Plane Crashes

From what I learned from watching a lot of air craft crash analysis videos (MentourPilot etc.), my assumption about the flaps and landing gear configuration during take off is that, when the pilots make a mayday call saying they don't have enough lift/thrust, that in that situation, the pilots would very likely prioritize getting the engine thrust back over all else. It doesn't really matter if your landing gear is down or your flaps are out if you're losing altitude due to not having enough engine thrust. Sure, the plane would fly better at that point without the gear down or the flaps out, but if you have only seconds to figure out the problem you're not going to waste two of those seconds to pull the gear in. Once you have normal thrust back, there's enough time then to retract the gears and put the flaps to normal.
 
Is that a photo of the 787 Dreamliner cockpit? I searched and couldn't find a picture myself.
Yes, it is. Have a look here.

Listening to and watching the video, it's hard to tell if the crew took off from the intersection.

As for the flaps, if the wrong flap setting was used for takeoff, it points to crew error. The config warning will not occur if a 'takeoff flap' was used. So for example, if you selected Flap 15 but your performance calculation was to use Flap 10, there would be no config warning since both these settings are valid takeoff flaps.
 
In a forum that, among other things, serves to establish the truth, all aspects must be considered. My primary expertise is in medicine, so I only assess this aspect based on probabilities. If I see any anomalies here, I question the entire event. Other forum participants can contribute knowledge in the area of aircraft...only by assessing all aspects as a whole can a determination of truth or falsity be made

The only strange thing so far is that a guy survived the crash and what he's said so far hasn't dramatically changed any aspect of the crash we were aware of.

Taking this together with the fact that it hasn't been used to justify anything like 9/11 or 10/7 were and the event is no longer center stage news due to the Israel/Iran conflict, it all points to it just being an accident of some description.

It may be crazy that the guy survived, but like Beau said crazy things do happen on occasion.
 
The only strange thing so far is that a guy survived the crash and what he's said so far hasn't dramatically changed any aspect of the crash we were aware of.

Taking this together with the fact that it hasn't been used to justify anything like 9/11 or 10/7 were and the event is no longer center stage news due to the Israel/Iran conflict, it all points to it just being an accident of some description.

It may be crazy that the guy survived, but like Beau said crazy things do happen on occasion.
I'm simply thinking in terms of medical facts, and that's the only way I can find an answer for myself. Of course, I have the option of A = coincidence, miracle on my radar. But I have two clues. One clue would be my professional experience as a respiratory therapist, another clue from the Cs: How often was there evidence that an incident was staged? Why do we ask these days who was in the plane? I spoke to an experienced firefighter and asked how high the probability was that a living person could survive in this case (extreme heat, massive smoke development in a large radius, massive mechanical resistance, altitude). The answer was zero percent. My experience as a therapist also says zero percent. These are just facts... and these facts simply don't make sense to me, because the person affected didn't outwardly give the impression that they had been in the plane. What doesn't make sense to me may make sense to someone else. Therefore, this is only meant as a clue.
 
One was a veteran preparing to hang up his boots, the other a young co-pilot just charting the early course of his aviation career. Both the aviators, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder, met a cruel end on Thursday as the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner they were in charge of, crashed.

Sabharwal and Kunder were among the 241 people who lost their lives in the Air India crash in Ahmedabad.

Together, the two pilots had clocked a combined 9,300 hours of flying experience. Captain Sabharwal alone had 8,200 hours under his belt.

CAPTAIN SABHARWAL WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE HIS JOB​

Known for his professionalism and calm demeanour, Sumeet Sabharwal was deeply respected in the aviation community.

Sabharwal lived in Mumbai's Powai locality.

"I am a retired Wing Commander and have worked with Air India staff in every kind of situation. Captain Sumeet was a very good and experienced pilot. His death is a huge loss for Air India," said Sanjeev Pai, a family friend, while speaking to news agency PTI.

"He was such a calm and peaceful person, an excellent pilot. There were never any complaints about him, he was very professional in both his behaviour and in his dealings with people," Pai added.

Sabharwal belonged to a family with long connections to aviation.

Sumeet Sabharwal father, a former DGCA official, and two cousins, also pilots, had all inspired his journey to the skies.

Just days before the crash, Sabharwal had told his 82-year-old ailing father that he planned to quit his job to care for him full-time.

"Only a few days ago, he told his father that he would be quitting his job to look after him full-time," said Shiv Sena MLA Dilip Lande, who visited the family to offer condolences, according to The Times of India.

