Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Five for Five: Air India crash points to systemic problems at Boeing that CEO Ortberg must fix
By Scott Hamilton
June 15, 2025, © Leeham News, Le Bourget, France: The Paris Air Show was supposed to be another step, however small, in Boeing’s way back from six years from crisis after crisis, safety and quality concerns, criminal investigations, Congressional hearings and existential threats following two fatal crashes of the 737 MAX and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Boeing wasn’t bringing any MAXes, 777X or 787s to the air show. There would be no awe-inspiring flight displays. The cost wasn’t worth it given Boeing’s billions of dollars in losses in recent years.
Nevertheless, Boeing planned low-key executive appearances and media events.
Air India flight 171 on its descent to a crash on July 12. Credit: Amateur video.
And then, four days before the show was to officially begin tomorrow, Air India flight 171 crashed, killing 241 of 242 people on board and at least three dozen on the ground where the 14-year-old 787-8 pancaked in to a densely packed residential and educational area only two kilometers from the airport.
Videos of the event showed the 787 using up almost all of the 11,500 ft runway to take off in a cloud of dust (presumably the overrun area), barely climbing a few hundred feet, dipping and climbing slightly again before smoothly descending into an explosive ball of smoke and flame on impact out of view of the cameras.
The pilot radioed a Mayday with the terse message reporting power problems with the GEnx engines on the plane.
Very quickly pundits, pilots, armchair experts and even former crash investigators began hypothesizing on what went wrong. Theories ranged from pilot error, misconfigured flaps, dual engine failure, electrical failures and more. The only thing missing was an alien ray from outer space.
GE, Boeing cancel events
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg. Credit: Getty Images.
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg quickly canceled plans to attend the air show. GE canceled a briefing about its RISE Open Fan engine scheduled for the Saturday after the crash and a Future Airplanes forum set for opening day that included speakers from GE and Boeing. Boeing downplayed a Saturday media reception and canceled another one planned for Tuesday at which executives were to be in attendance.
Five for Five
Some quickly began raising questions about the 787’s safety, raising old issues and hinting that regulators should ground the airplane. For Boeing, this topic is especially sensitive, given the safety and quality issues raised in recent years and which continue to dog the company.
Boeing’s last four pure commercial airliner programs plus the commercially based 767/KC-46A USAF refueling tanker each have had development, design, quality and in some cases safety problems. Boeing Commercial Airplanes is five for five for problems, delays and billions of dollars in losses.
The 787
The 787’s history was the beginning of a long series of safety, quality, design and production issues that began to emerge in 2007, the year before the model was supposed to enter service. It wasn’t until October 2011 that the first 787-8 entered service, with Japan’s ANA.
In January 2013, two 787s—one from Japan Air Lines (JAL) and one from ANA—suffered battery fires one week apart, The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the US-registered fleet pending the investigation. Foreign regulators followed suit; globally, 50 787s sat for three months before returning to service.
A short time later, another 787, this one owned by Ethiopian Airlines, had a fire that was traced to pinched wiring that arced, creating a blaze. The global fleet continued in operation.
In the intervening years, various problems emerged requiring Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins and inspections, but this is fairly normal. But in 2020, nine years after EIS and 16 years after production began, paper-thin gaps between fuselage joins were discovered. Deliveries were halted for 20 months while fixes were designed. One hundred ten 787s had been built with all requiring inspection and most require rework to fix it, taking 3-4 months per plane. The last of these was complete early this year.
The 747-8
Development of the 747-8 had its trouble. It was more than a year late, about $2bn in charges were written off and the initial design proved to have flutter issues. Engineering work outsourced to India came back flawed and had to be reworked by Boeing employees, taking time and adding to costs. Lufthansa Airlines refused to accept the first of 20 on order and never replaced the aircraft.
The 737 MAX
The history of the 737 MAX is etched in everybody’s mind who is connected to the aviation industry and who are aviation enthusiasts. After two crashes of five-month-old 737-8s in October 2018 and March 2019, the airplane was grounded for 21 months by the FAA. Redesign of the now-famous MCAS system that was flawed and at the root of the accidents took exponentially more time than anticipated. The FAA rejected early proposals.
As time dragged on, more issues were found, and these had to have fixes designed and approved. Still more design issues were discovered and after some in-service bugs emerged, still more design and fixes were needed.
Certification of the 737-7 and 737-10 MAXes still hasn’t occurred, years after these two family members were supposed to enter service. In January 2024, a door plug blew off a new 737-9 operated by Alaska Airlines minutes after take off from Portland (OR). An emergency landing followed safely. The low altitude and by sheer chance that the two seats next to the door plug were empty prevented anyone from being sucked out of the airplane.
Minor injuries occurred and the plane was damaged sufficiently that Alaska refused to keep it; Boeing took the airplane back in exchange for an order for a MAX 10 and compensation to the airline. The FAA grounded 171 MAXes operating in the US for three weeks before approving Boeing’s inspection plan and subsequent fix. The problem was traced to sloppy assembly at the 737 Renton (WA) production plant.
The 777X
Certification of this stretched, re-engined, re-winged version of the 777 Classic—one of legacy Boeing’s best airliners—was marching ahead smoothly when the MAX crisis erupted. The FAA quickly began reexamining all the certification work completed to then on the 777X, which was supposed to enter service in January 2020. This took time, created delays and cost money.
Flight tests revealed that the plane had a tendency for uncommanded nose-down pitches. Bugs in the flight control software were discovered. A redesign was required. The horizontal tailplane was thought by some to be too small for the larger plane (than the Classic), much as the tailplane of the McDonnell Douglas proved too small for the MD-11 compared with the DC-10 from which it was derived.
More recently, a thrust link alongside the massive engines was found to be flawed, halting test flights and requiring a redesign.
Billions of dollars have been written off. Certification is hoped for by the end of this year, with EIS planned for next year—six years late and 13 years after the program launch.
The KC-46A
Boeing’s performance on the KC-46A tanker, a military program, has been abysmal. This airplane is based on the commercial 767-200ER and as such is built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA). Boeing Defense, Space and Security (BDS) militarizes the airplane.
Several systems have what’s called Level 1 problems. The remote-vision tail refueling book still doesn’t work, years after the years-delayed entry into service with the USAF. The refueling boom is developed by a sub-contractor. That’s bad enough, along with the other systems issues, but BCA’s role is building a quality airplane in the first place—and herein lies the problem.
Sloppy production allowed a variety of foreign objects to find their way into the finished airplanes. Quality control was so bad that the air force refused delivery a few times for weeks at a time. Boeing has already written off $6bn for the program, and there is no telling if more charges are to come.
Systemic problems
This history makes it clear that BCA (and BDS, which has more issues than recounted here) has systemic problems that Ortberg must fix. Progress has been made, but the Air India crash and talk of grounding the 787 (however premature this, given the investigation is in its infancy) has resurfaced memories of these previous issues.
Boeing’s way back to health may suffer a setback if any fault with the airplane contributed to the accident.
Typo note: “door plus” should read “door plug”.
First Line: Paris Air Shown s/b Paris Air Show
The same people calling out Boring control need to work on their own quality control.
Is it somewhat soon to point to an inherent fault of something in the 787 that is like the other issues that Boeing has had in the past? This one seems to feel different than the others. But I suspect that a lot will become clear to the insiders that are doing the investigation very soon.
Sort of agree but this is a 15? year old aircraft.
It did not fall apart which is what one so called Whistle Blower claims prior and is now saying I told you so.
I think we can put thrust issue at the top. 11,500 feet of runway used.
Not a clue as to why no abort, Pilots have to make decisions and the right decision can and often is only obvious post crash.
I suspect they have some solid ideas by now. Flap position should be obvious even in the wreck to rule in part of the issue or not.
When an aircart only get 174 knots in 11,500 feet or runway, there is something horribly going wrong.
Obviously thrust is involved, but its either fuel, settings or a massive electrical failure.
https://skybrary.aero/articles/full-authority-digital-engine-control-fadec
Or perhaps a lift issue.
You can’t separate out lift from thrust.
Flap settings are deliberately as low as the runway permits for reasons of economy.
The picture resolution is not good enough to tell if they had Flaps 5.
Clearly its not flaps 20.
Its astonishing someone has not plugged in the 171 flight data into a 787 or simulator and got a readout what the computer would have selected.
Kind of reminds you of the Air Florida crash in DC where the iced over tubes caused the engines to give less than optimal thrust. Will be interesting if that the same issue.a clogged tube
That is an interesting aspect though I think what is relevant is a pilot making a decision to proceed when they are getting strange readings (engines in this case).
Do not read into this a view that the IA Captain did the same, it is an example of a PIC who did make a decision to proceed. Worst is if you see something at V1 and are trying to make a decision to abort and possibly off the end of a runway or get into the air.
“NTSB:
captain’s failure to reject the takeoff during the early stage, when his attention was called to anomalous engine instrument readings, were also erroneous.”
TransWorld wrote…
June 15, 2025
When an aircart only get 174 knots in 11,500 feet or runway, there is something horribly going wrong.
Obviously thrust is involved, but its either fuel, settings or a massive electrical failure.
Just thinking out loud, how about a Biological issue with the fuel. There are a number of microbes that eat jet fuel and live in infected fuel systems. Over time they plug filters. I’m wondering if the fuel had enough crap growing in it that fuel flow was restricted. Fadec will derate to keep the engine running. So that could fit many of the things we see, a slow take off and the airplane hopping into ground effect. If the crew stuffs the knobs to the glass to spool the engines, they very well could have overrun fadecs ability to keep the engines running. The engines can’t schedule the fuel, they stop running, the RAT deploys and the airplane settles into the neighborhood. Weirder things have happened
True.
But those contaminated systems are not one aircraft specific (unless it was a truck(s) that delivered the fuel and not a hydrant system.
The Hydrant truck and a tanker truck both have filter systems.
FasDac would run the engines as hard as it could. It would not just quit.
I would not rule it out, but its a pretty low probability due to both the system of fuel delivery and that no other aircraft had problems.
A tanker truck delivery with a single contaminated tanker might do it if the filters were bypassed but I don’t think you can.
Film of AI 171 climbing out, taken from right rear, shows the landing gear remaining down, BUT with the wheel trucks rotated from their take-off orientation [Heel down] to their retraction and docking orientation [Nose down]. When the Pilot Monitoring moves the “Gear up” lever, that invokes first, the truck orientation change; then – immediately after – the landing gear leg retraction. So a failure occurred AFTER the first, but BEFORE the second. What does that imply?
Do the wheel well doors open when the trucks untilt?
AFAIK {and I’m not certain} the wheel well doors remain open at all times when the landing gear is down.
U really think and negative clarity will be allowed into the public domain this is life and death for an iconic US company no prizes for guessing the out come of this charade
Also life and death for 245 people . . . . but let’s not worry about that.
The flight data recorder haven’t even been released yet so your premature reaction that this could not resulted from maintenance or human factors is really Quite surprising.
It’s an opportunity to blast Boeing, something that…is rarely passed up here.
There is that from the usual suspects but others of us are just looking for the explanation
@ Jno
Can you please point out to us where you believe the author to be manifesting “your premature reaction that this could not resulted from maintenance or human factors”.
I don’t see that anywhere in the article above.
I see an article discussing a background of dysfunction against which the current crash will be viewed as being most inopportune…but I see no conclusions as to the crash’s cause.
Once the black box results are in, the answer will be clear.
Until than, let us see and wait.
I am unable to pin point this.
We have
11590 ft runway
Most likely no or flaps 5
RAT out
Power loss messaged from the pilot.
A big bang shortly before impact as per survivor’s statement.
…..and everything else.
Stop speculations
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Why?
To create doubt,
Faked facts, because that is what irresponsible people will do.
@ Joerg Wiebe
“…To create doubt,
Faked facts,…:
How can speculation create a fact?
Speculation creates a theory — not a fact. A theory is a vehicle that can be used to divine what is plausible and/or probable.
Speculation is the foundation of science, engineering and math…why do you find it so frightening?
Do you think that accident investigators don’t use speculation in order to weed out possibilities?
Actually they are not supposed to.
Speculation is unfounded on any facts.
A theory is based on known facts.
So, engine thrust is a huge candidate here. The first thing you look for is engine related data. You follow that wherever it leads.
But, you continue to look at all the data and facts (what was found on the ground) and make sure that there are not additional aspects involved.
It might not even have affected that flight but could others.
You call it speculation, others call it discussion.
Conjecture is the mother of proof.
+1
The FDR data should have been downloaded by now. If they selected correct thrust (N1), had correct flap and slat settings and got uninterrupted fuel flow something in the flight management system or pilot actions caused the dual engine loss of thrust condition.
Claeas:
Everyone has the mantra they got the FDR and will know immediately.
It takes a week or two.
Its not just a download, its assessment of the FDR and where it should be attempted to download (India in this case or US)
How damaged it is determines that. India can do normal FDR but only two labs are setup for the very worst damaged ones.
Then you have to pull the data input of all the parameters (hundreds) and give them an ID as well as a timestamp and then sort out which ones are relevant and cross reference them to get a picture of what was going on.
That also had to be cross referenced with normal.
Re AI171 – the much reported mayday message from the crew has been debunked/rescinded by the journalist that first reported it. There’s also no official confirmation of how long the take off run was – dust being thrown up in India is a very common sight.
I have seen the long takeoff run and late rotation.
I can estimate that it was at least 2/3 down the runway.
Other tracking sources say they used the whole runway.
If so then the dust is from the over run area.
I don’t know about the supposed Mayday, you don’t list any links.
There also is a whole slew of possible including human factors and systems failing and out of the book stuff a pilot would have to try to assess and a decision on what to do.
If you’ve seen it, at what exact point did they rotate? There’s been nothing official from the DGCA about the take-off run. What “tracking sources” are you referring to – you didn’t provide any links.
As for the mayday call – as reported by an Indian aviation blogger “The source of the “Mayday … no thrust, losing power, unable to lift,” message was a journalist called Barkha Dutt – she herself clarified that she has confirmed it was not true. But the damage has been done – that statement of hers was picked up and amplified by some Western media sources. And that original fake news tweet stays.”
We’re in the early stages of The Information Wars, I think.
Has anyone actually *seen* the takeoff roll of AI171
(in this instance) from beginning to end; and if so,
do you have a link?
#skeptical in Los Osos
The government has said the plane took almost the entire runway.
Scott, the Times of India reported that a “government official” said the take-off run was long. That report was widely re-reported by other media. There is nothing about this on the DGCA’s website and everyone is jumping on this ‘news’ as gospel, yet nobody can say who this mysterious government official is.
This is very typical in India. As are dusty take-offs.
The TOI mentions that local regulatory authorities (mentioned Ahmedabad Police in the article) and cctv footage from the airport capturing the runway confirmed that the 787 took almost the entire runway on its take-off roll.
@AeroBuff – Why would the police be giving updates with that kind of information? My view is a large dose of salt is required unless hard news comes from the AAIB (investigating authority) or the DGCA.
Here you can see the take off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OOdki6gXKY&t=4s
Camera position is about 23.080916° / 72.640818°.
You can pull a line from the camera position right between the red and white airport building to the right and urban buildings in the distance to the left. This line goes straight to the runway’s end.
Right above the sign “left turn” you can see an aircraft waiting on a taxiway. This should be the taxiway in the center of the runway. So the aircraft did start at the other end of the runway. From there to the end it’s about 1 nm. The aircraft passes at 0:05 the waiting aircraft and rotation is visible at 0:18. At 0:20 dust is visible and contact at 0:48. From the center of the runway to the crash site it’s about 1.8 nm in 43 seconds, ~150 kn. I assume the end of the runway at 0:20. That would be just 100 kn for the aircraft in the air.
There is a strip of rough earth right behind the rundway. Maybe part of an overrun protection system. I guess the dust is from this site and a low passing aircraft.
Only aspect I would add is the speed was much higher than 100 knots.
Flight reporting seems to be something around 174 knots. Probably enough to fly (temp, aircraft weight). But rotation should have taken place much sooner.
That is confirmed by the side video. Its not definitive for cross ref, but I did ID the shack in the frame and that was 1/3 of the way down the runway.
Its was at least 2/3 and looked longer.
There is the cloud of dust blown up
Flight tracking confirms it and per Scott, government confirms it.
The 174 knots also confirmed by Flight Tracking. It may change 5 knots one way or the other but its going to be very close.
It should be well over 200 knots at that point though with the right flaps and speed you do not need that high a speed.
Same response as to Scott – the Times of India claimed a “government official” said the take off run was long. This was widely re-reported by other media. I have seen nothing official that confirms this statement. There’s nothing on the DGCA’s website. Nobody knows who this “government official” is.
Widebody departures kicking up lots of dust are very common in India and not an indication of how long the take-off run is.
“well over 200 knots”: hunh?
I doubt climbout speed after takeoff on a 787 is even close to that .
Takeoff speed can be as high as 180 knots. That number varies due to flaps setting (more flaps lower) but also more drag taking more power using more fuel so they set as low as is safe for a runway, temp and humidity levels.
That should be no latter than 2/3 Runway.
So yea, over 200 knots is easily achieved in 11,500 feet if the engines are putting out anywhere near full thrust.
https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/787-takeoff-n1/391997/8
Looks like this is for the bigger -9.
Depending on weight:
Flap 5 – from 126 to 174, if at 540,000lbs.
Frank P:
Add a few knots due to temp?
@TW
You know the weight?
@TW
And for the record, the 787-8 has a max MTOW of 502,000lbs.
The 787-9, what that table displays, has an MTWO of 562,000.
https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf
Also from Boeing:
https://www.lissys.uk/samp1/
Takeoff CLmax 1.91 {wimpress ref.area}
Takeoff Vstall 138. keas
Takeoff Vmc 132. keas
Takeoff Vfail 157. keas
Takeoff V2 165. keas
@Frank P:
I believe density altitude was 3000 feet, maybe a bit more.
I don’t have the data for a 787-8 (or any jet for that matter)
But a normal jet, fully loaded should be well past 174 knots at the end of the runway.
The question then is, why no rotation sooner if they had flying speed (Vf)? let alone V1 or V2.
I think you would agree that if they ran flat out thrust for 111,500 feet they would be over 200 knots.
Its not that 174 knots is not a flyable speed, its that it took them the whole runway to get to that.
With regard to the “whole runway”, has it been verified that the 787 backtracked to the starting end of the runway, or did a U-turn at the intermediary turnaround site? I have seen references to both so am reluctant to have an opinion about how much of the runway was used.
+1
These days my motto is “show me, don’t tell me”, and in an age of “AI”, even that might not be enough..
The reports I saw addressed that and its reported it did use full runway taxiing to the far end.
I don’t have the reference.
FlightRadar24 confirmed that detailed analysis of their data showed that the plane entered the runway at the intersection and back-tracked to the 23 threshold before departure.
OK, so they used the whole runway, end to end, but barely staggered off at the very end! This is even more confusing as it would seem like the crew would have had some sort of indication by V1 that the commanded thrust was not there. So it would seem that the obvious onset of thrust reduction must have happened after V1 and must have come on rather rapidly.
What could reduce the thrust in such a ramping down way? Something caused or commanded both engine controllers to separately and not abruptly roll back possibly below flight idle in such a way that the crew still had the belief that they could attain stable flight and then land.
The engines seemed to not exhibit any external distress other than the possible bang that was heard (which may have been the RAT deployment).
