Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 28 Aug 2010 16:32

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestor ... 506&page=2
Boeing Delays 787 Delivery on Rolls Engine Setback

LONDON/TOKYO/CHICAGO (Reuters) - Boeing Co has pushed back delivery of its first 787 Dreamliner by several weeks -- a widely expected decision but also the latest in a series of embarrassing glitches that have disrupted production of the hotly anticipated aircraft.

The postponement of the carbon-composite airplane, already more than two years behind schedule, is attributed to a delay in the availability of a Rolls-Royce Plc engine needed for the final phases of flight testing.

"The plane is a show-me plane at this point and I think everyone knows that," said Alex Hamilton, managing director with boutique investment bank EarlyBirdCapital. "I'll believe it when I see it."

The U.S. planemaker now expects to deliver the first carbon-composite plane to Japan's All Nippon Airways Co Ltd <9202.T> (ANA) by the middle of the first quarter of 2011.

Boeing, the second-largest plane maker after EADS unit Airbus, said in July its delivery schedule might slip from the fourth quarter of 2010. The company blamed "instrument configuration" and inspection work.

The delay comes four weeks after the Rolls engine, a Trent 1000, blew up at a test site in Derby, central England, forcing the company to temporarily close the facility.

A Rolls spokesman said it was "working closely with Boeing to expedite delivery." Rolls added that its engine supply issues were "unrelated to the test bed event which occurred earlier this month" and that none of its engine test programs had suffered any delays.

"It is probable that some modification will be required to the Trent 1000s already on the 787 test certification program," said BGC Partners analyst Howard Wheeldon.

"Although clearly a setback to the program, we do not see the additional Rolls engineering that is likely required being a major obstacle for the 787."

Airlines like the concept of the twin-aisle, mid-sized plane, which can carry about 250 people very long distances.

But production has been delayed five times, and the first flight has been postponed six times, due to a shortage of bolts, faulty design and a two-month strike at its factory. The plane made its first test flight on December 15, 2009.

I wonder when our Air Parasite will finally receive the 787s it has ordered

--------------------

Mexicana has finally folded. One of the oldest airlines in the world, with a 89 year history.

http://www.mexicana.com/cs/Satellite?pa ... erno_US_EN

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/4912119/

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 28 Aug 2010 21:25

How can any aircraft cockpit have "zero visibility of the runway"??

If there is a whisky glass between the pilot's eyes and the windshield?

manish · Post by **manish** » 28 Aug 2010 21:51

enqyoob wrote:
How can any aircraft cockpit have "zero visibility of the runway"??
If there is a whisky glass between the pilot's eyes and the windshield?

Or a cabin crew motoham perhaps?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Aug 2010 23:45

Don't the pakis carry jumpers in the cockpit??

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... person-880

‘Airblue cockpit had a third person’
By Imran Ali Teepu
Saturday, 28 Aug, 2010

ISLAMABAD: A team investigating the crash of the ill-fated Airblue jetliner on July 28 in Islamabad has detected the possible presence of a third person in the cockpit. Under normal circumstances, a cockpit is not supposed to have anyone other than the pilot and the co-pilot.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 29 Aug 2010 01:01

chetak wrote:
How can any aircraft cockpit have "zero visibility of the runway"??

I meant when they are landing the plane on the runway and they flare the plane up, the position and layout of the windows does not allow them to see the runway that they are trying to land on. Even if they can see the runway, the portion of the runway visible to the pilots will be the portion that is very far away.

Take a look at the cockpit again and you will see what I am talking about.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Aug 2010 06:02

and thats different for other planes???

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Aug 2010 14:27

Hitesh wrote:
chetak wrote:
How can any aircraft cockpit have "zero visibility of the runway"??
I meant when they are landing the plane on the runway and they flare the plane up, the position and layout of the windows does not allow them to see the runway that they are trying to land on. Even if they can see the runway, the portion of the runway visible to the pilots will be the portion that is very far away.

Take a look at the cockpit again and you will see what I am talking about.

Hitesh Bhai,

Obviously you have never seen or considered the view from a 747 cockpit.

In the 380, the runway is clearly visible at all times and the pilots are comfortable with it.

As per your understanding, in Bombay will the pilot see Juhu and land in Santacruz??

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 29 Aug 2010 14:43

Not really related to Indian aviation, but couldn't find any other thread appropriate for this.
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-interests-35116807

America's Best and Worst Airports
Details in link

America's Worst Airports
#1 New York
#2 Los Angeles
#3 St. Louis
#4 Washington, D.C.
#5 Boston

America's Best Airports
#1 Houston
#2 Orlando
#3 Minneapolis/St. Paul
#4 Portland, OR
#5 Providence

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Aug 2010 21:19

orlando and providence 5 yrs back were hardly the stuff of legend..maybe they had good on time takeoffs, but in terms of style, scale and chutzpath nowhere in the league of the big asian airports.

among US airports perhaps onlee chicago has the intimidation and throw-weight to punch with the asian airports? atlanta? la?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Aug 2010 22:05

ATM have mercy on us. Ppl seem to have missed this gem about the Airblue crash outside Islamagood.

