Air India Flight AI171 (Boeing 787-8) Crash
- Thread starter john_pifer
- Start date
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Speculation on the side, but these kind of articles with bombastic titles? I would revoke 8th amendment bcs. people like this:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/faa-makes-telling-decision-boeing-175421429.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/faa-makes-telling-decision-boeing-175421429.html
Clickbait title.
There is nothing new under the sun.
The type had been in service for too long in too many examples with too many carriers for there to be a heretofore unseen gotcha.
Yahoo news isn’t any more news than Yahoo business is about business. I stop clicking on their links
Agree, but it's Yahoo news. What do you expect from Yahoo except scantily clothed women posing to show how awesome they look and happy they are after marrying their ninth husband.
Scott
I am unsure what your saying. I assume you would like to bring back cruel and unusual punishment?
You reposting it just gets them more clicks?
The entire point of the First amendment is to protect speech we do not like, or is unpopular, or in this case just stupid and a waste of time.
Darn, I missed that part. But I don't want to click on the stupid thing again.
You get instant experts around every tragic event.
Here's an example from X:
@Winsleydale
No. The LE slats are deployed therefore the flaps are as well. This is an automatic linkage. The flaps are set at Take-Off. Hard to see from the angle but they are...if slats are out (easy to see) then flaps are set. Looks like Flaps 5. Also, the 787 has the highest Thrust-to-Weight ratio of any airliner on Earth. The change in Alpha and lift is a trifling matter for it, at these settings (1-5). It will fly out of it easily, even at that density altitude. The attitude change is - in the circumstances I describe, consistent with a massive power loss (both sides). I believe based on probability that simultaneous mechanical failure is not the cause. Fuel contamination or starvation is likewise unlikely based on the 787 fuel system. The common element is the FADEC/Autothrottle/TOGO. However, each engine FADEC is dual redundant two channels. So any such common failure must happen further upstream. From a design perspective, that would be unthinkable. But this is Boeing. Given what I can see with my own eyes, I believe the flap issue is a non-starter. Also, re the landing gear: Clearly the Positive Rate challenge would be met based on normal rotation and fly-off at V2. But since we know the flaps were set correctly, that rules out an "oopsie" moment. Just as likely there was at the challenge moment an indication that something was amiss, and the Gear Up call was not made. They see both N1s unwinding and it takes a second to get past the WFT factor. They cross-check and see the airspeed also unwinding. Then they unload the Alpha and pitch to gear down Vy. And they had another 6 seconds. Whatever it was, it was not a flap, mechanical or fuel issue. We will know soon enough. But this is Boeing. My gut says "software". All 787s worldwide need to be grounded, now.
6:10 AM · Jun 14, 2025
·
53.8K
Views
Here's an example from X:
@Winsleydale
No. The LE slats are deployed therefore the flaps are as well. This is an automatic linkage. The flaps are set at Take-Off. Hard to see from the angle but they are...if slats are out (easy to see) then flaps are set. Looks like Flaps 5. Also, the 787 has the highest Thrust-to-Weight ratio of any airliner on Earth. The change in Alpha and lift is a trifling matter for it, at these settings (1-5). It will fly out of it easily, even at that density altitude. The attitude change is - in the circumstances I describe, consistent with a massive power loss (both sides). I believe based on probability that simultaneous mechanical failure is not the cause. Fuel contamination or starvation is likewise unlikely based on the 787 fuel system. The common element is the FADEC/Autothrottle/TOGO. However, each engine FADEC is dual redundant two channels. So any such common failure must happen further upstream. From a design perspective, that would be unthinkable. But this is Boeing. Given what I can see with my own eyes, I believe the flap issue is a non-starter. Also, re the landing gear: Clearly the Positive Rate challenge would be met based on normal rotation and fly-off at V2. But since we know the flaps were set correctly, that rules out an "oopsie" moment. Just as likely there was at the challenge moment an indication that something was amiss, and the Gear Up call was not made. They see both N1s unwinding and it takes a second to get past the WFT factor. They cross-check and see the airspeed also unwinding. Then they unload the Alpha and pitch to gear down Vy. And they had another 6 seconds. Whatever it was, it was not a flap, mechanical or fuel issue. We will know soon enough. But this is Boeing. My gut says "software". All 787s worldwide need to be grounded, now.
6:10 AM · Jun 14, 2025
·
53.8K
Views
- Joined
- May 25, 2025
- Messages
- 22
I'm curious which ones you prefer. I occasionally watch some. Usually blancolirio.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
Only people who don’t wear uniforms.