It is this progressive thrust ramp down that was so insidious for the crew to deal with.
For this to be a software bug that first surfaces after this many years is mind boggling.
A fuel pump failure could not do it as there are two separate pumps. Also the engines can directly and independently suck fuel from the wing tanks without any use of the electric pumps (I do not know if switching over to suction mode happens automatically). This also suggests that the pressure in the fuel lines did not decrease significantly to trigger an auto switch (if that is a thing). Probably the crew did not have time to think of switching from the fuel pumps in the center tank to the wing tanks. To actually start drawing fuel from the wing tanks requires that the fuel pumps in the center tank to be counterintuitively TURNED OFF so that the higher pressure fuel from these pumps do not override the lower pressure wing fuel pumps that are also on (this is by design, as this automatically draws fuel from the center tank. But if one of these pumps in the center tank fails the pumps in wings then start pumping fuel, [I believe that they have been on and at pressure all the time])!
So what does that leave as to a cause?
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth ‽
Yes it is.
All you can do is list the possibles.
We don’t even know if they were initially seeing normal thrust and then it did not keep ramping up, or if it suddenly slacked off part way down the runway but past V1.
Interesting. I have this feeling that there will be many, many more twists and turns in this situation.
No question.
Its going to be a chain of events, what those are have been listed as possible and likely a bizarre one or two in there.
“Re AI171 – the much reported mayday message from the crew has been debunked/rescinded by the journalist that first reported it”
Got a link to back that up?
The ‘journalist’ that reported it was Barkha Dutt. She herself subsequently admitted that it wasn’t true, but by then it had been widely re-reported by other media and, as is the way these days, becomes “the truth” when in fact it’s the exact opposite.
It seems she has a history of false aviation reporting. I can’t prove it, so folks can believe it or not. But I would caution against believing anything that’s attributed to anonymous “officials” in India. If it isn’t on the DCGA’s website or said by one of their staff at a press conference, it is very likely not correct.
That’s nice — but you still haven’t posted a link to this alleged retraction.
I said I can’t prove it – I don’t have a link. I’m just providing information and context.
You’re entirely free to ignore it, but it will be shown to be the case that the call from the captain was literally “Mayday. Mayday.” The rest was fabricated by Barkha Dutt.
It’s a classic example of misinformation that gets propagated in a fast-moving situation, especially early on when real information is hard to come by.
@ Stealth 66
So, you’re essentially doing the same thing of which you’re accusing that journalist, i.e. making an assertion that you can’t substantiate.
How about this, in various mainstream media sources today?
“Indian aviation officials have confirmed the pilot issued distress calls before the Gatwick-bound flight crashed in Gujarat state on 12 June, killing 241 people on board and at least 29 on the ground.
“Thrust not achieved… falling… Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!” the pilot said moments before the aircraft began losing height and erupted in a fireball.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/air-india-flight-crash-boeing-pilot-last-words-b2770412.html
Should we assume that The Independent — together with various other sources today — is misleading us?
No, I’m not spreading misinformation and I’m sure nobody will be re-reporting my words!
The claim by Barkha Dutt, which was widely re-reported (including this very site!) said the words “no power” were included in the Mayday. They weren’t.
Last I checked, the report by TOI hasn’t taken down.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/air-india-plane-crash-thrust-not-achieved-falling-mayday-ai-pilots-last-words/articleshow/121855487.cms
on another note
“Russian strike hit Boeing office in Kyiv in deliberate attack on US business, FT reports”
“Overnight on June 9-10, Russian forces launched hundreds of drones and seven missiles in one of the biggest attacks on Ukraine, damaging buildings across the capital. One of the targets included Boeing’s office, according to two Boeing employees, three Ukrainian officials, and the head of the American Chamber of Commerce (ACC) in Ukraine, whom the FT spoke with.”
Could you give it a rest? Or created your own forum to be a town crier on?
Could you leave the moderation to Mr. Hamilton?
I wasn’t aware that he had appointed you as his deputy.
Expressing my opinion
It is an oxymoron to assert that an “opinion” can be expressed in an interrogative and/or imperative form…
“Air India crash points to systemic problems at Boeing”
With respect, this is sloppy journalism.
While Boeing as a company definitely has systemic issues, at this point there is absolutely nothing we know about Air India 171 to indicate an underlying problem with the 787 family, much less a problem attributable to the company’s other issues.
You might as well look at January’s fire on Air Busan 391 (an A321) caused by a passenger’s malfunctioning battery pack and write “Air Busan fire points to larger issues at Airbus”. No. No, it does not.
I suspect that the author intended “points to” to be interpreted as “redirects attention to”.
***
Definition of “points to” from Oxford Languages:
“give force or emphasis to (words or actions).”
Exactly. And as OP pointed out, there is nothing known about AI171 that should cause anyone to redirect attention to anything. At least, anyone without nefarious intent. It looks like the 787 investigation, like the MAX investigation will be crowd-sourced, and by an ignorant crowd pretending competence in the subject. As Mark Twain said, “A lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” He also said, “The difference between a lie and a cat is the cat has only nine lives.” And Leeham News doesn’t hesitate to use sloppy journalism to take advantage of both principles. It worked to malign the MAX, it will work to malign the 787. As the MAX saga proved, even nonsense will be believed to be the truth by those who don’t have the wherewithal to do their own analysis, if it comes from those who are mistakenly trusted as competent and having integrity.
So, tell us, in the alternate universe in which you live, is gravity attractive or repulsive?
Now THAT would be a waste of time. Obviously, analyzing data with a proper understanding of cause and effect with actual knowledge of how things work as a foundation is so alien to you that you consider it an alternate universe. Maybe some day, when you’ve learned a bit about engineering airplanes and can do your own analyses and intelligently formulate your own arguments instead of simply regurgitating the nonsense you’ve had to swallow for lack of other alternatives… Until then I’ll abide by the old adage: Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise.
You miss the context. Some people (like ambulance chasing lawyers) are already calling for the 787 to be grounded. There was a press release from one law firm I received directly tying this to the MAX crashes. Others in and out of the media questioned the 787’s safety (which I did my best to debunk in my own media appearances). It’s all part of the larger picture of Boeing’s 6 years for one crisis after another.
The whole thing about Boeing’s systemic safety and quality issues started with the 787 as this article recounts (though many say the safety began going downhill with the McDonnell Douglas merger in 1997).
@Scott:
I sort of get it but this has always been an issue with all mfgs.
Airbus included in its Control logic, it does great things and its caused great harm.
Boeing goes back to the age of the 707 and various mistakes made.
DC-8 had a flaw in the fuel system that caused a crash.
Its not a Boeing exclusive.
I would ground the 787 fleet until there was a direction that ruled out a systems problem.
Why? Not grounding until you prove something is reactive and I think pro active is the way to go with any of this type incident.
They have to have a lot of physical evidence at this point that gives them idea of where the problem was.
I keep reading as soon as they get the FRD its solved, what a week to two weeks before they get the readouts and the timelines translated out of computerize and if damaged it has to come to the US.
Well, if a grounding is in the cards, I hope it doesn’t happen until Sunday. I fly home Saturday on a 787.
Plenty of airlines fly 777s and A350s across the pond…relatively easy to re-book you 😉
You might even get lucky and fly all-business on LaCompagnie 😎
Return flights are pretty much full. I wanted to go home Thursday. Getting an alternate flight if 787s are grounded would be tough competition.
I had that decision with my wife.
The A320 she was flying on had a nasty issue in the software. They were fully aware of it and had a work around (MCAS 1.0 anyone?)
I reluctantly let her fly (she left that decision to me).
Ethiopian and pilots knew about the issue and the pilots still got trapped in MCAS 1.0.
So I understand, tough decision.
I sure would not be booking flights on wide body let alone a 787.
Safe travels
Scott,
If you must fly the 787, I suggest you request seat 11A if possible: it seemed to be the magic seat for that lucky survivor of the Air India Flight.
Good Luck!
Jimmy
10A coming over and returning in UAL configuration on a 787-10.
The FDR and CVR have to be analyzed, likely overseas.
Really? Who knew.
Where they get downloaded and linked up with timelines depends on condition and if India thinks it has the capability to do so.
they do have a new center for that but there are only two labs that do the most damaged units. US and France.
Korea sent the units to the US because they were not sure they got the data on the Jeju flight. In fact what they were seeing, aka complete loss of data was correct.
India may well elect to do both.
But it will be India and or the US.
Time to refresh your memory: Korea only attempted to retrieve data from the CVR, they sent both the CVR and the FDR overseas for analysis.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/01/south-korea-plane-crash-investigators-extract-data-from-jeju-air-black-box
It takes about two days to convert data from the CVR to audio files.
I have to read it and wrong if true. Will do once I get post in.
My memory was that there was a follow up and South Korea did download the FDR and was puzzled by the lack of data on both.
FDR is more complicated and you have to get timelines established for both as each has a bearing on the other.
Point is India does have the capability but no one has said what condition.
I keep reading both were recovered and then more bulletins out the FDR has just been recovered.
Not sure how to square that circle and will not try.
Point is India may do the work as they are setup for it.
But if damaged one or both its possible. That was a lot of burning.
I was going to comment to that affect.
Problems at Boeing have nothing to do with this crash.
It may have design issues involved, but its nothing to do with Boeing issues.
The only bit of relevance is the San Antonius incident and that was understood and resolved to the FAA.
The San Antonio failure was a inability to see the exact set of circumstances that would cause that to happen. It was not a Boeing issue, Rockwell Collins I believe.
Its possible there is another failure path int he electrical system that manifested itself. If so, while its a dosing issue its not a failure to design to specs and test it.
I have seen more than one of those, no one can for see them and if you can foresee them you can’t design or test for them.
Same with Auto Throttle or the FASDEC. They can have a hidden flaw.
During the MAX assessment they found a one in a bazillion chance a stray particle could much up both computers (or some such). Its a known issue with all computers and the 737 design took that into account but they did fine a insanely tiny route it could happen. So they fixed it, keeping in mind that was at least a NG or Classic and its never happened.
Its strange that if the up move had never been assessed as an issue MCAS 1.0 as it came to be would not exist and two aircraft would be flying today.
Systems designed to keep you safe in one situation can take you out in another.
“It may have design issues involved, but its nothing to do with Boeing issues.”
Please explain: if there are potential design issues involved, how could that have “nothing to do with Boeing issues”…seeing as the plane was designed by Boeing?
First, design is simply that.
You can have something that looks to be flawlessly designed that has a fault path in it (like the 737 computers). It maybe incredibly obscure.
Those design issues include Airbus and its many revisions to its control laws and specific functions of it. You change one when you find the flaw and you can created another one.
Design is generic to all Aircraft mfg and all are subject to fault paths, nothing to do with Boeing, its a hard fact of building things.
They manged to drive an A320 flight computer insane with enough resets of a fault. Airbus to this day can’t tell you why because they can’t duplicate it.
They made some guesses and changed the program. The best protection was don’t keep resetting the danged computer.
You do realize that you completely failed to answer the question, don’t you?
You completely and I believe deliberately want to blame Boeing.
Boeing is responsible,
If you (RTX or RC) design a system and test it to all the standards you tell me what more you can do?
Even if the hull failed, they have tested it to extended failure.
Aloha violated Boeing incursions on inspections, so that is Boeing fault?
“Aloha violated Boeing incursions on inspections”
Oh, have similar incidents happened to Airbus? Don’t be naive.
In case you’ve never heard of WN812 (or happened to forget as a matter of convenience), I remind you this:
“The depressurization was caused by the structural failure of the fuselage skin, which produced a hole approximately 60 inches (150 cm) long on the upper fuselage. The NTSB investigation revealed evidence of pre-existing metal fatigue, and determined the probable cause of the incident to be related to an error in the manufacturing process for joining fuselage crown skin panels.”
“Design is generic to all Aircraft mfg… ”
Sure Jane. You’d change your tune if this was said by COMAC.
You do not want to understand.
Aloha corrosion had been addressed by Boeing in delivering specific instructions on what to look for and where.
My issue with COMMAC is its a government controlled company being monitored by a government control so called safety agency.
Its bizarre you talk about Boeing capture of the FAA but ignore the total control of China AHJ.
Unlike what happened in the US, I see no evidence that same thing has happened to CAAC. Time to pull your head up and look for evidence, not makeup/imagination.
Do you read news?
As reported by the NYTimes, the President has effectively nationalized a company within speeding a penny for compensation. From America exceptionalism to socialism with American characteristics.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gtg0kcgWIAEEx3Z?format=jpg&name=large
TransWorld, you say:
“They manged to drive an A320 flight computer insane with enough resets of a fault. Airbus to this day can’t tell you why because they can’t duplicate it.
“They made some guesses and changed the program. The best protection was don’t keep resetting the danged computer.”
What is this referring to? Do you have a link?
TW
You do not want to follow. How about WN812 which is caused by “manufacturing error”? The accident took place fifteen years after delivery!!
This is a lead factor WN had to retire its 737 classic early.
@spot:
Not on hand but it was a Mentour Pilot production.
Someplace in Scandinavia they were doing a training flight (5 or 6 student in an A319 as I recall).
Each student needed a takeoff and landing.
Something zarked in computer 1 and it was reset, the PIC wanted to keep flying to get the students their takeoff and landing. It zarked again, he reset it again. Then it shifted to Computer 2. That got reset.
There are alarm systems involved that do not work until over 1500 feet AGL and they were under that in the pattern.
In the end the whole computer system just quit. At that point it was direct control and they crashed (survived) on landing.
Airbus could never duplicate what happened. They took some guesses, changed the code but as its a once in a billion item, they will never know.
You can reset the computer, or switch to another one, but you are supposed to land and find out what its unhappy about not keep resetting it.
The training flight was unusual as there was all the incentive to keep going, after all, what could possibly go wrong?
@TransWorld
Ok, so I think you are referring to this incident: https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/06/a330_computer_failure/
Quite different from what TW said above involving an A319 in Scandinavia!!
TW
Re: Aloha 737 accident
Fact:
> After the *discovery of early production difficulties in the B-737 cold-bond lap joint, which resulted in low bond durability, corrosion, and premature fatigue cracking*, all 737s starting with line number 292 included an additional outer layer of skin or doubler sheet at the lap joint of the fuselage.
So, it’s a manufacturing defect, but TW has to shift the blame.
@TW: What was the fault path in the 737 computers?
BTW, the A320 training incident with having to reset the computers… there was no mystery… a switch had been serviced with grease that was not per spec, viscosity too high, sometimes would make the switch stick.
There is *absolutely no way* at this time to know “its (sic) nothing to do with Boeing issues.”
More heat than light..
15 year old aircraft and fleet in service and it never happened before?
I would still ground it, but if its not safe at that point nothing is.
@ Vincent
It would appear that many commenters don’t grasp even basic logic…🙈
@TW
I recall similar “logic” (the 737 NG had a good safety record) was used by Boeing to justify the MAX was safe after their first crash.
Neither on of you obviously realizes what ground it means.
This is not a hull breakup.
Something went horribly wrong and its not happened in 15 years of flight.
That is why is shocking and why the AHJs are not grounding it yet.
What “hull breakup” and grounding are you talking about?? Are you aware what you typed out?
Comprehension
The best comprehension can’t overcome gibberish.
Exactly, I bow to the Mystro
Tw,
With classic like this: “I have to read it and wrong if true”, everyone can see whose failure it is.
@spot:
Great link, I had not know about that one, well done.
The one I know about was an A320 series in Scandinavian.
The PIC kept resetting the computer fault so they could do the student pilot work.
The other was not a computer failure, PIC turned them off after a lightening strike issue. Russia. They crashed badly on landing as direct control not good.
With Boeing’s preset from recent times assuming another Boeing issue is the expected outcome.
But IMHO we should wait a couple of days ( or weeks ) for more tangible information.
( favorable notice: “Duh, Simple: Third World Pilot failure” attribution is rare and low voice this time.
A bit of an attention taker was the “Mr. WishWash … ” surviving passenger. But he seems to be real and not plain racist like “Mr. We Too Low” back a couple of years and on another continent.)
So we can’t look at the pilots and their actions because they are Indian National?
It does not matter, you always have to question the pilots and their decisions. ANY pilot regardless of race religion or otherwise.
Its not racist to look at a countries CRM as well as how usefully the First Officer is with 250 hours.
Time is a bad indicator of experience but 250 hours and you expect them to speak up to a captain with thousands of hours?
This captain and first officer will have their background looked at, how current, what was the most recent sim time, what were the reports of their flying ability?
It may not be relevant or it may be relevant to a decision the PF made.
What I do know is I would vastly prefer a First Officer that had enough time in type and total to be a full member of the CRM and tell the Pilot what he needs to know not what he needs to here.
Hours does not look to be an issue here. Recent experience and time in type maybe. That is not racist, its a fact of flying.
According to a report by the NYTimes, the FO was flying commercial in Florida before joining AI.
I’m 75. I remember the first generation of widebody airliners in the end of the 60s, the 70s and 80s. Lots of planes crashed for both aircraft related and pilot error reasons. By comparison the 787 fleet in, and occasionally out of, service for 14 years and now over 1000 strong just had it’s first fatal accident (they got lucky with the battery issue).
This is a level of safety that would have seemed implausible 50 years ago. It’s not perfect and the cause of this crash must/will be found and improvements will be made but I would not hesitate to fly on a 787 today. Correctly or not I would be more comfortable on a “first world” airline with a “first world” flight crew.
“Correctly or not I would be more comfortable on a “first world” airline with a “first world” flight crew.”
Wow — alive and kicking.
so you won’t fly US airlines either:
Third world with an oversized ego and military 🙂
There are three reasons why aircraft crash (when not human).
1) Design flaw: hard to believe on an “older” airframe
2) Quality flaw: only an issue if there was recent maintenance and the new parts were of poor manufacturing
3) Maintenance deficiency (most likely assuming not pilot error). They are going to probably find root cause here…bad fuel pump, bad actuators, something like that.
While I cringe at any order to “shut down” a type…I could get my head around it under certain parameters. Air India only? Or if they go with 3rd party maintenance…then any airline under that type certificate.
While I am not a crash expert…I have to believe there are people pouring over the last few months worth of maintenance records looking for anything wonky. They also have a flight data recorders. Statistically, an aircraft that has never had a crash in 15 years will not have another one within a week.
All valid.
MAX in theory was the same.
When I don’t understand something the better safe than sorry kicks in.
There is going to be a train of events, not a single one.
Is it possible the same mechanic changed both fuel pumps (probably 4 to 6) and did all of them wrong?
I continue to believe something happened (X) and the pilot had to make a decision on abort or not. What X is? all the possibles are open.
“Is it possible the same mechanic changed both fuel pumps (probably 4 to 6) and did all of them wrong?”
Don’t ETOPS maintenance rules prohibit that? ( single person could introduce “common mode” failures. ) ?
ETOPs almost certainly does.
But is that mostly overland flight ETOPs?
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Sardar+Vallabhbhai+Patel+International+Airport+(AMD),+Hansol,+Ahmedabad,+Gujarat+380003,+India/London+Gatwick+Airport+(LGW),+Horley,+Gatwick+RH6+0NP,+United+Kingdom/@28.7918669,-7.2013068,16855565m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x395e814e9704ec85:0x90dd00e5a99ba47a!2m2!1d72.6309997!2d23.0763962!1m5!1m1!1s0x4875efde7d1f391b:0x59dda4bf018973ff!2m2!1d-0.1820629!2d51.1536621?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
An airframe is certified ETOPS or not and maintained accordingly.