The source said that investigators were trying to determine why the aircraft drifted five nautical miles away from its original route. “The late pilot was very experienced and professional with thousands of flying hours under his belt; hence the fact that the plane strayed five nautical miles from the original route is also a cause for concern for investigators,” he said.

In intimation to A-320 operators across the world, Airbus said there was no need to update the procedures or make fresh recommendations after the ED 202 crash because all flight systems were working normally before the aircraft slammed into the fog-covered mountains. {BUT>> READ ON..}

The advisory was based on a preliminary analysis of flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder by Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses. {Ah! Of course!}

According to aviation experts, the Airbus communication implies that technical malfunctioning has been effectively ruled out as the cause of the incident and it is up to the investigation team constituted by the Civil Aviation Authority to determine if the crash occurred because of pilot error, bad weather, control tower fault or any other factor.

The cockpit voice recording readouts have also revealed that the pilots belatedly realised that they were flying into terrain. The first officer of the flight was heard screaming “Sir, pull up, pull up” moments before the crash.

This revelation has been supported by the findings of local investigators which show that before hitting the mountains the aircraft had climbed from 2,600 feet to 3,100 feet. The aircraft was circling for Runway 12, where it was to attempt visual landing.

Sources privy to the investigations believe the pilot got panicked after realising that he was flying into the terrain and had turned the autopilot ‘heading bug’ to the left at more than 180 degrees. The aircraft, experts say, takes the shortest possible route in such situation and instead of turning left moved towards right.

Why did the aircraft go so close to the hills? Several explanations are being dished out, but the most commonly heard of in the aviation circles say that the pilot while circling for Runway 12 was on Flight Management Computer, but instead of following the prescribed route he had probably created a ‘visual circuit using place bearing distance waypoints’ that put him in the wrong place. Insertion of place bearing distance waypoints is strictly prohibited by aircraft manufacturers because the Airbus FMC does not have a ‘fix page’ capability, wherein a defined distance can be superimposed on the existing route. The standard instructions are that any route that is not supported by a ground navigational aid should not be used.

Reminds me of what a colleague used to say about L'Airbus' software intelligence.

This really seems like software written by Germans under French supervision.

Turn to the LEFT! NOW!

Je ne pas turner a la gauche. Ich bin turn zu das RIGHT, Ja! Ja!! Shorter distance between zwei punkten, Ja?

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 31 Aug 2010 08:11

N^3, what the pilot did was 'set the heading' by turning a knob. Does it matter which way he turned it? Isn't the final heading that matters? You are being unfair onlee!

But what I wonder is, is the plane always steered using the 'come left to SSE' commands by the pilot captain to the computer helm? Even at a panic/emergency? What are those sidesticks for?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Aug 2010 20:21

Don't be pooching such sensible pooches, pls. I too wondered what airplanes have controls where pilot makes a menu selection of heading in order to do an emergency turn - but maybe it wasn't an emergency turn, he just set heading and went back to ****ing with the mohterma (3rd person in the **ckpit)??

Wonder if it did not occur to him that the plane seemed to be banking right, not left? Or maybe he was sitting turned backwards???

Wish I could say, "ONLY IN PAKISTAN" but L'Airbus software seems to be written by the same IT geniuses who wrote the Kingfisher Airlines Feedback Website.

Try entering comments there using anything other than Internet Explorer...

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 31 Aug 2010 21:40

Well, couldn't it be because the abdul-e-kaptan, thanx to his paki brain, thought the plane would turn the way the knob is turned?

I know, you are going to say that it is L'Airbus fault that they didn't paki-proof their software!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Aug 2010 21:51

Well.. usually when people turn something to the left they expect the bloody thing to turn to the left, not right, hey?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 31 Aug 2010 23:56

With creditors hounding the management big time, One really wonders how long this money will last.

Expect pal praful patel to help out the KOGT by quickly allowing foreign airlines to invest in our domestic airline companies.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/929 ... crore.html

Kingfisher airlines to raise Rs.5,000 crore
New Delhi, Aug 31 (IANS):

Kingfisher Airlines on Tuesday said it plans to raise up to Rs.5,000 crore ($1billion) through either preference shares, equity shares or global depository receipts (GDRs).

The company in a statement said it would raise the capital "through various instruments including preference shares or equity shares or GDRs or such other instruments subject to the approval of the shareholders".

The company also said that it will seek the approval of the shareholders for increasing the authorised share capital from current Rs.1,000 crore to Rs.4,250 crore.

Kingfisher's debt as on March 31, 2010 stood at Rs.6,000 crore.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Sep 2010 00:09

International Aviation Industry Considers Realtime Satellite Replacement for Black Box

This makes sense, since it could allow immediate access to recorded flight data after an incident, without any worries over whether it was lost.

Perhaps the Black Box could be kept just as a backup.

I'd imagine that India could even put up some satellites for this purpose, and lease them out to others.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Sep 2010 23:20

A UPS cargo 747-400 has crashed in Dubai.

