Air India Crash

[xix]

I saw the original video speaks about an I like his analysis.

I think his observations is pretty close what could have happen plus other factors as mentioned above.

 

[nottyboi]

ONE other weird thing that keeps coming to my mind.

Yesterday, when I was looking at some pics of various 787 cockpits I noticed the Engine Run/Cutoff switches are directly below the throttles I thought that could do it, but would be almost impossible to do without doing it deliberately. For some reason I think I recalled this happening in the early days of the 757/767... I think.

I was searching for more info and came across an Indian language CGI animated YouTube Short that showed the upper middle switch cover panel fall down onto the throttlle quadrant. No english subtitles and I can't find it again.

But.... if that panel did fall down, both Engine Fuel Cutoff Switches are located there (Two black balls on the end of the switch shaft, to the right of the RED switches, directly below the throttles) and dropping something heavy on them could cause them to get pushed down into the Cutoff position. They have a 'Pull-out-to-lift feature to help avoid inadvertant or incidental activation, but it's just a detente in the switch mechanism.

This is kind of pushing the limits of conjecture but IF Maintenance was working on an electrical issue related to Air Conditioning, those A/C and cabin air control are on the cockpit ceiling.

View attachment 449140

Its quite ridiculous the fuel cutoff is in such a high traffic area of the console. AND that the appear to be simple toggle switches. Boeing has some pretty bad ergonomists

 

[nottyboi]

I saw the original video speaks about an I like his analysis.

I think his observations is pretty close what could have happen plus other factors as mentioned above.

Yeah the footage he shows is the one that convinced me its not a flaps issue but and engine rollback issue. Apart from the sound of the RAT, its pretty clear the engines are not producing the kinda power you would expect at takeoff. Also if the engines were running at TO power the plane would have picked up serious speed in that last dip and hit the ground at 400 kph + causing much more ground damage.

 

[wiskey bravo]

The 787 takes ALL the runway to accelerate and then the pilots pretty much yank it off the ground at the very end of the runway. (You can see the dust clouds from the wingtip vortices as the HEAVY aircraft -300,000 lbs- plane took off.). Plane climbs at a fairly aggressive angle of attack for that weight (IMO) but soon runs out of energy and just mushes down into the ground. Landing gear was never retracted. Kudos to the pilot flying for keeping the wings level and the aircraft under control until impact. It is so important to 'fly the airplane all the way to the end of the crash' for survivability

From that incredibly long take off roll, it seems the engines might not have beem developing full power. Depending on load, temp, runway length etc, the pilot might execute a reduced power takeoff to save fuel and wear and tear on the engines. Given the temps, loading etc I doubt that it was a reduced power TO. However, there is also a requirement for reduced power in some high temp takeoffs to reduce wear and risk of overheating-related problems.And if it was, then the pilot would certainly push the throttles full forward to get max power when the crew realized the end of the runway was coming up.

The lone survivor said he hard a big bang, people screamed, then the plane went down. Could be a bird strike or maybe even a compressor stall at that high angle of attack.

I've not flown a 787 but these big twin engine widebody Heavy airliners have TONS of power as they are certified to be able to continue a takeoff at a certain speed, climb and land on ONE engine. So you can pretty much power yourself out of trouble... unless you get behind the so-called 'power curve'.

Hard to day whether the flaps were at 5 deg or not deployed. However, there are various angles in the cellphone video that show a slight gap on the trailing edge, and others (like in this one) that show the slats (leading edge aerodynamic cuffs) deployed. You can't deploy the leading edge slats without (trailing edge) flaps extended. So this suggests flaps were deployed.

However, at this weight and high outdoor air temps, it would be better with flaps @ 15 degrees.

Having said that, my speculative guess is that for some reason the engines were not developing full takeoff power AND the flaps were not configured to make up for the reduced power.


This guy is credible and has another video of the takeoff.

Good answer.

My guess - After rotation the standard call after positive rate is confirmed by pilot not flying is " Positive Rate ". The Pilot Flying will say " Gear up ". Taking a shot at the dart board here which means nothing at the end.......when pilot flying called for "Gear up", Pilot not flying selected the flap handle instead of gear handle.

No one truly understand the pilot shortage and what level of experience the airlines are hiring from. There's not many qualified, high experience pilots globally. Many first officers joining an airline today are weak. Not their fault. They don't have the time logged.

No bird strike. Typically with bird strikes you will see sparks or smoke coming from an engine.

Just my 0.02 cents.

