world via cost cutting and bribes
.
And in almost every single instance it's always pointed out that "of course it couldn't happen in an A350 due to the extra protection/failsafes".
I guess this is what happens when one manufacturer becomes the biggest in the world via cost cutting and bribes
.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
They normally live in or around the pylon are and are the ‘aircraft’ side of things to cut fuel to the engine. In my experience they’d only be closed for maintenance, testing or in an emergency, and left open during normal operations. Some aircraft or airline practices may differ though. They’d also be operated by pulling the T-handle, which is the big red emergency panic lever that cuts off fuel, hydraulics and electrics to that engine - on TriStar the fire bottle switches were also behind it so you had to shut down the engine before you tried to put out a fire, otherwise you’d just keep feeding fuel to it…
On Chinook it was a recognised method of shutting off the engine if the FADEC system was showing certain fault codes - they meant you couldn’t guarantee safe fuel cut off as normal so you just pulled the handle and starved it of fuel instead.
A pattern I've started to notice with all of the theories people have come up with is that they are all saying "This issue could have happened and it would have crashed the plane" or "The pilots could have made this error and it would have crashed the plane".
And in almost every single instance it's always pointed out that "of course it couldn't happen in an A350 due to the extra protection/failsafes".
I guess this is what happens when one manufacturer becomes the biggest in the world via cost cutting and bribes
I don’t think it’s that simple - modern aircraft have a myriad of boxes and while they may be able to trace where the signal came from to shut down the engines, figuring out WHY that signal was sent is another matter. The boxes all have there own software, different build standards depending on engine choice and optional extras, and are updated both in service and when sent for repair. Knowing what software standard was installed, and if it was installed correctly, will rely on maintenance records being accurate.
After that, they’ll have to figure out what line of code could have caused it - was it a random certain of inputs never seen before in 14 years of operation, maybe a specific outside air temperature value and weight of aircraft figure producing numbers out with programmed limits which kicked in with the switch from ground to air mode.
You only have to look at the space programs to see what software bugs can do:
Accidents in Space Caused by Computer Errors
In this article we are going to tell you about seven space accidents caused by computer errors
universemagazine.com
This is all speculation on my part - I fear it could take months, if not years to find the final cause.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,794
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
They would have grounded the aircraft by now for sure. This BS that they cannot read the flight recorders I don't buy it. Especially as they are in the rear which was largely left intact.
Also India's version of the CAA have ordered the suspension of three senior figures due to bad practice with rostering and pilots working over their duty time.
Air India warned over ‘serious violations’ of pilot oversight
India’s aviation safety watchdog has ordered the suspension of three senior executives
www.independent.co.uk
No smoke without fire and all that.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,019
- Location
- Midlands
Honestly I'm surprised by the lack of urgency, definitely has the hallmarks for cover up. If this jet had crashed on it's return in London could you imagine the furoreThey would have grounded the aircraft by now for sure. This BS that they cannot read the flight recorders I don't buy it. Especially as they are in the rear which was largely left intact.
Also India's version of the CAA have ordered the suspension of three senior figures due to bad practice with rostering and pilots working over their duty time.
Air India warned over ‘serious violations’ of pilot oversight
India’s aviation safety watchdog has ordered the suspension of three senior executives
No smoke without fire and all that.
And just with everything in our industry it's no one's fault, it's a failure of the process and procedures. Blame ICAO ultimately if they allow for one aircraft to be made vastly unsafe.A pattern I've started to notice with all of the theories people have come up with is that they are all saying "This issue could have happened and it would have crashed the plane" or "The pilots could have made this error and it would have crashed the plane".
And in almost every single instance it's always pointed out that "of course it couldn't happen in an A350 due to the extra protection/failsafes".
I guess this is what happens when one manufacturer becomes the biggest in the world via cost cutting and bribes