Air India Runway Excursion
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of a proper technique in operating the controls or a wrong seat position is not Boeing’s fault. Especially as the 737 rated guys here never have had issues with this.
Stop trying to find problems where there are none. That thrust lever design has been used since the original 737.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been more nonsense written about the B737 since the MCAS incidents than there has about the faking of the landing on the Moon.
The B737NG is one of the safest aircraft ever built. Period.
Accidents like these keep happening for reasons completely unrelated to any hypothetical design flaws in the aircraft. See previous post.
Why people feel compelled to comment on issues they clearly know nothing about is a mystery.
Last edited by George Glass; 15th Aug 2020 at 01:06.
The motion to deploy the reversers is to pull back and up - how much brain power does it take to make the 'pull back' part to insure the lever is at the idle stop?
As for the vilas contention that the 737NG is an inherently unsafe "compromised" aircraft - as of 2018 (the latest stats I can find on-line), the 737NG hull loss and fatal hull loss rates are marginally better than the A320 series - probably not enough to be statistically significant, but reading some of the drivel that gets posted here you'd think the 737NG was an order of magnitude worse than the A320.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the mechanical interlock requiring the throttle to be at idle before you can raise the reverse piggyback lever is a design feature on every Boeing Commercial airliner ever built - 707 to 787 all have the same feature (although the detailed implementation varies a bit).
The motion to deploy the reversers is to pull back and up - how much brain power does it take to make the 'pull back' part to insure the lever is at the idle stop?
The motion to deploy the reversers is to pull back and up - how much brain power does it take to make the 'pull back' part to insure the lever is at the idle stop?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to slacks, he probably needs a military grade helmet to protect himself from the backlash he’s receiving from all the BS that’s he’s constantly spewing on this thread.
Don't you love it when somebody tries to post ‘homemade facts’ about something they don’t have a clue about?
Don't you love it when somebody tries to post ‘homemade facts’ about something they don’t have a clue about?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys! The discussion is in in the aftermath of an accident but not in defence of the accident or even the earlier accident or some conspiracy theory. I was a training Capt on B747 and I enjoyed every minute of it. I have not flown B737 but after the MAX fiasco what I read about 737 from it's evolution to MAX series didn't inspire much confidence. Well some people will like what they fly and it's their right. Some may defend Max also. But the aircraft has created a dubious history. If a QRH procedure was the solution then it doesn't take so long to print a QRH and it won't undergo such a massive look over and still not able to get in the air. So thank you for the information. I am not emotionally involved one way or the other.
I have a decent amount of time on the NG. I have never seen or heard of this "problem" either. Close thrust levers during touch down, it's pretty much basics of flying any type is it not?
I did very occasionally, I think twice in ten years, have one thrust reverser fail to deploy during landing but then operate normally when recycled during taxi. Which is something I can't say I have seen on the A320 which has the same engine type.
I did very occasionally, I think twice in ten years, have one thrust reverser fail to deploy during landing but then operate normally when recycled during taxi. Which is something I can't say I have seen on the A320 which has the same engine type.
There are similarities between this crash and the Pakistan Intl Airlines A320, which is pilots doing non-stabilised landings. The problem is most likely airline pressure and a small element of SkyGod mentality - if they get away with it, and they do 99.9% of the time, they are heroes for getting the job done.
The only solution really is for the insurers to insist on flight safety monitoring (FDM) by a Safety Department, and re-training for crews that do not follow SOPs, especially stabilzed approaches. This would also have caught the Indian(?) pilot who always landed on the nose landing gear. In addition EASA and others shouldn't allow carriers to operate until they have a totally functional FDM program.
The only solution really is for the insurers to insist on flight safety monitoring (FDM) by a Safety Department, and re-training for crews that do not follow SOPs, especially stabilzed approaches. This would also have caught the Indian(?) pilot who always landed on the nose landing gear. In addition EASA and others shouldn't allow carriers to operate until they have a totally functional FDM program.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: india
Age: 38
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visibility
Isn't the visibility requirement for VOR 28 more than 2km? Why even attempt the first approach? They could have entered a hold, or did the straight in ILS10.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EARTH
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is correct, 2400 mts required. Reported in Metal was 2000 -RA, tempo 1500 TSRA.