If ETOPS you can’t have intervals that ignore ETOPS prescriptions.
I do not believe that is correct
And Airframe is certified for ETOPS and if you fly ETOPS you have to maintain it that way.
If you never fly ETOPs you don’t, normal maint.
The ones that do fly ETOPs keep them that way because they can go ETOPs at any time.
Just fly9ing over water is not ETOPs. Its the nearest diversion that drives that listing.
I flew a lot of Alaska Airlines with no ETOPs and in fact they did not even have flotation devices under the seat (the cusions were your flotation device)
The whole route ANC to SEA is over water. But you do have Yakatat, Sitka, Juneau, Ketchikan and at least Price Rupert in Canada for diversion, none more than 40 minutes away.
The reporting I’ve seen has claimed that the accident aircraft had recent maintenance, possibly extensive. Is that true? I don’t know.
It is interesting that Juan Browne is not saying much
about this accident; not yet, anyway.
Juan usually has more to work with.
His links into track data rarely go to other countries (Vilanus crash aside).
He also clearly is in the wilds of Montana or Wyoming on some kind of vacation.
As for direct insight he is a 777 pilot not a 787 pilot and the 787 systems have their own setup and different than the rest of aircraft he has flown.
@ Casey
You forgot weather, and other extraneous events such as bird strikes, for example.
And the age of the design does not preclude a design flaw. There are many examples of a flaw being discovered only after many years. Concorde and TW800 come to mind, for example.
No blown birds found on runway. No indications of birds coming out the back of the engines nor the associated arcs and sparks.
Concord knew about the problem, they had not instituted a fix.
TWA 800 trigger cause was never determined other than the Center fuel tank blew up.
Call it a system flaw. It was designed to best practices of the day. What was added was another layer of safety in inert gasses.
Other aircraft have blown up on the ramp(s) including as I recall a 737 in Thailand.
Basic fuel says an empty tank is the most dangerous. Hence layers of safety like inert gas.
>Statistically, an aircraft that has never had a crash
>in 15 years will not have another one within a week
That is not how probability or statistics works.
+1
@Matthew
Hazard risk are evaluated per risks per million hours. The arithmetic will tell you how many hours the entire fleet will fly in a week. I think maybe we are talking past each other. The incidental risk will be the same going forward as just occurred as will be next month. The total accumulated risk of a week is statistically insignificant.
I’m not suggesting to blow this off. Far from it. But this is an opportunity to put maximum force on narrowing the range of risk parameters before reacting. 15 years without a crash is not an error. There is no reason to believe that something has turned. Unlike Max this is not EIS.
Statically your failure could happen in the first hour in the million or it could be the last. If there is a failure path, its not happened in a huge amount of flight hours.
The next one could happen tomorrow and then not for another million flgiht hours.
The OA won the first election with a 1 in 4 chance.
BUT there is a NUMBER FOUR!
4) None of the above and independent from the aircraft or pilots.
So hopefully the powers to be recognize that and give it a week or so to review the data recorder before officially grounding the type worldwide.
Take a look at the video referenced below by @Vincent…rather convincing argument for dual engine failure.
Sounds like a BA issue (fuel, FMC,…) rather than a GE issue.
Only convincing assessment is a dual engine lack of thrust.
As to cause, its wide open including bad data input.
Its certainly possible a massive electrical failure would be in Boeing’s area.
Its also possible the flight crew did not react correctly to a lack of thrust.
Thrust may have dropped off further after liftoff but it clearly there was a thrust issue early on.
Is it possible that they hit VR and then thrust was reduced? Yea.
There are really only two explanations for two engines not delivering thrust.
total electrical failure
Commanded reduction for X reasons (program input, computer failure)
Fuel is remotely possible but the above two would be much high possible.
@TW
I have an odd feeling that the fuel flow (or software logic) played a role. Barely making it off the ground indicates there there may have been a bad pump or insufficient flow going on (or FOD in system to clog the lines).
Casey:
I agree but have no proof.
Logic says if there is an issue at the start they would have aborted.
There are systems that tell the pilots that too much runway is being used for the setup.
That then spiral out to, was the data entered right and then did another aspect dealing with thrust manifest.
Someone with the right tools could tell us on the runway view what the acceleration is, no one has reported they did.
All we have solid on is they took the whole runway to get to 174 knots and that is wildly wrong.
Logic says the pilots alarms or not would have understood a failure to perform, but they could have been distracted with a Memory list item.
You sure do not have the time to get to a QRH of the Infamous EICAS
Or a clogged pitot tube
@Casey:
you would have to show a common mode failure.
whatever caused the crash it was “symmetric” not for example “single engine out”.
Its one reason I lean towards a computer commanded roll back or restriction on the engines.
Why the computer would do that? Some ideas but likely wrong. Bad data going in would be one. All sorts of bad data from where the computer thought it was to how high it thought it was.
I do remember Boeing had a twixt out that you had to reset the computers or they could shut down.
That should be handled but if it was not and has not been corrected software wise?
Nothing new here – just a summary of Boeings woes.
I truly hope this crash is not traced back to a systemic issue.
Oh dear — that BA 787 issue earlier today was “flaps failure” :
“British Airways Boeing 787-8 Deamliner to India Dumps Fuels And Makes Unscheduled Landing After Suffering ‘Flaps Failure’”
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2025/06/15/british-airways-boeing-787-8-deamliner-to-india-dumps-fuels-and-makes-unscheduled-landing-after-suffering-flaps-failure/
Interesting, in view of that AA 787 that had four different instances of flaps failure in the past month:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/12/whistleblower-raised-safety-fears-boeing-dreamliner-factory/
For anyone interested: Captain Steeeve has a new video up on YT; its title is “Why the RAT Changes Everything”. 13 min.
Sorry I can’t provide a link on this diabolical new computer..
Voilà!
https://youtu.be/8XYO-mj1ugg?si=r0l2lr_GYLqB4P-Y
Sounds like a very evidence-based, logical analysis/conclusion 👍
Thank you for drawing this video to our attention!
Captain Steve has no more idea of what occurred than the rest of us. We only have some limited facts.
My only input is that its clearly engine related. But that in turn has a lot of other sub causes.
Total electrical loss is one. He dismisses that but it is a cause as the RAT is fail safe held up, loose power (break circuit) and it deploys).
The Pilot can also deploy it.
Engines are all electronic control/ commands, there is no physical link. So an ordered roll back can occur.
And the engines were not delivering correct power from the get go, otherwise they would not have used up the whole runway.
They could have dropped thrust further after rotation.
Ground affect is in play but unknown to what degree. That is why you need speed build up to flight speed, just because it will lift off does not mean it will stay lifted.
The facts known have been listed. None of them explain not enough thrust.
If it stood any chance the nose should have been lowered. Yea I know, but that is the only way to gain any airspeed at that point as bad an option as it is.
Stalling in probably meant fewer deaths on the ground with a protracted path of disruption might have had more passengers alive.
Even the gear down has an alternate explanation. To raise the gear takes a lot of power.
Power they did not have. Its possible the PIC left the gear down because of low power.
If the FDR gets downloaded and translated, we should have a good idea of the happenings though possibly not the explanation for them.
For example, first readout will show you power. But if short of power then you have to look at engine commands, fuel pressure, FASDAC situation.
“Captain Steve has no more idea of what occurred than the rest of us.”
Luckily, he is able to use astute observation, logic, and balanced deduction — unlike some.
Before it was flaps up. Now its not.
Dual engine failure. Ok.
What caused both engines to fail? Or was it lack of thrust but not failure?
You don’t get 174 knots with two engines failed. You can with reduced thrust.
When did the engines fail? Or not produce thrust?
Total elecrial loss would cause the engines to fail, the FASDAC won’t work.
There could well be a decision to leave gear down because they did not have the power to raise it.
Failure means they quit. Reduced thrust means they were having issues.
Same reason engine cams run at half engine speed. There is a reason (4 cycle engines)
The BA 777 failure was due to ice clogging the lines.
Not saying ice is the issue, but lack of fuel (by whatever mechanism will certainly degrade thrust but not cause a complete fail.
Very true and valid.
I just don’t know how you get that on both engines let alone when it occurred and why the actions of the crew.
“Total elecrial [sic] loss would cause the engines to fail, the FASDAC [sic] won’t work.”
Sure, the FADEC will be inoperative with electrical power loss, but why will the engines then fail? Are you assuming that the FADEC uses its last gasp of electrons to command the fuel flow to zero before flatlining?
BTW, what are the chances of successfully sending a mayday call with total electrical failure?
“There could well be a decision to leave gear down because they did not have the power to raise it.”
Or they followed Boeing’s recommendation… do not retract gear on takeoff with an engine out. Reason: prior to gear retraction the wheel well doors have to open, which increases drag significantly and may prevent attaining V2 in time.
Greetings!Greg from Gregs aeroplanes and automobiles has now weighed in as well with some interesting opinions
I posted that below but here it is as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-MAiI_p748
BUT his first youtube video blamed the pilots and it quickly became clear that he was getting pushback when a number of other videos were critical of his “opinions”. Besides he has just been regurgitating other people’s work and speculations on this particular event. Sometimes he brings in interesting and knowledgeable people that add to the discussion.
Agreed.
No, he didn’t- since his first video expressly stated that his *provisional* conclusions were subject to change as more, solid information
became available.
@ F-82
He now presents new evidence, previously unavailable, and has modified his analysis based on that.
Is that so strange?
So, the flaps were retracted and the gear were down. Major configuration error in that stage of the take off, whether pilot/co-pilot error or some system malfunction.
My first thoughts are pilot or co-pilot error.
We do not know the flaps were retracted.
Setting 1 would be zero indication from the rear. In fact the one picture of the slats was at least a Setting 1 deployment.
Setting 5 is so slight in the rear that with the resolution you can not see it.
We don’t know what the pilots were seeing or dealing with issue wise. So saying it was error is simply wrong. Equally the PIC could have made the wrong decision based on what he was seeing.
That is why he is the PIC.
Just an opinion, I think Flaps 10 or more you would have seen it.
Two people I know said Flaps 15 would be normal but what Air India has setup in their 787s no one has said nor what is normal for that Runway length and temp for AI
Flaps cause drag and that uses fuel to overcome and its a balance of economy vs performance.
Picture of rear wing look to have some degree of flaps down
Pretty good summation. Still put in in a category of lack of thrust not engine failure though lack of thrust could have then lead to loss of all thrust.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/new-clues-point-to-engine-failure-for-cause-of-air-india-plane-crash-vhqw6b7v3
Total loss of electrical power not listed but there clearly was more going on that that even if it did occur.
Time to go back to fuel guzzling tri jets and four engine planes….and fewer computers….
Right
This guy is an uber tech geek. His WWII series is very good though he belabors or apologizes far too much when he makes a reasonable assumption (best just say, its the best I can come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-MAiI_p748
Good question is are the fuel valve shutoffs fail safe?
Still keeping in mind, it took up the whole runway and that is not at all normal.
This is another theory but requires two separate systems to fail at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-MAiI_p748
I don’t concur, lots of aircraft sit on the ground and get even more heat soaked. I don’t know 787 anywhere close to say how many pumps are working at take off.
Other aircraft critical phase of flight there is a booster pump on.
Here we go again! Another Boeing aircraft downed for yet unknown reasons and human‘s natural behaviour sets in…pundits looking for clues as to what may have caused the fatal accident coming up with all sort of more or less plausible reasons, finger pointing at the airframer, the engine manufacturer, the pilots. And while we are at it, the long troubled Boeing company is again in the news with another aliteration of all that went wrong in the past 25 years…as we had not been discussing this for as long as it already lasts.
Let‘s get the obvious out of the headlines and be a bit more patient with the investigative team for hard facts that may result from analysing the DFDR and CVR. Now is the time to mourne the human losses followed by time of patience in order to learn from another horrific accident which will be out of the daily headlines in just one or two more days.
While not wrong, there is the factor of needing to prevent it from happening again.
So yea, people are trying to come up with a failure path that explains it and a need or not to ground the 787. Possible worse loss of life.
MAX was called too late and fortunate that the 787 battery fires did not take place long distance from the airport.
And Jeju air shows us there can be paths to FRD failure.
The mayday message story always sounded a bit fishy to me. The pilots would have been (or should have been)far too busy trying to save the plane Also,what good would it do? The only possible reason would be to explain why they all died
“Aviate, navigate, communicate.”
@Grubbie:
Its not uncommon. What pilots should do vs those kind of what is really a plea. They are human and facing what they are sure is the end.
There’s been a sizeable order announced at the PAS:
“AviLease signs for 22 A350Fs as part of agreement for 77 Airbus jets”
“Saudi Arabian leasing firm AviLease is taking 22 Airbus A350F cargo jets as part of an order for up to 77 aircraft.
“The deal also covers 55 A320neo-family models, a mix of A320neos and A321neos, but not the long-range XLR.
“Deliveries of the aircraft begin in 2030 and run to 2033.”
“AviLease disclosed the agreement on the first day of the Paris air show, marking its first direct order with the European airframer.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/avilease-signs-for-22-a350fs-as-part-of-agreement-for-77-airbus-jets/163380.article
And now another big order:
“Riyadh Air places colossal order for up to 50 Airbus A350-1000s in Paris ”
“The agreement includes 25 firm orders with purchase rights for an additional 25 aircraft and adds to the existing 132 aircraft Riyadh Air already has on order. ”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/riyadh-air-airbus-a350-1000-order-paris-air-show
And another order:
“…LOT Polish Airlines Unveils 1st Ever Airbus Order For Up To 84 A220s”
“Airbus
LOT Polish Airlines and Airbus announced today at the Paris Air Show an agreement for up to 84 Airbus A220 family planes. This includes 40 firm orders for now, and options for an additional 44 aircraft. This concerns 20 A220-100s and 20 A220-300s. The deal marks the end of a fight between Embraer and Airbus for the renewal of the LOT Polish Airlines regional fleet of older generation aircraft from the Brazilian manufacturer.”
“…LOT will become the first operator in Poland to register Airbus aircraft.”
“Deliveries are set to start in summer 2027”
https://simpleflying.com/goodbye-embraer-lot-polish-airlines-groundbreaking-84-a220s/
Interesting as LOT had gone heavy on Embraer and had 3 of the E2-195s.
That is a blow to Embraer.
Another 787 returns to departure airport due to technical issue after takeoff:
“Air India plane returns to Hong Kong after technical issue in mid-air”
“NEW DELHI – An Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner bound for New Delhi returned to its origin of Hong Kong as a precautionary measure on June 16, after a technical issue was suspected mid-air, the latest incident affecting the airline in recent days.
“AI315 “returned to Hong Kong shortly after take-off due to a technical issue. The flight landed safely… and is undergoing checks as a matter of abundant precaution”, Air India said.”
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/air-india-dreamliner-returns-to-hong-kong-after-technical-issue-mid-air-source-says
***
That’s 2 yesterday (BA and LH) and — so far — 1 today (AI).
Not a good look for the 787.
> Air India 315 from Hong Kong to Delhi diverted back to Hong Kong after takeoff on Monday. The plane departed 3hrs and 26 minutes delayed, then returned to Hong Kong roughly an hour after takeoff. The flight was on a 7 year old Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner.
> Air India 315 requested to stay closer to Hong Kong citing technical reasons before deciding to return to HKIA. “We don’t want to continue further”.
https://x.com/tripperhead/status/1934505370380374264
Everytime there is a crash for weeks you hear about that aircraft with issues and has nothign to do with the crash.
“… that aircraft with issues and has nothign to do with the crash.”
You have all the answers, you know the cause(s) of the crash?
Let me remind you, no, zero, zip, zilch, nada.
on another topic from the Paris Air Show (without Transworld preapproval)
“Comac Wants Stretched C919 In Service By 2030, C929 By 2035”
“Comac kicked off its return to the Paris air show with a pair of agreements signed with Safran and US-based Crane Aerospace and Electronics for its C929 widebody programme.”
“Comac’s MoU with Safran covers landing, oxygen, and ice detection systems, while its pact with Lynwood, Washington-headquartered Crane is for cabin door sensors.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/comac-inks-pacts-with-safran-and-crane-for-c929-systems/163379.article
***
Relatively minor subsystems.
The stretched C919 was inevitable. Presumably, it will use a variant of the domestic CJ-1000A engine, since the LEAP-1C is probably underpowered for a heavier aircraft.
Developed in China, with IP held by Chinese companies?
Developed in China with stolen IP
Says who?
Tired old line from the 1950s 🙈
All the people that are making sure their IP is not exposed to the deprivations of China.
You do know they hacked the US data base that included all Airport personal with a clearance which I had.
So no I don’t appreciate it and yes they do hack, steal and try to force people to give them IP
Are you a Party member by any chance?
Your comprehension failed.
Where is your evidence? None, because subsystems haven’t been designed yet.
More nonsense inspired by makeup/imagination. There’s no better way to show your ignorance.
@ Transworld
Got any authoratative links to back up any of what you wrote? Or are you relying purely on tired anecdotes?
I already know the answer, but still asking as a formality 🙈
The US also hacked Merkel’s phone, who knows what else they’ve been up to, is that proof they stole any IP?
Reality check:
Ted Cruz: “Oh they [the closest ally in the M.E.] probably [spy domestically in the US]. And we do as well. And friends and allies spy on each other and I assume all of our allies spy on us.”
Source: interview by TC
@Abalone
This is probably an A321-equivalent aircraft. CFM can power this. They have only certified the thrusts needed so far for the variants available.
Lo0oks like it at MAX (hah) seating of 240.
How many can the MAX carry? Hmm, 230 only?
Max capacity is set by many things
1) Class configuration
2) MTOW
3) Aircraft Range
4) Freight utilization
Wikipedia will tell you that the C919-100 at single class is capable of 192 seats…not inconsistent with a Max8 or A320neo.
The C919 “stretched” is coming, in the market segment of the A321 & MAX 10.
FG:
> A shortened version of the C919 for hot and high use and seating up to 160 passengers will be next to enter service in 2028 with its first flight planned for 2027. The aircraft will be six frames shorter than the baseline C919.
> Comac has yet to secure government funding for the stretch, whereas the shortened variant has already been approved.
> The C909 is already operating with three Southeast Asian operators: low-cost operator Vietjet Air, Lao Airlines, as well as Indonesia’s TransNusa Airlines.
Sorry, it’s AW.
Let us not forget about the clowns at GE.
Doesn’t GE have an operation centre that monitors all engines running in real-time?
I think so, but not totally sure.
Thanks.
Consider that there are over 1,100 787’s in service with 300-500 in the air at any time of day. These aircraft are owned and operated by some of the best airlines in the world performing long-haul services. There are zero groundings in effect. This is a huge tell because the industry is understandably risk averse.
…you forgot the word “yet”…
@Paul Rodolf:
I fully disagree. I can’t think of a time an airline self grounded its fleet.
Flying over conflict zones with Surface to Air missiles is not risk adverse.
Its competition and profits that drive it and they won’t willingly give that up.
Sans finding something on one of their own aircraft that fails flight requirements, they will keep flying.
We have numerous examples of airlines cheating on maint.
Is the 787 designed be flyable using mechanical backups such as a manual trim wheel?
It has a direct control law.
