By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The BBC interviewing the family of the guy who walked away from that plane is disgraceful.
He’s clearly so uncomfortable talking to them.
Just catching up - watched the interview with his cousin - agree that was appalling journalism.
Telling the guy that there were no other survivors - when he had just said the sole survivor was sat next to his brother - maybe explain it off camera but to do it on camera ffs.
The BBC interviewing the family of the guy who walked away from that plane is disgraceful.
He’s clearly so uncomfortable talking to them.
I thought it was rather distasteful when I watched that earlier. Kept asking the same question over and over. The guy may have had a relative that miraculously survived but they had also lost another family member in the accident.
Just catching up - watched the interview with his cousin - agree that was appalling journalism.
Telling the guy that there were no other survivors - when he had just said the sole survivor was sat next to his brother - maybe explain it off camera but to do it on camera ffs.
Yep. Poor fella looked like he was in shock. Kept on asking him more questions.
Yep. Poor fella looked like he was in shock. Kept on asking him more questions.
Really dreadful behaviour.
The worst thing about plane crashes are inevitable tragic personal stories that come out in the following hours and days, often with a terrible twist of fate that make it seem even sadder.
Read one that an Indian Doctor who had been living in London. His family just received visa clearance to move over, he snapped a selfie from the flight as they all embarked on a new life and sent it just before take off to his friends. Then seconds later.
Not exactly sure what you are trying to suggest in regards to the NTSB.
While the FAA suffered a significant hit for it's lacklustre response to the 737 MAX and lost enormous respect amongst it's fellow aviation authorities, I don't think the NTSB has been criticised for its role really?
I'd expect that if the NTSB tried to send useful idiots (which I wouldn't put past the current administration), they'd very quickly be found to be put of their depth.
While the FAA suffered a significant hit for it's lacklustre response to the 737 MAX and lost enormous respect amongst it's fellow aviation authorities, I don't think the NTSB has been criticised for its role really?
I'd expect that if the NTSB tried to send useful idiots (which I wouldn't put past the current administration), they'd very quickly be found to be put of their depth.
Yeah, the NTSB has a proven track record of making Aviation a lot safer worldwide. When you look a the amount crashes in the 70s/80s/90s and the conclusions and implemented changes from many incidents.
Obviously condolences to those affected. How does this affect anyone due to fly on a 787 Dreamliner? Will they all be grounded pending investigation? You would think this has to happen on safety grounds?
Obviously condolences to those affected. How does this affect anyone due to fly on a 787 Dreamliner? Will they all be grounded pending investigation? You would think this has to happen on safety grounds?
Nope. Currently got a friend flying back from Barbados. She's on a 787 that took off 30mins ago.
I assume that it will be business as usual unless/until any serious evidence arises that suggests it could be a non-unique issue.
Yep. Poor fella looked like he was in shock. Kept on asking him more questions.
Really dreadful behaviour.
Agreed and said the same to my wife at the time when watching it. Hounded him with repetitive questions. How the editor allowed that whole interview to be shown is beyond me too. I suspect they’ll be received a significant number of complaints for that.
Obviously condolences to those affected. How does this affect anyone due to fly on a 787 Dreamliner? Will they all be grounded pending investigation? You would think this has to happen on safety grounds?
Nope. Currently got a friend flying back from Barbados. She's on a 787 that took off 30mins ago.
I assume that it will be business as usual unless/until any serious evidence arises that suggests it could be a non-unique issue.
Even when it has been obvious there was an issue in the past, as with the 737 Max issue, it was airlines who grounded them voluntarily before anything came from Boeing or the regulators.
Even when it has been obvious there was an issue in the past, as with the 737 Max issue, it was airlines who grounded them voluntarily before anything came from Boeing or the regulators.
There is a vast difference though between the 737 Max and the 787.
The grounding of the 737 Max only happened after a second accident in the space of a few months for exactly the same reason in an aircraft that had only been launched in the last 18 months.
Whereas the 787 is one of the most popular aircraft that has been flying for over ten years with a flawless accident history* (I'm not a fan of Boeings generally but I love the 787).
There's rarely an example where an aircraft model is grounded after a single accident - the only one I can think of was Concorde, but that was a unique case in an aircraft where only a handful were ever built (the graphic photos of the Concorde on fire didn't help).
We will no doubt discover the Air India accident was either pilot error (the majority of accidents are) or an unprecedented issue with the plane that will be identified and then if necessary safety advice sent to all operators of 787s.
A good comparison would be the British Airways 777 that crashed at Heathrow back in 2008 - at that time the 777 model had been flying for over 10 years without a single accident, but it was discovered that in an exceptional circumstance (in this case flying within the Arctic circle) small ice cubes could form in the fuel tank and block the fuel intake to the engine. The BA plane crashed with the same force as the Air India yesterday, but because it landed in a field and was at the end of the flight there wasn't a large amount of fuel to cause an explosion and everyone somehow walked away. There wasn't an immediate grounding of all 777s and once the cause was identified remedial measures were made to all 777s in service (in this case I think a small heater was installed before the fuel gets to the engine to melt any ice cubes).