Immediately after take off, the pilot called an emergency with possible fire in the cockpit.

Times now reporting that the crew are dead.

Prayers for the crew and their families.

RIP

Kannan · Post by **Kannan** » 09 Sep 2010 06:21

enqyoob wrote:But what the heck happened from ...04:38 until ..05:21 (43 seconds!!!!???)
Sounds like he did not "go around" but kept going and touched down, too far and then the plane slewed out of control.
I still say thrust reverser failure on one side, or the captain tried stopping by doing a 90-degree turn on the ground.

Did the captain suffer heart failure on final approach, I wonder. There is no response in the recording to the "go around captain", for the next 43 seconds. No "%$#^&&!" even. The co-pilot may not have realized until 05:21 that the captain was not conscious.

It's a jetliner. If the FO sees that their descent is out of SOP, he could've called a go around, go arounds aren't always five seconds before you make a fireball - if you're 500' too high and 10kts too fast, SOP might want you to go around. On the other hand, I doubt anyone spies on you to see if you're following SOP so maybe the captain thought it was salveagable. It's not the first time that's happened... They very well could've assumed they'd sweat out a "close one" until the last 1000'.

I'd imagine a failed thrust reverser would easily be discovered by examination of the clamshell or cascade, setup, or in terms of power, the damage and scarring to the fan/turbine blades.

enqyoob wrote:Reminds me of what a colleague used to say about L'Airbus' software intelligence.

I hate to break it to you, but a simple Garmin 430 digitally coupled to a single engine Cessna's autopilot would behave the same way. If you did an analog coupling (which isn't a true coupling) then a left would go left and a right would go right, and the speed with which you did it could dictate the bank angle, but again, that's not coupled. With a full "computer" i.e FMS, where you can program a flight plan, etc. the plane does the logical thing and heads to the setting on the HI at the most efficient method.

If you twist it quickly, a GNS from my recollection initially follows your direction of turn, then rolls to the more efficient way.

The proper response would've been to go to full power and pull the stick back and let the Airbus alpha protection handle the rest. I don't think the crew was in sufficient panic if they let autopilot fly them out of the mess. About as much complacency as the Air India crew.

enqyoob wrote:but maybe it wasn't an emergency turn, he just set heading and went back to ****ing with the mohterma (3rd person in the **ckpit)??

Wonder if it did not occur to him that the plane seemed to be banking right, not left? Or maybe he was sitting turned backwards???

Wish I could say, "ONLY IN PAKISTAN" but L'Airbus software seems to be written by the same IT geniuses who wrote the Kingfisher Airlines Feedback Website.

While Pakistan might be a country of dubious political will, I did not think it was fair to speak ill of a dead pilot who otherwise did a decent job. People in glass houses should no throw stones. Except for the tragic mistake which will cement his legacy, I would probably give up a lot to have his resume.

Vasu · Post by **Vasu** » 09 Sep 2010 14:45

SpiceJet will become the fourth Indian carrier to go international when it flies to Kathmandu and Colombo from next month.

MoneyControl.com

we are starting off from the October 7, our very first foray into the international sector. We would be starting off from Delhi-Kathmandu. This would be a flight basically one every day leaving the Tuesdays. So, basically six days in a week we would be flying down to Kathmandu. From October 9 onwards, we would be starting off the Chennai-Colombo sector also, which would be a daily flight.

Q: What would the all inclusive fares be, roughly speaking, for these two?

A: Roughly speaking for Chennai-Colombo would be Rs 1,331, whereas for Delhi-Kathmandu it would be something like Rs 3,160 or so.

Q: What is step two, after these two stabilise, what is your next step on the international front?

A: We would definitely prefer to increase more frequency into these stations as well as we already have the rights to fly down to Dhaka as well as Male. We would definitely look in for that also, once we have stabilised these two sectors.

Q: Would you need to add any aircraft for any of these routes?

A: Right now, we have a fleet size of 22, we do have to confirm deliveries from our older order, another six aircrafts which we would be adding up right upto 2012. So that is another year and a half, we would be adding up these.

In addition to that, we are also looking up in the next 16-18 months adding upto a fleet of another 10-12 aircrafts, besides the six confirmed deliveries. These all would be in addition to 30 aircraft orders which we have already placed with Boeing, but those deliveries will only begin in from 2014.

Now if only the domestic prices were that cheap

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2010 15:08

SL is a hot destination now among the blr 'set' - quick, easy to fly into, no visa hassles...a trip to goa is more costly probably and less exotic.

Vasu · Post by **Vasu** » 09 Sep 2010 15:23

Oh yes Sir, and the same with Thailand and Malaysia. The new Malaysian carriers were peddling KL return flights for under 10K a few months ago! When I was in Calcutta earlier this year, me and my friends had all but planned a trip to Thailand as our graduating gifts when the SARS virus and their political unrest screwed everything up.

Thailand also has a visa on arrival for Indians, but I think Malaysia scrapped the facility because of illegal immigration.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 09 Sep 2010 17:37

Can we just take a plane to SL, just holding the passports? What about US Citizen kid?

