Air India setting records

I googles for the better videos, and found them, but the evidence still seems suspect? Or is there a better picture than this?

 

Okay so now my question is...did the FADEC's roll both engines back because the video I saw didnt show any signs there was a bird strike, compressor stall or internal failure. Usually the engine exhaust trail will show evidence of it.

 

His methods of distinguishing between different varieties of Indians are a little basic though. If your Indian is of the liquor store variety, you need to ask follow on questions. Pull start, or push start?

 

I agree, I'm still learning about this system too. It's called TCMA- Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation. It's a software contained in the FADEC that is designed to shutdown a runaway thrust event ON THE GROUND. Like MCAS, it was forced on aircraft manufacturers by the FAA after an event where a 737 experienced a thrust runaway, the crew decided to abort the takeoff and overran the runway before shutting down the engine. However the system is contained entirely inside the FADEC and those are independent (including power supply), so it hasn't been explained how it could shut down both simultaneously. But I don't fully understand the Air / Ground logic of the 787 and the TCMA uses inputs from alot of places- thrust lever position / rate, N2, multiple air ground sensors, so who knows? It's also present on the LEAP 1B on the MAX. I still feel this possibility is pretty remote, but also Praying that this is not a TCMA or other software fault, that would be horrific for Boeing. Not discounting the general horror of the crash itself.

Another nugget is that Boeing issued several service bulletins and ADs regarding the water piping and sealing of the forward electronics bay on the 787. Water intrusion from a galley leak or potable water piping leak has at some point affected most aircraft types. On the 717 it caused the blanking of all displays right at rotation (something McDonnel Douglas insisted could never happen) and was rectified by the installation of a splash guard above the display units and extra sealing of the E&E bay. There was also problems with the 747 having serious electrical faults due to water intrusion of the E&E bay. The 777 has some design characteristics to mitigate this. Water entering the electrical heart of the aircraft probably could have all kinds of unintended consequences.

Greg Feith (Former big cheese at the NTSB) posted on his personal FB page yesterday that he has inside info that the flaps were in position- but stopped short of saying that the performance data and flap setting were correct. Another nugget for those interested.

Totally agree, the RAT evidence is slim.

 

Last month I had few drops of water fall on my head. Guy couple rows forward of me got even more, about half a glass. This was on landing and attendant say it is just AC.

 

Far be it from me to question any of your knowledge but, this seems to unnecessarily throw shade toward the FAA. Love it or hate it, the FAA has always been a reactionary agency. If the FAA mandated anything it was likely in consultation with the manufacturer who proposed it as the best (i.e. easiest/cheapest) resolution. If the MCAS is the device that caused the 737 to fall out of the skies, as I recall, it was Boeing that proposed it to get around retaining costs.

The 787 is called the Dreamliner. Are you sure you didn't dream it?

 

I am sure. What I don't know is what airplane it was, I don't pay attention to that.

 

LOL

 

I bet they do a deep dive into what maintenance was done recently. Every year I take the recurrent EWIS training the hair on the back of my neck stands up. (Electrical Wiring Interconnect Systems)
The stuff seen when they pull a panel will make you decide to drive

 

Depending on humidity and how cold the AC air is, there will 100% be condensation. Sometimes it’s seen as fog coming out of vents, other times it drips out of overhead vents.

 

You should see under the consoles in most air traffic control towers and the cable trays in the equipment rooms. Total rats nest.

 

I'm not an engineer, and many of the nuts and bolts of these systems are beyond my knowledge, so any questioning of my statements is probably a good idea. I'm just a guy with an opinion on a bike forum. It's kind of like the MotoGP rider understanding the engineering behind the electronics- he just has to understand the interface, their basic purpose, and how to use them. I do my own research because I feel it's important to know the airplane you're flying, even if often times it can do more harm than good if you go off on your own outside the checklists.

But that being said, I have flown with Boeing test engineers and flight test pilots, and I can tell you unequivocally that MCAS was forced on Boeing by the FAA, and I trust the source (Retired Boeing engineer) who told me that TCMA was also forced on them by the FAA.

In the case of MCAS, during flight testing for certification, the aircraft had very light stick forces at high angle of attack (stalled or very close to stalled) with high thrust settings, and the FAA was not happy with that particular characteristic. They wanted the plane to un-stall itself more naturally, like a Cessna might. Which is asking alot from a complex modern jetliner, IMO. But the software was written and the rest is history. The changes and development of that software is where Boeing's fault truly lies in the case of MCAS. TCMA is along the same vein, and I don't like it one bit. You really can't idiot proof machines this complicated, there's always going to be some way to mishandle them. Airbus takes this philosophy and their safety record is no better than Boeing's.

I will say that I have had multiple failure situations in my flying career, that in the hours and days that followed, caused me to dive into the system and attempt to understand it beyond the presentation in the pilot's handbook. It has always left me impressed at how well engineered these machines really are, and how Boeing even anticipates boneheaded moves by pilots or mechanics, and still leaves us with a level of safety which I consider quite good.

Usually condensation from the AC. Water separators probably need to be checked. Not harmful, but sometimes the humidity is high enough and the temp difference from inside to outside will give us alot of mist in the cabin. You wouldn't be the first person to freak out and get off because of the "smoke"

 

In the original video from aircraft right, you can hear the RAT spinning (and by default, no engines running). The data stream off that airplane is so extensive, I’m sure Boeing and the Eng manufacturer knew what happened before the sun went down.

I experienced the effects of water intrusion on a classic 74 freighter. Right after “positive rate, gear up” we lost all 4 generators. Fortunately it was day/cavu and the FE got at least some power back on fairly quickly. When the airplane was loaded, it was pouring rain. All the cookie sheets shed that water during rotation and caused some negative effects.

 

I had something similar with a CRJ but not quite that bad. The airplane had been sitting outside in the rain with the door open when I got to it. Shortly after TO we got an oil pressure CAS message. The guage indicated normal. Then another different CAS message. Then another and another and another till the whole page was full.

I looked at my FO and said "to me the plane looks fine. Your thoughts? He said yup. Then I started talking about how I would even write that up in the maintenance book. "Every cas message appeared during climb?"

After a few minutes the messages started to disappear.

 

Well, that could have sucked in IMC. How long does it take to get a ram-air turbine out and producing juice?

 

Remind me to never go to the tower.
New mfg aircraft don't have rats nest anymore...if maintained correctly all wires have adequate room and stand off/ties. Unfortunately, there is vibration, maintenance and moisture. Then stuff happens and spilled on them as well as chaffing (not supposed to) The mistakes/examples we see are warnings for dummy's but even then it still happens. A tech installs the stand off too close to another and wires are chaffed. By the time you open that panel again on a check damage is done. A lot of times the pilots write up the things they see so we catch it. (system faults)

Here is something to blow your mind...wires ride on lightning holes

Thanks Gino

 

Yep, we have engine/ aircraft data real time so anyone in engineering with the airline could see what happened to the engines. Why or what caused it? That will require DFDR download.

 

Mcas didn’t cause those flights to crash. Shitty piloting did.
It didn’t do them any favors. But they shouldn’t have crashed it either.

 

My best guess was they had a center tank full of water instead of fuel. Just as useful as any other guess

 

The 747-400 water in the A/E department was caused by leaving the L1 door open in heavy rain, with just regular air stairs pulled up to the door. When it comes to stalls, the 747-400 stalls are almost as mellow as a C-152’s.