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,

1567911

Comments

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


    The final report will probably have the complete CVR transcript, but the preliminary report didn't. I think I remember reading that the gear was already in some form of unlocked position, ready to be raised. But, apparently that was wrong and the landing gear control was never raised <edit>

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,164 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    I don't really understand why the pilot who cut off the fuel would deny it straight afterwards if he did it intentionally. It doesn't really fit with a suicidal motive.

    I presume to throw the other guy off the scent for the few seconds required. He could hardly take him out like this lad…

    blaster.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,995 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Gear didn't go up because the engines were shut down first, leading to a loss of power. A lot of power is required to retract the undercarriage. Because of the lack of power the RAT deployed, but it can't generate anything like enough power to retract the undercarriage.

    If you are implying that the fuel cutoff switches were accidentally operated instead of the gear, then good luck finding anyone whose ever flown a plane believing that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,995 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    No. Give the pilots a break - video surveillance is unnecessary, it's not like it's a safety feature that would prevent this sort of incident or the Germanwings one.

    When have crew members been tasked with these actions? Would you have some examples not from a movie? Engines have lots of warning lights, buzzers, gauges and monitoring systems. Pilots don't need to send crew out on a wing to pull a dip stick or measure the oil pressure, or with a fire extinguisher to put out a fire, like that mad kiwi bomber co-pilot in WW2.

    No, it is not too easy to cut fuel flow to the engines. There are just a lot of alternative ways to crash a plane - you can't just keep making each thing more difficult each time that thing is used to crash a plane.

    Every pilot suicide has involved a male pilot, you might as well suggest that only female pilots should be allowed to fly passenger aircraft.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,858 ✭✭✭standardg60


    To me it sounds like pilot monitoring silently flicked the switches while pilot flying was concentrating on rotating. Pilot flying then realised the loss of thrust and within ten seconds managed to spot and rectify the switches which to me is amazing work. One engine was already regaining thrust but it was too late.

    The conversation was probably at the same time or after the switches were rectified. Certainly points to pilot monitoring quietly planning a murder/suicide. Flicked the switches and just sat there denying it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,968 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    This wasn't a 737, but that aircraft's cockpit is notorious for its bad 1960s ergos. Boeing dare not change it, because they don't want pilots to have to be retrained. (Like when they pretended the MAX was the same as a 737NG, when it wasn't.)

    Disengagement of the switch lock is not the same thing as the switch changing position by itself which is what your post implied.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,968 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    The pilots are the first on the scene of any accident. The aircraft was not heading towards flat open fields but a built up area. There was no chance of their survival.

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



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


    "No, it is not too easy to cut fuel flow to the engines". Yet the video I referenced above says otherwise, just a gentle pull and down into the engine cutoff position. 'flick flick' like I described earlier.

    Why do you think it is not too easy?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,858 ✭✭✭standardg60


    You're confusing accidentally and deliberately here, they are not the same thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,995 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Because if it were too easy, there would have been accidental activations and inadvertent engine shut downs, which there haven't been, AFAIK. It has to be 'reasonably' easy because it needs to be done quickly in emergencies, such as engine fires or spontaneous engine disassembly, ground crew being sucked into engines, bird ingestions - maybe a drone one day.



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


    There's a focus now on the mental state of the captain.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/07/13/air-india-pilot-medical-records-mental-health-claims/

    Air India crash investigators are examining the medical records of the pilot whose plane crashed in Ahmedabad amid claims that he suffered from depression and mental health problems.
    :
    Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a leading aviation safety expert in India, told The Telegraph: “I have heard from several Air India pilots who told me he had some depression and mental health issues. He had taken time off from flying in the last three to four years. He had taken medical leave for that.”

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



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


    It looks like a big change is needed: airlines, railway, coach and any other mass transportation employers need full access to their employees' medical records.

    Based on his medical history the pilot that crashed the Germanwings flight shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the controls of a commercial plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525#Andreas_Lubitz



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


    wow, that's some news. Didn't expect that, another suicide with mass murder.

    I find it weird that they claim they don't know who spoke what. That's almost unbelievable.

    Also, is it common in aviation that the pilot with the less experience is the pilot and not the co-pilot? It was the case here. I find this weird too. Anybody knows?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,817 ✭✭✭Royale with Cheese


    Think they just alternate who is pilot flying and who is pilot monitoring every flight.



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


    I find it weird that they claim they don't know who spoke what

    They don't claim they don't know:

    In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff.
    The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

    The preliminary report doesn't say who said what, but it doesn't claim that is not known either.



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


    wow, that's some news. Didn't expect that, another suicide with mass murder.

    I find it weird that they claim they don't know who spoke what. That's almost unbelievable.

    They might have a strong suspicion but haven't confirmed it yet. I doubt that pilots introduce themselves on the CVR at the start of every flight, for the benefit of some future investigation. There's also only a single recording and we've no idea yet exactly what was said.

