An FO did it to me in a ERJ-145 out of Palm Springs. Not a big deal in such a little jet. Keep in mind that 3+ people are in the flight deck in the Air India case, making a mistake like that far less like than it already is.
2 Likes
Yeah, and the Dreamliner is a powerful jetā¦ I guess that the error wouldāve been instantly recognized and that applying max thrust wouldāve saved them.
Are we sure about that, BTW? Iāve seen 2 Pilots and 10 CC?
In the mean time both video and audio recordings show the RAT deployed, so dual engine failure becomes more likely.
Also the survivor recalls cabin lights went out briefly.
4 Likes
So thereās video evidence of the RAT now as well? It seems there are only unlikely scenarios available hereā¦ Another Black Swan.
This offers interesting reading for those so inclined.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385718904_The_āBlack_Swanā_theory_in_aviation_safety
1 Like
Apparently the very first video of the plane crashing in this thread was a recording of another smartphones screen with no sound and bad quality.
Now the original smartphone recording is out there with better image quality and sound. You can barely make out the rat visually but clearly hear the distinctive sound as the plane goes by. Not much Jet engine noise though.
We all know none of this is conclusive proof, itās just the likeliness shifting around with every piece of unverified data.
2 Likes
I knew the RAT could be heard, but hadnāt seen any comments on a visual confirmation. Either way, it seems like the RAT deployed, but we still donāt know why. It narrows it down, but we still have many questions left unanswered.
What I meant by unlikely scenarios is that all theories Iāve seen proposed are unlikely to happen. Dual engine fail, shutting down the live engine, total HYD loss, total electrical failure, etc. I think we will see a scenario emerge that the crew didnāt fully comprehend and probably treated as something else. But that is the very nature of aviation safety these days. Accidents in commercial Airline operations are unlikely to occur in the first place.
2 Likes
Absolutely. Might even not have been an accident to begin with. The loud noise / bang is still unclear to me.
Do you think any post-event action of the crew really mattered? Even if they knew something before the takeoff roll, it looks to my novice eyes like the timing was really not in their favor. I hope they where able to talk about it on the CVR.
3 Likes
Considering tensions in the region thatās a plausible theory too.
Hard to say without knowing what happened.
Indeed not. Takeoff is a very time critical event due to the close proximity to planets.
4 Likes
Iāll offer my 2 cents from a few videos Iāve seen plus flight tracker data.
Aircraft BARELY, made it off the ground and used part of the overrun area during itās take off run, it āLooksā like it was forced off the ground by aggressive pitch input + help from ground effect lift. After gaining a few hundred feet, ground effect was reduced, aircraft began to stall, airspeed never reached the speed needed to maintain lift for the aircraft with that weight configuration + ambient air temperature. Aircraft stalled and sank into the buildings, with the tail impacting the buildings and being detached, and the fuselage and wings slamming down in the yard area immediately after, which caused the explosion of the aircraft, the sink rate was decreasing prior to impact from 600~ FPM to 450~ FPM, so as airspeed built up, the lift started to return, it just wasnāt enough. further echoing take off speed and runway use. had the entire runway been utilized and additional 50-100 Knots added to take off, plane would have likely climbed out before the overrun area.
At no point in the 3 videos I saw, was there clear indicator that flaps were even deployed, but Iāll give āvideo clarityā some lee way, nor was there ever clear video of the RAT being deployed that I saw either, the left wing images show the spoilers were deployed, pilot may have been trying to land in the the yard between buildings but sink rate was still to high and the tail section struck the top of the building. Which would explain further why the gear remained deployed.
thereās no visible indications of a power plant failure, sound, nor visual, I donāt hear any loud bang as described by the survivor in any of the 3 videos.
thereās also no footage clearly showing FOD at around ~400 feet ie Toy Drone as āfacebook newsā has been circulating.
Assumed Contributing Factors:
-
Short Takeoff Roll, Intersection Start, use of overrun area.
-
Flaps at or near retracted, especially considering an intersection start, and 40Ā°C / 106Ā°F Ambient Air, seriously degrades effect of lift surfaces.
-
Computer and flaps likely were setup for full runway use to get to correct airspeed for pitch up, pilot possibly turned onto runway from intersection and forgot that he was to taxi down to the end and use the full runway.
-
Alleged Electrical Issues from Flight before.
-
Possible FoD Ingestion of one or both power plants.
-
Hydraulic failure of some sort, allegedly deploying RAT, no visible evidence to support. However complete lack of flaps does raise a lot of questions. if sink rate was decreasing, deployment of flaps could have helped significantly, even if the aircraft was to abort land in the yard, the flaps could have prevented the tail section from striking the building. Main gears are toe down instead of toe up with no WoW.
They donāt look angled, however they appear to be Toe down instead of Toe up, indicating little to no hydraulic pressure.
1 Like
Nah, it locks in positions, toe down is how Boeing moves the landing gear on retraction so that it fits in the wheel well. I doubt that that is related to hydraulic failure. Still could have been a HYD failure if both engines did fail. That would also explain the auto-rat deployment becauses the busses dont bus anymore so to say.
3 Likes
No I am not. I thought flight and duty time rules were generally uniform. In America and Europe, a 9 hour flight time would require 3 three up front.
Also, this thread is becoming almost farcical to be honest. (Not you @troll obviously).
2 Likes
Not in Europe, since EASA OPS was introduced. 1-2 sectors allows for 11-13 hours of Flight Duty, depending on reporting time. This can be extended further with crew augmentation and inflight rest.
Non EASA member states may have other regulations, of course. I have no idea under what regulations Air India operatesā¦
I had this thought as well. Wouldnāt be the first time a crew got new performance numbers and didnāt input the numbers or set the configuration correctly.
You can see in one of the videos that the slats were deployed, meaning the flaps were at least in the 1 position.
Unless something has changed, the idea of an intersection takeoff has been confirmed as false.
2 Likes
I thought this has already been debunked by looking at multiple sources of data (getting better temporal resolution).
Iāma have to double check the flight aware pings,
I did FINALLY view the source quality fly over video that shows the rat and the guy in 11F window seat picking his nose.
Iāve heard that they now know what happened. The Captainās seat slid back and he refused to release the throttles.
2 Likes
Not related to the cause of the accident, but as someone whose airspace over their home is frequented by Dreamliners (they are assembled 7.4 miles away), I find that the engine sound is one of the strangest things related to aviation that Iāve ever heard, and not unlike playing cards being hit by bicycle spokes. I donāt have to look up anymore when one passes, because the sound is so unique. Anyone else notice this?
2 Likes
Yep. Geared fan I think.
1 Like