 

[wiskey bravo]

I saw the original video speaks about an I like his analysis.

I think his observations is pretty close what could have happen plus other factors as mentioned above.

Oh wow. The RAT was deployed. Didn't know that. Good to know. I take back what I said earlier.

 

[Lifeis2Short]

Good answer.

My guess - After rotation the standard call after positive rate is confirmed by pilot not flying is " Positive Rate ". The Pilot Flying will say " Gear up ". Taking a shot at the dart board here which means nothing at the end.......when pilot flying called for "Gear up", Pilot not flying selected the flap handle instead of gear handle.

No one truly understand the pilot shortage and what level of experience the airlines are hiring from. There's not many qualified, high experience pilots globally. Many first officers joining an airline today are weak. Not their fault. They don't have the time logged.

No bird strike. Typically with bird strikes you will see sparks or smoke coming from an engine.

Just my 0.02 cents.

Again, the issue with this claim is that both levers are designed completely differently, and are located in 2 different sections of the cockpit. It's not like they have the same look/feel and are right next to each other.

After rotation, the non flying pilot is waiting for the PIC to call out "gear up" and is probably already eyeing the landing gear lever. It's muscle memory.

Like I stated before, you move the flaps lever back and forth (just like how the flaps extend and retract back and forth) and the landing gear handle moves in an up and down motion (like the landing gear moves up and down) and the landing gear lever handle is shaped like a wheel. The flaps lever also have notches that you have to move out and then down/out to select the various flap settings.

Plausible? Anything is... but highly unlikely.

The black boxes will spell out the story soon enough. As long as they were recording and weren't damaged beyond repair (the tail section looks to be pretty much intact and it didn't look like it got hit by fire), the NTSB will know soon enough.

I am curious about the RAT deployment. The survivor stated the lights flickered for a moment and he heard a bang. That would fall in line with the turbine falling down in place (noise) and the systems switching over to their backup power source (lights flickered).
If that happened, then that's a whole new can of worms. The RAT deploys automatically (no human input). So, why did the RAT deploy? Where was the power loss from? That may take many months for the NTSB to figure out.

 

[Lifeis2Short]

I am leaning more to dual engine failure, when the plane flew by the camera, the sound it made sounded more like you would hear on landing then takeoff. The engines did not sound like they were producing much power. I am leaning away from flaps as the descent was very stable with no yaw, like a perfect landing.

From what was published, the CPT stated "no thrust" in his mayday call. Of course, we have to take that with a grain of salt. In the heat of the moment, the CPT may be have been mistaken about a lack of thrust. There have been many documented air disasters where the pilots were mistaken on what the aircraft was or was not doing, and this crew had seconds to process what was going on unfortunately.

 

[nottyboi]

From what was published, the CPT stated "no thrust" in his mayday call. Of course, we have to take that with a grain of salt. In the heat of the moment, the CPT may be have been mistaken about a lack of thrust. There have been many documented air disasters where the pilots were mistaken on what the aircraft was or was not doing, and this crew had seconds to process what was going on unfortunately.

Its possible and yes it hard to say what he checked or did not check, but if the engines were at TO thrust without interruption and the plane flew that trajectory it would have been going about 500 kph when it hit the ground and the destruction would have been vastly more devastating. As I said, the sound the engines were making were like flight idle vs takeoff trust.

 

[wiskey bravo]

Again, the issue with this claim is that both levers are designed completely differently, and are located in 2 different sections of the cockpit. It's not like they have the same look/feel and are right next to each other.

After rotation, the non flying pilot is waiting for the PIC to call out "gear up" and is probably already eyeing the landing gear lever. It's muscle memory.

Like I stated before, you move the flaps lever back and forth (just like how the flaps extend and retract back and forth) and the landing gear handle moves in an up and down motion (like the landing gear moves up and down) and the landing gear lever handle is shaped like a wheel. The flaps lever also have notches that you have to move out and then down/out to select the various flap settings.

Plausible? Anything is... but highly unlikely.

The black boxes will spell out the story soon enough. As long as they were recording and weren't damaged beyond repair (the tail section looks to be pretty much intact and it didn't look like it got hit by fire), the NTSB will know soon enough.

I am curious about the RAT deployment. The survivor stated the lights flickered for a moment and he heard a bang. That would fall in line with the turbine falling down in place (noise) and the systems switching over to their backup power source (lights flickered).
If that happened, then that's a whole new can of worms. The RAT deploys automatically (no human input). So, why did the RAT deploy? Where was the power loss from? That may take many months for the NTSB to figure out.