But no its not a manual, its a backup system
Bjorn has reported that once you go to Direct Law (FBW speak) then while you can control the aircraft in the air, its almost impossible to land it without a crash.
I know of two examples of that and both crashed. Wildly bizarre circumstances but it has happened.
You still need power of some kind to the controls and that includes engines.
Anybody read the WSJ?
This clown over there wrote a commentary a few days ago saying that basically all Boeing’s 737 production issues were caused by the production shutdown due to the second crash. So if not for the second crash…everything would be fine and dandy.
A bizarre view which requires ignoring lots of other evidence things were amiss.
I have not seen it but that would be truly a clown as you noted.
Since you mentioned 737 production, need to wonder if the 737 tail section made at Shenyang China will have 55% tariffs, will Boeing relocate production back to Boeing Wichita Or move it to Tata in India like they did the 737 vertical fin (from Xian)?
then consider tariffs on other 737 overseas outsourced components (probably 20% to 55% tariff range yet to be determined
Vertical fin – Tata Boeing Aerospace Limited, Hyderabad, India. (Previously made by Xi’an Aircraft Industry, China.)
Horizontal stabilizer – Korea Aerospace Industries.
Ailerons – Asian Composites Manufacturing, Malaysia.
Rudder – Bombardier, Belfast and AVIC subsidiary Chengfei Commercial Aircraft (CCAC), China
Tail section (aluminum extrusions for) – Alcoa / Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing, China.
Main landing gear doors – Aerospace Industrial Development Corp, Taiwan.
Inboard Flap – Mitsubishi, Vietnam.
Elevator – Fuji, Japan.
Winglets – Kawasaki, Japan.
Fwd entry door & Overwing exits – Chengdu Aircraft, China.
Wing-to-body fairing panels and tail cone – BHA Aero Composite Parts Co. Ltd, China.
Air India has to know far more than is being released.
The would know what flaps settings for airport A , what a normal rotation point is.
I am sure they have presented that to the authorities but it never gets out to the public.
I know someone like say Boeing cannot (by law) put out stuff, maybe true with Airlines though this is under Indian Law and no idea if its the same though they tend to pattern each other as its an established protocol
France is the only country I know that will prosecute pilots. There clearly some who should be. I am not saying in this case at all, just past gross actions .
What do you mean by ‘Air India has to know’?? How do they ‘know?
Comprehension of what is written is needed first.
More incomprehensible gibberish. The downward spiral!
Common senser not so common
Aurobindo Handa, former director general of India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, said the investigation into last week’s crash would likely be a long process.
LOT purchases 40 A220s plus 44 options, replacing one of the largest Embraer fleets in Europe.
Embraer commercial aircraft info
“In Commercial Aviation, the backlog reached US$10.2 billion in 4Q24 ”
Need to wonder if this is the end for E Series based on only having 7 airlines in backlog with 164 aircraft (e.g. wiki) all being E-175 (no E190 series) American with the majority at 92. The E Series was launched in 1999.
Its time to acknowledge that Comac is the legitimate #3 player in commercial aircraft with over 1,000 orders in backlog
It will interest you to hear that Iran now says that it has shot down a 4th F35 — this one in Tabriz, earlier today.
They claim a deliberate policy of not showing wreckage, so as not to reveal what state it’s in…and, attendantly, what systems are available for scrutiny.
Four frames represents 9% of the Israeli fleet…an average of one per day so far.
If/when any of this is verified, it will be a major headache for LM.
Yea right.
Its entirely possible to shoot down an F-35. They are not a Tiger II or a Jagdtiger
But claims from Iran? Can’t even stop Israel from using their airspace.
Shooting down aircraft is the very essence of stopping someone from using your airspace 🙈
They’ve still got missile defense systems operational, but they’re not 100% effective — just like those in Israel.
Maybe time to get your news from a broader range of sources than just CNN 😉
TransWorld wrote.
Yea right.
Its entirely possible to shoot down an F-35. They are not a Tiger II or a Jagdtiger
But claims from Iran? Can’t even stop Israel from using their airspace.
The war of words about Iran shooting down things isn’t very believable. I was impressed that Israel actually had Arabic spokesmen. The real scream here was the saber rattling from Jordan about respecting their sovereign airspace. Israel wouldn’t have a lot of trouble slapping around some block 20 F16s
Yea Bryce tries to deflect as usual.
Shooting down Ballistic missiles is not the same as SAMs.
Rightly or wrongly Israel has destroyed the IAD in Western Iran and working East.
They are also destroying IBM launchers and sites with what looks like a lot of success.
We have seen no pilot names or non AI images/pictures of downed aircraft. So yes, the Iranian are lying. All sides lie. Far more likely to shoot down an F-16 or F-15 than an F-35. Those are not even radar reduced airframes.
That they are operating in Iran airspace speaks volumes about the IAD or any SAM site working. Maybe the Russian will finally send the SU-35s!
Or at least spent the money on modern Western fighters.
Israel will almost certainly take losses. Air Superiority is not Air Immune. Nor is it Air Supremacy.
The tragedy is it came to this. If someone tries to destroy you, do you go pro active or sends your nukes after they damage you severely?
And its terrifying that Israel does not Atomic Bomb (IBM) capability.
@Abalone
I would “hesitate” to believe anything. Without some measure of independent verification this treads awfully close to propoganda.
War is full of propaganda — from all sides.
That’s particularly true in the Middle East, where machismo plays a huge role.
While I’d like to see proof of many claims being made by many sources, I’m not as auto-dismissive of the Iranian side as some observers.
We’ll see.
@Abalone
Trust but verify…which is not really trusting at all.
Yep.
You sort through what is credible vs not. An F-16 or F-15 is more credible though not shown or seen.
You can only sort through the info and try to piece together a picture.
The Pakistan India blowup is revealing. India lost two to maybe 4 aircraft. Pakistan claims 6.
But also adding to the picture is India kept sending missiles deep into Pakistan on subsequent days and lost no more jets. So they adjusted to the issue and apparently successfully.
What the issue was, much like India 171, you can only have possibilities. That could be they did not have the right RWS info and EW counters loaded.
It could have been the wrong tactics. We may never know. But the reality is Pakistan made claims in excess of what was proven. India did not confirm totals.
@DP:
As they are all Chinese Government owned entities, no.
Equally they have very low build rate.
Still coming out with new versions when they can’t even fill the supposed orders for what they have.
They *currently* have very low build rate.
Things change.
Airbus sees COMAC as #3, according to this week’s LNA article on the matter.
Trans
C919 with 25 customers and over 1,000 orders (25 deliveries to date) best guess 16-20 deliveries in 2025
C909 (ARJ21) -15 customers and 162 deliveries and with over 300 in backlog…about 30 a year build rate (five customers outside of China)
so Comac on pace for about 50 commercial aircraft deliveries in 2025…Embraer in 2024 was 73
Trans
Embraer in 1Q25 commercial deliveries 7 were commercial jets (3 E2s and 4 E1s)….
This might be the year Comac surpassed Embraer for commercial aircraft deliveries (C909 and C919) If Embraer keeps pace with 2024 commercial delivery rates, less than 2 year backlog
Embraer is in process of exiting the commercial aircraft market just as Bombardier (e.g. MRJ never made it to the market)
@Pritchard
Everyone is holding up Embraer as a shining beacon of what has gone right. The hard reality is that the E-190/5 generally loses campaigns to the A220. The E190/5 does not have a very large market or backlog and the E175 is even sadder and constrained by scope clause.
COMAC will surpass Embraer if no other reason than it is playing in a market segment where there is real volume.
@ Casey
Embraer may yet get a new lease of life if its advances toward India are favorably answered.
That would be a win-win for both sides.
@Casey:
I know you meant E2 vs E1 but it should be stated.
I know its not technically per Embraer nomenclature is not correct, but I think E2-1xx or E1-1xx makes it clear which generation is being talked about.
Its that odd part where E1 aka E1-175 is going to be produced concurrent with the E2-19x for some time due to US scope clause.
It does show that the regional market is basically dying due to US scope clause. I doubt China will let Embraer sell any jets there.
They could try for a single aisle but sans any breakthroughs, they compete with Airbus in the A220/320 series, Boeing and to a small degree COMMAC who has their aspirations.
Bad position to be in. India would welcome them but they don’t have the industry to do a joint venture. Aircraft is an area India has failed to develop in, they have done some amazing work in other areas.
An interesting move from an airline that has an all-Boeing mainline fleet…why not the MAX7? 🙈
Sad for Embraer to lose such a lucrative customer.
The A220-300 has better economics than the MAX 7.
Yes, of course it does.
My question was sarcastic.
Scott Hamilton said…..
June 16, 2025
The A220-300 has better economics than the MAX 7.
As a Boeing guy, I have to tip my hat to the Airbus for the phenomenal job they did on this airplane. It’s my favorite single aisle airplane and I fly it a lot doing the SEA-PSP with an occasional connection at SFO. I find it far more comfortable and a bit quieter than a 320/321 or NG/MAX. If you get a chance to fly it, try it, its really solid.
“As a Boeing guy, I have to tip my hat to the Airbus for the phenomenal job they did on this airplane.”
It’s not an Airbus design — you should be tipping your hat to Bombardier.
Thank Airbus for not trashing Bombardier’s work like Boeing would have liked to see / achieve. 🙂
Thank Boeing and predatory capitalism. If I remember correctly, they filed suit against Bombardier ultimately forcing them to sell out to Airbus. But I have read that the A220 is a cutting edge design (2008) — the type of plane that Boeing could have designed if it didn’t choose to go with the Max program in 2011. I’ve always wanted to fly in one. It hasn’t happened yet.
Boeing design something like this? They could have bought it for a song, but their incompetent CEOs were “MAXed” out…
@PNWgeek:
It was not Airbus that did the solid job. It was BBD.
Airbus has done a great job of rescuing the program, but the bones were all BBD.
Apparently LOT is up-gaging their fleet-size. The A220-300 is a much larger aircraft than the the E195-E2.
Probably took this as an opportunity to clean house and make a fresh start.
The E175 is in a curious spot. It has no direct competitors and no real market size. Even with a relaxation on scope clause I am not sure how many sales that would stimulate.
@Casey:
They are ordering I believe 20 of the -100. That looks to be a more capable range wise 195 as well as virtually a slightly smaller single aisle than the A320.
But yea, its a huge change and as noted before, they have 3 x E2-195s so Embraer would have expected to get that order.
Poland may be looking to do a central hub and spoke system aka Baltic.
I wonder with all that is going on in India and the World, that sabotage or terrorism has not been mentioned too much? India and Pakistan relations; the Middle East; Africa… I know speculations are based on what is known and seen at this point, but that still is very little.
The noise before the crash is being attributed by some now to be the RAT. Time will tell, and it is important to not rush to judgement. A lot of hands are involved in getting an airplane ready for flight. I would not close the door on many possible scenarios…
Indian media outlets are replete with terrorism / sabotage commentary — all directed toward Pakistan, of course.
Some countries just love to hate one another.
@SamW:
Its on the list but you are talking about a method of Sabotage that would be difficult or impossible to pull off.
Its just a very tiny probability. No zero but so close to be zero (My opinion)
I’m hip to what you guys are saying. It just seems like somehow the gas was turned off. This either by software or hardware or by some other more malicious means.
I fully agree and in that camp as far a a lean goes.
What the root cause of course then means its either a Boeing issue or not.
Who wrote the software and how it could command both engines to restricted or roll back? Phew.
Did the internal check not catch a computer that was off its gourd?
Did a computer fail in such an odd fashion it was not recognized and caused this.
The evidence seems to show both engines just shutoff completely after rotation and 600 feet (the airport is at 130 ft or there abouts, so it depends on if its barometric or true AGL)
So a lot of theories followed by conjecture but nothing solid yet
And then there’s this:
“Mumbai Grahak Panchayat demands grounding of all Boeing 787 aircraft”
“sumer rights body, has called for grounding of Boeing 787 aircraft in the interest of public safety. The MGP has given the call following Thursday’s air crash involving Air India aircraft and three instances of air turn back involving Boeing 787 on Sunday and Monday.
““Directorate General of Civil Aviation is duty bound to take consumers into confidence and explain the reasons that prompted the mid-air return of British Airways, Lufthansa and Air India flights that were being operated by the Boeing 787 aircraft,” MGP said in a statement.”
“MGP also calls upon Air India to ground all their Boeing 787 aircraft without waiting for any directions from the DGCA, it said.”
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/mumbai-grahak-panchayat-demands-grounding-of-all-boeing-787-aircraft/article69702111.ece
***
Looks like emotions are running pretty high there in India…
Truly in poor taste. Of course emotions are horrible in not just India, but all people and nationalities who had loved ones on that aircraft. Boeing employees are going to be hard hit. Anyone with any humanity is going to be sorrowful.
India in particular has suffered a grievous blow.
My heart is out to all who have suffered loss of loved ones and friends. It also extends to the community directly impacted.
I think the 787 should be grounded, not because my “emotions are high” but out of an abundance of caution.
How come “Boeing employees are going to be hard hit”? Oversensationalize is not helpful to your cause.
I do not have a cause. I know what has been lost and the impacts of that.
Boeing employees take pride in what they build regardless of the management. You hate to see an aircraft go in with anyone lost let alone the large loss of life in this one.
As if the situation in the Middle East isn’t bad enough already:
“U.S. Forward Deploys Dozens of Aerial Tankers Amid Possible Entry Into Israel-Iran War”
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/us-forward-deploys-dozens-aerial-tankers-iran
***
If the US gets involved in this, then:
– Emirates and Qatar will essentially have to stop operations.
– Jet fuel will double (at least) in price.
– BA will lose a lot of orders in the ME.
Boeing EVP Pope sent to India.
Might be an aircraft OEM issue, then.
While its fully open as to what it might be, Pope is going to India out of respect to what has happened.
Unlike the Indonesian and Ethiopian MAX crashes, unlike Muilenberg Ortberg gets it.
I expect Ortberg is going to be heading to India soon as well.
Do you think that Steph would just turn up to offer her condolences if it was suspected that the plane had been brought down by a bomb? I don’t think so
I think she would have been told to do so.
Ortberg at least seems to have some sense of propriety.
Gestures can be very importation in relationships, Boeing has not practiced that much in recent years.
@ Vincent
Pope may be going so as to do damage control, and to try to secure the 787 portion of BA’s recent order from India.
Sentiment in India — justified or not — is currently not particulary pro-Boeing. For example:
“Nightmare foretold? Ahmedabad crash raises new questions about Dreamliners sent to India”
“Two people that The American Prospect said were “deeply familiar with the Charleston 787 plant” told the publication they had grave concerns about the quality of 787s sent specifically to Air India.”
“Cynthia Kitchens, who worked at Boeing between 2009 and 2016, kept extensive notes and photos on what she called the “nonconformances” that haunted her. Of 11 particularly worrying planes she tracked, six went to Air India.”
“Years earlier, Kitchens said she had asked a boss if he would let his children fly on a plane with the litany of flaws and non-conformances he was urging her to “pencil-whip”:
““Cindy, none of these planes are staying in America, they’re all going overseas,” he replied.”
https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/nightmare-foretold-ahmedabad-crash-raises-new-questions-about-dreamliners-sent-to-india/cid/2108341
***
And here’s another such article:
“One of the Dreamliners That Gave a Boeing Manager Nightmares Just Crashed”
“But there’s something else: two people deeply familiar with the Charleston 787 plant told the Prospect they had particularly acute quality concerns over planes that were delivered to Air India. Cynthia Kitchens, a former quality manager who worked at the Charleston plant between 2009 and 2016, has a binder full of notes, documents and photos from her frustrating years at Boeing, one page of which lists the numbers of the eleven planes delivered between early 2012 and late 2013 whose quality defects most kept her awake at night. Six of them went to Air India, whose purchases were bolstered by billions of dollars in Export-Import Bank loan guarantees. The plane that crashed was delivered in January 2014 from Boeing’s now-defunct assembly line in Everett, Washington, though its mid- and aft- fuselages were produced in Charleston. ”
***
Wasn’t there a serious of leaked e-mails a few years ago in which BA test pilots mocked Indian authorities? The now infamous “Jedi mind trick” passage.
I hope Ms. Pope brought a fire extinguisher with her…
Forgot to post a link to the second article — here we go:
https://prospect.org/economy/2025-06-12-dreamliner-gave-boeing-manager-nightmares-just-crashed-air-india/
TFTL. Tkacic is a good reporter, and has provided quite a bit of BA coverage.
@ Vincent
If the information in that report is found to be true, then BA has a very, very serious problem on its hands.
Particularly striking is the (chauvinistic) quote from the BA boss:
“Cindy, none of these planes are staying in America, they’re all going overseas”
🙈
Unless you have other witnesses its all hearsay.
You keep harping on Boeing quality in Charleston but those quality issues had to do with assembly.
The AI 787 did not break apart, a wing did not fall off, an engine did not fall off, the tail did not fall off.
Ms Kitchens likely does not know software from her left elbow.
Whatever happened it involves the engines for which she had nothing to do with.
Yes it could be its a hidden flaw in software or the computers or the fuel system.
But its got nothing to do with the assembly issues.
Have you seen the notes and pictures?
15 years latter?
@Transworld
Wiring issues (shorting, rubbing) can take years to show themselves. It’s not like Boeing hasn’t had issues like that before.
PAS day 2 — another sizable deal:
“Airbus Bags Deal For Up To 150 A321neo Aircraft From VietJet”
“Airbus just announced at the 2025 Paris Air Show that it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with VietJet Air, a low-cost carrier and the largest private airline in all of Vietnam, concerning an order for 100 A321neo narrowbody twinjets. The agreement also has options for another 50 units, bringing the potential total to as high as 150 examples of the next-generation stretched single-aisle aircraft.”
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321neo-order-vietjet-paris-air-show/
***
It’s an MoU…so some details evidently still need to be hammered out.
Reuters:
“VietJet, the largest private airline in Vietnam, operates an all-Airbus fleet, apart from two Chinese-made regional jets. The airline has not to date taken delivery of any of the around 200 MAX planes it has ordered from Boeing.”
It seems up to 50 MAX will be heading to VietJet’s Thai subsidiary starting in October this year.
Interesting:
“Airbus propulsion chief: Test data encouraging but RISE selection not assured”
“Airbus is encouraged by preliminary data analysis of CFM’s RISE engine but the airframer’s propulsion engineering chief insists that the open-rotor technology has still to cement its case for selection against geared-fan alternatives.
“It’s a given ambition, but it’s not a given,” says Frank Haselbach, adding that it remains premature even to describe RISE as the “preferred solution” for Airbus’s future single-aisle programme.
““It could be,” he says. “You still have to look at the what the amount of commercial risk you’re taking, what’s the amount of industrial risk you’re taking to going down this route. So it’s a far bigger question than just a technical question. But technical is the entry ticket.””
“Windtunnel testing of the engine model – with and without partial wing structure, studying performance, acoustics and interaction with flaps and slats – is wrapping up in France and the Netherlands after more than 500h, and full aircraft model tests will commence next year. In parallel with the windtunnel testing CFM is moving from the key component to subsystem work.”
“But the technology presents integration challenges. “It’s a small core, it’s a huge [low-pressure] system. It’s a gearbox in between. You have to mount it in the right way…we’ll have new sorts of loads on the aircraft, which we never have because we normally guide the air to the engine.””