As it stands, the 777 has now been in service for over 20 years and the only major incidents with significant fatalities are the two Malaysian 777s back in 2014/15 that were shot down by Russia and then went missing respectively. I'm not a fan of the 777 because it was never designed to fit nine seats in a row (it was initially configured 2-4-2) but most airlines now have 3-3-3 as standard and it's just not enough room for long flights; but I wouldn't not get on a 777 because I was worried about its safety record.
Most modern aircraft are exceptionally safe, remarkably so. As discussed on this thread though, the 737 Max is the one that I worry about because Boeing cut R&D costs and time by using a very old frame as the basis for the design. That said, the longer we go without anymore 737 Max accidents, the less concern we should all have about its safety (mind you that won't stop me trying to book airlines and routes to avoid flying it - but that's mainly because the A320/321neos are far far nicer planes).
RIP to all of those on board yesterday and on the ground who were killed.
* The 787 had some issues with a handful of battery fires in its first year of service but thankfully they were all on the ground and there were no fatalities - and then Boeing switched to a new battery type.
It looks fairly stable as it loses height, i.e. had it landed in a field there may have only been a few injuries, but it crashes into a building with a massive fireball so yeah, absolutely horrific.
I doubt that would have made any difference,an aircraft at take off Speed crashing anywhere isn’t happy.
In a relatively new aircraft, take off and landing configurations have all kind of alarms altering pilots if things are not set correctly.
Unless they retracted the flaps instead of the the gear, which would just seem unfathomable, (I am not speculating that to be the case) but I just don't understand it at all.
RIP
Yikes, looks like what I suggested actually MIGHT have been the case. I know I’ve also warned against speculation but just from an aviation standpoint, people will always theorize and it’s such a mystery everyone wants to know why sooner rather than later. Worth a listen, trying to add responsibly with all possibilities of course still very much in play.
I doubt that would have made any difference,an aircraft at take off Speed crashing anywhere isn’t happy.
Quite.
For example the British (Euro) Airways crash in Staines in 1972 - whilst a different era and far older engineering, the same physics apply and in that case it was a crash into a field with no surivors. Crashing at take-off speed with a plane full of fuel isn't good and rarely are there survivors.
Accidents on landing are a far different scenario, much lighter planes, carrying much less fuel, and at far lower speeds - often sees multiple survivors.
I doubt that would have made any difference,an aircraft at take off Speed crashing anywhere isn’t happy.
Yeah I'm not a happy flyer and the answers here are showing up my lack of knowledge about it, I thought it could maybe have a landing with a bump rather than a crash at the angle it was descending.
I didn't even know anything about the flaps thing. No-one told me before getting on these things that if the flaps fail you're pretty much dead!
Yeah I'm not a happy flyer and the answers here are showing up my lack of knowledge about it, I thought it could maybe have a landing with a bump rather than a crash at the angle it was descending.
I didn't even know anything about the flaps thing. No-one told me before getting on these things that if the flaps fail you're pretty much dead!
[Post edited 13 Jun 8:45]
Flaps don’t tend to fail on take-off. They are extended before taxi, so you know they are either out or not. Watch out the window next time after push-back on a plane
It’s not something a pilot and co-pilot combined simply miss either, as if you do the plane’s systems will scream at you.
On landing, you can land without them extended (I have on a 747 into JFK), but the landing is very much an emergency landing and much faster than anyone would want. Ways of managing it though.
Flaps don’t tend to fail on take-off. They are extended before taxi, so you know they are either out or not. Watch out the window next time after push-back on a plane
It’s not something a pilot and co-pilot combined simply miss either, as if you do the plane’s systems will scream at you.
On landing, you can land without them extended (I have on a 747 into JFK), but the landing is very much an emergency landing and much faster than anyone would want. Ways of managing it though.
The flaps thing, footage isn't clear enough to judge what position theyre in but the flaps lever is down by the throttles and the gear lever is up on the center panel in front of you, you absolutely could not get those two mixed up it's like saying you pulled the handbrake when you go for the indicators in a car
However a loss of power would affect hydraulic systems and that would impact gear retraction and flaps, thrust obviously too, and there's claims the ram air turbine was deployed, you deploy that when there's no power to power critical systems
Now there was a thing I thought was only few years back but it's possibly over 10 years ago where there was a bug in the 787 systems software around power
basically a memory overflow thing, where if the plane had been powered on continuously for 248days, it would turn all the power systems off, regardless of the phase of flight, which would result in complete loss of control of the plane.
Now they were fixing the bug, but they'd always said no plane is every continuously powered for that length of time,so applying the fix was never mandated as a safety requirement, simply a notice to airlines.
It could be completely coincidence, this plane had a major service recently it would have been switched off and on again.
But a reminder these are incredibly complex aircraft and it's not always the most obvious bit that causes a crash like this.
RIP to all those who have died and thoughts with those impacted by it
on the A380 flight - i moved from seat 11a - to 26a a couple of weeks ago -
wondering if i might have dropped a clanger now.
They are both very good aircraft. Safe as can be on those. Aviation in general is just about the safest way to travel anyway and the aircraft are far better made than they ever were.
Not flown on an A380 yet - grrr. Hope to one day. It looked a possible for next year, but it looks like an A350. Also a type I’ve not flown on.
Back to the Air India disaster, I see they’ve recovered one of the data recorders and will no doubt dig out the other soon. Assuming it’s not been destroyed, that should tell them a lot.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