Have you ever sat beside a low time pilot? Machines fail and so do humans. Human factors is real. Even a pilot who pass's their indoc. I have seen some wild stuff. Actually, you would be surprised, a Captain with 10,000 hours may have a bad day and forget to call " gear down " on landing and the FO missing it too.
Pilots, experienced ones, with all the tech on board, have landed at the wrong airports. So much for muscle memory when you need it.

Further to your RAT comment, a rat can be deployed manually or automatically to power DC bus items, essential AC components and hydraulics ( flap and gear )

It's NOT the PIC's call to call gear up. That " gear up " call is designated to the Pilot flying. For instance, if I was the first officer of this flight and we both agreed I would fly the first leg to this pairing, after rotation the Captain (PIC) would call " positive rate " then I the Co-Pilot, would call " gear up ". That means on landing, I the Co-pilot or SIC would call " gear down ". The pilot flying calls for flaps, gear, mode selections, Auto Pilot ect ect ect. Rank or stripes has nothing to do with calling for gear. It's predicated upon who's flying the actual leg to London.

( For those who are not familiar with PIC , it's means Captain. SIC means co-pilot. If the SIC was flying the actual leg to London, he's still the SIC. Just because he/she is driving the bus, doesn't make them the PIC )

On a final note, when a caution or master warning light goes off on rotation it's very distracting. It's very easy to skip a step. I never knew the RAT deployed until later into this conversation. Speaking of RAT, used it twice, both manual drops. Very distracting with this generator deployed. The sound of this generator is soooo loud even in the cockpit.

 

[nottyboi]

Apparently it has been confirmed that the flaps were deployed by initial examination of the wreckage, but of course that does not mean they were correctly deployed. But by the way the plane lifted off, and descended in a very controlled manner, this is not a flap issue, if it had enough power it would have climbed out. Also the kentic energy from the impact makes it highly likely the engines were on idle, if not that plane woulda cut a swarth much longer then it did

 

[Lifeis2Short]

Have you ever sat beside a low time pilot? Machines fail and so do humans. Human factors is real. Even a pilot who pass's their indoc. I have seen some wild stuff. Actually, you would be surprised, a Captain with 10,000 hours may have a bad day and forget to call " gear down " on landing and the FO missing it too.
Pilots, experienced ones, with all the tech on board, have landed at the wrong airports. So much for muscle memory when you need it.

Further to your RAT comment, a rat can be deployed manually or automatically to power DC bus items, essential AC components and hydraulics ( flap and gear )

It's NOT the PIC's call to call gear up. That " gear up " call is designated to the Pilot flying. For instance, if I was the first officer of this flight and we both agreed I would fly the first leg to this pairing, after rotation the Captain (PIC) would call " positive rate " then I the Co-Pilot, would call " gear up ". That means on landing, I the Co-pilot or SIC would call " gear down ". The pilot flying calls for flaps, gear, mode selections, Auto Pilot ect ect ect. Rank or stripes has nothing to do with calling for gear. It's predicated upon who's flying the actual leg to London.

( For those who are not familiar with PIC , it's means Captain. SIC means co-pilot. If the SIC was flying the actual leg to London, he's still the SIC. Just because he/she is driving the bus, doesn't make them the PIC )

On a final note, when a caution or master warning light goes off on rotation it's very distracting. It's very easy to skip a step. I never knew the RAT deployed until later into this conversation. Speaking of RAT, used it twice, both manual drops. Very distracting with this generator deployed. The sound of this generator is soooo loud even in the cockpit.

First off... I do admit I made a mistake in my terminology. I meant to say the PF (pilot flying) vs the PM (pilot monitoring). I refereed to the PF as the PIC in my situation. The PF (Capt) would have called "gear up" and the PF (FO) would have raised the gear.

Secondly, you are correct that the RAT can be deployed manually, but it is mostly deployed automatically. The deployment is super rare (on commercial flights) regardless, so the main assumption is that the computer systems recognized there is a loss of power, and it automatically deployed. Only if the automation failed, would the pilots have to deploy it manually. In this particular situation, the chances the pilots had the time to deploy the RAT manually is slim to none. Again, is it possible? Anything is.