“With the absence of nacelle containment for blade loss, fuselage shielding will be part of the design consideration. “There is preventive detection in there,” says Haselbach. “But you will have to have an element of fuselage protection.””
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/airbus-propulsion-chief-test-data-encouraging-but-rise-selection-not-assured/163420.article
***
Doesn’t sound like a done deal at all…
Good to hear he is backing me up 100% on my assessment.
You can also add in, sans a 2nd RISE type engine, all bets are off (dual engine choice)
While you can put any jet engine under a wing, you can’t put any prop job under a wing and even two RISE type design would be different.
Airbus customers may well be telling him, no way are we buying a LCA with that thing on it.
The Public looks down on props and they get a vote in this.
By the time RISE gets a working engine PW will have a better GTF ready to bend metal on. Well they have the design already, waiting for a candidate to bend metal so they know what thrust range is needed.
Could it just be that the plane was just overweight for the hot and humid parameters of that day?
In theory yes. In practice if this aircraft was overweight and they missed that bad that would be a colossal mistake. Very rarely does an aircraft take off at max thrust anyway
I believe it’s more common in places like the M.E. (& India), one reason why the newer engines have issues there.
@Pedro
Yes it does stress an engine in those environments. The airline is supposed to know the weight of the aircraft. There is no ambiguity. It would involve someone just screwing up the calculations horribly. I will also point out those engines just came out of overhaul. Lack of EGT (thrust capability) should not be an issue.
Any engine will demonstrate a lack of thrust capability if it is starved of fuel…and/or if it is shut down by a malfunctioning controller.
Considering that this aircraft is maximum weight already (distance aka fuel load and almost full passenger wise)
A really heavy cargo might but it was a -8 so not as much as a -9 and …..
Its possible along with all the rest
No. The aircraft left the ground and had positive climb rate for a bit, then came back down. That tells me there was most likely a loss of thrust for whatever reason.
“JetBlue to cut more flights, other costs with break-even 2025 ‘unlikely’ due to weaker travel demand”
““We’re hopeful demand and bookings will rebound, but even a recovery won’t fully offset the ground we’ve lost this year and our path back to profitability will take longer than we’d hoped. That means we’re still relying on borrowed cash to keep the airline running,” Geraghty said in a note to staff dated Monday, which was seen by CNBC.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/17/jetblue-cost-cuts.html
I can’t believe the stick in the wheels, that the current admin is taking, to the aviation/travel industry.
Yes, other countries will get harmed, but by far – the most damage will be done to the US.
People will still travel, but they will just go elsewhere. As is happening now.
You’d figure that a guy who grew up in NY and was in the construction biz there, who might have had to encourage materials and labour to appear with ‘incentives’, would understand that this is ‘bad for business’.
Megalomania + cognitive impairment + fickle nature = continuing trainwreck.
“America First!”
Reuters
> Overseas arrivals to the US fell 2.8% in May from a year ago. Forward bookings suggest sustained declines are on the horizon.
> Two facts worth considering:
1. The Fed is projecting GDP growth of 1.4% this year
2. Nearly every time growth has slowed to this rate, the economy stalls, and a recession follows
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtvzZapXsAAob96?format=jpg&name=small
https://x.com/JustinWolfers/status/1935408085620699469
I fear this investigation is going to be politicized. The stakes are very high for all involved parties and as the rhetoric ratchets up objectivity will be sacrificed to save face and money. If this happens then I fear for global air travel as you will never be able to be assured that the aircraft you are flying on has been properly maintained, serviced and operated. This will be a calamity for those of us who need to fly globally for work and love to fly globally for leisure.
“…as the rhetoric ratchets up…”
Just look at the media articles that I posted above regarding “questionable” 787s being sent to India.
The airframe that crashed was allgedly on a list of 11 frames that a BA QC manager in Charleston was particularly worried about.
https://prospect.org/economy/2025-06-12-dreamliner-gave-boeing-manager-nightmares-just-crashed-air-india/
“Questionable” is her opinion. A bit naive to consider every whistleblower an expert. Did any competent agency validate the binder of issues?
“Did any competent agency validate the binder of issues?”
Probably happening — or being planned — as we speak.
She was a quality manager — not just any old whistleblower.
This is a potential bombshell for BA.
These are independent agencies looking at the crash. If it was Egypt I would be worried. The other AHJs can refuse to concur. Nothing I have seen from India AHJ would suggest they would cave.
It was not a hull breakup .
Flew for 11 years.
Thrust seems to be a major factor here, but the details of what, why and when is fully open
Let me see these “not a hull breakup” accidents:
787-8: 241 fatalities
737 MAX: 346
How many care whether it’s a hull breakup or not, if it’s going to kill many?
You really do not get it do you?
I think he means that it did not fall apart, in flight.
I think he means that it was not related to the problems voiced by Cynthia Kitchens and emerging from problems at the Charleston 787 plant. The same might be said for issues with the flaps, which were, I think designed and manufactured in Japan. So far, it seems the issue concerns why the engines lost power. The source is either fuel or a software glitch (as with the Max). Neither relate to problems at Charleston.
“
@ Spot
Faulty wiring is also a potential culprit: years of vibration of improperly routed and/or connected wiring can cause insulation erosion, eventually followed by arc-over. Certainly enough to kill one or more components of a fuel pumping/management system.
Still very much a potential headache for Charleston.
Was this plane even made in SC?
Not an expert, but according to this report:
> But until today, the contrarians could always demand to know: if the Dreamliner is so unsafe, why hasn’t it ever crashed?
The late John Barnett, who died last March in an apparent suicide two days into a three-day deposition stemming from the insane practices he witnessed and tried vainly to stop as a quality manager at the Dreamliner’s final assembly plant in Charleston, South Carolina, had a ready answer for this question: Just wait a bit. Most planes aren’t designed to dive nosefirst into the ground like the 737 Max. It generally takes, he’d say with audible sadness, ten or twelve years for assembly-line sloppiness to culminate in a plane crash.
https://prospect.org/economy/2025-06-12-dreamliner-gave-boeing-manager-nightmares-just-crashed-air-india/
Flaps or no flaps the picture is not quite clear. Could a reconstruction of the take off be videoed with the same make of plane and then compre the 2? Information could be gathered with distance from the plane the picture were took with length of time off the runway etc but with flaps fully deployed and check if the quality is good enough to compare actual video to reconstruction.
It may or may not give clarity to eliminate from the investigation?
All true and Air India would know what a normal configuration for that airport and conditions would be.
They are not talking, in the US participants of an investigation are not allowed to.
No one independent I have seen has tried to put together what you are talking about.
I don’t know if you could duplicate that video angle.
We should have plane spotters who would know but have not heard from them.T
Continuing nervousness:
“Air India cancels six flights using Dreamliner…”
“In what may be called a deep erosion in the brand value of Boeing, Air India on Tuesday canceled six flights, all using 787-8 Dreamliner aircraft. If reports are to be believed, the carrier canceled AI 915 (Delhi-Dubai), AI 153 (Delhi-Vienna), AI 143 (Delhi-Paris), AI 159 (Ahmedabad-London), AI 133 (Bengaluru-London) and AI 170 (London-Amritsar). Besides, a technical issue also affected a Dreamliner operating as AI 315 to Delhi and forced the pilot to fly back to Hong Kong. An Air India San Francisco-Mumbai flight suffered a technical snag the same day during a scheduled halt at Kolkata. Air India asked all passengers to deboard.”
https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-air-india-cancels-six-flights-using-dreamliner-boeing-aircraft-that-crashed-in-ahmedabad-details-here-3160837
Simplest explanation is the best one.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/air-india-flight-ahmedabad-plane-crash-5sfnnvkfb
They also will be looking at takeoff parameters for Ahmedabad to see if there is a flaw in the data input for thrust settings, when to rotate as well as rejection protocols.
Fleet is also one down. As Airlines schedule the max to get most hours on their planes. Loss of one plane ripples through the fleet. Seem to be a few other technical issues as well, which has more people watching these things anyway
Some delay due to inspections as well.
Just another day at the beach for Bryce
FG: JAL to help Maeve shape rear-engined 90-seat open-rotor aircraft proposal
FG: De Havilland eyes restarting Sherpa and Dash 8 production
> De Havilland is considering bringing back a modernised version of either the Dash 8-400 or smaller Dash 8-300.
Sherpa definitely would be great for shortish range package delivery, with that ‘box’ fuselage
Far more likely the Sherpa.
Dash 8 of any type, not so much.
Have gone down the rabbit hole on tank size and pump configuration and usage. Had a productive discussion with a 787 pilot who generously answered some questions.
Basically two wing tanks at 16,776 kg capacity each with two forward & aft electric pumps, a central tank with 68,888 kg capacity with two electric pumps (placement is a bit unclear as pilot said for & aft but since that is not right left symmetrical and each of the pumps are used in a left / right configuration). The center tank has an additional scavenging system that comes on shortly after the main wing tanks start providing fuel and will empty the center tank.
From the pilot:
“The center tank pumps (2) are normally delivering fuel to the engines for takeoff (there is no flap logic associated with their operation) meaning fuel is delivered from the center tank whenever fuel is in the center tank and the pumps are on. The 4 wing tank pumps (2 pumps in each wing tank) are all competing to deliver fuel to their respective engine as well. However, since the wing tank pumps deliver fuel at a slightly lower pressure, the center tank pumps essentially win the pressure battle until no more fuel is in the center tank.”
From the pilot:
“l do not think there is a water separator of any kind and we have no cockpit indicators for water in the fuel–mechanics do periodic sampling but I don’t have any expertise in this area. I don’t believe a water/fuel mixture would reduce the output pressure.. Yes, the center tanks are depleted fully using a fuel scavenging system that comes on shortly after the main wing tanks start providing fuel. There are separate pickups for each center pump (forward and aft pump) but we normally shut these pumps off once the center tank quantity reaches 5000 lbs so those pickups are not uncovered at anytime while the pumps are running. The remaining fuel in the center tank is then picked up by a fuel scavenging system (which has its own pickups at the lowest parts of the tank). and delivered to the wing tanks.”
From the pilot:
“The APU is not a source of bleed air–it only supplies electrical power to the aircraft. No bleed air is used in the engine start sequence–in fact, the only bleed air on the entire aircraft comes from the engines and is only used to heat that engine’s cowl lip and core during icing conditions. If the engine(s) flame out, they attempt to auto-relight using the rotational energy imparted to the N1 and N2 sections by the incoming air and using ignitors from the battery. In my experience, it takes about 90 seconds for the APU to start on the ground and would likely be a bit faster while airborne at low altitudes. The APU was probably not up and running due to the limited time of the incident. If the Ram Air Turbine a was deployed, it indicates that there was an extremely exigent situation occuring with a very few items being powered. The landing gear cannot be retracted using the RAT. Also, in addition to providing limited hydraulic power for the primary flight controls, the RAT DOES provide limited standby electrical power for cockpit displays, limited navigation capabilities, and fire the detection system.”
Thanks for all this helpful info.
I am familiar with all but the fuel system. Spot on information.
The fueling rig will have filters including water.
I am extending this a bit but I believe that water is separated and if too much water it hits a special filter that stops the flow.
If not there will be a water shutdown level.
Keep in mind pilots are trained on their systems they control and have affect on. So not knowing fueling systems is not odd.
I was responsible for a De-ice mixing system. I asked to go to de-ice school. They refused and wanted to know why I had any need.
In my case, the more I knew the better I could assess how or if our system was working. I was the next to last check.
A jet pilot is going to have a snoot full of aircraft stuff and getting into all support aspect would not be a need. So its fully understandable generally pilots would not know. None of that was ever discussed in my ground schools.
Our test was a sample out of the wing tanks and sump. Which in the C-150 did not work correctly. We had a major water ingress one time to all the training aircraft. Hot day, hot fuel at the end and a thunderstorm moved in and temps dropped. So much vacuum created when fuel cooled off it sucked it in through the fuel caps.
So the sump would not pick anything up because it was full of the fuel from the previous day.
They found out what the first one took off and the engine died after rotation and 150 feet. They had a long runway ahead so instructor took the plane and glided in.
They found you had to chain the tail down to get the water pickup in a location where it would pull from the bottom of the tank.
Fuel pump pickup was above the water until it rotated and then it was all water (couple of gallons in each tank)
A thought that just came to mind is that India has been buying a lot of Russian sanctioned oil. I wonder if they also get jet fuel from Russia as the shipping fleets that deal in these energy products that get sanctioned are rather dodgy and do a lot of ship to ship transfers with the potential for who-knows-what. There has been problems with ship fuel (which is much less controlled for quality than jet fuel) where a lot of questionable liquids get purposely dumped into them (to get rid of them) and has caused big problems for the ships that get this fuel. It would be interesting to know what fuel sampling and quality control is in place throughout the fuel delivery chain to maintain certainty that the jet fuel meet standards. The fuel might not have had water contamination but something that the filters might pass (like that issue with the SALT water). Also I wonder where they get their jet fuel from and how is it transported (out of country, regional refinery, local refinery, pipe, train, truck, etc). Again the argument is that other aircraft would have gotten the same fuel, but that center tank is very big and quite probably was completely filled from empty and not just topped off.
I think Russia is short of diesel refining capacity. With all their military equipment and air force jets using Jet A or the like……………..
So while they export oil, I don’t think they do diesel.
Lol how come Russia exports like, on average, a million bpd of diesel by vessels (from latest statistics available).
If the thoughts about reduced thrust occurring during the acceleration phase of the takeoff are correct AND thrust reduction was symmetrical for both engines AND the RATE of thrust reduction was progressive (little at first, more as time went by and possibly more as the aircraft pitched up at rotation) then the pilots had a nightmare scenario.
Possible scenario:
Pilot monitoring watching for V1 and sees N1 (thrust is lower than programmed for takeoff but at the beginning by only a relatively small amount) AND Full Authority Digital Engine controllers (FADEC) {BOTH are going Ape S…} generating error messages that the PM has never seen before BUT consider them as a concerning distraction. The pilot flying & the PM are becoming concerned as the aircraft has not attained V1 by the POSITION on the runway that their memory feels correct BUT are now TOO CLOSE to the end of the runway to abort without overrun. The pilot flying commands FULL POWER but the engines do not increase thrust or possibly continue decreasing but the “feeling” is that there is enough thrust to get airborne and return to land. The pilots are waiting for VR but acceleration is very sluggish. Pilot flying is watching the end of the runway coming up and rotates as late as possible but not quite at VR.
The aircraft is in ground effect and trying to climb some (everything is on the edge). At rotation the aircraft pitches up and at some number of seconds later (now airborne) and out of ground effect the engines start to significantly rollback. The PM commands the gear to retract. The engines rollback to less than idle RPM and RAT is auto deployed causing a reconfiguration of both the electrical and hydraulic systems (and aborts the landing gear retraction to preserve hydraulic pressure for control surfaces).
The aircraft is at a LOWER PITCH than at rotation.
The engines are in an auto relight sequence with ignition on (might {probably} have been on all along).
A bang is heard which could have been the RAT deploying or a relight and combustion of pooled fuel inside the combustor of an engine. Person also stated that it seemed that more thrust was being generated. (Aircraft pitch less than at rotation.)
A person heard in the building “jet engine sounds” which could have been the RAT or unstable engine/s at low RPM.
For me it seems like something to do with a fuel disruption that was progressive and chaotic. I concur with TransWorld that water of any significant quantity should not have gotten into the center tank or question how it could have. Will now wait for the information from the data recorder as I think I could die on this particular scenario hill.
You just put the classic conundrum of a rejected takeoff.
The training is to continue takeoff if you think the airplane will fly.
But you have to decide in a very short window and you need to figure out how its affecting the aircraft and if it will fly.
Then you may be too late and its facing a choice of crashing straight off the end on the ground or trying to fly.
One is certain crash and the other is still possible (maybe).
Unfortunately they did not have an crush/stop system at the end of the runway which makes that decision easier and more time to do it.
“Then you may be too late and its facing a choice of crashing straight off the end on the ground or trying to fly.”
Lmao. Shouldn’t all these factors be taken into consideration whether the specific aircraft type is safe to operate at the airport, the minimum runway requirements, etc??
I’m now of the opinion to support continual training requirement for all pilots.
“Airbus to boost A330 MRTT+ tanker output as demand soars”
“Airbus Defence & Space will increase its annual capacity to deliver the multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) version of its A330 widebody, to meet strong demand for its new Neo-based model.
““The MRTT+ programme is in full motion,” says Jean-Brice Dumont, the company’s head of air power. “The first aircraft is in production, and the ambition is to deliver by the end of 2028,” he adds.”
““The demand signal on the tankers is very high,” Dumont says. “Many countries are realising that they have a need for fast deployment,” he notes, referring to increased interest in the Agile Combat Employment concept. “They want to deploy fast and far, and for that you need tankers.””
“As part of its planning process for increased output of the MRTT+, Dumont says the company will consider “whether the hangars we have can accommodate it or we need to build new hangars, or we need to go to other places than Getafe, where we are today.””
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/airbus-to-boost-a330-mrtt-tanker-output-as-demand-soars/163449.article
Ironic there is one fueler in a fairly high rate of production.
A330CEO are spoken for sans a lead order before and the A330NEO also spoken for and needs to be certified.
A330MRT has been a split of older converted hulls and new build.
then you have the supply chain that has to be able to deliver.
Best bet is to call the USAF and ask for a KC-46A (maybe an export version depending on who you sell it to)
Israel by the way has 7 on order. Japan asked for them and got in the Q right away. Not delivered yet.
I have to amend that. Japan got two KC-46A out of production.
They have 9 more ordered I believe. I don’t know what the delivery schedule is.
If USAF is willing to give up delivery positions they could get them in a years time.
USAF benefits as they get closer to the upgraded RVW system.
Have to wonder if the US is not going to hand over some of those tankers to Israel soon.
Oh God, the USAF is still looking forward to the “long-awaited overhaul of the RVS”, which is furtherdelayed to 2027. Have a good laugh! 😂
Hard to imagine anyone could type out this with a straight face.
“Best bet is to call the USAF and ask for a KC-46A”
You seem to think the KC-46A is unable to deliver fuel.
It can, certain sun angles cause issues and the USAF spec wide angle portion does not work the way they wanted (USAF is paying to fix that part)
As a TANKER PILOT noted, while there are some issues, we are used to dealing with issues and we can work around them. She was impressed with the improvements over the KC-135. She also stated she liked the A330MRT though it had different features she felt it was on par with KCC-46A (or the KC-46A was on par with the A330MRT though it had systems that not all or maybe any A330MRT has)
The administration can also direct a transfer of almost anything though there are some hoops its supposed to jump through but often does not.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
““The KC-46A is not meeting many of its suitability metrics,” according to the 2024 annual report from the office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. At least 80% operational availability and 90% mission capability are required for the tanker, but the actuals “decreased throughout 2024,” the report noted.”
“The KC-46 had a mission-capable rate of 61% in 2024, which is worse than its 2023 readiness of 65%. The KC-46 tanker’s effective mission capable rate falls by an additional 24% on average when partially mission capable are factored in, such as those with a broken boom.”
https://simpleflying.com/is-kc-46-fully-mission-capable/
“Paper plane” also works, to some extent! Only not functionally the same. Hehe
@ Pedro
…not to mention that the KC-46A is based on a discontinued frame, with far less fuel-efficiency / range…
🙈
Why buy a product™ that does not work? The dog’s breakfast KC-46A, I mean.