CO-PILOT CLIVE KUNDER​

First Officer Clive Kunder, who had 1,100 hours of flying experience, came from a family equally connected to aviation.

His mother was a flight crew member, and Kunder's early training included an aircraft maintenance course at the Bombay Flying Club in Mumbai Juhu. Clive grew up in Kalina's Air India colony in Mumbai before his family moved to Borivali, according to a Hindustan Times report.

His sister, Kliene, shared the family's deep concern and heartbreak.

"My father Clifford and mother Rekha are with me in Sydney, and we have no information on the condition of my brother. We are leaving on Friday for Ahmedabad to find out how he is," Kliene told the newspaper Hindustan Times.

Actor Vikrant Massey also mourned the loss of his Kunder, who the actor said was a family friend.

"My heart breaks for the families and loved ones of the ones who lost their lives in the unimaginably tragic air crash in Ahmedabad today. It pains even more to know that my uncle, Clifford Kunder, lost his son, Clive Kunder, who was the first officer operating on that fateful flight. May God give strength to you and your family, uncle, and to all [those] deeply affected," actor Vikrant Massey wrote on Instagram on Thursday.

According to reports, as the Air India Dreamliner, Sumeet Sabharwal and Clive Kunder were piloting, started to stall minutes after it reached an altitude of 625 feet, both of them had less than a minute to respond. The plane ultimately crashed into a residential building near the Ahmedabad airport, bursting into flames upon impact.

Although the Air Traffic Control (ATC) received a MAYDAY call, they reported no further communication from the cockpit despite repeated attempts to re-establish contact.
 
...
"The plane broke, and my seat came off," he told doctors treating him at Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. "That is how I was saved."

Ramesh told doctors that he did not jump from the plane but was thrown out while still strapped to his seat when the aircraft disintegrated.

"The place where I landed was low... I took off the seat belt and for a moment, I was scared for my life. But I was near ground level, so I tried to get out," he told DD News.

Seeing the doors of the aircraft were broken, Ramesh said he was able to walk out on foot, even as he saw passengers and crew dying around him.

"I can't believe how I survived," Ramesh said. "I thought I would die. People died in front of my eyes."
...
 
the person affected didn't outwardly give the impression that they had been in the plane

I understand what you mean.

In the videos of him on Twitter walking away from the crash he didn't really look like he'd been in a major crash.

But his boarding pass was published and it was verified that he was on the flight so I don't see any other reasonable conclusion one can come to other than he was a survivor of the crash.

I'm guessing that whatever circumstances allowed him to survive the crash are the same circumstances that allowed him to walk away seemingly and relatively unscathed.

Edit: Just saw seek10's latest post about the guy being more or less ejected from the plane during the disintegration. Seems to support my hunch about the reason he survived being the same reason he looked unscathed.
 
I understand what you mean.

In the videos of him on Twitter walking away from the crash he didn't really look like he'd been in a major crash.

But his boarding pass was published and it was verified that he was on the flight so I don't see any other reasonable conclusion one can come to other than he was a survivor of the crash.

I'm guessing that whatever circumstances allowed him to survive the crash are the same circumstances that allowed him to walk away seemingly and relatively unscathed.

Edit: Just saw seek10's latest post about the guy being more or less ejected from the plane during the disintegration. Seems to support my hunch about the reason he survived being the same reason he looked unscathed.
It's a fact that only in false flag cases were passports, boarding pass and operating instructions (see 11/9) suddenly found, confirming the untruth. Why do I never see such evidence in other accidents? Because it makes no sense to show a boarding pass or a passport...unless the other side is supposed to get ultimate confirmation so they're forced to believe something
 
Yes, it is. Have a look here.

Listening to and watching the video, it's hard to tell if the crew took off from the intersection.

As for the flaps, if the wrong flap setting was used for takeoff, it points to crew error. The config warning will not occur if a 'takeoff flap' was used. So for example, if you selected Flap 15 but your performance calculation was to use Flap 10, there would be no config warning since both these settings are valid takeoff flaps.

Slats setting

The Dreamliner also has slats, which are in the front of the wing and can/are lowered - which increases the surface of the wing, allowing better lift at lower speeds for take off / and landing.

Flap settings was the very first i was looking at in the video of the doomed airliner - but noticed that it was impossible to see (they looked retracted, but it could also be due to the nature of the Dreamliner wings when filmed from afar)

When i looked at other, normal take-offs with Dreamliner 787-8 (videos from the ground) - i noticed that it too was too difficult to see / determine extended flaps - compared to other aircraft models, where extended flaps usually are better visible.