As for the theory on the PM to use the wrong handle... again... I'm not saying that it isn't plausible. Anything is plausible. Is it practical? In my opinion it is not practical. This is like step 3 in the actual flight process. After rollout, the PM's job is to monitor the speed of the aircraft going down the runway, call out V1 (rotate), make sure they are climbing properly and call "positive rate" and wait for the PF to call "gear up." I could be wrong, but the movement of the landing gear lever is the first thing the PM physically moves in the cockpit once the aircraft achieves flight. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Your statement about experienced pilots landing at wrong airports have nothing to do with muscle memory. You have to manually enter in waypoints and other data into the computer to make sure the autopilot flies to the proper destination. Input error is not muscle memory. Destination and waypoints CHANGE on every single flight. That's not muscle memory. Knowing where the landing gear lever and instinctually raising the handle after the PF calls out "gear up" is part of muscle memory. No matter where you depart from, you are waiting for the PF to call "gear up" and you are TRAINED to reach for that same landing gear lever and raise it EVERY SINGLE TIME. That NEVER CHANGES. That's muscle memory. If the PF said "DO NOT RAISE THE LANDING GEAR" and the PM did, then that would be improper use of muscle memory.

You spoke of the caution and master being very distracting. I can imagine that's what happened here, and they didn't have enough time to properly address it. That's why I don't think they dropped the RAT manually. I can envision the master alarm going off, along with the stick shaker going nuts, and the "stall" and "low terrain/pull up" audio being blasted all at the same time. They had seconds to try to figure out what the hell was going on. I have to think the PIC was going thru a checklist in his head, but they just ran out of time. By the time they hit that stall speed, the PIC was trying to add power and raise the nose. It's different if they were 30K in the air. Even Sully had almost 3K of altitude, and he had to ditch in the water. This aircraft never hit 650ft.

One other thing to consider... there's reports saying the CPT may have saved lives by avoiding a larger building. That's precious seconds he was using to crash the plane in an area that would cause the least amount of destruction. In an instant, he probably knew the aircraft could not be saved.

You also mentioned how loud that RAT deployment sounds when dropped/activated. Again, this coincides with the survivor's account of hearing a loud bang during the short flight.

Again... all speculation. I'm not trying to say I'm right by any accounts. I'm just offering my 2 cents (which accounts for nothing). We can all speculate, but the only thing that matters is what the NTSB concludes.

 

[Lifeis2Short]

Apparently it has been confirmed that the flaps were deployed by initial examination of the wreckage, but of course that does not mean they were correctly deployed. But by the way the plane lifted off, and descended in a very controlled manner, this is not a flap issue, if it had enough power it would have climbed out. Also the kentic energy from the impact makes it highly likely the engines were on idle, if not that plane woulda cut a swarth much longer then it did

All goes back to the CPT's mayday call saying "no thrust."

The survivor said: "it felt like the plane was stuck" and "like something had happened"

"The pilot was trying to give it a bit of a push to push it forward, but it was struggling. But it went straight into a building."

 

[wiskey bravo]

First off... I do admit I made a mistake in my terminology. I meant to say the PF (pilot flying) vs the PM (pilot monitoring). I refereed to the PF as the PIC in my situation. The PF (Capt) would have called "gear up" and the PF (FO) would have raised the gear.

Secondly, you are correct that the RAT can be deployed manually, but it is mostly deployed automatically. The deployment is super rare (on commercial flights) regardless, so the main assumption is that the computer systems recognized there is a loss of power, and it automatically deployed. Only if the automation failed, would the pilots have to deploy it manually. In this particular situation, the chances the pilots had the time to deploy the RAT manually is slim to none. Again, is it possible? Anything is.

As for the theory on the PM to use the wrong handle... again... I'm not saying that it isn't plausible. Anything is plausible. Is it practical? In my opinion it is not practical. This is like step 3 in the actual flight process. After rollout, the PM's job is to monitor the speed of the aircraft going down the runway, call out V1 (rotate), make sure they are climbing properly and call "positive rate" and wait for the PF to call "gear up." I could be wrong, but the movement of the landing gear lever is the first thing the PM physically moves in the cockpit once the aircraft achieves flight. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Your statement about experienced pilots landing at wrong airports have nothing to do with muscle memory. You have to manually enter in waypoints and other data into the computer to make sure the autopilot flies to the proper destination. Input error is not muscle memory. Destination and waypoints CHANGE on every single flight. That's not muscle memory. Knowing where the landing gear lever and instinctually raising the handle after the PF calls out "gear up" is part of muscle memory. No matter where you depart from, you are waiting for the PF to call "gear up" and you are TRAINED to reach for that same landing gear lever and raise it EVERY SINGLE TIME. That NEVER CHANGES. That's muscle memory. If the PF said "DO NOT RAISE THE LANDING GEAR" and the PM did, then that would be improper use of muscle memory.