“almost ready!”
A330 MRT is also on a discontinued air frame. A lot of 2nd hand conversions.
In fact the 767 is not discontinued yet. It will be.
But a 2C airframe will continue to be made for the KC-46A.
How is the KC-135 doing?
How is the A330MRT doing? How many of those A330 Air Forces report their mission rate?
@Transworld
“A330 MRT is also on a discontinued air frame”
Which is why the article above is discussing the A330 MRTT+…which is based on the in-production A330neo.
Missed that, did you?
@Transworld
Throwing a lot of dirt, just hoping some of it sticks?
Airbus will be shortly launching the neo-based MRTT.
@Abalone
It’s about ‘comprehension’. Wink wink.
@Transworld
“A330 MRT is also on a discontinued air frame”
Do you know how many parts an A330ceo shares with an A330neo?
Turkey wants to replace its KC-135.
Hint: Turkish Airlines operates close to 50 A330 but no 767.
Production of any civil 767 will end in 2027.
The USAF shouldn’t retire their KC-10, which are much younger than the KC-135 and now they suffer from insufficient capacity for their needs.
@ Pedro
“The USAF shouldn’t retire their KC-10, which are much younger than the KC-135 […]”
In reality the KC-10 fleet was done due to cycles on these aircraft were far higher than on most KC-135. A KC-135 is just a tanker with the capability to carry a few lightweight pallets. KC-10 on the other hand is a capable transport aircraft. The USAF learned this especially during Iraq war.
The KC-10 performed a lot of parcel delivering to spare C-17s for heavy lifts but that didn’t worked out well because the KC-X fiasco delivered a KC-46 far too late. Now USAF even thinks about new C-17. Could be nice for the company which has now the rights to built the C-17 but this company may f…
That one is trolling for attention. Sad!
Noticed that, had you?
🙈
I’m afraid it could be worse: he’s genuine.
Trans
There were 2 Japanese KC46s in the fuel dock 10 days ago.
So does fuel dock mean new delivery?
If so then they will have 4 soon.
TransWorld
June 17, 2025
So does fuel dock mean new delivery?
If so then they will have 4 soon.
They were finish painted with roundels and I expect they were really close to deliverable
AW:
> While the KC-46 is cleared for most operations, initial and full operational capability is also years away because AMC will not declare these milestones *until the new Remote Vision System is completed*
Bad circumstances forced the USAF’s hand:
> The command announced the ICR effort last year *as a way to relieve stress on the KC-135 and KC-10 fleets*. The KC-46 still has severe deficiencies with its Remote Vision System and a “stiff boom” problem that prevents it from refueling small and slower aircraft such as the A-10, but AMC and its aircrews felt comfortable enough with the tanker as it flies now to pick up missions.
Since we are talking about tankers, Ward Carroll (youtube) has a new video on how Israel must be getting refueling tanker help from the U.S. as the numbers just don’t add up. He has the guy from desert storm who was responsible for designing the refueling missions. The video was fascinating for me.
I had also wondered about that and no one has radar coverage in that part of Syria they are moving through (and Norther Iraq)
Notice Iraq is completely quiet on the subject as well.
Juan Browne at Blancolirio has a new AI 171 video update up, which contains significant new information.
@Vincent:
I looked and did not find any. If I do I will post it.
Was it an interview on another Channel?
Glad I wasn’t the only one who couldn’t find it!
If you search “Aviation Herald AI 171” you’ll get some of it, I think; that was updated today. Juan’s Patreon is $3 / mo. minimum, and very worth much it IMO.
It’s on his Patreon.
Ok, I have so many U Tubes I watch I have to limit my subscriptions.
Ward Caroll is another one.
Cappy Army had some good stuff on the ground end in Iran.
Mentour Pilot does some great and very topical ones.
And those are just the Aviation, I have wide range of interests in other things like engine rebuilds and tractors.
Do the FDR and CVR have their own battery backup? Could this plane’s failure, whatever it was, have shut down the recorders, too?
The FDR/CVR have apparently been found intact and working, and are presently being analyzed.
Yes — but we don’t yet know if they’ve actually recorded anything useful.
If the plane suffered severe electrical disruption (the RAT provides very limited power, and doesn’t kick in instantaneously or smoothly), it’s not entirely clear what data would have been continuously available to the recorders.
In the Korean Jeju crash, the recorders were running, but the lack of electrical power in the cockpit meant that there was nothing for them to record. In the current case, there was engine power…then a disruption…then a wait and some irregularity while the RAT kicked in…then very limited power thereafter.
The Jeju crash FDR/CVR is not correct.
They were no longer running when the power went. They have no backup power. The battery system does not supply them with any power.
There can be newer systems fitted that do that but Jeju did not have it. If it did then they would have logged whatever the batteries were powering as that would have data though not the full suite.
To me it makes *no sense at all* that the CVR/FDR would not have an independent power supply, since disruption of the normal sources would be essentially a part of many of the events it’s designed to record..
I recall that they do in fact have a separate battery p.s. that lasts for some time.. I am happy to be corrected (by solid evidence).
@Vincent:
It was disused during the Jeju discussion. I am not going off to links right now but its how the system works or did not work.
There is a regulation that they should be retrofitted. I have no idea why anyone thought they should not be powered off the battery system from the start , but they were not. Goes back to NG and before.
It was mandated after a certain date that mfg would put in those systems with backup power.
Its not uncommon for a change to occur and airlines given long times to comply or not required to comply at all, just new build.
This being a South Korean owned aircraft, their regs apply not ours.
I don’t know what a FDR uses power wise in current. I doubt its that much so its nuts not to have powered it off the 737 battery (or add a circuit in to do so). The excuse seems to be that it would take needed battery power. Put in a slightly bigger battery.
I say FDR because I view that as the most important one. Cockpit video would be number 2 and CVR last because it tends to be useless (my opinion)
Regardless, when the engine power of the generators (which are really alternators) on Jeju quit (bird strikes) then the FDR and CVR quit.
What we do know from reconstruction is that Jeju had some thrust. Something close to 50% a they flew for 4 more minutes and made a 180 deg turn.
For those who have not been through the pilot training, your G force goes up in a turn. You need more lift as its the same as if you suddenly loaded the aircraft up heavier with freight or fuel (or passengers)
Its why pilots are taught not to try to turn back. Already marginal and any added thrust (lift) need and you will stall.
In the Jeju case, with the gear up and flaps up, less drag and they had enough thrust to do it. It could have been dropping off and less and less after they made the turn.
Now why the alternators quit or the drive quit while the engines still had thrust (or one did) its unknown. Even down to idle they produce power via the alternator.
Conjecture is the drives got hit by debris from the engine damage.
Now all aircraft are built with their own backup battery power or off the battery system – so if there is data to be had it gets recorded.
No one will ever know why the pilot did not continue the landing as he was all setup for it.
Also why a turn back when he could have ditched. Controlled is better than uncontrolled, you at least have some chance.
He did not get any flaps down nor the gear so it was going to be an overun and even without the barrier, it would have gone into terrain and been torn apart.
From the net:
> The 737NG was designed before battery backups for FDR/CVR were required by the FAA. When the FAA required them, they didn’t mandate that it be retrofitted so since this plane was built before the FAA mandate, it does not have battery backups for the FDR/CVR, this means that in the event of a total loss of AC power there is no power for the recorders.
What I said.
That does not mean airlines could not add the FDR with backup built in, but its competitive and probably no one does unless mandated.
TW
“That does not mean airlines could not add the FDR with backup built in..”
Reality check:
1. how much it costs and how long the aircraft is taken out of service?
2. what are the incentives for airlines (i.e. operators) to do that?
3. why on earth an operator (an airline) would do that, with or without owner’s consent?
Better to post after you’ve done basic analysis, not to post whatever comes up in your mind.
@jim Fife:
They should have data till its gone. Should being the operative word, as we saw with the Jeju crash, older aircraft do not. They can be fitted with systems that do, but obviously not all are.
A caveat is that once (if) all power goes, the sensors no longer work so they don’t report data to the FDR. So there can be missed items though in this case hopefully no issues and it worked until the crash.
Just a suspician, we will have no more data after the RAT deployed
As the RAT deployed (almost 100% certainty) power was lost. RAT may not have got power to systems so that data may be missing.
They will tell us when they have the data and what they have vs what they might not have.
It should tell us what happened up to the point of power loss. It may not tell us why the power was lost.
There is an assumption on my part battery power was lost as well, otherwise the RAT should stay up unless the pilots push the button and that seems unlikely with all that was going on.
APU should be starting but no power no APU start.
Who are “they”??
[whew.]
He’s totally on steroids of late…🙈
😉
Now this is a good layout of how they go about the investigation. No media hype, just factual presentation of where how and what they are looking for and at. Well done BBC!
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gkd555jlko
Continuing dysfunction at BDS:
“B-52 Engine Replacement Slowed by Inlet Issues”
“The B-52 bomber’s re-engining program has hit a delay as an inlet redesign pushes the critical design review into next year.”
“The 10-month delay stems from “ongoing engine inlet issues” discovered during testing, the Government Accountability Office said in its annual report on the progress of major weapons programs, released last week. Distortion was creating non-uniform airflow that can affect the engine’s performance, spurring the need for a redesign.”
“GAO also said the delay was caused by a lag in Boeing’s paperwork, and faulted the company for not taking a more comprehensive, digital approach to the program.
“The watchdog office also said it will take nearly 50% longer to complete a related effort to modernize the bomber’s radar, totaling nearly nine years rather than about five. The Air Force recently indicated that delay would likely trigger a so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach, which prompts the Pentagon to review an acquisition program and reset its expected cost and schedule.”
“Boeing is the overall integrator for the engine, radar and other B-52 upgrades.”
“The redesign is isolated to the inlet, provided by Boeing, rather than the Rolls-Royce F130 engine”
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/b-52-engine-replacement-slowed-by-inlet-issues/
“Ka-ching!” keep them $$$ flowin’ upwards..
Great Country, or what?
Particularly impressive:
9 years instead of 5 for the radar upgrades.
4 years late.
Still, that’s better than the current 6-year delay on the 777X, so the USAF should count its blessings 😉
The more the project costs (and the longer the project takes), the USAF is going to pony up and more dole to Boeing and their executives.
This is a very good discussion by an A320 pilot and a 787 Pilot. The one thing I find unsettling is that to get the correct parameters they talk about fake data input. I don’t begin to fathom why you don’t put in the right data and it spits back what the parameters should be. That should match your dispatch data sheet and come up side by side. Its a long one, missing is where the 787 pilot would expect to rotate on a field with that hot/humidity level and the weight of the aircraft. It takes a bit to get into the Air India aspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EblGO0aWcIc
That was a fairly good video by “Moo”ver (the cow killer which is how he got his call sign). He is the first to say that the RAT deployment can be when the RPM is less than flight idle.
What he is referring to is standard procedure to fine tune the thrust output by putting in a different temperature than actual. Basically a hack to simplify and seems a bit iffy.
I agree that it was quite a good video, and it seems to me that they are not sensationalizing this situation for clicks. Kudos for that, too.
The monsoon finally started in Gujarat province on Monday (June 16).
Accordingly, the wreckage of the crashed 787 is being moved to a hangar.
“Officials say Boeing debris likely to be moved to secure space for ‘reconstruction’; probe not hit by rain”
“Sources familiar with the developments said that the air crash investigators will be seeking to requisition a hangar or other large space, where the debris will be transported and reconstruction will take place. Discussions for the same are currently underway.”
“Regarding fear that evidence might be damaged in the rain, a senior police officer said, “All the important parts of the crash site and parts of the crashed plane have been covered to protect it from the rain.””
“Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation officials also told The Indian Express that 40 workers and 10 engineers have been deployed to the crash site on shifts, along with bulldozers and cranes, to assist the AAIB investigators.
“Two teams of the Ahmedabad Fire and Emergency Services (AFES) continue to be deployed at the site with power tools to cut and move larger pieces of debris for the investigators.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/officials-say-boeing-debris-likely-to-be-moved-to-secure-space-for-reconstruction-probe-not-hit-by-rain-10072904/
PAS: Another 8 A350 orders for AB — 6x A350-900 for EgyptAir and 2x A350F for MNG in Türkiye.
https://simpleflying.com/confirmed-egyptair-orders-6-more-airbus-a350-900s/
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-wins-order-for-2-a350fs-at-paris-air-show/
And at the same time:
Qatar Airways Shifts from Boeing 737 MAX 10 to Airbus
https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/06/18/qatar-airways-shifts-from-boeing-737-max-10-to-airbus/
DOHA- In a strategic realignment, Qatar Airways (QR) cancels its entire order of Boeing 737 MAX 10 aircraft, originally aimed to boost its regional network.
I’m pretty sure Boeing would happily swap 25 MAX for 150 widebodies every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Hardly a stinging defeat for Boeing, is it?
It’s still (at least) $1.5B in lost revenue…
It’s not lost revenue if Boeing knew (as did anyone with a brain) that QR really didn’t want 737-10s. It was only ever a backstop order in case they didn’t make-up with Airbus and reinstate their A321 orders.
How much revenue is 150 widebodies (plus 60 options) going to generate?
Boeing is crying all the way to the bank.
Yea Boeing has known since the Airbus Qatar settlement that the MAX was not a viable sale anymore.
IT is a net gain for Boeing.
Producing airframes to the tune of $1.5B revenue at a loss ( $1.6..2.2B.. spent )
No disagreement.
Boeing has lots of orders for the MAX birds.
Right now the uncertainty is if the 787 has a system issue and what it is.
I suppose you could look at it that way.
Another would be that the WB fleet was always going to be split between AB & BA and reports indicate that Qatar will now be going back to AB for another order of aircraft.
What Boeing doesn’t have, is a foothold in the NB segment.
Also:
Boeing doesn’t have a revenue generation/backlog problem.
It has a profitability problem.
I’m sure Airbus is ok with Boeing having those orders, as long as BA is losing its shirt, trying to deliver those aircraft.
Seven years running, of loss making years. And all of those 777X’s they have produced and sitting up in Seattle, made some 5 years ago…will be delivered and recorded at a loss, when the revenues finally hit the books.
Finally – given the current political climate (i.e. make Donnie look good by ordering lots of aircraft), we’ll see if all those planes finally get delivered.
Keep those order intact, deliver them profitably and Boeing will have earned their credit. Until then, colour me skeptical…
…because of recent historical precedent.
“Finally – given the current political climate (i.e. make Donnie look good by ordering lots of aircraft), we’ll see if all those planes finally get delivered.”
Precisely.
Also: with Donnie’s current antics in the Middle East, those deliveries are looking shakier by the day. Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are right beside Iran, and won’t be impressed by an unnecessary, US-facilitated war on their doorsteps.
Delivery of latest order to Qatar probably won’t start before Donnie leaves the WH.
Boeing should have been able to keep the MAX order if they can receive certification as soon as they thought and without their unsafe production ramp up.
But that also assumes that Qatar actually wanted 737-10s!
The order was only ever a back-stop against the possibility that they wouldn’t get the A321s they really wanted.
Wow! Fantastic news for Embraer 👍
“US regional airline SkyWest order 60 (+ 50 options) Embraer E175 aircraft”
“After two days without major agreements at Paris Air Show, Embraer announced the sale of up to 110 E175 jets to SkyWest Airlines, the US regional carrier that is the largest operator of the 76-seat aircraft.”
“The deliveries will start as early as 2027.”
“Its current fleet of E175 comprises 263 aircraft in addition to 16 orders not yet delivered from other contracts.”
https://www.airdatanews.com/us-regional-airline-skywest-order-60-embraer-e175-aircraft/
***
Should help soothe the headache of the LOT order loss.
It is good news for Emb. I’m sure they would rather be selling the E2 version, but an order is an order.
It certainly helps keep the line viable. Prior to this order…there were 164 in backlog (92 AA, 41 Republic, 16 Skywest, 15 other).
There is probably a measure of Embraer shaking the tree to guarantee future production rates.
Embraer will be well-served to stimulate a wider basis of operators in backlog.
India might be a large potential market for them — huge country with lots of regional airports.
I think it would be great if they teamed up with Tata.
Embraer disagrees by the ICAO emissions regs that kick in end of 2027 affect the E1 series engines. Older generation GE.
If they get caught up in it, Embraer can no longer make the E1.
Its the main reason for a fairly large number of E1-175 orders from the US.
“In the meantime, Embraer continues to sell the E175-E1 to US airlines flying for the Big Three and Alaska Airlines. Embraer says the E175-E1 complies with 2027 IACO emissions and noise standards which will prohibit non-compliant new airplane production from 2028. Member governments of ICAO adopt the 2027 standards—it’s not ICAO’s call—and the US Federal Aviation Administration recently signaled its intent to do so.
It’s hard to see how the old-technology CF34 is compliant with the standards, but I’m not qualified to dispute the claim by Embraer.”
@FrankP:
Agreed, the E2-175 has been put on the shelf as the US is the only place that might have taken it.
Too small for most operations where the 190/95 work.
Maybe an executive order to mandate the E2-175 to replace the E1-175?
An executive order by….Trump?
So, Donnie signs an order to help a foreign plane maker, which goes against contracts in place between airlines and pilots in the US…
…is this what is being proposed?
Yah – that’ll never get challenged in court. Why bother signing contracts of any type, if one guy can just come along and say, “I don’t want this – do this instead”?
Want to see air traffic grind to a halt, as pilots walk off the job, if the contracts they negotiate aren’t respected? These aren’t deals with other countries, these are US pilots and citizens.
What’s he going to do – call ICE and force them to fly?
I guess if he is really determined to tank the aviation industry, he could try…
Yeah, because Trump has never unilaterally broken contracts or international agreements or just changed his mind? Ha ha ha.
The executive order would have to be to void scope clause with unions.
Embraer could make the E2 today…nobody would buy it.
While the Executive Order is tongue in cheek, you could see ICAO stop E1 and then action to get E2.
Not this president but one trying to get improvements needed.
Its the passenger counts that are relevant to the Unions not the weight, they just gook existing specs.
Keep in mind there is a lot of US content in Embraer jets.
Too late. Donnie now is dreaming about the Qatari VIP aircraft, otherwise, Embraer could ‘gift’ a VIP plane to the ‘air force’! Now they have to buy a trillion trump coins or whatever. 😂
How?? The scope clause is not a federal law or a regulation by the FAA.
That’s my point. Short of interceding in union contracts the E2 has no future
PAS: Another A350 order, this time from Taiwan.
“Starlux boosts long-haul fleet with 10 more Airbus A350-1000s”
“Taiwanese carrier Starlux Airlines has deepened its commitment to long-haul expansion with a firm order for 10 additional Airbus A350‑1000 aircraft at the Paris Air Show. The purchase brings the carrier’s total A350‑1000 orderbook to 18 jets, signalling a major strategic push.”
“Delivery is expected to start from 2031.”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/starlux-boosts-long-haul-fleet-with-10-more-airbus-a350-1000s
If there is a systems failure on a 787 and pilots want to abort takeoff, is it possible? Is there a manual braking system for the 787 as there seems to be for the A330?
https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/06/a330_computer_failure/
That is one I had not seen before.
I can’t answer the question but I can frame it if that makes any sense.
The 787 uses electric brakes. Airbus uses hydraulic brakes. Their system may be part of direct law.
I suspect with a total loss of electrical power a 787 could not reject a takeoff. I am trying to think of a mechanism that would get power to the elecric brakes.
With the Airbus system you still have the accumulators and in their case while it was computer failure, they still had electrical power so there is a channel that pushing on the brakes puts pressure to the brake system.
What I don’t think we are seeing was a complete power failure while they were on the runway, and that is just an observation. Based on the rotation at the end they had control or some control.
I think it gets back to the issue of what they were seeing as they went down the runway.
The one 787 pilot said there was no alarm system but there also is cases where they had failures because the pilots did not know they were using up excess runway. I thought they had come up with ways to deal with that (markings to start with but with computers you should be able to put an alert system in place).
Not much if any help but sort of puts some surrounding aspects to the situation.
Interesting point.
The 787 has backup batteries for just these type of critical systems
remember too that even for Airbus aircraft with hydraulics applying the load at the brake the system is ‘electrically signalled’
this download of an over view of both ‘power by pipe’ ( hydraulic) and power by wire ( electric) aircraft systems is right in your area
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Electric-brake-actuators-of-Boeing-B-787_fig3_354513505
@Duke:
When I refer to total elecrial failure, I am talking about a bus type short and a cascade to where no electrical is on line even batteries.
I believe that is what happened in San Antonio. Not question it was bizarre circumstances, both with a wrench left in the panel and where it rattled out.
It hit, the electrical system did not isolate the way it should and cascaded to blowing the whole system off line.
The RAT deployed and that apparently had the circuits to let them land.
Probably braking as well but that is a guess. The engines I don’t think quit as those have backkup feed to the FASDEC.
Airbus cases are different in it was the computers that went and direct law was being used. They still had power.
Accumulators with no input hydraulic mean you have one or two stabs at the brakes and that is it so you don’t let up. Limited amount of energy in one.
Again I could be wrong but as I understand the 787 mostly electrical system, its so robust that it can’t loose all power. But it did so those assumptions and tests of isolation did not uncover that particular fault.
Its a possible but an engine rollback or restriction of some kind seems more likely in a hugely improbable dual engine thrust reduction or in the end maybe loss.
Some credence is given to vapor lock, I have a hard time with that as its a known possible issue but if it was defeated for X reasons, then yea.
I just don’t see this as anything other than a wildly implausible situation T that occurred but where and what is totally open.
And it is conjecture on my part but I tend to something was happening, the pilots had to make a decision without an engineered arresting system to use.
That airport would be a prime candidate for it and maybe they will now.
I am of the opinion all airports that take LCA should have them.
I think that in 2016, Boeing admitted that it is possible for “”all three flight control modules on the 787 [to] simultaneously reset if continuously powered on for 22 days.” I assumed they fixed this bug. On CI202 from Shanghai, all three primary flight computers failed during the landing of an Airbus A330-302. And in 2018, on an A320 training flight in Estonia “four flight control computers failed consecutively, both engines quit, and electrical power was lost” because of a cascading glitch caused by using the wrong oil on a tiny piston.
@spot:
As a bit of clarification. An Airbus actually has 7 computers. You have the 3 online and 4 in a backup mode aka Hot Swap.
If computer A faults, its backup 1A takes over. Same for B and C.
Computer D will replace any one of the 3 slots of A/B/C.
Its more complex and wild than that but that is sort of the simple version.
I kind of assume if a fault takes out A and that fault is still there it will take out A1 as well as D.
The logic trees are truly mind boggling.
And then equipment comes up with a fault you never saw coming and you hope its not a lethal one.
@Spot
According to the investigation report:
“At the time of the aircraft lateral control flight law switching to lateral ground law at touch down, the combination of a high COM/MON channels asynchronism and *the pilot pedal inputs* resulted in the rudder order difference between the two channels to exceed the monitoring threshold.”
I believe Airbus has notified pilots not to do the same.
“… because of a cascading glitch caused by using the wrong oil on a tiny piston.”
Haha seems our poster is determined to use his memory malfunction to pretend Airbus’s flight computers are inherently unsafe!
Quite different from his claim that:
“Something zarked in computer 1 and it was reset, the PIC wanted to keep flying to get the students their takeoff and landing. It zarked again, he reset it again. Then it shifted to Computer 2. That got reset.
There are alarm systems involved that do not work until over 1500 feet AGL and they were under that in the pattern.
In the end the whole computer system just quit. At that point it was direct control and they crashed (survived) on landing.
Airbus could never duplicate what happened.”
What the hell, our poster now posted what he dreamed up?
Pedro seems to deliberately spin things.
I have no issues with Airbus computers.
Its pointing out that computers can do odd things and any FBW aircraft (Boeing included except the 737) can’t land without some computer ops.
Airbus has done their absolute best to ensure computers don’t cause issues and the two they did were a result of stupid pilot actions. Russian totally stupid.
The A319 training flight was one of those, ungh. Some alerts or alarms don’t go active until 1500 ft AGL.
Taking off you don’t want alarms going off – I think you could link it to a positive rate of climb and in TO mode but the reality is you have to program things like that.
Nothing man makes is bullet proof.
Below RAT speeds the (infamous) batteries must be able to supply the brakes for one aborted take off or landing under loss of power conditions.
(IMU the reason why they had to be (over)charged after a a start (engine and then take off ) to be asap available for a powerless landing ( or takeoff abort )
Interesting thought.
RAT would ensure batteries stayed up but I don’t know you get anything with a excess voltage. My battery theory let alone with Li is ??????
14 is the realistic level for a LA and that drops off to 12.5 immediately.
Lot of assumptions as it assumes elecrial system is intact and the emergency circuits are working.
It would get you down from altitude giving you an extended time. That balance of battery size for duration and the weight involved and space taken.
In this case the high draw is starting the engines. I don’t know if the 787 can start the mains directly off battery or the APU needs to be on.
Perhaps these types of system failures — with lights going off in the cockpit and everything shutting down — occur more frequently than supposed on fly by wire systems. They just don’t usually occur on takeoff and landing. At altitude, the computers reset and recover in seconds, time an aircraft doesn’t have when it’s close to the ground.
If that were happening it would be a major crisis and it would get corrected be it Boeing or Airbus or Embraer etc.
Randomly we do get zarks like an altitude deviation that no one can explain.
Computers are not perfect nor is programing and there are gobs of things that can happen once in a billion iterations.
I don’t think it was a total elecrial zark, it could have been a partial.
Just too many possibles in this situation.
India needs to get off its duff and send a data record to France or the US. Its incredible how lackadaisical they are being about it. I had a better impression of the Indian AHJ but they are proving really bad.
The data needs to be extracted and analyzed ASAP
“US Transport Secretary Wants Zero Tariffs On Aviation”
“United States Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy urges the US to return to the zero-tariff policy that civil aviation has enjoyed for several decades, highlighting the benefits that free trade has offered the aerospace industry.”
https://simpleflying.com/us-zero-tariffs-aviation/
WSJ:
> Investigators believe Air India Flight 171 had an emergency-power generator operating when it crashed last week, raising questions about whether the engines functioned properly during takeoff
CNBC: Air India to cut international flights on widebody aircraft by 15%
Nothing new in the WSJ. I had my suspician on power from the get go due to the takeoff length.
Both engine stopped or further rolled back was clear as well after liftoff. One engine working or 50% thrust from two would have kept them in the air.
Vapor lock is being floated around though you have to suspect another factor to allow that as its never occurred before in any LCA.
I know that the ambient temp there was 100-105 deg F, but Tarmac temps and how heat soaked the aircraft was and when the fuel was loaded and how heat soaked the fuel was play into that as a theory. Ramp temps could easily be 115 deg F.
You can ponder it but its not like jets have not sat in even hotter places though the fueling situation in so far as filled them heat soaked, a maybe.
I have had a lot of “mysteries” but it was always with a fault that was evident, you just had to figure out the cause. Right now the fault looks to be thrust but cause, hopefully FDR data soon.
“NTSB Warns of Smoke Risk on Boeing 737 MAX”
“The National Transportation Safety Board has issued urgent safety recommendations following incidents where smoke entered the cockpit and cabin of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft equipped with CFM International LEAP-1B engines.
““The NTSB found that the engine load reduction device, or LRD, a safety feature designed to reduce the severity of vibrations transmitted from a damaged engine to the airframe, can result in damage to the engine oil system,” the agency stated in its Wednesday report.”
“The recommendations stem from two separate incidents involving Southwest flights. On December 20, 2023, Southwest flight 554, a Boeing 737 MAX 8, departed from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport when a bird was ingested into the left engine shortly after takeoff.
“According to the NTSB investigation, the flight deck rapidly filled with “acrid white smoke” so thick that the captain had difficulty seeing the instrument panel. The first officer called for oxygen masks, and the pilots were able to clear the smoke after following emergency procedures. The aircraft returned to New Orleans without injuries to any of the 139 people on board.”
“The NTSB’s “urgent” recommendation to the Federal Aviation Administration calls for ensuring that “operators inform flight crews of airplanes equipped with CFM International LEAP-1B engines of the circumstances described in National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Investigation Report AIR-25-03, emphasizing Boeing’s changes to the quick reference handbook and flight crew operations manual so pilots are aware of actions to take if they encounter smoke in the cockpit or cabin after load reduction device activation.”
“The report noted that Boeing has already updated its flight crew operations manual and quick reference handbook to include engine failure with smoke or fumes as a condition requiring immediate action.
“Additionally, the NTSB recommended that aviation regulators work with CFM and Boeing to develop and implement software modifications that would prevent or limit smoke from entering aircraft cabins during LRD activation incidents.”
https://airlinegeeks.com/2025/06/18/ntsb-warns-of-smoke-risk-on-boeing-737-max/
Classic case of trying to deal with one problem and adding a different one.
Does LEAP1-A have the same system?
This is what the AHJs will be looking at on the 787 fuel system and if there are Swiss Cheese slices that can line up. It seems that fuel pumps are located at fuel tanks so suction issues should not occur. Gets into the improbably aspects of all pumps shutting off and the engine trying to draw fuel via their suction pumps.
https://www.google.com/search?q=787+Fuel+System&sca_esv=41cf585f4b490d3e&sxsrf=AE3TifNemqvIQj5-zIv2Pp-eTGueLokVsw%3A1750287792590&source=hp&ei=sEVTaPSdIumc0PEP-4WpwAY&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaFNTwJtmpdcjXtuWAI3-rm2wkRJpnqdd&ved=0ahUKEwj0tYWRivyNAxVpDjQIHftCCmgQ4dUDCBk&uact=5&oq=787+Fuel+System&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ig83ODcgRnVlbCBTeXN0ZW0yBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMggQABiiBBiJBTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESKQuUP8QWPwrcAF4AJABAJgBhwGgAYgMqgEDOC43uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIQoALwDKgCCsICBxAjGCcY6gLCAgoQIxiABBgnGIoFwgIEECMYJ8ICCxAuGIAEGJECGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYkQIYigXCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGMcBwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICERAuGIAEGJECGMcBGIoFGK8BwgIREC4YgAQYkQIYsQMY5QQYigXCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFwgIEEAAYA5gDDvEFQOR7mES-7oaSBwM3LjmgB-RtsgcDNi45uAfiDMIHBjItMTMuM8gHWg&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vhid=vGAvHY-H0h7P5M&vld=cid:8b79a660,vid:HilLkjuJiuo,st:0&vssid=_uEVTaPnJC7bO0PEPof_WmQ4_76
And one major aspect is the fuel valve engine shutdown system. If you could get a dual fault or issue to shut both valves, then you could get engine shutdown. Its also possible to get degraded flow per the report, though that would have to occur on both engines.
https://airlive.net/emergency/2020/12/02/report-boeing-787-engine-shutdown-on-descent-into-perth-due-to-a-blocked-inlet-filter/
So you have a fairly direct path to single points of failure.
The nose attitude:
I have mention it before but in different context, aka what a pilot is trained to do, nose down to gain airspeed.
The nose seems to be up on the AI 787. I understand that you want maximum lift but too much nose up results in a stall which is what the 787 looks to do.
Boeing allows an override of stall protection, Airbus logic restricts that and I believe will push the nose down to try to maintain flying speed.
In this case with no thrust I don’t think it would have made any difference, they never had the altitude to recover even if thrust came back, but its going to be one of the parameters from the FDR as well as the Pilot inputs.
AW: France To Acquire Saab GlobalEye
2 + 2 options….very nice…though, at the moment, the order is only an LOI. It’s entirely possible that France will increase the order after it gets a chance to play with the aircraft.
Methinks Saab can look forward to many other orders in Europe, the ME and Asia.
Saab has already delivered 5 of them to the UAE.
https://theaviationist.com/2025/06/18/france-selects-saab-globaleye/
Canada should follow.
That’s essentially a “done deal”, seeing as the Global Eye is based on a Bombardier jet.
Good old Canada 🍁
“Air India plane crash: Black box of 787 Dreamliner to be sent to US for data recovery: ‘recorders sustained heavy damage'”
http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/121946372.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
burned?
Isn’t (at least) one device in the tail ( which appeared damaged but the cone looked intact.
I also find it strange…
While the BB are in the rear of the aircraft they are not all the way back in the tail.
Between the fire reach the tail area and the crash itself that may have thrown them forward, they would be right at the edge of if not in the fireball.
Aha!
“Investigation of AI-171 crash progressing steadily with AAIB in India – Aviation ministry”
“The investigation is being conducted with support from local authorities and agencies, it said in a clarification following reports it was sending black boxes recovered from the accident site to the US.”
https://www.livemint.com/industry/ai171-crash-investigation-air-india-aaib-aviation-ministry-11750339733276.html
It’s all about V1
Sure I have my own theory, but I’ll keep that to myself & wait for the initial report.
From a human factors point of view though, I do have some questions for any current pilots out there:
“An engine failure that occurs prior to V1 must result in a rejected takeoff. If the failure occurs after V1, the takeoff must be continued”.
We’ll ignore small GA aircraft for the moment, but let’s say you are a widebody ATP pilot flying … ready? Let’s go … toga … looking fine down the runway, speed is alive … V1 is reached & you lose both engines … they’re rolling back alarmingly fast at the worst possible time …
You have a split second to decide if you follow the script, you’re past V1 so you must get into the air (the script assumes that you still have one engine running), clean up, make some decisions, go round & land OR go against the script & decide to stop as hard as you can knowing that you’ll go off the end of the runway with all the consequences that brings.
In the back of your mind you’ve only ever practiced single engine failure past / around V1 this is different, it’s both engines, it may be a temporary glitch & you get enough or all thrust back as you get into the air, but what if you don’t?
Tough choice. In that split second which way do you go to try to keep as many pax alive as possible?
It is looking like complete thrust loss right around V1 is a distinct possibility.
A note on FADECs for those GEnx engines, – I have a feeling they have their own power supply driven directly off the shaft of the engine so as long as it’s rotating enough, an airplane wide electrical fault wouldn’t cut off the engines as far as FADEC goes.
To continue beyond V1 with takeoff is the strategy for Single Engine Out.
Not for overall power loss.
With two engines out ABORT is the only solution.
( and it won’t be pretty either.)
Just had a thought about the British Airways 747 who lost all 4 engines flying into the volcanic ash in the 80s did all that dust at the end of the runway get suck in and blocked something in the turbine??????
Volcanic dust is an issue because it coagulates into glass (obsidian) when heated in the core of the engine.
Normal dust does not produce this problem.
Apart from that: the Air India plane stirred up dust from the engine exhaust…which is totally different to ingesting dust.
If you are alluding to turbine performance, blocked cooling holes in the turbine are a gradual level of performance deterioration. Eventually turnbine blades and burners will burn up…but not that quickly.
That is for normal particulates…volcanic ash is something an airline should never operate in.
The two cases involved (one into Anchorage) they did not know it was there.
Both got restarts though the (KLM?) was all too close.
They now track the ash clouds and give airlines the density areas.
Our first 3 Ash clouds I had to track by hand. We are withing striking distance of 3 active volcanoes.
But a bit of dust is not going to affect an aircraft though day in day out its adds wear.
RAT was deployed. Does this mean no breaks and a high speed head on collision if takeoff is aborted? Maybe the best strategy is the deployment of RAT and a hope that whatever shut down will right itself — the overall strategy for fly-by-wire systems (I’m thinking of this analysis of Air France Flight 447 — https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash?srsltid=AfmBOopai_5Po_r8lLfvZmNB2QF2_bsC0vx0FjuK_1EJZXE9-neNFtm4).
The infamous 787 Lithium Battery is destined to
provide the braking system with power after
the RAT ( speed too low ) becomes ineffective.
@spot:
AF447 was just strange. The PF did the opposite of what he should have and the two of them never sorted out what he had done (stall).
The PIC did at the end but too late, though he had got into the cockpit at the time.
The PM had an idea but he did not have the authority over the other guy so was ignored.
A RAT deployment because of total electrical system loss is not supposed to happen but the trigger latch is held in place by power, so it will deploy.
RAT will be least effective at touchdown speeds and after.
So in theory, the Batts supply any surge need the RAT does not but in this case it seems not to have gotten to that point where takeoff was rejected.
As Ewe says, after a point, it makes no difference because you are going off the end of the runaway.
What does surprise me is that in South Korea and in India (I won’t try to spell that name) they don’t have Engineered Aresting Systems.
you should check your spelling.
and maybe your reasoning.
what off course thinking brings in AF443?
@Uwe: I’m sure you mean AF447.
Uwe
It’s a pattern, just a broken record.
I’m sorry my reasoning wasn’t clear. I mentioned RAT because many people here have said it is an indication of a full loss of electrical power or possibly a complete shutdown of the flight control system. In light of such a shut down, I wondered if braking the plane would even be possible (Uwe seems to indicate that the Lithium batteries would provide the power needed if power and not some sort of glitch are the problem). So instead of crashing on the ground I wondered if a better option would be to try to get airborne with the hope that more time and altitude would allow the system to restart and kick in. I mention AF447 because the article I cite poses profound questions. TransWorld focuses on the actions of the pilots, who essentially put the plane into a stall. I’m intrigued by the idea that if they did nothing at all — just held the course — everything would have righted itself if they had regained trust in the instruments and the machine itself. That’s how system redundancy works, as I understand it. Despite aviation clichés there was no “seat of the pants” flying that could have saved them given the conditions. Everything ultimately relied on instrumentation that had to be trusted.
As far as AF447 goes, there is a trained procedure for what to do. I don’t know what AF actual is in so far as any delay in doing so.
At 35,000 feet there is nothing to run into. So you just maintain though the auto pilot kicks off (it has to have speed input). You maintain your attidute on the Primary Flight Display and cross check the VSI. If its a frozen pitot it probably is going to clear.
Longer term (and I don’t know how long they wait) you put 85% power and 5 deg nose up. That guarantees flying speed
In the AF447 crash, the PF pulled up, full throttle and no one can say why, its totally off what you are trained to do.
Yes the batteries on a 787 or any aircraft should sustain require controls power. RAT can also be deployed by a button push.
All hydraulic systems inop also deploys the RAT. So a twin engine loss would deploy it as well.
We just don’t know and are getting nothing from the India AHJ
@JakcDak:
Sometimes you are faced with an impossible situation (like being under an Avalanche).
While the training is to not abort past V1, its been done when the pilot figured out the aircraft was not going to fly. One I know about was a MD something with a jammed tail plane.
My instinct is to abort. Better low energy state with as much as you can bleed off vs a crash from any altitude.