Juan Browne is my favorite but mentor pilot has some good videos.
Every morning I read what’s new on the Aviation Herald website.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Man, I mean geeez.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Actually some time ago they were ok, mostly posting other news organizations stuff. But, this is another level of: how to make money from enlargement pill commercials.
Most of what's posted by them is just reposted articles from other sources. And often legal means to get around a paywall. That article was from Men's Journal.
I like Kelsey from 74 Gear, while he does wear his uniform it’s not like a “look at me!” thing, it’s usually in his hotel room, and he covers it up when he’s going to and through the airport.
He’s not above wearing the uniform in an airport if he thinks it’s going to get him a free meal or get him through security faster.
Kelsey is OK. I appreciate that he makes his explanations accessible to the lay perspective, but a lot of times I don’t think he’s interpreted things correctly.
His “shtick” is that he’s a 747 pilot.
Cool.
I’ve flown it, too. Along with several other airliners.
And about 20 other airplanes.
Juan Browne is the better analyst.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
I have never got a free meal wearing my uniform and I have to line up like all other passengers when operating U.S flights out of Canada ( no crew bypass ) at my base.
I screwed up my bid next month , all FLL Fort Lauderdale in July.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
I don’t like anyone trying to be cool.
His YT channel isn’t something any Airline Pilot would watch to learn about stuff IMHO despite being entertaining at times.
Edit: The best IMHO are a few fighter pilots who have never flown in a two man crew or for any airline.
Time I started becoming an expert on fighter plane stuff.
I don’t comment on fighter plane ( performance, capabilities, etc ) stuff on BITOG for a reason, I don’t know what I am talking about.
Last edited:
I find that security (in some countries, not all) treats me much better in uniform.
I do not have a choice, however, I am required to be in uniform if I’m operating the flight.
Passengers actually care that I look like I’m supposed to be flying the airplane, while I’m certain that cargo won’t really notice one way or the other.
In some countries, the “crew“ security is utterly ridiculous. I once had a London security officer run my bags through the x-ray three times looking for “contraband”. He got in my face and by in my face. I mean 10 inches away, and asked me several times. “Is there anything you wanna tell me?”
“No sir” I said.
He proceeded to dump the contents of my bag on the table and pulled lining out of my bag, and discovered an errant Chapstick.
He held it up with a look of triumph, “Aha! You must have known this is illegal!”
“It’s a chapstick”. I said.
“It’s illegal liquid.” He said.
“It’s neither liquid nor gel, it’s a wax.”
He confiscated it. I hardly cared.
Then, he told me to pack up my stuff, and told me I should have known better. Yeah, right. A chapstick is hardly an illegal item, much less a terrorist weapon.
I was re folding my shirts and clothes that he had dumped on the table when he said, “sir, you’re holding up the line.”
I stepped back, crossed my arms, looked at him and said, “you dumped it out, you’re welcome to repack it.”
He wasn’t happy. Neither was I. I was a criminal in his eyes. I would’ve been better off going through passenger security.
I do not have a choice, however, I am required to be in uniform if I’m operating the flight.
Passengers actually care that I look like I’m supposed to be flying the airplane, while I’m certain that cargo won’t really notice one way or the other.
In some countries, the “crew“ security is utterly ridiculous. I once had a London security officer run my bags through the x-ray three times looking for “contraband”. He got in my face and by in my face. I mean 10 inches away, and asked me several times. “Is there anything you wanna tell me?”
“No sir” I said.
He proceeded to dump the contents of my bag on the table and pulled lining out of my bag, and discovered an errant Chapstick.
He held it up with a look of triumph, “Aha! You must have known this is illegal!”
“It’s a chapstick”. I said.
“It’s illegal liquid.” He said.
“It’s neither liquid nor gel, it’s a wax.”
He confiscated it. I hardly cared.
Then, he told me to pack up my stuff, and told me I should have known better. Yeah, right. A chapstick is hardly an illegal item, much less a terrorist weapon.
I was re folding my shirts and clothes that he had dumped on the table when he said, “sir, you’re holding up the line.”
I stepped back, crossed my arms, looked at him and said, “you dumped it out, you’re welcome to repack it.”
He wasn’t happy. Neither was I. I was a criminal in his eyes. I would’ve been better off going through passenger security.
I think he’s asked to get into airport lounges where there’s food. But normally he would cover up his uniform.
Similar threads