So we have a very

• hot day 41°C (less lift)
• still extended gear (more drag / less lift)
• the question of the flaps and slats configuration before take off / alt, did any retraction take place during lift ?
• the plane lifted off at the very end of the runway might give an indication that it was a bit sluggish to lift ?
• naturally, nobody knows yet, the settings of the engines thrust

Another thought that i have is, if the flaps and slats where retracted during lift-off, wouldn't the plane immediately shown a somewhat wobbly, uneasy appearance during its short climb ?
Here I am thinking of the SAS owned (MD-82 airplane) Spanair Flight 5022 in Barcelona [20 Aug 2008], which took off without flats and slats extended, and crashed shortly afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Some new information from Aviation Herald. Still not clear if the aircraft commenced it's take from the intersection or not. I don't think it did, based on running some calculations using assumed take off weights and the weather conditions existing at the time of takeoff.

According to ADS-B the aircraft had entered runway 23 from the apron, which without backtracking would leave a takeoff distance available of 1900 meters/6300 feet. Four minutes later - without further position data being received, so unclear whether the aircraft backtracked or not - the aircraft took off. In the last ADS-B position the aircraft had climbed to about 625 feet MSL (about 400 feet AGL) at 174 knots over ground.

The existing METARs for AMD airport,
VAAH 120830Z 24003KT 6000 NSC 37/17 Q1000 NOSIG=
VAAH 120800Z 25007KT 6000 NSC 37/16 Q1001 NOSIG=


The decode of the METAR above - date 12 Jun 0830Z and 0800Z (UTC time), the wind velocity was 240/03 kts, 6000 meters visibility, temperature 37 degrees Celsius and dew point 16 degrees Celsius and sea level pressure at 1001 hPa (hectopascals). The crew would have used these figures for calculating speeds and flap settings for takeoff.
 
Still not clear if the aircraft commenced it's take from the intersection or not. I don't think it did, based on running some calculations using assumed take off weights and the weather conditions existing at the time of takeoff.
Apparently the initial ADSB data was wrong and the plane did backtrack and use the full 11,000 feet of the runway before taking off.
 
Watching the plane take off, you see that dust cloud... it is assumed it was sand being blown by the thrust of the plane... but maybe its a dust devil. Looking at the surrounding terrain, you see a lot of sand colored surfaces. So, as the plane approached the end of the runway a dust devil formed, its engines bogged down flying through it, and there was no time to recover.

So, its hard to tell because the perspective might make the cloud look nearer or farther. And would the pilots or air traffic control notice a dust devil when the background is already smoggy, cloaking it? Except it is captured in the video but we think it is behind the plane. And a dust devil is short lived adding to its elusiveness.

Remember that plane that slammed into a retaining wall at the end of the runway? Maybe they'll have to pave past the runway or plant grass if this is the cause.
 
If both engines did fail on takeoff, that would suggest sabotage or maintenance not doing their job correctly, so I still speculate that one engine suffered a severe damage with a loud bang, which gave rise to to the startle factor, causing the crew to forget to raise the landing gear leading to the accident.
Juan Browne just put out a video talking about the deployment of the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) and the reasons why it is deployed. We could actually be looking at a case of dual engine failure caused by full electrical failure of the plane (which would explain why ADSB data cut off right after takeoff). This is also backed up by the electrical issues inside the plane reported by a passenger which @Joe posted about, such as the A/C, seat screens, and audio controls not working.

As Juan points out, the 787 is an electro-hydraulic engine so the engines greatly rely on electrical power. He plays the sound of the plane right before it crashes, it certainly sounds like the RAT was deployed. One of the issues that causes the RAT to be automatically deployed is engine failure. StigAviation comments on the below video the following conditions which lead to RAT deployment:

Loss of all engines
Both engines are at less than minimum idle RPM (Revolutions Per Minute)
Loss of all hydraulic power - left, right, and center systems detect low pressure
Loss of all electrical power
BPCU (Bus Power Control Unit) detects loss of power to C1 and C2 TRU (Transformer Rectifier Unit)s
On approach, loss of all four EMP (Electric Motor Pump) hydraulic pressures and loss of either the left or right flight controls ACE (Actuator Control Electronics)
Rotor burst on takeoff that causes loss of both PECS (Power Electronics Cooling System) primary cooling loops.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom