5 hours ago, aerostar said:

Well there were other people also who mentioned tankering but you seem to have made such a bold statement that made me wonder why would Air India not tanker fuel between India and London.

Jon made an accurate statement since he is a pilot of the 787 and knows what is possible and what isn’t. He clearly stated why tankering wasn’t made for the flight in his reply which you seem to have missed…

”What I’m saying is that particular flight did not dispatch with 242 POB and 125,000 litres of fuel on board, it would not have got airborne off that runway in those conditions,Period.”

You’re not helping your cause by challenging a real world pilot.

 

Hi Ray, 

Thank you for coming in to this discussion....    First can I just put the books straight and say that I am not and have no intention of challenging anyone and that the only cause I have is to this thread and the flow of good, accurate information regarding the Air India crash.

I am not a real world pilot and as I have stated in my previous posts some of my information and posts may not be accurate but I do try to be.

Jon made a statement as you pointed out,  though one that I hadn't missed...    as far as my amateur knowledge goes I agree with this statement of Jon's ...

Quote - ”What I’m saying is that particular flight did not dispatch with 242 POB and 125,000 litres of fuel on board, it would not have got airborne off that   runway in those conditions,Period.”

I have  not  disagreed with this statement as you seem to think..... and I have certainly not Challenged it !

 

   A question arose in my mind when Jon made a statement on Saturday

 

On 6/14/2025 at 12:30 PM, jon b said:

    There’s no way anyone would be tankering return trip fuel between India and Europe with a full pax load.

    Youre barking up the wrong tree here

 

I wondered about this -  would Air India have any reason to Tanker fuel to London for the return trip, so I googled and found that the price of fuel being half price would make a compelling reason for them to Tanker fuel.  Also I found an article that even British Airways and other Major carriers do tanker fuel.

Jon stated , as you have posted above and confirmed ,  that    "He clearly stated why tankering wasn't made for the flight" 

The    question    I have is -

 

  How can Jon know tankering wasn't used for this flight ????

 

Thank you

 

 

Edited June 17, 2025Jun 17 by aerostar

4 hours ago, aerostar said:

First can I just put the books straight and say that I am not and have no intention of challenging anyone and that the only cause I have is to this thread and the flow of good, accurate information regarding the Air India crash.

I think it was your description of part of his reply as “bold” that appeared to challenge him. You’re probably aware of what MTOW means. Loading that much fuel would have exceeded it. No competent captain would do that.

Safety of the aircraft comes ahead of any fuel cost saving. There may be circumstances where extra fuel can be carried. I don’t know of what conditions would make that feasible. I’ll leave that to the experts.

4 hours ago, aerostar said:

How can Jon know tankering wasn't used for this flight ????

Knowledge and experience. 👍

11 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You’re probably aware of what MTOW means. Loading that much fuel would have exceeded it. No competent captain would do that.

Yes I am pretty sure that I am aware of MTOW and  YES I DO  agree with Jon's statement as I have already told you....   did you read my reply ?

I DO NOT disagree with Jon's reply.   (= I agree )

 

 

16 hours ago, aerostar said:

How can Jon know tankering wasn't used for this flight ????

I asked this question ...   I have not received an answer from him.

Instead I received an answer from you apparently speaking on behalf of Jon saying that  "Knowledge and experience" were the reasons that Jon KNEW there was no tankering on that Flight. 

 I don't think that constitutes evidence, maybe a good educated guess, but not evidence.

Just a bit of reason why no tankering was used would have settled this.... 

 

 

11 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I think it was your description of part of his reply as “bold” that appeared to challenge him

How can you say I'm Challenging Jon when I said I thought HE made a bit of a bold statement.   

He made out there was NO tankering when there was no evidence that there was no tankering.  Just a bit of reason why no tankering was used would have settled this.... 

 

Ray,   the 127000 litres figure is not a valid figure for the amount of fuel the plane could have carried on that flight- I agree.

A figure less than that would be used by aircraft weights calculation to fill up any empty space in the fuel tanks,   I would say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2025Jun 18 by aerostar

@aerostar, I’m not commenting further.

I'm also taking this topic very seriously, wouldn't rule out anything 100%, but one plays with probabilities from one's own standpoint.

Absolutely no offense to anyone, but to me I'm thinking, so what if they were actually tankering, or otherwise overloaded and took off above their published limits? Who cares? We know they got off the ground more or less ok. If you're somehow sluggish but you've got your engines, just lower the nose and firewall those suckers and you'll be on your way. There were no huge obstacles. If there's any structural damage from being overweight it's likely not going to show up right away, and it's not like they'd have been that much overweight! Ok, I'm definitely going out on a limb, but one can potentially mess around in a sim, perhaps with a decent 777 (similar enough) and get a rough idea (ballpark) about potential outcomes. It's what's great about simming that one can try out crazy stuff without causing real damage.

Of course cg way out of limits would be a different matter. There was a 747 freighter in Afghanistan a few years back where the pallets apparently slid rearwards, the cg suddenly shifted beyond the point of controllability, it seems there was nothing else the pilots could have done once that occured.

In a passenger plane I'm thinking 40 sumo wrestlers occupying the way front rows in business, and like 10 scrawny nerds occupying the way back in economy. The nerds were mocking the wrestlers at the gate. Suddenly during the takeoff roll the wrestlers all in unison decide to rush way to the back to pounce on the nerds to teach them a lesson. One gets into far fetched ideas.

But in a pc flight sim just taking a somewhat similar plane in somewhat similar conditions, same runway, cut the fuel selectors or just idle and autothrottle off at V1, and there's likely little else one could do that would differ greatly from what happened on that fatefull day.

I'm with the idea that the Air India pilots did indeed do the best they possibly could under the circumstances. A controlled stall as low and as slow as possible, the slightest hope gear and the structures beneath would dampen the impact enough to avoid total disaster. Who knows? One life on board and perhaps dozens on the ground were saved by the wreckage not plowing through a much larger area.

 

 

Edit: Just had a brief look. The National Airlines crash (747 in Afghanistan mentioned above) was more than just a cg issue, improperly secured cargo slamming through the rear pressure bulkhead and damaging the rear flight control systems.

Edited June 18, 2025Jun 18 by Antipodeslonghaul

6 hours ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

Edit: Just had a brief look. The National Airlines crash (747 in Afghanistan mentioned above) was more than just a cg issue, improperly secured cargo slamming through the rear pressure bulkhead and damaging the rear flight control systems.

I remember this one.

There was very clear dashcam video from a roving patrol on base...

Apparently it was carrying humvees or MRAPs, one / some came unchained and rolled backwards.

The acute nature of the pitchup and subsequent severe stall was especially horrific - it just crumpled into the ground and immediately consumed itself in the fireball. Full tanks just like the AI flight....

While yesterday Air India announced the reduction of its international flights by 15% for the next few weeks, at least until mid-July, following "a series of disruptions and the tragic accident in Ahmedabad, with the aim of ensuring operational stability, improving efficiency and minimizing inconvenience to passengers. The revised international flight schedule will be published by June 20".

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/air-india-to-reduce-international-widebody-aircraft-operations-by-15-dreamliner-safety-checks-under-way/articleshow/121937162.cms

 

Today, flight AI188 from Toronto to Delhi was cancelled due to extended maintenance, while flight AI996 from Dubai to Delhi was cancelled due to technical reasons.

Another aircraft, flight AI2145 Delhi-Bali had to return to Delhi but due to a volcanic eruption en route.

It should be noted that after the Ahmedabad incident, Air India cancelled 67 flights with 787 8s due to technical issues.

Following an audit, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) advised Air India to strengthen internal coordination between engineering, operations and ground services and ensure the availability of spare parts to avoid delays.

However, the DGCA noted that recent surveillance of Air India's Boeing fleet "did not reveal any major safety concerns" and found that the aircraft and maintenance systems "comply with prevailing safety standards".

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/maintenance-coordination-gaps-air-india-cancels-3-international-flights-dgca-flags-technical-issues-crew-limits/articleshow/121934035.cms

It may have been mentioned in an earlier thread...from what I understand, there are (at least) two parallel investigations...one by the DGCA and the other by the AAIB (India).

From what I understand, DGCA is equivalent to the US's FAA while the AAIB is similar to the NTSB in the US.

Six days after the accident, and still no conclusive release of details (pointing toward a preliminary cause/direction of investigation) related to the crash. I realize thorough investigations take time. I suspect factual information regarding the accident will be forthcoming from the AAIB.

I have to believe that investigators are still treating this accident as a "one-off" incident, as there has been no attempt (that has been published at least) of the global 787 fleet being in jeopardy of grounding. I also have to believe (up to this point), that potential issues around some reports of software issues, etc causing the accident (what is a assumed to be a double engine failure) would have grounded the entire fleet.

Right now, it is still a guessing game for outside observers.

From the BBC...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyl636ynzvo

Richard.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p2x9093t

Very strange....