    Also, is it common in aviation that the pilot with the less experience is the pilot and not the co-pilot? It was the case here. I find this weird too. Anybody knows?

    Pretty normal apparently. That's how flight crew gain experience.

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



  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 12,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭artanevilla


    You want your most experienced pilot monitoring.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    It's one possible explanation how it could have happened.

    If so, we can safely exclude a technical problem and the other 787s are safe. The thought I've often had is on whether it's possible due to some technical error for the switches to cut the power to the engines without actually somebody touching the switches physically? Some programming error maybe? Apparently Air India did all the safety maintenence checks required.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    Generally speaking, the duties of PF and PM are rotated on each flight, unless some special circumstances mandate that, say, an airport or a particular approach is a "captains only" one. In the case of AI171, the captain would probably have been due to be Pilot Flying on the return leg from LGW to India.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,164 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Problem with going heavy on that is you might push pilots, train drivers etc. to conceal mental health problems which wouldn't be ideal either…



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,155 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The restrictions in place in many countries lead to mental and sometimes physical health issues being hidden as it is. Making it harder could easily lead to more hidden and untreated instances.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,686 ✭✭✭XsApollo


    if there was any hint of an issue that could bring a plane down like that due to a flaw with the aircraft design, they would be grounded or directives issued.
    It’s the first hull loss or fatal accident involving a 787 since it went in to service in 2011.

    The preliminary report just states what happened, not why it happened. They certainly know that it’s nothing to do with the design of the aircraft itself, they just haven’t said so, which they will when the full report comes out, whenever that is.

    You could argue that didn’t happen with the 737 Max ,but due to that has since put Boeing under a lot more scrutiny and pressure to not let anything like that ever happen again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,065 ✭✭✭rogber


    This article highlights the important missing info and just how shoddy and lacking in transparency the Indian report is, no big surprise there and something is clearly being held back:



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭rock22


    Reading that article and a few others, I think it is clear that the preliminary report was released to protect the Indian aviation industry and not to shed light on the cause of the crash. It was released only to comply with the 30 day limit.

    Obviously , the investigators know who said what , and also what actions were taken within the cockpit in the seconds after takeoff but have decided not to make those findings public. There is a likelihood that more was said in the cockpit and there is a ten second gap from switching off the fuel to turning switch 1 back on and then a further 4 seconds until switch 2 is turned on.

    I think we will have to wait for the full report.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,686 ✭✭✭XsApollo


    that’s what preliminary reports are.
    the Aviation industry doesn’t do speculation, what if’s or maybes.

    For example

    https://aaiu.ie/investigation-reporting/#:~:text=The%20Preliminary%20Report%20will%20only,all%20aspects%20of%20an%20investigation.



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


    An engineering source, meanwhile, said the report was "very selective", and did not have any detailed information about what the engines were doing immediately before the switches were flipped. The document does say that the engine speed began to decrease from take-off values "as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off."

    I wonder are they hinting there, that the take-off values could have been set too low? I don't see why that data wouldn't have been included in the report, and maybe they shouldn't have included the SAIB that was of questionable relevance also. Nevertheless, even if the report confined itself to purely factual information relating to the crash, and included relevant data they did know, people will still speculate and read between the lines imo.

    On the CVR transcript, I remember when the R116 transcript was published here (in the preliminary report) there were complaints from certain quarters that this was done. But, the investigators made the right decision to publish it regardless.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭rock22


    Did you read your own link?

    The preliminary report should

    "The Preliminary Report will only identify factual information known at that time "

    But the report skips over much information known at this time, including the full transcript of all exchanges withing the cockpit. And the report also includes a speculative note on a SAIB concerning the locking of the switches and called for checks on Indian aircraft fitted with the switches while at the same time FAA have clarified that the bulletin has nothing to do with the accident.

    The inclusion of 'selective information' along with important omissions has been widely criticised by industry exports.



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


    yes, it leaves a big questionmark why they don't release the full information which they 100% have. The BBC article sums it up very well and one wonders if there's more to the story or do they even tell the truth with the bits they released.

    At he end of the day we are just curious folks but it's torturing the relatives without the need I would say.



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


    but how is that protecting the indian aviation industry? It's just 'protecting' them if they hide some very relevant facts or even telling not what really happened.

    I've seen some good videos about it from pilots it's impossible to switch the fuel buttons accidentially. You have to pull them out, turn them and pull them back in, as explained also in this thread numerous times. And, regarding the report, there was only 1 sec between switching one and the next button. That's only possible if a human being did it. So it is kind of fact this was human sabotage from one of the pilots. But still they can't tell the full story. Very weird.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,155 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Protecting reputation domestically, basically. The idea that the pilots caused a crash is seen as worse than it being some issue with the airframe that's now fixed in many peoples eyes.



Advertisement
Advertisement