Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Flight to Gatwick crashes near airport in Ahmedabad, India,

1235711

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,050 ✭✭✭plodder


    It is shocking at one level, but I don't believe the situation ever arose in reality. It seems unlikely that a commercial aircraft would go that period of time without ever being "shutdown" for some form of maintenance. What's concerning is that it was a surprise to some programmers that a 32 bit counter measuring 100ths of a second would overflow in only 248 days. I think you can be confident it was fixed on all aircraft though.

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,119 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    In anyone watches Stigshift on YouTube, he’s an LAX based engineer with AA and talks about the generator issue in detail in one of his recent videos. Can’t link it at the min but if you search for it you should find it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭notAMember


    Yes, shouldn't ever happened, but if you do a few hours in a sim, you start to realise how much the computer systems are doing, and how quickly you can get into a stall without them. There is a good bit of software running on those aircraft. Remember the issue with pitot tube readings making the flight computer move into a dangerous situation? The Air France disaster coming from south america if you remember. The pitot tubes iced over, switched off auto-pilot while the captain was gone to rest, and the co-pilot overcorrected while trying to control the plane without auto-pilot.

    Even if you've driven a modern car you've probably felt it auto-brake or slightly pull you back into the center of a lane if you didn't indicate before crossing a line.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Yes, there are many systems that can lead the pilots into potentially dangerous situations if they fail, and generally it takes further human errors to turn a failure that is considered safe into a disaster. Pitot tube icing is considered a safe failure as pilots have alternative means of determining airspeed and altitude. The Air France pilots were confused by the darkness and bad weather and they failed to keep the plane flying using the instruments that were still working, including both pilots fighting over controls input.

    However, a computer failure resulting in total loss of power shoul be impossible and not a thing to be considered now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,119 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    The Air France crash isn’t a great comparison. In that case all the pilots had to do was nothing!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭notAMember


    FADEC failure is rare, and there is redundancy built in there, but it's not impossible and has to be considered given the symptoms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Of course it's not impossible and should be considered if any indication points that way, but for now I'd rather believe one of the pilots did something wrong rather than this higly unlikely technical fault.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Channel 5 documentary about the crash this evening



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,970 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I'm sure that'll be well worth watching and not a load of reheated internet speculation at all…

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Did anyone watched it? Any new information?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,050 ✭✭✭plodder


    It's a terrible comparison because that was a shocking example of pilot incompetence, with basically nothing wrong with the plane itself. Though they weren't helped by a number of aspects of the Airbus design, the captain recognised the problem when he returned to the cockpit, but it was too late.

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Yeah no was pretty half-arsed tbh. They had some credible talking heads like Simon Calder but they were just riffing really.

    Heavily focused on Vishwash Kumar Ramesh but didn't offer any solid theory as to why he alone survived. Nothing new in it really for anyone who's been following the coverage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,050 ✭✭✭plodder


    https://www.msn.com/en-in/travel/airtravel/pilots-recreate-crashed-air-india-flight-s-final-moments-on-simulator-here-s-what-we-know-so-far/ar-AA1HQLWs Air India pilots tried (and failed) to recreate the crash in a simulator

    Doesn't tell us much, other than pilot error being even less likely now, I'd say.

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭tara73


    think it doesn't make sense to watch anything about it tbh. Not even from former credible sources like BBC or Channel 5. It's all speculation anyway at this stage and it seems no media channel can risk it these days even with highly regarded specialists because suing looms everywhere. That's why they concentrate on the story of this lone survivor. He or his family don't have the capability to sue I guess.

    And then it's fact, why or how to recreate a crash if nobody outside air india know why it happened. Nonsense to begin with.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭Cordell


    As with almost anything these days I'd rather trust any serious youtuber over what was once higly respectable media.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,680 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    Channel 5 is effectively a tabloid and always was; in the early days they were known for the three Fs - football, films and f***ing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭tara73


    wouldn't go as far as that in this case. have you seen some of the youtube offers? really a waste, there's not a thing worth watching at this point. The original channels would broadcast the truth if that ever comes to light. Why should they make something up when officials from india give a report, makes no sense either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    In fairness this wasn't tacky or sensationalist; they treated grieving families sensitively. They just didn't have significant content to move the story on from what was already in the public domain, to justify the program's existence effectively.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Because we need answers now, that's how we're wired. And by youtubers I meant pilots and retired pilots, people who know a lot more than us about this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,970 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Without access to data they're just speculating like anyone else.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    Agreed, it's all 100% speculation, some of it based on educated guesswork, and some of it just pure speculation. Surely the data from the black boxes will be decoded and published sometime later this month?

