Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:31 PM UTC

bartread wrote: post #73

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25

Gentle tip from a lifelong aviation enthusiast: wait one week before reading on causation. Exposing yourself to first-week speculation isn’t just unproductive, it’s often counterproductive since the actual findings can rhyme with the false speculation closely enough that you wind up muddling the two in your mind.

Yeah, I think I might wait for the MentourPilot take on this one. I can't see any benefit in speculating. Horrifying that it came down in a residential area with almost all its fuel still on board though. The aftermath is beyond belief.

Post by rdm_blackhole » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:33 PM UTC

ChrisGreenHeur wrote: post #187

blitzar wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pro tip from a lifelong life enthusiast: if its breaking news, wait one week - first-week speculation isn’t just unproductive, it’s often counterproductive. Flick through last weeks newspaper if you need reassurance.

It's also possible to just not read news altogether.

Post by fhdkweig » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:34 PM UTC

quantumfissure wrote: post #251

chucksmash wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe globally it's an average year but the DCA crash alone makes it an extraordinary year in US commercial aviation. Not all crashes are created equal. A 10 person Cessna disappearing near Nome, Alaska !== mid-air collision above the Potomac. If you're looking at US news sources, I don't think you need to resort to clickbait and fearmongering to justify the increased focus.

There is a media difference though since the DCA crash. Military and small planes ( On a personal level, I know three people that have died in small plane crashes in the Alaska wilderness in the last 15 years, which is so common that it didn't even get on local news. I have acquaintances that were in involved in two others elsewhere over the last few years. Small planes are unbelievably dangerous. Commercial jets, no…

Post by chinathrow » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

Arch-TK wrote: post #64

xattt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why no control inputs then? Surely, the plane could still be commanded in absence of engine power.

The engines power the hydraulic actuators in an aircraft an aircraft of that size cannot be trivially controlled without that hydraulic system. The APU should have been started to provide backup power in the case of engine failure but during take-off there is already very little time to do anything and it's possible that the sudden workload overloaded both the pilot and copilot or some other human factors were involv…

Post by notahacker » Thu, Jun 12, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #273

notahacker wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current speculation around the raising of flaps suggests that independent engine failures weren't the cause. Proper investigation with access to better data than grainy video will tell us if that is the case and why. "4 smaller but equally efficient engines" feels like a unicorn though (we'll probably get to the point in future where four large engines are superior in efficiency to two of today's engines, but two lar…

> "4 smaller but equally efficient engines" feels like a unicorn With turbines, yes, for fundamental reasons. With electric motors, on the other hand, perhaps not, though not particularly relevant to a long-haul route like AMD-LON.