Air India 787 Crashes in Western India

Just a Data point but Boeing Stock is close to a 52 week high…the market does not think it’s a Boeing problem…just my take. No opinion on what really happened.
 
Racerx said:
Preliminary from who? India? One of the 8 theories here is equally as trustworthy.
Click to expand...
<ahem> your xenophobia is peeking through...

Have you read any of the recent Indian Investigation Reports from their recent accidents? They are pretty brutal calling out failures by the pilots and airlines. Ref: IX812 and AI855.
 
Warlock said:
Just a Data point but Boeing Stock is close to a 52 week high…the market does not think it’s a Boeing problem…just my take. No opinion on what really happened.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the market didn't think LionAir 610 was a Boeing problem either. Just another third world airline. Even after the Ethernopian air crash the next March and the FAA grounding the max8 did the markets move, but not by much.
 
Prelim report... one of the sources on line now:
www.timesnownews.com

Air India 171 Plane Crash: Preliminary Probe Report Submitted To Aviation Ministry

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has submitted its preliminary report on the AI 171 plane crash to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, based on initial black box analysis., India News, Times Now
www.timesnownews.com www.timesnownews.com

It doesn't say anything that wasn't hypothesized already in this thread, and I see nothing new:
The report, based on initial findings from the black box analysis, backed by internal simulations conducted by Air India, indicate that engine failure — or possibly another form of mechanical malfunction — may have been behind the accident, according to sources with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Click to expand...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Prelim report... one of the sources on line now:
www.timesnownews.com

Air India 171 Plane Crash: Preliminary Probe Report Submitted To Aviation Ministry

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has submitted its preliminary report on the AI 171 plane crash to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, based on initial black box analysis., India News, Times Now
www.timesnownews.com www.timesnownews.com

It doesn't say anything that wasn't hypothesized already in this thread, and I see nothing new:
Click to expand...
Link no workee
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Prelim report... one of the sources on line now:
www.timesnownews.com

Air India 171 Plane Crash: Preliminary Probe Report Submitted To Aviation Ministry

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has submitted its preliminary report on the AI 171 plane crash to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, based on initial black box analysis., India News, Times Now
www.timesnownews.com www.timesnownews.com

It doesn't say anything that wasn't hypothesized already in this thread, and I see nothing new:
Click to expand...
Plane failed to maintain an airspeed sufficient for flight. Simple terms.
 
bonefishpete said:
Well if the Captain didn’t pull the fuel levers who else was in the cockpit? All speculation
Click to expand...
Could have been a third crew member or jump seater, if that is what happened. Remember it almost happened here in the US, when the jump seater was high on shrooms.
 
bonefishpete said:
Well if the Captain didn’t pull the fuel levers who else was in the cockpit? All speculation
Click to expand...
Who said anyone pulled the fuel levers, and who said whoever might or might not have pulled the fuel levers wasn't the captain? You stated, "So it was the FO," as if reciting a fact. Please post your source. The article I read didn't say anyone pulled any fuel levers.
 
Lindberg said:
Who said anyone pulled the fuel levers, and who said whoever might or might not have pulled the fuel levers wasn't the captain? You stated, "So it was the FO," as if reciting a fact. Please post your source. The article I read didn't say anyone pulled any fuel levers.
Click to expand...
We are all guessing. What sources? You take sources at face value? We may never know. I’m ok with that.
 
They are also investigating whether a dual-engine failure would have resulted in the crash. Pilots on Air India's Boeing 787 fleet are not trained to deal with a dual-engine failure at an altitude of less than 400 feet, as in the case of AI-171.
Click to expand...
One would think a dual engine failure at 400 AGL in just about anything that carries more than a couple of people is unlikely to have a good outcome, barring a suitable place to land straight ahead.
 
DaleB said:
One would think a dual engine failure at 400 AGL in just about anything that carries more than a couple of people is unlikely to have a good outcome, barring a suitable place to land straight ahead.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is almost like training for a departed wing scenario … well, unless it is some kind of spiritual “ now make your peace with the world” type of emergency checklist …
 
Lindberg said:
That's not guessing, that's just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

Riddle me this. Way back I noted a TCPalm article that just up the road at Vero Beach that the FO had graduated from a flight school some 15 years ago with some 267 hours. At crash time it's noted FO had 1100 hours. How come in 15 years this FO only accumulated some 863 additional hours? What have you got?
 