    The plane crashed on the 12th of June.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,050 ✭✭✭plodder


    Reasonable summary of the state of play here in The Seattle Times. They would have good insider access to Boeing engineering.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/3-weeks-after-air-india-boeing-787-crash-industry-waiting-for-answers/

    I wouldn't be surprised if the interim report doesn't shed a whole lot more light than this, and it ends up being a long drawn out enquiry.

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭tara73


    thanks for that, best report I read from everything after the crash. Pretty clear it was dual engine failure and for me, which is IMHO, as this forum is named, it was a form of sabotage. Every layman knows systems on aircrafts have mostly not only one but two back ups. And as bird strike, like it happened with the machine landing in the Hudson river, is almost excluded, a dual engine failure is so highly unlikely.

    Any experts here who know what could be a technical cause of dual engine failure?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,886 ✭✭✭Dublin Calling


    A Software/Firmware update. But we would probably have heard about it by now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭tara73


    what do you mean by software update? Surely all Boing 787 have the same update ? Wouldn't then have fallen more 787's from the sky if there was a faulty sw update in place?

    If this was sabotage I'm pretty sure we will never hear this as the reason. My guess is this investigation will be delayed for a long, long time until it's in the back of peoples mind and nobodys really interested anymore and then they will come out with a lame, probably kind of unspecified cause.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,970 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Not all examples of the same plane will have the same software version (and won't neccessarily have the same hardware either). Updates which are critical are mandated (via an airworthiness directive) to be done within a certain timeframe but that wouldn't be usual.

    No software is 100% bug-free and testing can't find them all, even successfully using it in service for a substantial time isn't a guarantee there's not some obscure edge case bug lurking in there.

    The other common factor between the two engines is fuel - either lack of it (impossible given they'd only just departed) or contamination, but it'd have to be some heck of a contamination to cause instant total or near-total thrust loss on both engines simultaneously.

    Sabotage is the least likely option but for some reason it keeps getting dragged up here

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,050 ✭✭✭plodder


    The only kind of sabotage that I could imagine would be if one of the pilots deliberately cut the engines at that critical point in the flight. I don't know if that's even possible and maybe someone else better qualified could answer. It doesn't seem likely either considering what we know about the Mayday call from the captain.

    The reason why I said it might take a long time to find the underlying cause was because if it is a software issue, they can take time to diagnose. Programmers have to anticipate every possible situation that can arise. Though it's not the case that any software fault would cause all 787s to fall out of the sky (though that is exactly what happened with the Ariane 5 rocket failure - every single launch would have failed the same way, if the error wasn't corrected). Most software problems depend on a sequence of other unlikely events to trigger them. Maybe, a software update could be faulty, and I imagine different parts of the plane's software can be updated independently. Maybe, strange situations can arise if the two engines are running different versions of their software. Who knows? It will come out in time, and won't be covered up imo.

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭Cordell


    There was a case where the biocide treatment was done improperly and the resulting contamination almost ended up in disaster:

    https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/233878



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭tara73


    thanks for the qualified input guys, interesting to read and food for thought.

    this sentence, quote,:No software is 100% bug-free and testing can't find them all, even successfully using it in service for a substantial time isn't a guarantee there's not some obscure edge case bug lurking in there…doesn't do any good to people with already slightly fear of flying…😁

    @hotblackdesiato: why do you think sabotage is the least likely? If there are 'big' people behind, whoever, but surely have a network and money, many things are possible, or why not? Installing moles like people working on the technical maintenance…seems easy enough for me…



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭tara73


    alright, fuel contamination is still a reasonable possibility in this case and actually was on the table from the very beginning…damn, if you get into all this things one really wants to know now what was the cause…😁but it's not about wanting here. And if there are people who have the right to know as soon as possible it's all the relatives of the deceased and nobody else.



Advertisement
Advertisement