Enough in the global news to understand this.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:08:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 11:59, David wrote:
Enough in the global news to understand this.The video shows a plane, wings level, flaps still out, gear extended >*descending* as its nose is pulled up. No loss of control.
Double engine failure?
The engines are not Boeing. Or Rolls Royce. They are GE.
I would recommend waiting for the inquiry rather than having an
extended debate here as to what may or may not have happened. I am
sure this recommendation will not be followed but I will ignore the
thread.
On 12/06/2025 11:59, David wrote:
Enough in the global news to understand this.The video shows a plane, wings level, flaps still out, gear extended >*descending* as its nose is pulled up. No loss of control.
Double engine failure?
The engines are not Boeing. Or Rolls Royce. They are GE.
It did seem to have a nose-up attitude.
On 12/06/2025 11:59, David wrote:
Enough in the global news to understand this.The video shows a plane, wings level, flaps still out, gear extended *descending* as its nose is pulled up. No loss of control.
Double engine failure?
The engines are not Boeing. Or Rolls Royce. They are GE.
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 11:59, David wrote:
Enough in the global news to understand this.The video shows a plane, wings level, flaps still out, gear extended
*descending* as its nose is pulled up. No loss of control.
Double engine failure?
The engines are not Boeing. Or Rolls Royce. They are GE.
It’s said that the aircraft’s airspeed was 174kt, easily flying speed. It did seem to have a nose-up attitude.
Video here:
<https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/air-india-plane-crash-video-in-ahmedabad-the-final-moments-before-the-tragedy-2025-06-12-994391>
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:08:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 11:59, David wrote:
Enough in the global news to understand this.The video shows a plane, wings level, flaps still out, gear extended
*descending* as its nose is pulled up. No loss of control.
Double engine failure?
The engines are not Boeing. Or Rolls Royce. They are GE.
I would recommend waiting for the inquiry rather than having an
extended debate here as to what may or may not have happened. I am
sure this recommendation will not be followed but I will ignore the
thread.
+1. The usual place for facts:
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/518859
and speculation: https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/666472-plane-crash-near-ahmedabad.html
Both with more learned folks than anyone here.
Theo
On 12/06/2025 12:59, Theo wrote:
Scott <[email protected]> wrote:I am not so sure.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:08:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 11:59, David wrote:
Enough in the global news to understand this.The video shows a plane, wings level, flaps still out, gear extended
*descending* as its nose is pulled up. No loss of control.
Double engine failure?
The engines are not Boeing. Or Rolls Royce. They are GE.
I would recommend waiting for the inquiry rather than having an
extended debate here as to what may or may not have happened. I am
sure this recommendation will not be followed but I will ignore the
thread.
+1. The usual place for facts:
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/518859
and speculation:
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/666472-plane-crash-near-
ahmedabad.html
Both with more learned folks than anyone here.
The uspcaled video appears to show no flaps and one commentator asks a pertinent question
"What’s a Dreamliner do on takeoff if flaps are selected up instead of gear?"
and
"Speculation: too early rotation due to rwy end approaching (too) fast-
then mistakenly retracts flaps instead of raising the gear.... That
would result in what we saw in the video... Pure speculation in this
rumour network. A sad day indeed..."
It fits the facts but it has to be a bloody sloppy takeoff to do that in midday heat with a full plane
And IF it reached 170 knots and 600 feet there was nothing wrong with
the takeoff. 140 knots is typical rotation speed
AFAICT flaps 15 and leading edge slats is takeoff config. Hard to tell
if there was 15 flaps or not.
I dont know where gear up is typically requested, but it seems like they never got to that point.
Yet the first thing a pilot is trained to do if he loses one engine is rudder, full TOGA power and retract the wheels
They can fly on one engine.
So we can conjecture that they hit issues with both engines shortly
after takeoff.
Theo
Unless they were deliberately shut down by an act of terrorism, its hard
to say what except a double bird strike might have done it.
Enough in the global news to understand this.WTF clog-up a DIY discussion forum with an aviation news report?
Jethro_uk wrote:
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Eh? Pilots turning the non-damaged engine off ...
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Andy Burns wrote:not quite, one engine problem, smoke in cockpit, pilots were familiar
Jethro_uk wrote:
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Eh? Pilots turning the non-damaged engine off ...
Wasn't Kegworth caused because one engine failed (it happens) and there
was a fault in the (very new) control systems that caused the pilot to
shut down the working engine with tragic consequences ?
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 13:34:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Unless they were deliberately shut down by an act of terrorism, its hard
to say what except a double bird strike might have done it.
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Spike wrote:
It did seem to have a nose-up attitude.