The Jeju crash is interesting as the pilot went against training (at least all training I know about). He was in landing configuration with wheels and flaps down, he had control. Nothing better was going to come of a go around and likely worse.
Jeju had time to make that decision, AI 171 may not have.
The passengers and people killed on the ground were let down by the Aviation Authorities, give the pilot an option with a Engineered Arresting System.
Its also an area that computer programing should kick in. A computer given the data could make that snap decisions. A pilot has to figure out what the trend is, what it means and then implement it.
AF447 was a case of, you could program the system to just leave the aircraft as is, but the software says, ok, we are going to Alternative Law for a likely short duration even.
Then kick in pilots who don’t fly aircraft by hand anymore and did not have stall training in any recent past.
What I’m considering is that everything was pretty normal up to V1, if it’s didn’t look normal, you wouldn’t rotate before V1 – I won’t go into too much detail, but if your thrust just suddenly starts to decrease immediately after you’ve rotated, you are committed, you don’t have brakes, the wheels are off the runway, you don’t have thrust reverse because you are not on the ground & obviously there’s an issue with thrust … you are going to have to fly, a rejected takeoff isn’t an option.
I just don’t see any relevance to AF447 at all. (I’ve been writing software commercially for years).
I agree all runways should have arresting systems, unfortunately that’s just not practical in most cases (all we can hope for is that any new runways are built with arresting systems) & wouldn’t have helped in this case if thrust reduced once the wheels left the tarmac – just remember how much runway they had left when they rotated – very, very little.
All valid.
AF447 is simply a pilots decision going contrary to all training. I am not saying AI 171 is that, just its a possible.
And yes you have to make a decision after V1.
The EAMS do not take much room and in fact are designed around the fact you don’t have room for a real overrun area.
That airport of AI 171 origin is exactly the kind of place needed.
JUST NOW AN AIR INDIA 787 RETURNS TO HONG KONG! Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner (VT-NAC) performing flight AIC135 from Hong Kong VHHH to Delhi VIDP was climbing through FL200 when the pilots requested to stay close to the airport and return to land reporting an ENGINE FUEL FILTER problem, and a potential fuel contamination, impeding their flight to destination.
WONDER WHY THE AIR INDIA PILOTS ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT CONTAMINATED FUEL ‽
Also, the contamination may not be water but rather a substance that goes through the filters AND not sticks & stones like Capt Steeeeeve jokes about. The literature on the subject suggests other “stuff”.
They are understandably nervous because AI 171 makes no sense for what we know.
Keep in mind, you ca not have a filter problem if its doing it job, it would be seeing your engines start to act funny when the salt got through the system.
That directly wreaked (degraded) the engines and was creeping thrust loss and the pilots did not get alarmed soon enough.
They basically did a crash landing they survived.
Just confusion. Now the government is trying to walk back what’s reported earlier:
> India plans to send the severely damaged black box from the Air India Boeing 787 crash to the United States for detailed analysis. Due to extensive fire damage after the plane crash, data extraction in India has proven unfeasible
Like I said before, there’re reasons to send the black box overseas for analysis, but the government won’t like the optics.
[Sorry, didn’t notice the post by @Abalone above.]
This is an issue that I’ve cautioned about before. There are only three sources we should be taking seriously – The Ministry of Aviation, the Air Accident Investigation Bureau, and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.
Any other reports or statements by unnamed “officials” need to be seriously questioned for veracity.
The problem is people say they are quoting and then you have to try to find bulletins.
They are doing a huge disservice not releasing the information of what they see and what they are doing about it.
If this is a 787 system issue, then its time critical.
You don’t know what or where to look for and at if you don’t have a starting place.
When we have a wild land fire, there is a daily bulletin on what the status is.
> United Airlines, American Airlines halt flights to Dubai, Doha amid tensions
That’s just a start.
Amazing that Emirates, Etihad and Qatar are still flying at all: the UAE and Qatar are just a stones throw from Kish and Bandar Abbas in Iran — and the latter has already been attacked by Israel.
There are three tankers burning in the Gulf of Oman…allegedly due to a collision, if one can believe that.
https://www.forexlive.com/news/more-details-coming-in-on-the-3-ships-on-fire-in-the-gulf-of-oman-near-strait-of-hormuz-20250617/
And we’re supposed to be impressed by this adventurism?
Obviously you will not believe it (or believe it and say what you do) but for others interested in facts, this guy does a great job on maritime happenings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4dWc9JD6Uo
He is ok when he stays “in his wheelhouse” but sometimes he “gets out of his lane”. He has good info most of the time when he talks about his specialties.
True. I was surprised how little technical knowledge he had on Ships systems despite being a Mariner.
My nephew served in the Merchant Marine and they had him work though all the departments. He wanted to stay in engineering but they told him, you need to have full exposure before you become a specialist.
In the Dali case he was initially nothing they could do.
Authorities did not want to do things but an attached tug escort under the bridge was one of them.
Looking at the Generating system on ships, they should have had all Gens up and running, split the bus so all critial systems had power (ie the parallel pumps and system keeping the engine running) as well as the Emergency generator running and split off the other two busses.
That is all deeper geek engineering, it can be done and should be by regulation.
One Chief Engineer flat stated the truth, once your engine quits, you are not recovering from it in time to avoid a collision (be it a bridge, shore or another ship).
Same as the airports. All of them should have Engineered Arresting Systems (EMAS) at both ends.
“United Airlines, American Airlines halt flights to Dubai, Doha amid tensions”
I would call it outright war but…………….
We saw the tragic results of a casual flying of commercial aircraft in a contested area in the Gulf and the Vincennes as well as Malaysia over Ukraine.
And yes, that was an awful tragedy for the passengers by the US. In both shootdowns operators intended and did fire, they did not know what was on the other end of the missiles.
Ukraine shot down a passenger airline over the Black Sea they did not intend to some years back. You don’t want to be anywhere near where missiles are being lobbed around.
And in the case of the Black Sea shootdown the missile went a nutty distance it should not have while they were running an exercise and the missile did not self destruct .
Just had a thought did the engines suck in a tonne of dust blocking up the turbine blades?
That has been answered above, briefly, no.
I wrote this on the 17th as a response to Transworld.
Today we have an Indian Airlines 787 with a Fuel Filter alert, WHAT ABOUT BIOLOGICALS?
TransWorld wrote…
June 15, 2025
When an aircraft only get 174 knots in 11,500 feet or runway, there is something horribly going wrong.
Obviously thrust is involved, but its either fuel, settings or a massive electrical failure.
I Replied, and most people missed it….
Just thinking out loud, how about a Biological issue with the fuel. There are a number of microbes that eat jet fuel and live in infected fuel systems. Over time they plug filters. I’m wondering if the fuel had enough crap growing in it that fuel flow was restricted. Fadec will derate to keep the engine running. So that could fit many of the things we see, a long slow take off and the airplane hopping into ground effect when they run out of real estate. If the crew stuffs the knobs to the glass to spool the engines, they very well could have overrun Fadecs ability to keep the engines running. The engines can’t schedule the fuel, they go offline and the RAT sees this and deploys. While this is happening, the crew keeps feeding their now decelerating 787 in all the alpha they can find stay up and when they run out, the airplane settles into the neighborhood. Weirder things have happened
Not sure I got it the first time but if not, you are right, the aircraft itself could have Bio matter in the fuel.
Once that stuff gets into a system (or starts growing) its difficult to get out.
I think there are alarms that tell you a filter is getting restricted before it plugs.
I believe the filters bypass.
I also think they test the fuel out of the aircraft.
That said, if some of those system are not working, don’t work as intended etc, you could have restricted and then on rotation a slug and none.
You can see I have problems with it, but I also keep telling myself, none of it makes sense and something obviously happened.
I believe use of the whole runway is been validated but unless we get it stated by the Indian Authorities in a published bulletin, phew.
In theory you can’t get vapor lock with the pumps at the tanks, but dual pluged tank vents?
So it goes and no answers and the authorities are being really slow in a situation that could have consequences.
Is it possible that because of redundancy and what TransWorld references as as “direct control law,” that pilots have become to accustomed to shutting off rather than heeding warning lights?
It can happen but a master caution (alarm) won’t go away.
The reset of the A319 computers comes in that area. But also unusual situation, normally they would acknowledge and land and its looked at. Maybe a whole power down if it keep coming back.
Direct control law is not where you want to be at all so sans the Russian captain who turned off the computers, no one would do that deliberately (the A319 did not know what was going to happen or he would not have done it)
A major electrical fialure could result in direct control law (or direct control). But that would be taking computers down and still have the control circuits there.
Nothing in this indicates anything like that. It looks to be engine related but so many system affect the engines (or can).
That was a generalized question.
Did not know how to take it.
Its a fascinating area in how you go about it. While I am not a side stick kind of guy, I like Airbus logic in regards to full control law in the envelope protections.
Sooner or latter a pilot is going to try to do something the aircraft can’t do.
We had a C-17 crash on Elmendorf, the guy was doing airshow practice and he kept pushing the edge of what a C-17 can do until he went over it, killed 3 or 4 people and a 200 million dollar aircraft burned after the stall.
Boeing had what they called the FLACH Trap (Flak Trap) that as a 2nd function, shutoff stall (auto throttle) protections. I don’t think you should do that and its been corrected, but the guy was a former Airbus pilot and the two monitor pilots apparently were window gazing. 777 crash in SFO resulted.
Airbus would not do that to you. Pilots don’t have near the skill to fly an aircraft on the ragged edge.
I see references to Direct law being referenced here. I’m not sure if everyone understands that Airbusses have 3 levels of Pilot Protections in their fbw systems….. First is Normal Law, this is where the system usually lives…. All the systems protections are on. Max synthetic smoothing is given to pilot actions and everything is filtered by the computer to enhance ride quality…. Alternate law changes the movement filtering levels so maneuvering can be done more crisply, but still offering departure protection. Direct law removes envelope departure protections and allows the pilot to fly the airplane “directly” addressing the flight control computer. The airplane no longer protects you from over G, stalls and accelerated stalls, flying too slowly and having incident spin entry. If the pilot moves the stick, the airplane maneuvers as the control input dictates and all pilot assistance programming is neutralized. The pilot is allowed to be a pilot without the airplane doing what it thinks is best.
Nice.. Thanks for the very clear explanation.
Because of the clogged pitot tube, the computer in essence stepped back and left it in the pilot’s hands. We know the rest of the sad story.
Per Bjorn, direct law is virtually unworkable for any other than a crash landing.
You can fly somewhat ok, but the landing part no.
It is deeply tragic that it takes another crash to remind us how far Boeing has drifted from its engineering roots. The ‘five-for-five’ track record mentioned in this article reflects more than bad luck — it reflects a structural failure in leadership, culture, and industrial discipline.
The pattern is clear: rushed programs, poor quality control, weak supplier oversight, and a troubling focus on financial metrics over airworthiness. Boeing doesn’t need just a better CEO — it needs a full cultural reset. Bringing engineers back to the decision-making table is not optional anymore.
And yet, this is not about giving up on Boeing. The world needs two strong OEMs. We all benefit from healthy competition between Airbus and Boeing. But right now, Boeing must stop chasing short-term wins and start investing in the long game again — from design, to certification, to long-term support.
The Paris Air Show should have been a chance for cautious optimism. Instead, it’s a painful reminder that Boeing’s credibility still hangs by a thread
From these comments, I was led to a link of a discussion between two pilots — the Mover and Gonky Show. One of them is a 787 pilot. At around the 25:25 mark, I believe he was talking about inputting information into something called a SID. At one point he said something about building the SID “working backwards from the runway. If you don’t do the runway, sometimes it will drop out and all that stuff. As much as I love this airplane, it’s a Boeing product, right so sometimes things will drop out, you’re like “where did it go?” “why’s it doing that?”
All computers and systems run by them do that.
I have been looking for some kind of program that indicates how much runway is left.
I thought they had that but have not seen it listed.
I did watch that episode and was a bit surprised that Mover did not have 787s system at his finger tips as it were. He had been ill so it may be affecting his memory.
@TransWorld
If I understood Mover correctly, his questions are indicative of what goes through his mind after he inputs information during a flight and it disappears or “drops out.” I didn’t understand all the jargon, but he seems to be inferring that Boeings have stubborn and annoying peculiarities when he says: “As much as I love this airplane, it’s a Boeing …”
Throttle control malfunction accommodation system.Acommodation is a very strange word for this application,my phone is questioning its use as well.Almost like someone was trying to soften it’s function
Wow!
Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA)
https://avherald.com/h?article=4c2fe53a&opt=0 (incident: ANA B788 at Osaka on Jan 17th 2019, both engines rolled back after landing)
A220 has had that happen and anyone that works with computers know, they can work perfecly a billion iterations of a program execution and then bizarre things can happen.
So in theory a commanded rollback by a zarked computer is possible.
Ding, ding, ding & it’s also on the 747-8 & 737 Max. I don’t know if it or a version of it is on the 777 or 777-X. Probably not on the 777 but very possibly on the 777-X.
Wow! indeed as weight on wheels is a consideration when you look at TCMA.
Do all of the holes in the cheese line up if TCMA believes that the aircraft is on the ground but engine has an overthrust condition?
If it is found that fuel valves to both engines were closed there is a possibility that TCMA may be a factor.
Imagine, reach V1, rotate & just before the wheels leave the ground (or even a split second before V1 is reached) TCMA shuts down fuel to either or both engines. At V1 with momentum & ground effect (& decreasing thrust) you might climb for a bit …
Why would this be implausible though? I thought that TCMA was only active a) on the ground (but it would be at, or just before V1)
b) if the thrust levers were at idle (but I’m not sure that is an absolute & logic errors in the software are not impossible) I don’t think for a moment the pilots put the levers in idle !!!
Just how does TCMA decide that it’s on the ground
Another part I don’t quite get, just how TCMA decides on turbine overspeed (does it differentiate speed between on the ground or in the air as it should only activate on the ground)
WOW sensors may come into play here if they don’t function as they should in this case & if software logic doesn’t account for turbine overspeed in the air with WOW failure i.e. it thinks it’s still on the ground & thus assumes the turbine has an overspeed condition.
We won’t know until they release a preliminary report & perhaps not even then. This is pure speculation & it’s very likely that this is entirely wrong, but these are the sort of thoughts that should be running through the heads of the designers of aircraft when turning over decisions to software.
Consider & cater for every eventuality however implausible.
A very experienced software developer years ago to the system analyst:
Q. “You haven’t defined what happens when a zero appears in this value”
A. “You’ll never get a zero in that value, it’s not possible” …
the developer added their own logic to deal with the impossible zero value, the software made it all the way through very rigorous testing into production & then a few months later the developer’s logic was triggered…
So TCMA, it’s just a thought …
As suggested by many commentators on pprune.They have given up for a bit pending more information.No one has much idea,which is interesting in itself
Why is everything so silent about the crash? Why hasn’t the data recorder been read yet even though both have been found? Is there something self-inflicted that needs to be obscured?
Plane crash disaster attorney reveals technical flaw she believes caused Air India tragedy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14845417/Plane-crash-disaster-attorney-reveals-technical-flaw-believes-caused-Air-India-tragedy.html
The Daily Mail is a disreputable rag.
I believe Mary Schiavo is known by the epithet “Scary Mary” for her aviation related “horror stories”.
@stealth66
ad hominem
+1
Oh no! Anyway….
Lol.
Dude, if you believe a word of any article published by the Daily Mail, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.
Mary Schiavo is ambulance chasing.
@Steal66
I thought it was interesting that she almost seemed to be responding to questions asked by JakDak here. Sadly, I often find that great reputable non-rags sometimes publish corporate press releases instead of news. Still, as a former reporter for several reputable non-rags, I did feel a slight twinge as I copied the Daily Mail link. I also must admit that I am from the US and I wouldn’t have copied the link if that exact article were in the NY Post.
The linked article also uses Capt. Steeeeeeeve as a source of reliable information. He has been rather weak on his opinions about the Air India crash and has bounced around too much to take him serious. It is clear he doesn’t do his homework when forming his “opinions”. He had a youtube video today that talked about Iran which came to the conclusion that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was probably put back a decade! It is clear that the west doesn’t have a good understanding of what has actually happened, but to be of that opinion does make one wonder. The other end of the spectrum is stating weeks which is equally questionable.
I agree on the Captain Steve channel.
Mostly I don’t view his stuff. I have the AI due to its nature and in hopes to learn more.
There are 787 pilots that have commented but I have yet to see one do a detailed breakdown of speeds and flap settings for Ahmadabad airport.
One pilot and one guy that knows the 787 said flaps 15. Clearly its not flaps 15 on the AI 787. It could be flaps 5 which seems to be a common setting.
Flaps 10 is possible and if this has any iffy aspect due to the heat which is pretty normal, then Flaps 10.
But you don’t know what AI policy is.
I wish that Mover would run the numbers since he is a 787 pilot. He should do a breakdown on high and low bounds (playing with probable weight values). Also it is rather interesting how much difference there is on the opinions of how much of the runway was used (and Vr velocity) with reasonable but strongly held beliefs on both ends of the spectrum. Scott heard all of the runway and I have run with that (and the dust cloud).
Right now there has been basically no really solid information which means that someone is keeping a very tight lid on the subject (for some reason). Most people really want to blame Boeing. I did find it interesting that the AI pilots on that 787 Hong Kong flight rather quickly stated possible fuel contamination (and what do they know that is being kept quiet).
So we wait, while the world expects another 787 to fall out of the sky due to a design flaw. They have to know a lot more by now. Even what is going on with the black boxes seems to be a bit curious. I have heard that they are combined Voice and Data boxes, but maybe only some types of data are on each one. This should be clearly understood by someone?
The Mover / Gonky discussion was interesting.
It seems on the 787 to derate the engines for TO you can fudge a few figures. This seems like an after the fact fix / kludge & not a thought out, designed & integrated from the outset procedure (please correct me if this is not the case).
What happens if your assumption of the air temp & what you feed into the system to derate the engines is too far out? Looks ok until near V1 then you see the end of the runway & advance the throttles for more thrust, how does the system handle that?
How does that system integrate with TCMA if at all, could this be where the software has a logic problem? If TCMA was designed at the outset to never consider the possibility of an engine derate in this manner & possible manual override, that could leave the door open to a software logic issue. (e.g. TCMA “expects” certain shaft speed determined by system calculations, manual override means faster actual shaft speed, TCMA then does what it is designed to do).
On the RAT, if both engines fail your electrical generators are out, APU takes time to start so that’s why the RAT was deployed? It does appear that external signs of APU start are present in images of the downed aircraft, although that may have been caused by impact.
I’m going to stop thinking about this & just wait for the preliminary report, I am however, a little concerned that no real updates have been forthcoming. Even a “the boxes are damaged but we’re working on them, they are currently in The USA/India” would be welcome, conspiracy theories love a vacuum of information.
On the Daily Mail article, I haven’t turned a page of that paper for decades, do I really have to look at it? I think I’d rather read Concrete Setting Observers monthly.
Film of AI 171 climbing out, taken from right rear, shows the landing gear remaining down, BUT with the wheel trucks rotated from their take-off orientation [Heel down] to their retraction and docking orientation [Nose down]. When the Pilot Monitoring moves the “Gear up” lever, that invokes first, the truck orientation change; then – immediately after – the landing gear leg retraction. So a failure occurred AFTER the first, but BEFORE the second. What does that imply?