18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
18 points (95.0% liked)
News
37338 readers
131 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So the VR speed for a 787 isn't going to be set like a Cessna 172, it's going to be a calculated value depending on weight, temperature, etc. The computers will calculate this speed for you before flight, assuming all info is input correctly.
The cockpit won't be able to see the flaps visually but will have a digital indicator that shows the position. During pre take-off checks one of the procedures would be to check this indicator for the correct setting.
With the very limited available info and the fact that video shows it slowly descending without obvious external mechanical issues, my initial guess is on pilot or computer error.
Some people were saying, based on a video of the crash that it might have been mechanical, as they heard the sound of the RAT that only deploys on double engine failure.
Also, wouldn't a bad config cause a full-on stall? It seemed more of a controlled glide to me.
Really it's far too soon to say and until they get a chance to look over flight data, nobody knows for sure. The RAT would be a good indicator, I know Airbus deploys the RAT automatically in a double engine faliure but am unsure about Boeing's but asume it's the same. I have also heard that the airline's mechanical inspections and maintenance procedures are not great, so maybe that had a role too. The sole survivor said about 30 seconds after takeoff he heard a bang, possibly a bird strike or turbine breaking apart. Even a single engine lost that soon in flight would probably cause a similar outcome to here, the aircraft is at it's heaviest on take off and didn't have altitude to work with. But again, lots of guesses from me here.
Really depends how much the pilots were paying attention, a stall should have a few different warnings, both electrically from the AoA indicator and physically how the aircraft behaves. To me it looked like the pilots were doing what they could to gain altitude without stalling in the process, unfortunately there was just no way out in that scenario. If the power loss situation ends up being correct, it's a very shitty position to be in and was always one of my biggest fears while flying as your options during the initial climb are extremely limited to none at all.
Yeah, you summed up all my thoughts on the subject really great. It really feels that it would be better to have airports a bit further away from population centers, but I know it's not always feasible.
At least at my local I can glide my little Piper down to the tulip fields, at least that's what I keep telling myself. Doing it in an airliner... it must have been horrifying for the pilots.
Yeah, India has to be one of the worst places for an accident like this just due to pure population density too. Looking at the direction it took off, they would have had to make it 7 miles at an absolute minimum to clear most of the densely populated area, or turn right and attempt to land in the river. But in this situation it only made it 1 mile, so neither was a possibility.
It's a whole lot different with an aircraft that size. I mean I used to practice power off forced approaches pretty frequently when I was flying, in small aircraft it's pretty safe. But that was starting from altitude. How many times have you cut the engine and practiced a power loss situation shortly after takeoff? I don't believe I ever have at least, closet thing I did to that was a simulated rope break while instructing on gliders and even then we gave ourselves wayyy more altitude than we required and were flying over the airport still when we pulled the release. Plus it's a glider, so cheating a bit. It's just too risky even to practice really, because you don't have an easy out if the engine dies after being pulled to idle or something. Same goes for an airliner but much worse, at most they may have trained for this in a simulator. Best thing you can do to prepare is have altitude based decision gates so you don't have to think as much and can just act if something does go wrong, even if those decisions are "200 to 500 feet I'm landing in the trees".
Yeah same, except I had a bunch of actual rope breaks (faulty rope). It's fucking harrowing.
I got lucky and in my years of gliding never had an actual rope break. In fact I only ever heard of one happening at this place while I worked there. They had the ropes down to an art though, inspected multiple times a day and the end inspected on every launch, custom covers for the ring to protect it while dragged down the runway, it was fancy. Being a training facility I suppose that's smart. Closest I got was during my instructor training with the chief pilot, that's the only person allowed to do unbriefed emergency simulations. It definitely caught me off guard!