Looked more like the arse-end sinking, than the nose-end climbing?
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots, that's
only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were inevitably
going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage down seems
marginally preferable?
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:21:17 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Eh? Pilots turning the non-damaged engine off ...
Wasn't Kegworth caused because one engine failed (it happens) and there
was a fault in the (very new) control systems that caused the pilot to
shut down the working engine with tragic consequences ?
Spontaneous double engine failure is extremely unlikely.
On 12/06/2025 16:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:21:17 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:No, they shut down the wrong engine because the smoke in the cockpit led
Jethro_uk wrote:
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Eh? Pilots turning the non-damaged engine off ...
Wasn't Kegworth caused because one engine failed (it happens) and there
was a fault in the (very new) control systems that caused the pilot to
shut down the working engine with tragic consequences ?
them to believe it was the engined supplying cabin pressurisation.
But the new aircraft used the other engine for *cockpit* air...
Spontaneous double engine failure is extremely unlikely.
Never said it was 'spontaneous'.
Flocks of birds are a real hazard below about 1000ft.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:37:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 16:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:21:17 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:No, they shut down the wrong engine because the smoke in the cockpit led
Jethro_uk wrote:
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Eh? Pilots turning the non-damaged engine off ...
Wasn't Kegworth caused because one engine failed (it happens) and there
was a fault in the (very new) control systems that caused the pilot to
shut down the working engine with tragic consequences ?
them to believe it was the engined supplying cabin pressurisation.
But the new aircraft used the other engine for *cockpit* air...
Yes, I've just (re) learned ...
Spontaneous double engine failure is extremely unlikely.
Never said it was 'spontaneous'.
Flocks of birds are a real hazard below about 1000ft.
No, but I suggest it is "spontaneous". Because planned failure 30 seconds after take off seems a bit dim.
What are the chances of double bird-strike ? I know "anythings possible",
but I would have imagined there would be serious attempts to prevent it.
They had filled her up hadn't they ?
On 12/06/2025 17:47, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:37:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:High. That's what happened to the plane that landed in the river. Also
On 12/06/2025 16:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:21:17 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:No, they shut down the wrong engine because the smoke in the cockpit led >>> them to believe it was the engined supplying cabin pressurisation.
Jethro_uk wrote:
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Eh? Pilots turning the non-damaged engine off ...
Wasn't Kegworth caused because one engine failed (it happens) and there >>>> was a fault in the (very new) control systems that caused the pilot to >>>> shut down the working engine with tragic consequences ?
But the new aircraft used the other engine for *cockpit* air...
Yes, I've just (re) learned ...
Spontaneous double engine failure is extremely unlikely.
Never said it was 'spontaneous'.
Flocks of birds are a real hazard below about 1000ft.
No, but I suggest it is "spontaneous". Because planned failure 30 seconds
after take off seems a bit dim.
What are the chances of double bird-strike ? I know "anythings possible",
but I would have imagined there would be serious attempts to prevent it.
to another one this year IIRC.
They had filled her up hadn't they ?
First passenger to survive says
"Thirty seconds after take-off, there was a loud noise and then the
plane crashed. It all happened so quickly."
Cockpit voice recorder will be interesting. Also black box. I imagine
they will have a preliminary report in a couple of weeks to stop idle
'It's a Boeing' speculation as much as anything
COULD have been a bomb inside, but no signs of damage in the video
On 12/06/2025 17:47, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:37:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:High. That's what happened to the plane that landed in the river. Also
On 12/06/2025 16:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:21:17 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:No, they shut down the wrong engine because the smoke in the cockpit led >>> them to believe it was the engined supplying cabin pressurisation.
Jethro_uk wrote:
Faulty avionics, like Kegworth ?
Eh? Pilots turning the non-damaged engine off ...
Wasn't Kegworth caused because one engine failed (it happens) and there >>>> was a fault in the (very new) control systems that caused the pilot to >>>> shut down the working engine with tragic consequences ?
But the new aircraft used the other engine for *cockpit* air...
Yes, I've just (re) learned ...
Spontaneous double engine failure is extremely unlikely.
Never said it was 'spontaneous'.
Flocks of birds are a real hazard below about 1000ft.
No, but I suggest it is "spontaneous". Because planned failure 30 seconds
after take off seems a bit dim.
What are the chances of double bird-strike ? I know "anythings possible",
but I would have imagined there would be serious attempts to prevent it.
to another one this year IIRC.
They had filled her up hadn't they ?
First passenger to survive says
"Thirty seconds after take-off, there was a loud noise and then the
plane crashed. It all happened so quickly."
