Air India plane crash

Roger Roger said:
I don’t know what the reputation of air India is, but I wouldn’t rule out some bat• pilot stuff based on other accidents from that part of the world.
Click to expand...

I also wouldn't rule out something mx related. This is the same airline that cannibalized at least one of their newish 777-200LRs to keep the other ones flying because they were too cheap to buy spare parts.
 
FlyingAccountant said:
I also wouldn't rule out something mx related. This is the same airline that cannibalized at least one of their newish 777-200LRs to keep the other ones flying because they were too cheap to buy spare parts.
Click to expand...


I think you’re confusing PIA for Air India?



pZli9Md.gif
 
FlyingAccountant said:
I also wouldn't rule out something mx related. This is the same airline that cannibalized at least one of their newish 777-200LRs to keep the other ones flying because they were too cheap to buy spare parts.
Click to expand...

This is pretty standard practice across all airlines - while this accident could certainly be maintenance related, simply scrapping/cannibalizing airplanes for parts isn’t really indicative of maintenance problems
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Is there proof of that? PIA cannibalized a 777 to keep the others going. Air India’s 777-200LRs are total of 5, all ex-Delta birds.
Click to expand...

VT-ALH was the tail. Looks like it was overhauled and brought back into service back in 2015ish and removed from service permanently last month.

Ecl!pse said:
This is pretty standard practice across all airlines - while this accident could certainly be maintenance related, simply scrapping/cannibalizing airplanes for parts isn’t really indicative of maintenance problems
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're not going to see SouthernJets or United tearing apart a nearly brand new at the time jet to keep the rest of the fleet going. It's a horrendous waste of a very expensive capital asset.

Some old 717 that was specifically bought for the purpose, as SJ has done in the past, sure.
 
FlyingAccountant said:
VT-ALH was the tail. Looks like it was overhauled and brought back into service back in 2015ish and removed from service permanently last month.



I'm pretty sure you're not going to see SouthernJets or United tearing apart a nearly brand new at the time jet to keep the rest of the fleet going. It's a horrendous waste of a very expensive capital asset.

Some old 717 that was specifically bought for the purpose, as SJ has done in the past, sure.
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised. There are newer aircraft out there (e.g., A220s) currently being cannibalized for parts - granted, this is largely because the engine OEMs can't get parts distributed quick enough and when they do, they are expensive as hell.

That said, it still happens, especially if the airline can't fly the type profitably and it's an out-of-favor asset, like A319s, 737-700s, 777-200s (especially LRs), etc. Just because an aircraft is relatively new and someone paid a hefty price for it up-front doesn't mean it won't be used for parts - especially if you (1) can't make money flying it, (2) there's no/minimal second-hand market for it as a flying airplane, and (3) something else in your fleet that is more profitable needs an overhaul. This would be the very reason to scrap your unprofitable (but young) 238-seat 777-200LR for parts to avoid the major overhaul expense on your profitable 342-seat 777-300ER.

Now, why would they have gotten the 777-200LR in the first place? Beats me. Someone in Network Planning thought some ultra-long-range routes could work, so the airline orders some. Turns out some (or all) of the routes don't work and now you've got an aircraft designed to go ultra far being used on shorter routes, well within the capability of the larger, lower cost-per-seat sibling, the 777-300ER. No bueno. You try to sell it but nobody is interested buying the actual airplane - they'll only pay you to buy it for the parts. You look around and say "well, if someone's only going to pay me for the parts, I might as well use them myself to avoid my own big maintenance expenses" and here we are.
 
Last edited:
Missed the edit window, but to add/reiterate - this accident may well end up being a maintenance problem/poor maintenance culture - don't know and don't care to speculate. We'll learn more in due time. My comments are only to contextualize why a younger airframe might get scrapped and to point out that it's not an uncommon practice across airlines, big and small, in all countries/jurisdictions.
 
Other question I have is whether it is possible for the throttles to inadvertently roll back during takeoff? I'm trying to think of a way that would happen in my Boeing. Not that the 737 and 787 are necessarily anything alike in their automation (I have no idea, looks kinda similar but probably isn't).......but could it have something to do with accidental and unrecognized disengagement of A/T when an A/T takeoff was intended? I can't fathom how two different motors would fail simultaneously for any other reason than massive bird ingestion. Maybe there are other ways I haven't considered, not being familiar with this particular airplane. We have lost airplanes in the Navy landing at the boat because people thought A/T were engaged when they had actually disengaged. I say that plurally because the number is more than 1 in the span of my career. Granted we don't have that loud annoying horn, but it could be more subtle if for example, A/T was never actually engaged in the first place but it was thought to have been?
 