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Sep 2010 19:32

Dileep wrote:Can we just take a plane to SL, just holding the passports? What about US Citizen kid?

krisna wrote:No visa-on-arrival in Lanka
On Friday, Department of Immigration and Emigration announced that it was withdrawing the visa-on-arrival facility for tourists from 79 countries including India, UK, USA, China, Japan and host of European nations.
It is from these and West Asian countries that Sri Lanka gets its chunk of tourists.

Only citizens from Singapore and Maldives will continue to get their visas on arrival as our citizens are extended the same facility by them," RMS Sarath Kumara, deputy immigration controller, told HT.
Sarath Kumara said the government was mulling the decision to withdraw the facility as there was no "reciprocity" from 79 countries.

As for India, according to tourism department data, more than 83500 Indian tourists came to Sri Lanka in 2009 – the largest number from one country to come holidaying in Colombo.

from SL thread

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Sep 2010 20:16

krisna wrote:
Only citizens from Singapore and Maldives will continue to get their visas on arrival as our citizens are extended the same facility by them," RMS Sarath Kumara, deputy immigration controller, told HT.

Not true. That order was withdrawn

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2010 21:08

some very soothing hotels in SL...
http://www.heritancehotels.net/
http://www.aitkenspencehotels.com/

am planning a round next yr, stopped by my er the fruit of loins this yr...

100k indians is a drop in bucket. if they market themselves and extend welcome mat, quite easily 1 mil indian tourists
could be visiting there due to cost, distance, visa and cultural/linguistic easiness.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Sep 2010 21:48

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 521963.cms

Well looks like it was Pilot , afterall, who crashed the IX812

Why did the commander — who had over 10,000 hours of flying experience and who always took interest in the training of his co-pilots — ignore many warnings on that fateful morning? The Mangalore crash seems to be one of the worst cases of "press-on-itis" — a term used to describe a situation in which a pilot's sound judgment is replaced with poor decision-making due to an urgency to complete a landing.

Select data from the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) — revealed in the Court of Inquiry on Wednesday — of the ill-fated VT-AXV aircraft left aviation industry bigwigs in a state of disbelief. The facts that emerged were, one the aircraft wasn't in stable approach condition during its descent. Despite several warnings from his co-pilot, Capt Glusica ignored standard operating procedures.

Second, after the aircraft touched down and thrust reversers were deployed, the commander opted for a go-around. This was in complete violation of the rule. Capt Glusica attempted to take-off when only 800 feet of the 8,038-ft-long runway was left. The last sentence uttered in the cockpit was of Capt H S Ahluwalia's: "We don't have runway left."

The aircraft then zoomed ahead, hit a localiser, failed to climb and crashed into the gorge. Also, the flight had violated several laid-down limits — for criteria like airspeed and rate of descent — deemed critical for a safe approach.

Capt Glusica took a nap for an hour and forty minutes soon after the flight took off from Dubai as CVR recorded noises of snoring, heavy breathing and no words from the commander. It is a normal practice in almost all cockpits for one of the pilots to take "controlled rest" while the other monitors the flight.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 09 Sep 2010 22:34

chaanakya wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 521963.cms

Well looks like it was Pilot , afterall, who crashed the IX812

Second, after the aircraft touched down and thrust reversers were deployed, the commander opted for a go-around. This was in complete violation of the rule. Capt Glusica attempted to take-off when only 800 feet of the 8,038-ft-long runway was left. The last sentence uttered in the cockpit was of Capt H S Ahluwalia's: "We don't have runway left."

The Boeing company chief test pilot has professionally opined in the inquiry that the flight IX812 WOULD have stopped on the remaining runway itself had Capt Glusica elected to land.

it was ground spoilers that washed off most of the aircrafts speed after touch down.

The fatal decision was that to take off again, against all odds, company regulations, logic and countless hours of expensive simulator training.

Fate.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Sep 2010 23:07

Gurus had a question, does the pilot know how much of the runway is left to allow him to make decisions. for example if there is say a board every 100ft on the run way which counts down or up the pilot wouldnt have to rely on his decision estimating skills to find out how much of runway is left. In this case it is possible that the pilot estimated the distance available to him was more than 800ft say a 1000ft and this could have caused him to think he can take off.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 10 Sep 2010 01:59

Yes, but one assumes that the purpose of those is to see how hard one should brake, and whether one should adopt desperate measures like a turn-and-slide, not to take off again. The above simply does not make sense. The rule of thumb for runway length is that if you abort at takeoff speed, you must have enough runway left to stop - AT THE MAX takeoff weight. With one or both engines out so no thrust reverser available. So that distance is less than or equal to the distance needed for takeoff roll. By the same token, if you are at a given point in a runway, and you need X distance to take off, then you need less than X to stop, whether or not the thrust reverser works, and << X to stop if the thrust reverser works. It's simple Netwon's laws of motion. Surely the pilot, even East Oiropean crazies, would know that with absolutely no thinking. This plane was landing after a long flight, the weight would have been some 35% less than max takeoff weight. So much less distance would have sufficed.