You spoke of the caution and master being very distracting. I can imagine that's what happened here, and they didn't have enough time to properly address it. That's why I don't think they dropped the RAT manually. I can envision the master alarm going off, along with the stick shaker going nuts, and the "stall" and "low terrain/pull up" audio being blasted all at the same time. They had seconds to try to figure out what the hell was going on. I have to think the PIC was going thru a checklist in his head, but they just ran out of time. By the time they hit that stall speed, the PIC was trying to add power and raise the nose. It's different if they were 30K in the air. Even Sully had almost 3K of altitude, and he had to ditch in the water. This aircraft never hit 650ft.

One other thing to consider... there's reports saying the CPT may have saved lives by avoiding a larger building. That's precious seconds he was using to crash the plane in an area that would cause the least amount of destruction. In an instant, he probably knew the aircraft could not be saved.

You also mentioned how loud that RAT deployment sounds when dropped/activated. Again, this coincides with the survivor's account of hearing a loud bang during the short flight.

Again... all speculation. I'm not trying to say I'm right by any accounts. I'm just offering my 2 cents (which accounts for nothing). We can all speculate, but the only thing that matters is what the NTSB concludes.

My point is - You throw a abnormality into the picture, especially at a critical phase of flight, anything is possible and muscle memory can fail. When you mentioned something along the lines " highly unlikely " that's when my disagreement kicked in. I rule out nothing. " Anything is possible " but " highly unlikely " as you mentioned don't go hand in hand.

Alright, I'm sure you're a cool dude. By any means I'm not arguing with you. If it sounds like that it's only because we cant hear voices. Cool? I would totally buy drinks and look at the girls at Arizon's. Oh gosh I haven't been to that place in years.

What do you fly? YYZ?

 

[Lifeis2Short]

My point is - You throw a abnormality into the picture, especially at a critical phase of flight, anything is possible and muscle memory can fail. When you mentioned something along the lines " highly unlikely " that's when my disagreement kicked in. I rule out nothing. " Anything is possible " but " highly unlikely " as you mentioned don't go hand in hand.

Alright, I'm sure you're a cool dude. By any means I'm not arguing with you. If it sounds like that it's only because we cant hear voices. Cool? I would totally buy drinks and look at the girls at Arizon's. Oh gosh I haven't been to that place in years.

What do you fly? YYZ?

No doubt. That's why I said "my 2 cents account for nothing." I'm just purely speculating. Like I said, unless you are part of the NTSB, it's just a bunch of guesses.

My point is - You throw a abnormality into the picture, especially at a critical phase of flight, anything is possible and muscle memory can fail. When you mentioned something along the lines " highly unlikely " that's when my disagreement kicked in. I rule out nothing. " Anything is possible " but " highly unlikely " as you mentioned don't go hand in hand.

Alright, I'm sure you're a cool dude. By any means I'm not arguing with you. If it sounds like that it's only because we cant hear voices. Cool? I would totally buy drinks and look at the girls at Arizon's. Oh gosh I haven't been to that place in years.

What do you fly? YYZ?

It's highly unlikely to be struck by lighting... but it is possible. That's what I meant by it.

It's highly unlikely the PF retracted the flaps instead of raising the landing gear during a very routine portion of the flight. But, of course, it is possible. The reason I say that is because I don't think there has been a documented case of it happening during a commercial flight. I have read that the NTSB has documented this scenario happening in civil aviation cases (mainly involving student pilots/training), but not during a commercial flight. It may have happened... I just haven't found a case based on some basic Google searching.

Of course! I love these type of discussions. Cool as a cucumber. LOL No argument at all. It's refreshing to hear different sides/perspectives on a topic like this. I love this shit.

I think I'd rather buy drinks while shooting the shit at an hotel lobby bar waiting for our individual SPs to send us the "I'm ready! Come on up" text!

And. I'm no pilot. That's why I stood corrected on some of my incorrect terminology. I'm an aviation nut. I've read too many articles and watched way too many YT vids and documentaries on aviation. My father was in the Air Force and was an aircraft mechanic. One of my favorite shows is "Air Disasters" I'm a weirdo. LOL. I always wanted to join the military and become a pilot, but alas it never happened. So, while I'm not a pilot, I stayed at a Holiday Inn once.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]