///AMG said:
We have lost airplanes in the Navy landing at the boat because people thought A/T were engaged when they had actually disengaged. I say that plurally because the number is more than 1 in the span of my career. Granted we don't have that loud annoying horn, but it could be more subtle if for example, A/T was never actually engaged in the first place but it was thought to have been?
Click to expand...
There have been a surprising high number of accidents in the airline world too that would have been prevented by the pilot flying just having their hand on the thrust levers in the terminal environment. It's very common that guys are flying around without their hands on them and your brain kinda checks out if you arent touching them. I learned early on to keep your hand close when you are below 10k and especially if AP/AT is off. Just a technique thing like if you have speed brakes out keep your hand touching the lever.

Maybe this accident is something similar? The Turkish 737 accident in AMS, Emirates 777 in DXB, Asiana 777 in SFO, the list sadly goes on. Keep your hand on the thrust levers when you're down low please!
 
///AMG said:
Other question I have is whether it is possible for the throttles to inadvertently roll back during takeoff? I'm trying to think of a way that would happen in my Boeing. Not that the 737 and 787 are necessarily anything alike in their automation (I have no idea, looks kinda similar but probably isn't).......but could it have something to do with accidental and unrecognized disengagement of A/T when an A/T takeoff was intended? I can't fathom how two different motors would fail simultaneously for any other reason than massive bird ingestion. Maybe there are other ways I haven't considered, not being familiar with this particular airplane. We have lost airplanes in the Navy landing at the boat because people thought A/T were engaged when they had actually disengaged. I say that plurally because the number is more than 1 in the span of my career. Granted we don't have that loud annoying horn, but it could be more subtle if for example, A/T was never actually engaged in the first place but it was thought to have been?
Click to expand...
Not sure if the 787 is like the 777, but if the thrust isn't set by a certain airspeed, then you're not gonna get all your thrust.
 
Skåning said:
There have been a surprising high number of accidents in the airline world too that would have been prevented by the pilot flying just having their hand on the thrust levers in the terminal environment. It's very common that guys are flying around without their hands on them and your brain kinda checks out if you arent touching them. I learned early on to keep your hand close when you are below 10k and especially if AP/AT is off. Just a technique thing like if you have speed brakes out keep your hand touching the lever.

Maybe this accident is something similar? The Turkish 737 accident in AMS, Emirates 777 in DXB, Asiana 777 in SFO, the list sadly goes on. Keep your hand on the thrust levers when you're down low please!
Click to expand...

All of this......big time
 
Skåning said:
There have been a surprising high number of accidents in the airline world too that would have been prevented by the pilot flying just having their hand on the thrust levers in the terminal environment. It's very common that guys are flying around without their hands on them and your brain kinda checks out if you arent touching them. I learned early on to keep your hand close when you are below 10k and especially if AP/AT is off. Just a technique thing like if you have speed brakes out keep your hand touching the lever.
Click to expand...
I got yelled at by a captain for following the auto throttles after takeoff
 
I just realized the seat he's in is the same seat I swore to avoid at all costs on UA 787s as the door impedes your legroom significantly and the arm rest only works for your elbow. EWR-SFO made the mistake of saying "Sure, I'll take the exit row". Spent the whole flight after takeoff in the middle seat to the dismay of the nonrev in the aisle seat lol. Even with an open middle, it was miserable for even 30 minutes. I can't imagine SIN-SFO. Air India and United sell that as a row of 3 seats, many Asian carriers sell it as a 2 seat row missing the window. But synergies and stuff.

But, at least the door is right there, I guess. As are the lavs, and all the passengers doing their weird no social awareness stretches.
 
The whole purpose of the autothrottles entering THR HLD at 80kts is to disengage the throttles from the servos and prevent unwanted rollback. They're going to stay where they are at the time the plane crosses 80kts unless a pilot moves them, or the mode changes back to THR REF/EPR/N1 (depending on which Boeing you're in) at acceleration altitude, or it gets tripped into SPD by a low altitude level off.

As previously mentioned there are some conditions like a very strong headwind, or taking it on the roll a bit too sporty, where your takeoff thrust hasn't been achieved yet by 80kts and you have to nudge it up manually that last bit. I used to encounter this a lot in the G-IV where the transition to a similar mode happened at 60kts instead of 80.

However I don't think this played a role in this accident just from the little information that's available right now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top