So I still say the thrust reverser failed, and someone else is covering that up. This is why I said the recorder analysis should not have been outsourced. Why did he stop the thrust reverser if the speed was not down enough? Only explanation is that it was yawing the aircraft. But he would still have cut off the thrust then.

I don't believe this. The pilot was an East European. He had no friends in India.

I have to remember that the ppl running this "inquiry" are the same ones I see on the roads in India completely disregarding all rules as long as they don't get caught, jumping queues even at temples, tailgating, using their cellphones on aircraft, rushing to the front of the plane when it gets to the gate, pushing their carts right up against the baggage conveyor belt, probably not paying taxes, buying land/homes without showing the correct price and hence dodging taxes, and probably got their jobs because they married the boss's beti because they are the right tribe/caste. Why should I believe that where there is incentive to lie, they will stand up for the truth?

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 10 Sep 2010 19:35

enqyoob wrote:By the same token, if you are at a given point in a runway, and you need X distance to take off, then you need less than X to stop, whether or not the thrust reverser works, and << X to stop if the thrust reverser works. It's simple Netwon's laws of motion.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but this seems wrong (or wrongly worded). If the plane is just about to take off -- and say needs 3 more meters of runway to do so -- then it clearly cannot come to a stop within those 3 meters.

I think you may have meant that if the plane has been speeding up for X distance then it needs < X distance to come to a stop, which is probably true.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Sep 2010 21:50

enqyoob wrote:Yes, but one assumes that the purpose of those is to see how hard one should brake, and whether one should adopt desperate measures like a turn-and-slide, not to take off again. The above simply does not make sense. The rule of thumb for runway length is that if you abort at takeoff speed, you must have enough runway left to stop - AT THE MAX takeoff weight. With one or both engines out so no thrust reverser available. So that distance is less than or equal to the distance needed for takeoff roll. By the same token, if you are at a given point in a runway, and you need X distance to take off, then you need less than X to stop, whether or not the thrust reverser works, and << X to stop if the thrust reverser works. It's simple Netwon's laws of motion. Surely the pilot, even East Oiropean crazies, would know that with absolutely no thinking. This plane was landing after a long flight, the weight would have been some 35% less than max takeoff weight. So much less distance would have sufficed.

So I still say the thrust reverser failed, and someone else is covering that up. This is why I said the recorder analysis should not have been outsourced. Why did he stop the thrust reverser if the speed was not down enough? Only explanation is that it was yawing the aircraft. But he would still have cut off the thrust then.

I don't believe this. The pilot was an East European. He had no friends in India.

I have to remember that the ppl running this "inquiry" are the same ones I see on the roads in India completely disregarding all rules as long as they don't get caught, jumping queues even at temples, tailgating, using their cellphones on aircraft, rushing to the front of the plane when it gets to the gate, pushing their carts right up against the baggage conveyor belt, probably not paying taxes, buying land/homes without showing the correct price and hence dodging taxes, and probably got their jobs because they married the boss's beti because they are the right tribe/caste. Why should I believe that where there is incentive to lie, they will stand up for the truth?

AI has mandated a max landing weight for Mangalore
for its Boeings. They only fly the 737-800 series. The max landing weight has been specified because of the so called "short" runway. The runway however is perfectly safe and of sufficient length to ensure safe operations.

There are shorter and much more critical runways in India that no one is bothered to talk about. Just because some jholawala has filed some case about the mangalore runway does not make it any less safe. There are always crackpots. Do we not see crazies like sussanah roy and teesta and wonderous medha patkar trying to gum up the works?

A majority of pilots will refuse to operate from unsafe runways. One airline has only three expats who are confident of of operating from two airfields up north. No Indian mard is willing to operate that particular flight. Both flights are completely full both ways and the tickets are among the most expensive in the country despite the short distance.

Finally do not look down on expats. They are some of the finest pilots and human beings I have seen.

Recent Indian aviation has largely grown on their shoulders. A lot of our "amir betas/betis of amir baap" pilots are bone chillingly lousy. Their log books have been falsified. I know many such creeps.

In the mangalore crash, there was complete panic in the cockpit in the final seconds when the mishap unfolded.

It was this panic that made the captain attempt a takeoff. All training, procedures and common sense tells you NOT to attempt a takeoff once the reversers have deployed.

Witnesses heard the thrust reversers kick in. The captain touched down at a very late stage and at a much higher speed than needed. Error and Fate.

The forward speed of the aircraft washed off rapidly more by the ground spoilers than the reversers.

The reversers and spoilers take a finite amount of time to rehouse. Time that perhaps the Capt did not have.

The inquiry has been fair and accurate. The outsourcing of the DFDR as you call it was done because we have no such sophisticated facility in India. At best we can milk the DFDR data under normal circumstances for monitoring and analysis by the airlines Flight safety department which is done by all all Indian airlines and operators as mandated by DGCA.