Fun for all the morons who were grasping at straws in order to put the blame for this on Boeing. Classic. Air/Ground logic and some esoteric valve, YGBFSM. I hope the reddit ride was worth it
 
Well it use to be the procedure for all engine failure to go to flight on ignition and then cycle those switches. But I'm sure by the time they figured out what happened the engines were out of the inflight unassisted start envelope. But maybe they tried anyway.
 
Sluggo63 said:
<ahem> your xenophobia is peeking through...

Have you read any of the recent Indian Investigation Reports from their recent accidents? They are pretty brutal calling out failures by the pilots and airlines. Ref: IX812 and AI855.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but folks from India are pretty brutal spam calling me.
 
Mikey52 said:
Well it use to be the procedure for all engine failure to go to flight on ignition and then cycle those switches. But I'm sure by the time they figured out what happened the engines were out of the inflight unassisted start envelope. But maybe they tried anyway.
Click to expand...

I’m kinda versed that, at the altitude they were at, FLY the plane. No fiddling with ANY switches. I think that’s rather standardized. For GA flying, let’s compare it to that popped door just after rotation.
 
Lindberg said:
Who said anyone pulled the fuel levers, and who said whoever might or might not have pulled the fuel levers wasn't the captain? You stated, "So it was the FO," as if reciting a fact. Please post your source. The article I read didn't say anyone pulled any fuel levers.
Click to expand...
Why do your comments about the fuel cutoff switches being manipulated by a cockpit crew member bristle with indignance? The idea is speculation, just like all the other comments, and the possibility that happened is not farfetched.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
Why do your comments about the fuel cutoff switches being manipulated by a cockpit crew member bristle with indignance? The idea is speculation, just like all the other comments, and the possibility that happened is not farfetched.
Click to expand...
Of course it's possible; lots of things are. The poster I responded to made a baseless statement of fact.
 
Lindberg said:
Of course it's possible; lots of things are. The poster I responded to made a baseless statement of fact.
Click to expand...
Your comments in the exchange between you and I on pages 10 and 11 are similarly on the edge of hostility.
 
IF that linked article is correct, given that the switches are guarded AND you physically need to pull the switches out before you can change its position I can't see how that could happen "accidentally". One would be a stretch. Both?
Hopefully someone here familiar with the 787 systems can provide an alternative explanation from deliberate...
 
35 AoA said:
Fun for all the morons who were grasping at straws in order to put the blame for this on Boeing. Classic. Air/Ground logic and some esoteric valve, YGBFSM. I hope the reddit ride was worth it
Click to expand...
Sorry what? Has the cause been announced two days before the preliminary report is due?
 
Daleandee said:
I tend to believe if they could have blamed Boeing, they would have ... early and often. :popcorn:
Click to expand...

1 month in and not a single hint it was a aircraft fault. No procedure changes, no inspections or talk of groundings. They also I can assure you know if the fuel control switches were selected off and if it happened before or after the loss of thrust. The amount of data from a modern flight recorder is astounding.
 
So…. It’s possible to shut the fuel off that abruptly that it kills both engines - and the electrical power thus deploying the RAT? Assume that wouldn’t be simply pulling the throttles back to idle. Should also assume killing the fuel would require a few extra steps - not like just pulling the wrong lever because it was confused with the flaps, etc???

I have no idea what the cockpit of that airliner looks like.
 
tobnpr said:
IF that linked article is correct, given that the switches are guarded AND you physically need to pull the switches out before you can change its position I can't see how that could happen "accidentally". One would be a stretch. Both?
Hopefully someone here familiar with the 787 systems can provide an alternative explanation from deliberate...
Click to expand...
Not a 787 guy, but 777.

Just because it was deliberate, doesn’t mean it was nefarious.

Here’s the immediate action items for DUAL ENGINE FAILURE, on the B777.
IMG_5055.jpeg
The very first step is FUEL CONTROL switches (both)… CUTOFF, then RUN.

So, if they did have a dual engine failure and started the immediate action items, it would have had someone physically putting the switches to CUTOFF.

I’m sure the FDR will show explicitly if the switches were moved, and if they were moved when they were moved (before or after any power loss).

All of the above is assuming that the procedures on the 787 are similar to the 777, which I have absolutely no idea if they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top