I was curious if they had someone in the jump seat that could have hit those switches, very odd thing to do

Preliminary report on Air India crash released

These are the first indications of the report with a particular note that I wrote in capital letters and which seems to be the root cause of the accident: 

"The aircraft was observed departing from the bay 34 at 07:48:38UTC. The taxi clearance was received at
07:55:15 UTC and the aircraft taxied from the bay at 07:56:08 UTC. The aircraft taxied to
Runway 23 via Taxiway R4, backtracked and lined up. The take-off clearance was issued at
08:07:33 UTC. The aircraft started rolling at 08:07:37 UTC.
As per the EAFR data, the aircraft crossed the take-off decision speed V1 and achieved 153
kts IAS at 08:08:33 UTC. The Vr speed (155 kts) was achieved as per the EAFR at 08:08:35
UTC. The aircraft air/ground sensors transitioned to air mode, consistent with liftoff at 08:08:39
UTC.

THE AIRCRAFT ACHIEVED THE MAXIMUM RECORDER AIRSPEED OF 180 Knots IAS AT ABOUT
08:08:42 UTC AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, THE ENGINES 1 AND ENGINE 2 FUEL CUTOFF
SWITCHES TRANSITIONED FROM RUN TO CUTOFF POSITION ONE AFTER ANOTHER WITH A TIME GAP
OF 01 sec. THE ENGINE N1 AND N2 BEGAN TO DECREASE FROM THEIR TAKE-OFF VALUES AS THE FUEL
SUPPLY TO THE ENGINES WAS CUT OFF.
IN THE COCKPIT VOICE RECORDING, ONE OF THE PILOTS IS HEARD ASKING THE OTHER WHY DID HE CUT
OFF. THE OTHER PILOT RESPONDED THAT HE DID NOT DO SO.

 

The CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed during the initial climb immediately after lift-off (fig. 15). No significant bird activity is observed in the vicinity of the flight path. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport perimeter wall.

As per the EAFR data both engines N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC.
RAT in extended position 15 As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at approximately 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at approximately 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC)
automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1's core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not stop core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11 UTC
At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”. The ATCO inquired about the call sign. ATCO did not get any response but observed the aircraft crashing outside the airport boundary and activated the emergency response.
At 08:14:44 UTC, Crash Fire Tender left the airport premises for Rescue and firefighting. They were joined by Fire and Rescue services of Local Administration. "

https://aaib.gov.in/What's New Assets/Preliminary Report VT-ANB.pdf

It seems pretty clear that the fuel switches were the cause of a lack of thrust and subsequent events.  The report says they "transitioned" which suggests they physically moved, though I suppose it is possible the actual switches didn't move, but that an electrical control event, which appears identical to a physical movement, occurred.  Either way they transitioned close in time, but apparently not at the exact time.

 

We also know that the crew realized the switches were set to cutoff, but not if that was by observation or by reasoning from effect (alert?  loss of thrust?) to cause.

 

The evidence that a restart appears to have been attempted 10 secs later seems to suggest a physical movement of the switches from cutoff to run, negating the spurious electrical cause, though I guess there could be some some failure mode that would cause both switches electrically to signal cutoff, and then shortly later run.

 

scott s.

.

 

A kid riding jumpseat? A monkey or a stray cat hiding in the cockpit? Sorry, cats are often mentioned here in the hangar. My cat has caused many a crash getting in my way when I'm simming. I love him dearly, but he's just the type who would flick some switches with his paw. Curiosity killed the cat?

Anyway, I'm imagining an almost identical situation, but in Denver. Miles of open space and hard packed dirt all around. The result might not have been pretty, but I'm guessing the vast majority would have walked away from it. Or being able to head out over open water, such as a bay and ditching wouldn't seem so bad. But plenty of airports and runways around the world where this wouldn't have ended better. Unless such an event occurred just slightly later, higher, faster, one would have more options, or time to relight those suckers.

Very strange for the fuel cutoffs to be flicked just then. Apart from intentional suicide, perhaps extreme fatigue? Even though it was Air India departing from India, Ahmedabad wouldn't necessarily be where either of the pilots lived. And maybe sometimes time at home is more stressful than time away. Construction noise, fights in the family, who knows? It's very sad. I'm cynical on the one hand thinking some freak occurence can always happen, like getting hit by a falling tree branch on a calm sunny day. Not sure if it was in fact manually cutting the fuel just after takeoff, if it would lead to additional plastic covers being installed, one would need to open them before gaining access? I doubt that would happen though.