This is how all operators keep track of their pilot's performances and any inadvertent or otherwise adverse departure from laid down limits of flight and engine parameters, including heavy landings.

Extraction of data from a damaged DFDR is best done by professionals. Not by some high school pass and apprentice school qualified "licensed" AME who usually will not be able to differentiate between bodily orifices and a hole in the ground. Dismantling and accessing a damaged DFDR requires multi domain knowledge and expertise that is sadly lacking in country.

Insurance companies will certainly not agree to some unqualified amateurs carrying out this work, no matter how much the national flag is waved.

All such damaged and accident related DFDR work is meticulously video graphed and progress through every stage requires complete agreement of experts, each careful to protect the interests of his own company. Witnesses from all concerned agencies are continuously present through out and this work is never done in secret. We had multiple representatives from AI Express as well as the DGCA.

Repeated mention of some imagined CT does you no good. This case is too high profile as well a very public crash in good visibility conditions. This is a case that cannot be hushed up.

No facts have been suppressed. Many details may not be in the public domain and they need not be.

If one looked deep enough and chatted up some AI Express aircrew, one would be surprised at what one can discover.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 10 Sep 2010 22:07

U r right. My mistake. What I was thinking is that the guy had already put on thrust reversers, which meant thrust was now negative. And obviously to do that, he was on the ground already, so what is left is a ground roll to stop. At that condition, switching back to full forward thrust cannot possibly do more good than continuing to exert negative thrust and braking.

Evidently he was not so close to the end of the runway when he touched down. So the one scenario I can imagine is that the thrust reversal was a disaster - may not have been reversing on one side. Now he has to make a swift choice - continue and spin out of control, or reverse the action so now both engines are thrusting the same way - and try to take off.

Also, the point is that if he touched down ANYWHERE before the middle point of the runway, then by definition there was enough room to stop.
Are they saying that he touched down very far past the midpoint?

Anyway, I will bow to Chetak's insistence that everything was done properly, noting however, that in the Amirkhana, there is huge dissatisfaction among the pilot community that when fatal (to the crew) accidents occur, "pilot error" is the foregone and uber-convenient conclusion all too often - and this is especially unanimous when the pilot is foreign. The same "professional organizations" do the investigations, but do not enjoy much confidence from the pilots at all. The airline, the manufacturer and the FAA all find it all too convenient to put the blame there and recommend "improved training" and issue a Notice to Airmen.

Why would they be less error-prone when dealing with a crash in the 3rd world with a commie pilot and a desi co-pilot, and a relatively new plane built in Amirkhana by all-Amirkhanic workers?

Note, for example, the case some years ago where the Colombian pilots were blamed after NYC ATC kept ignoring their pleas for landing priority due to shortage of fuel, and the airliner fell short of the runway when they were eventually vectored in. The declaration was that they should have declared an emergency (which they probably did) and then ignored ATC and come straight in for a landing, risking a mid-air or ground collision (which they did not). It seemed obvious to me that this was a major ATC cock-up, born of arrogant disregard of the non-native English speaking pilots. Anyone who has heard ATC communications in AmirKhana airspace knows that they are borderline unintelligible and very very heavily accented. But.. the easy conclusion was pilot error.

In this case, what is being cited as the sequence of decisions is simply too horrendous to believe. Which makes it all the more important to ask and present CTs. In this case, if the reversers failed, would they really reveal that? The survivors' accounts right after the crash did not seem to suggest that they were awake at all, so everything they "remembered" would have been what was suggested to them by interviewers as in: "when an aircraft lands, the thrust is reversed, and there is a big noise. Did you hear a big noise?" What they did report is being violently yanked around, which is consistent with hitting something with a wing, but also with the thrust reverser being asymmetric.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Sep 2010 22:53

^^^

Most of the points have been covered in this thread in days following the crash. The only point which seemed to attract different views was about Reverse thrusters: whether it was applied or not.

I think that point seems clear. RT was indeed applied.

I had speculated about plane missing its glide path. That is , apparently confirmed. Plane was indeed in wrong glide path with steep descent. Likely to be approaching from above.

Plane missed the approach at DH which is about 800ft. Should have initiated TOGO.

Instead, pilot decided to continue with landing. With half the runway available he could have stopped with Max Brake and Max RT.

Having decided to touchdown, he should have continued with landing. No manual prescribes TOGO after Touchdown.
Also , it looks like plane had high speed and had a late Touchdown.

Once Pilot decided TOGO , against all procedure etc, he would have taken action to reduce RT to idle and then Thrust Max. It takes 8 seconds for RT to Idle and Thrust to Max with autobrake removed. Plane would have travelled another 2000 fts before max power finally kicked in and speed would have reduced by 20-40 Knots below takeoff speed of 165Kts so took time to gather take off speed. This could have easily shaved off another 2000 fts not leaving runway to be cleared.

However , I was struck by the possibility of pilot sleeping at the controls. Report says CVR recorded snoring for long time after takeoff from Dubai. Earlier I read the report that Pilots were adequately rested. My own experience says that 4-6 Am is quite difficult time to ward off sleep unless you are accustomed to it. Could be , Pilots were having momentary lapse of concentration.

