Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,711
I wish they would have released full transcript of the CVR, feels like a lot of information is missing from that beyond the "why did you cutoff" and "I didn't" and the Mayday call
Air India Crash
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
In a good use of PPRuNe, someone did post the engine restart part of the checklists, and it listed a requirement that the engine be below idle.
Could they have been waiting for them to wind down a reasonable amount rather than engaging the starter above where it would normally have disengaged?
I’m assuming things have moved on in engine design, but TriStar engine running drummed into us that if you cancelled the start above where the starter disengaged, you had to manually cancel the start so that the gearbox drive didn’t wind down into the starter and cause (the amazingly named) crash engagement, which could destroy the gearbox and the engine.
I’m guessing the GenX is slightly more advanced these days…
That’s sounds like a reasonable explanation actually. In the 737 the requirement is that the EGT is decreasing before engaging the engine start lever but the 78 engines are different so it makes sense that it would have a different procedure.
Although an engine inflight start, and dual engine failure checklists are different in that respect. I’m not sure the dual failure checklist would have you waiting. But I’m not 78 rated so I don’t really know.
The PM was the captain, he was so close to retiring. I really don’t see him doing murder/suicide. The PF would have been a bit busy handling the plane to reach over a deliberately flip both switches. I also don’t see any kind of mechanical issue or otherwise to cause it. So I’m a little confused I guess.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
They also have starter/generators and I’ve no idea how these work in this situation, switching between the two conditions.
I think dual engine failure checklists are generally written for being at altitude, at least that’s what I inferred from watching Sully…
And we know everything about the captain, like his family and financial situation? We know all about Air India's pension or any upcoming changes to conclusively rule out the captain turning the engines off?
I'm having a hard time seeing why others are having a hard time accepting pilot suicide. As someone above posted, the fuel cutoff switches were found in the RUN position, meaning the held position even in a crash, so they didn't move themselves simultaneous during a normal take off.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
Because the implications and fallout from getting this wrong are huge.
No-one is suggesting it isn’t an option or that it couldn’t be the reason - it will have been on the list from day one for the investigators and has also been in the back of my mind, it’s just such a horrific idea that you have to consider EVERY possible option and rule it out first before resorting to it.
There are a plethora of reasons this could have happened - the idea that the switches weren’t fully locked in the run position and something fell off the dashboard at rotate to knock them both off I don’t consider impossible, as much as it sounds it, and would have to be ruled out.
Take for instance the 2014 case of the RAF Voyager which suddenly nosedived toward the ground whilst in the cruise. In this case it was the aircraft itself which pulled out of the dive so it didn’t just impact the ground and obliterate all evidence. It turned out the pilot, whilst alone on the flight deck, had taken some photos with his DSLR then put the camera down to the side before moving his chair forward - the arm rest pushed the camera into the flight stick and put the aircraft into a dive:
If we didn’t have the recorder, as I’m not sure of the chances it would have survived such an impact, would we have assumed pilot suicide? Who would have come up with the idea of a camera being pushed by the seat? How would you prove it from the atomised wreckage of the plane hitting the ground? One of the reasons they could show what happened was the CVR aligning the sound of the motor moving the chair with the flight stick input.
I’m not ruling out deliberate operation of the switches, they’re just the very last thing on my list after accidental operation by the pilot and then a whole host of other reasons why they could have moved.
There is a whole lot of information missing from the report, especially the rest of the CVR transcript. It could turn out to be suicide and an attempt to feign innocence for life insurance for his family - you’d have to pretend for the CVR you didn’t know what was happening and attempt engine restart etc for that scenario. I was sticking to the software aspect because I really don’t want to believe this could be true though.
Time will tell.
Last edited:
I was on one of the Aeromeds to Turkey to collect the injured after this.
Its amazing what sort of injuries happen when you're not strapped in and the aircraft dives during food service with trolleys and cabin crew ending up everywhere.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
I seem to remember more than one person refused to fly back and had to go by land?
Yup, another aeromed flew out some Padres for TRIM and they gave the choice for the SP to carry on into theatre or go home.
Loads said go home and a few said they didnt want to get on a plane again (understandable)
So MT did a road trip all to Turkey, picked them up and drove them all the way back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,189
- Location
- London, UK
It is an odd one. One pilot asks the other why he’s killed the fuel pumps but he denies he has. A genuine mistake/error or something more sinister?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
It’s the on/off valve for the engine, not the fuel pumps.
Up is run, down is cutoff.
I know they’re pull and move switches, I’ve used lots of them in the past - the point of the SAIB is that the locking mechanism wasn’t working properly, and the switches could just be moved without being pulled out first, ie you could just knock them and they’d move.
Last edited:
Yeah, hence my edit above. I don't know what I was thinking, sorry.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,819
- Location
- Cheltenham
The same thing as the pilot, possibly!
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,189
- Location
- London, UK
Ok but it achieves the same thing, the switch kills the engine
This is a hell of a way to find out that it's a real problem.
But would you notice that they were flipped in less than a second? How long would it take for you to even look? Oh and you're taking off, a very busy time to boot.