- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: June 12, 2025: Air India 787 Dreamliner crashes in the city of Ahmedabad
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:05 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:05 am to RollTide1987
Ah my bad.
0
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:16 am to Ruston Trombone
quote:
Funny how Boeings seem to have so much pilot error
Whats not amazing is the average American grabs hold of a talking point and squeezes the life out of it.
This like most plane crashes was probably pilot error.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:29 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This like most plane crashes was probably pilot error.
The two Max crashes were a combo of the two.
Boeing redesigned a plane and didn’t properly train or automatically build in redundant AOA sensors and let airlines decide.
The pilots in those two had no clue what was going on due to lack or training and systems.
This post was edited on 6/13/25 at 8:30 am
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:34 am to sotex
quote:
The flaps on the wing that were photographed after the crash were still extended.
Not doubting you, but do you have a pic of that, I didn't see it. And were they extended to the proper angle for that phase or were less out than needed to be at liftoff?
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:39 am to Lsut81
quote:
The two Max crashes were a combo of the two.
Again, this like most crashes will be pilot error.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:43 am to redstick13
quote:
Mover also thinks there is something with the flaps setting.
More than that. Seems like it’s likely inefficient flaps and they used 6300 ft of runway and not the full length which some say is 8300 and some 11,000. They had to pull up and just never had the speed and therefore lift to do so. Sad
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:43 am to Saintsisit
quote:
Not doubting you, but do you have a pic of that, I didn't see it. And were they extended to the proper angle for that phase or were less out than needed to be at liftoff?
My theory all along is that the flaps were extended but they put some bad numbers into their flight computer. They most likely entered a much lower weight than the actual weight. So, garbage in garbage out. That bad info entered into the box gave them a much more derated takeoff thrust and likely a much lower flap setting needed for the temperature and weight they were flying that day.
I think once the investigation is complete you’ll see that they spent the entire 20 seconds of the flight wondering why they weren’t getting the power they needed from the aircraft instead of just manually shoving the thrust levers all the way to the stops.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:44 am to Saintsisit
quote:
Not doubting you, but do you have a pic of that, I didn't see it. And were they extended to the proper angle for that phase or were less out than needed to be at liftoff?
Possible the flaps were extended right before the crash though?
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:45 am to dallastigers
quote:
A passenger who reportedly flew on the doomed Air India jet just two hours before it crashed, killing more than 200 people, posted shocking video in which he says “nothing” was working in the cabin — including lights, air conditioning and the seat-back display screens.
… “The AC is not working at all. And, as usual, your TV screens are also not working, neither is this button for calling the cabin crew,” Vatsa can be heard saying in the video.
Maintenance isn't great with Air India.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:45 am to baldona
quote:
More than that. Seems like it’s likely inefficient flaps and they used 6300 ft of runway and not the full length which some say is 8300 and some 11,000. They had to pull up and just never had the speed and therefore lift to do so. Sad
I don’t think it was an intersection departure. If you look at the video of the plane taking off and correlate it with google maps you can see that it was a full length departure. I posted a pic showing this on page 3 or 4 I think.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:48 am to HeadCall
quote:
I think once the investigation is complete you’ll see that they spent the entire 20 seconds of the flight wondering why they weren’t getting the power they needed from the aircraft instead of just manually shoving the thrust levers all the way to the stops.
Basically like most of these 3rd world country crashes, once the autopilot fails the pilots are incapable of trouble shooting and just flying the plane manually. And it crashes.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:48 am to lsu xman
quote:
BA stock down 7% after hrs. Maybe just panic sellers.
The plot to Casino Royale
Posted on 6/13/25 at 8:57 am to HeadCall
quote:
I don’t think it was an intersection departure. If you look at the video of the plane taking off and correlate it with google maps you can see that it was a full length departure. I posted a pic showing this on page 3 or 4 I think.
I don’t see your pic, but I’ve seen multiple people that know more than I that the dust kicked up at the end of take off likely means they were at the very end of the runway at take off. Which leads to most thinking they did an intersection take off with the shorter runway.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 9:02 am to baldona
A lower takeoff thrust setting could also lead to a longer takeoff roll.
This post was edited on 6/13/25 at 9:04 am
Posted on 6/13/25 at 9:09 am to HeadCall
quote:
A lower takeoff thrust setting could also lead to a longer takeoff roll.
Someone said airborn speed is about 160 mph? So I calculated the video of about 23 seconds? I just hand counted I guess I could watch it, lol. But 160mph at 22-24 seconds is about a mile, so 5000-5500 ft of runway in the video?
Posted on 6/13/25 at 9:52 am to baldona
quote:
Seems like it’s likely inefficient flaps and they used 6300 ft of runway and not the full length which some say is 8300 and some 11,000. They had to pull up and just never had the speed and therefore lift to do so.
I just measured the runway in Google World. It's 11,810 feet from end to end.
The taxiways enter the sole runway at 5000, 7000 and 8000 feet with one offering the full 11,810 feet.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 10:04 am to Auburn1968
I'm flying today and watching an A380 taxi just now. I don't believe they've had an accident resulting in loss of airframe. Looking at how massive this plane is, what a disaster it would be as far as loss of life.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 10:16 am to redstick13
Modern aircraft are incredibly safe. Between the A380, A350, 787, and 777, this is the first crash that has fatalities, excluding the two extreme Malaysian 777 incidents that likely had nothing to do with the aircraft.
This post was edited on 6/13/25 at 10:17 am
Posted on 6/13/25 at 10:27 am to Auburn1968
My FIL was a private pilot and one of his (many) sayings was “There are two things useless to a pilot, runway behind you and altitude above you”.
Posted on 6/13/25 at 10:29 am to Saintsisit
This photo. Can’t tell the angle, but the flaps were deployed, clearly.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Page 12 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News