I am still not able to understand why Glusica ignored TOGO advice from Ahluwalia on Missed Approach and decided to land.
Another point in some reports, not mentioned now , is that Tower reported at 6 Am So likely changing of duty while crisis was unfolding. That could explain that Tower was advising IX812 to exit via taxiway while plane was sliding downhill.

Data analysis by external agencies are normal practice. It is quite fair and objective. One may disagree with the report and send the points for further confirmation. All agencies watch with hawk-eye.

Pilot made grave decision errors violating all protocols. Mangalore airport landing manual does not permit TOGO after TD.
Once full report comes in , rather than bits and pieces, we can better understand the causes of the crash.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Sep 2010 00:05

enqyoob wrote: Note, for example, the case some years ago where the Colombian pilots were blamed after NYC ATC kept ignoring their pleas for landing priority due to shortage of fuel, and the airliner fell short of the runway when they were eventually vectored in. The declaration was that they should have declared an emergency (which they probably did) and then ignored ATC and come straight in for a landing, risking a mid-air or ground collision (which they did not). It seemed obvious to me that this was a major ATC cock-up, born of arrogant disregard of the non-native English speaking pilots. Anyone who has heard ATC communications in AmirKhana airspace knows that they are borderline unintelligible and very very heavily accented. But.. the easy conclusion was pilot error.

Saar,

In this case it was a misunderstanding coupled with a language issue that caused the fatal. No emergency was declared by the pilots.

In this case, what is being cited as the sequence of decisions is simply too horrendous to believe. Which makes it all the more important to ask and present CTs. In this case, if the reversers failed, would they really reveal that? The survivors' accounts right after the crash did not seem to suggest that they were awake at all, so everything they "remembered" would have been what was suggested to them by interviewers as in: "when an aircraft lands, the thrust is reversed, and there is a big noise. Did you hear a big noise?" What they did report is being violently yanked around, which is consistent with hitting something with a wing, but also with the thrust reverser being asymmetric.

Sir jee,

For Mangalore, autobrake is set as per AI company procedure. ( the thrust reversers kick in and the autobrake setting controls the amount of reverse thrust which varies as per the setting)

There are various settings(1,2,3,4,max) to cater for dry, wet and/or contaminated runway that increase or decrease the amount of reverse thrust automatically applied.

This is most probably how the reversers kicked in.

The Captain had been very recently, prior to the accident, been pulled up officially for a "heavy landing" which please note was well within the Boeing company limitations for the 737 but beyond
the AI limits. This was the only stupid company that had issued such limitations in India. After the accident the order has been quietly withdrawn.

The politicians who travel for free and first class mind you, need a cushioned landing to protect their fragile backsides because of the brains that they have there.

All go arounds are reported and investigated. The pilot is invariably faulted for it except in case of bird hits or single engine on approach or whatever.

The aircraft had an un stabilized approach from the beginning which both pilots were fully aware of.
Usually some last minute fancy flying is done to correct the mistake but well before the threshold is crossed.

The copilot was up for his command checks and he may have hesitated to tell a well respected instructor pilot that a cock up was in progress thinking that the captain's years of experience would pull them through safely.

The aircraft crossed the threshold "hot and high", meaning higher and faster than was called for in normal procedures.

The pilot was attempting to do a "floater" landing called for by his company procedures.

In his anxiety and focus to do this floater he seems to have lost situational awareness and thus landed up much much further down the runway than he ought to have. His only option and salvation was a go around but he did not take it.

Alhuwalia kept asking him to go around a number of times. In the end, at the very last minute, poor Alhuwalia the co pilot called out "not enough runway left". This must have been when his Captain was about to touch down having already committed the 65-67 odd tons of out of control Boeing to land.

I think maybe he burst some tires on touch down and yawed a bit.

Imagine the situation...

He does not realize that he is out of runway.
He has still touched down. (or rather thumped it down) Did tires blow?
The aeroplane yaws a bit.
The reversers kick in.
He cancels the reversers and firewalls the throttles.
He hits the localiser antenna concrete mounting base and sheds a major part of his wing.
He does not have enough speed to lift off again
He goes down the slope under full power.

Even at that late stage after touch down, had he applied full reverse and slowed down, he may, just may, have gone some part way down the fairly gradual slope and stopped with a few if not nil fatalities.

Such is life. A simple go around would have been nice.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Sep 2010 00:25

chaanakya wrote:^^^
However , I was struck by the possibility of pilot sleeping at the controls. Report says CVR recorded snoring for long time after takeoff from Dubai. Earlier I read the report that Pilots were adequately rested. My own experience says that 4-6 Am is quite difficult time to ward off sleep unless you are accustomed to it. Could be , Pilots were having momentary lapse of concentration.

chaanakya ji,

Its quite normal for one pilot to sleep while the other monitors the instruments. Not a big deal.

After all our famed national carrier is famous for both pilots simultaneously going to sleep and could not be roused by repeated calls from the ATC.