Before starting the VOR 28 approach, possibly ATC advised above 2400 mts vis and due to favorable winds the pilots maybe decided to shoot the VOR 28 .Thereafter vis reduced again and they must have discontinued to try the ILS 10 . Also possible ATC advised them about the ATR which landed 10 after the 28 approach..
We will know more once the DFDR is decoded. Till then it’s all speculation.
Before starting the VOR 28 approach, possibly ATC advised above 2400 mts vis and due to favorable winds the pilots maybe decided to shoot the VOR 28 .Thereafter vis reduced again and they must have discontinued to try the ILS 10 . Also possible ATC advised them about the ATR which landed 10 after the 28 approach..
We will know more once the DFDR is decoded. Till then it’s all speculation.
The AAIB.
Why is BOEING not involved or any other non Indian partner?
Air Safety Experts Think Investigation Is A Cover-up Exercise
Five-member committee to investigate Air India
Why is BOEING not involved or any other non Indian partner?
Air Safety Experts Think Investigation Is A Cover-up Exercise
Five-member committee to investigate Air India
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well whatever I said was based on articles like the one I posted it's by NASA ASRS. you can read it. B737 is made from B707 fuselage to use same dyes, casts etc. to save cost it has a low wing which helped that time for loading/unloading, Engine maintenance without ladder etc but it was misfit for high bypass bigger fan engine era. It's main problem. It had uncommanded rudder problem Boeing knew there's a problem but like MAX.only reacted after two fatal accidents in the US. Then why was STS required? I didn't find any in A300, A310 or B747. So there's an issue of instability at high pitch. Then continuous stretch from 100 series so to keep tail clearence takeoff and approach speeds are higher than say A320. To cater for high bypass bigger fan Engines hamster shaped intakes. Then it was not enough for max Engines. Boeing wanted to make a new aircaft but not to lose customers like SW and AA they launched Max and rest is history. Boeing had 757 perhaps they would have been better off modifying that. I have posted video of 737 max10 where on the takeoff run the main gear has to extend. So these are not exactly innovations but work arounds. Max has been severely criticized by people working on it as designed by monkeys and made by donkeys something like that. It's an aircraft to which only FAA certification may not be enough other authorities will do their own. It has threatened the credibility of both Boeing and FAA. I am not sure if it ever happened before.
As the State of Manufacture, the USA will as a matter of course be accredited to the investigation, and that role will be delegated to the NTSB.
An accredited State is in turn entitled to appoint one or more advisers, which will almost inevitably include the manufacturer.
An accredited State is in turn entitled to appoint one or more advisers, which will almost inevitably include the manufacturer.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Boeing pilots break ground and fly into the wind. Airbus pilots do the opposite.
Like you and a couple of other folks here, I've flown both brands.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: NY
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by George Glass
Absolute drivel. There has been more nonsense written about the B737 since the MCAS incidents than there has about the faking of the landing on the Moon.
Seems like anytime after these recent accidents (UTAir, Xiamen Air, Miami Air, Pegasus, India Express, etc), if someone remotely raises questions on the 737 they are met with automatic rage at the mere suggestion; this attitude is not compatible with aviation safety. Reminds me of US427 in which Boeing, before the final report, blamed wake turbulence from a 727 as the cause, reality was different. People who bring airplane type into discussion are instantly labeled as "fanboys" (fanboys of who? Embraer? Airbus? McDonnell Douglas? non-737 Boeings? because none of those combined had any overrun hull losses in the past year).
Then someone will bring up the stats from 2018, which correctly states that the NG and the 320's hull loss rate was roughly equal at the time. But since 2018, the NG has had more major runway excursions than the 320 has had in its entire 32 year service; yes I realize most/all of them are pilot error and stats can "lie", it doesn't mean we should automatically dismiss those that bring aircraft type into the discussion.
Someone always brings up "the NG is the safest aircraft", which is demonstrably false. Yes, I'll take 0.08 per million over a car anyday, but there are types out there with 20+ million flight hours without a single fatal accident, operating in much more challenging conditions (E145, A319), repeating a statement over and over does not make it true.
Now regarding the accident, if it turns out to be true that a go around was attempted at the last moment, it would sadly be an exact repeat of the 2010 Air India Express accident. A tragic loss for all involved, and best wishes to the first responders and families.