Cockpit voice recorder will be interesting. Also black box. I imagine
they will have a preliminary report in a couple of weeks to stop idle
'It's a Boeing' speculation as much as anything
COULD have been a bomb inside, but no signs of damage in the video
What are the chances of double bird-strike ? I know "anythings possible",
but I would have imagined there would be serious attempts to prevent it.
On 12/06/2025 16:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:21:17 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
Spontaneous double engine failure is extremely unlikely.
Never said it was 'spontaneous'.
Flocks of birds are a real hazard below about 1000ft.
No, but I suggest it is "spontaneous". Because planned failure 30
seconds after take off seems a bit dim.
What are the chances of double bird-strike ? I know "anythings
possible", but I would have imagined there would be serious attempts
to prevent it.
They had filled her up hadn't they ?
David wrote:
Enough in the global news to understand this.WTF clog-up a DIY discussion forum with an aviation news report?
If you must add to the pointless speculative noise about accidents then better to do so on PPRUNE, which seems to have an ever-increasing number
of non-PPs (Professional Pilots) so one more won't make much difference. Alternatively, perhaps it would be more sensible to wait for the
accident report.
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots, that's
only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were
inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage
down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
On 12/06/2025 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots, that's
only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were
inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage
down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
It's extraordinarily random that one person not only survived the crash,
but walked away, more or less unharmed.
On 12/06/2025 19:52, GB wrote:
On 12/06/2025 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots,
that's only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were
inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage
down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
It's extraordinarily random that one person not only survived the
crash, but walked away, more or less unharmed.
Oh, and if we're going to speculate, where was the fire? There was 50
tons of aviation fuel on board, and the videos clearly show masses of
smoke after the crash.
Yet, the plane ended up embedded in the mess hall of the medical hostel,
with no trace of fire on the plane or in the mess hall. One wing appears
to have survived fairly intact.
On 12/06/2025 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots, that's
only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were
inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage
down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
It's extraordinarily random that one person not only survived the crash,
but walked away, more or less unharmed.
On 12/06/2025 20:12, GB wrote:
On 12/06/2025 19:52, GB wrote:wing tanks would have ruptured and the fuel spewed forward away from the plane
On 12/06/2025 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots,
that's only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were
inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage
down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
It's extraordinarily random that one person not only survived the
crash, but walked away, more or less unharmed.
Oh, and if we're going to speculate, where was the fire? There was 50
tons of aviation fuel on board, and the videos clearly show masses of
smoke after the crash.
Yet, the plane ended up embedded in the mess hall of the medical
hostel, with no trace of fire on the plane or in the mess hall. One
wing appears to have survived fairly intact.
All I have seen is the rear fuselage and tail.
On 12/06/2025 19:52, GB wrote:
On 12/06/2025 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots,
that's only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were
inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage
down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
It's extraordinarily random that one person not only survived the
crash, but walked away, more or less unharmed.
The guy was sitting by the emergency exit. So managed to get away from
the fireball
What about that girl who fell out of a Lockheed Electra, in her seat,
and fell 10,000 ft into the Amazonian rain forest, and survived and
crawled her way to a logging camp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke
Or IIRC a rear gunner who did similar from a WWII bomber and made it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade
And didn't someone fall through an Essex supermarket roof, and survive,
a few years ago.
Cant find a reference to that. Might be false memory...
If a plane comes down mostly intact there is a fair chance that someone
will make it out.
On 12/06/2025 20:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 19:52, GB wrote:
On 12/06/2025 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots, that's only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
It's extraordinarily random that one person not only survived the crash, but walked away, more or less unharmed.
The guy was sitting by the emergency exit. So managed to get away from the fireball
He wasn't even scorched.
On 12/06/2025 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots, that's
only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were
inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage
down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
It's extraordinarily random that one person not only survived the crash,
but walked away, more or less unharmed.
Or a very quick thinking individual and accomplices who in the confusion on the ground inserts themselves into the scene with a view to a claiming some compensation.
On his walk to the ambulance he seemed fairly aggressive when people were getting close.
GB <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 14:35, GB wrote:
They crashed 1 mile from the end of the runway. At 140+ knots, that's
only around 30 seconds flight time.
Maybe, a few seconds after take off, they realised they were
inevitably going to crash, in which case keeping the undercarriage
down seems marginally preferable?
I agree. Or at least it would make no difference.
It's extraordinarily random that one person not only survived the crash,
but walked away, more or less unharmed.
Or a very quick thinking individual and accomplices who in the confusion on the ground inserts themselves into the scene with a view to a claiming some compensation.
On his walk to the ambulance he seemed fairly aggressive when people were getting close.
GH
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:43:00 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,971 |