""* On June 4, 2008, an Air India flight from Jaipur failed to land at Mumbai airport and flew on southwards for 15km
Mumbai air traffic controllers woke up the pilots and the plane returned to land safely
AI called TOI report misleading, said pilots `temporarily lost contact with ATC'
DGCA reply confirms pilots had dozed off due to fatigue""

Or pilots duking it out with cabin crew midair.

On Saturday there was a brawl aboard the Air India IC-884 flight when pilots and cabin crew hurled expletives and took pot shots at each other. For a few minutes the plane was even left unmanned. An internal enquiry into the incident is still on. "Yes, we have suspended the pilot and the flight purser and derostered the co-pilot and the air hostess concerned," a spokesperson of the airline said on Tuesday.

Onlee in India!!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 11 Sep 2010 01:50

Two pilots were fired for flying straight past their destination airport (Kansas city?) for an hour because (according to them) they were surfing the 'net on their laptop computers. I think they were downloading *orn. The Age of the Internet has arrived.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 11 Sep 2010 02:29

The 737-800 with A/B setting at 2 and spoilers will come to a stop very very soon. I'm not buying Reverser failure for one specific reason..the descent path was not exactly classical. A high N1 was deployed during landing for sure..possibly around 60. It's tricky but sometimes one gets perfect touchdowns with a higher N1 setting and cutting off engines not some 50 feet AGL but at much lower. There is at times a little struggle to get past the runway threshold. Check out Google on major airports and see the rubber before the threshold markings..you'll be surprised. The PAPI on a visual approach changes too high, to too low quite often specially when one approaches the runway. Pilots employ gentle pitch up or downs with some thrust alterations when approaching. And yes all this is while trying to align with the runway center and make a perfect touchdown.

I buy the contention that the warning for a gentler touchdown may have been central to the pilot approaching with a higher N1 resulting in loss of runway. And we all know the most useless thing in the world for an aircraft thats landing or taking off is the runway behind. Doing too many things in the cockpit once one has landed might result in erratic rudder movement that caused the off the runway movement.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Sep 2010 10:46

harbans wrote:The 737-800 with A/B setting at 2 and spoilers will come to a stop very very soon. I'm not buying Reverser failure for one specific reason..the descent path was not exactly classical. A high N1 was deployed during landing for sure..possibly around 60. It's tricky but sometimes one gets perfect touchdowns with a higher N1 setting and cutting off engines not some 50 feet AGL but at much lower. There is at times a little struggle to get past the runway threshold. Check out Google on major airports and see the rubber before the threshold markings..you'll be surprised. The PAPI on a visual approach changes too high, to too low quite often specially when one approaches the runway. Pilots employ gentle pitch up or downs with some thrust alterations when approaching. And yes all this is while trying to align with the runway center and make a perfect touchdown.

I buy the contention that the warning for a gentler touchdown may have been central to the pilot approaching with a higher N1 resulting in loss of runway. And we all know the most useless thing in the world for an aircraft thats landing or taking off is the runway behind. Doing too many things in the cockpit once one has landed might result in erratic rudder movement that caused the off the runway movement.

Bingo!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 11 Sep 2010 11:40

Yes Chetakji ( I hope you don't put 'Ji' in future) I am aware of the fact that Pilots do sleep and snore while on Auto pilot Especially for long flights when there is more hours to traverse between two waypoints. However , could he be sleeping just before the descent to begin?

One can just imagine the the reaction of passengers if visuals and sounds are relayed to Passengers through In flight entertainment system on any one of the channels.In fact the whole flight should be video recorded, as well, CVR being older technology. It would be better if video is transmitted via satellite to control centre.

Once on Pune flight under turbulent weather I noted that In flight entertainment system had video of outside conditions as seen from cockpit and we could watch landing under drizzling conditions. That was Kingfisher.

Cockpit visuals would be such a nice addition to films and stale serials.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Sep 2010 13:49

chaanakya wrote:Yes Chetakji ( I hope you don't put 'Ji' in future) I am aware of the fact that Pilots do sleep and snore while on Auto pilot Especially for long flights when there is more hours to traverse between two waypoints. However , could he be sleeping just before the descent to begin?

One can just imagine the the reaction of passengers if visuals and sounds are relayed to Passengers through In flight entertainment system on any one of the channels.In fact the whole flight should be video recorded, as well, CVR being older technology. It would be better if video is transmitted via satellite to control centre.

Once on Pune flight under turbulent weather I noted that In flight entertainment system had video of outside conditions as seen from cockpit and we could watch landing under drizzling conditions. That was Kingfisher.

Cockpit visuals would be such a nice addition to films and stale serials.

chaanakya ji,

One cockpit crew member sleeping or taking a "controlled rest" is legal in many countries and permitted in many airlines also.

DGCA has also applications from Indian government airline companies to asking for legal permission for the "controlled rest".

It's very likely that the permission will be granted.

After all it is the prerogative of government employees to sleep in the office.

If the head of our government, fumble harmer gowda
can sleep in public, surely lesser functionaries will see the same as a perquisite.