I had my seat slide all the way back at takeoff rotation in the DC-8 once. Since I was the FO I didn’t have my hand on the thrust levers. The Captain just laughed and took over the controls but I was pretty helpless for a minute or so. The seat latch mechanism was faulty and repaired at the next stop. Definitely got my attention.
@@hpharridan he has zero understanding of anything aviation. There have been numerous GA accidents due to a seat sliding. Calling it hilarious is inappropriate.
I was once on a flight delayed by a seat failure. The captain announced "We're going to be delayed. My chair's broken, and I can't fly standing up." Seriously, a seat failure on takeoff, (where the load shifts to the seatback) can be rapidly lethal in any aircraft, especially single-pilot. The machine's low, slow, and pointed as far up as it should go, so there's no margin for the pilot to haul on the yoke. Cessna had to introduce special stops on the seat rails as a result of a string of crashes caused by failed latches.
When I was taking flight lessons in a Cessna 152, the instructor had discussed the seat-rails issue thoroughly, and we always checked our seats as part of the pre-flight. Yet, on one flight, his (right) seat slid back in the blink of an eye. I had the controls, so it was no issue as far as initiating a stall (we were in level flight). He was able to reach the bottom of the panel and drag his seat back into place. We continued, and finished, the lesson without further issues, but it did show first-hand how quickly weird stuff can happen.
@@fanatic26 The rudder is there to control yaw. You steer with the ailerons and elevator, which are connected to the yoke (or side stick). The rudder is typically the least important, but you really do want to have access to all of your controls.
The events leading up to flying into a wall were understandable, the startle effect would account for that. The decision to continue the flight was totally insane though.
"Did we hit something?" "Not sure, but the folks at the airport think so." "Well, pressurize the cabin and let's make for the open water. We'll figure it out later."
This one still baffless me. The decisions made. When it comes to the diversion to Mumbay, I guess they wanted to be somewhere they have their own ops and maintenance. However, in this case it was an unnecessary risk. It's better to have to worry with the logistic of maintaining a plane there and ferrying it back, than with a potential crash.
My guess is that the higher-up who made the decision to recall the flight didn't know how far it had got, and the lower-down who knew how much of a diversion it would be didn't have the autonomy to override the boss.
@@AdrianColley Yeah because pilot told that everything was working fine so they would have thought that plane would not have suffered much to worry about
I'd have to go back and re-watch mentor pilots video on this to be sure but i think it was a matter of the quality of emergency support available in case it turned into a crash landing.
I assume the decision to divert to Mumbai was simply that the airline is based in India and Mumbai would have had Air India Express maintenance crew and mechanics available more cheaply and easily than at Dubai, although this clearly would mean that passenger safety comes second to money saving which is not good.
The reason the company wanted them diverting to Mumbai is simply logistics. They have the capability to repair the jet in Mumbai. Remember, at the time they didn't know the extent of the damage. Emergency checklists often end with "LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT". Note it says "suitable" and not "possible". I had an aircraft malfunction while climbing out of a Canadian airport, I think Montreal. I was planning to return to Montreal, but the company informed me that, if safely possible, they wanted the jet back across the border. They listed half a dozen alternates across the border and we ultimately went to Albany. Why did they want this? Maintenance logistics. It was safe as far as I knew, so I complied.
When the flight crew was informed that they took out an ILS antenna, they should have immediately returned despite having their own maintenance there or not. You can always fly in mechanics and make an interim repair and ferry the aircraft to a maintenance station.
@@BobbyGeneric145 Back in the 80s, I worked for Braniff Airlines as a mechanic and we did on call maintenance for other airlines . One day I was called out to a US Air 737-300 which injested a bird in the left engine on take off. I was talking with the pilot and he told me that he saw the bird and realized it went through the engine as all the left engine parameters went down and immediately came back up to normal. He said he thought about continuing on but thought the better of it and returned. We were both standing in front of the engine and couldn't believe the amount of damage done. The bird went through the core,, most of it and bent a few fan blades but the core was just about destroyed. Amazing it still ran. The CFM-56 is a resilient engine. I talked to their maintenance control and they wanted me to boroscope it. I told them your nuts,,, this is an engine change. The aircraft stayed parked there for 3 days before their maintenance people arrived. Sorry for the long story.
"It was safe as far as I knew"? Second guessing with people's lives? Please tell me who you fly for so I can avoid the possibility of you being the pilot [if, in fact you are a pilot] on any flight I might take. Logistics, my ass. Those really skilled seat fixers in Mumbai will do so much better a job than the incompetents in Dubai. I would also never fly Air India as this demonstrates that; 1. the pilots involved were both incompetent and irresponsible in not insisting on returning to departure airport immediately upon being aware of crashing [yes, CRASHING] their plane into terrain. 2. the company would place priority in ensuring a cheaper labor rate in repairing the seat over the risk of flying a damaged aircraft over the ocean with passengers on board.
The return to Mumbai was most probably a cost saving measure. considering how significantly prices are factored in to decisions made in India, its sadly not surprising.
Not really. They returned to the nearest airport. It is bit controversial but still the aircraft is airworthy. The pilots are not very aware of this because they systems of 737 showed that there were some minor damages.
Reading through the comments here, pilot seat failure is far more common than I would have thought. Having said that, there's a good reason they require two pilots on large aircraft. The FO's reaction to the situation was completely unacceptable. And Once the captain had been informed of the impact, that plane should have been landed ASAP. Air India seems to have a lot of stories like this.
Cause it had govt pulling (owned)strings and had it running into the ground anyway , now things are expected to change as there is change of management and is now handed over to TATA group, to whom the airline originally belonged to.
I had my seat slide back while climbing out. I was only at about 400 feet. I couldn’t reach anything. I remember stretching forward to just slightly push the yoke forward with my fingertips. Fortunately the power stayed on full throttle. I just let it climb slightly higher before pushing forward on the yoke with my fingertips to level off. Then I was able to reach down and adjust the seat with my right hand and scoot forward. The worst thing really was the startle factor.
I had my chair collapse once, While this was in my training, my instructor took control and I struggled longer than I'm proud of to get it back into place - I am more than lucky to have him with me on that flight because I was not able to reach the controls after falling back
Apparently during the flight the cockpit voice recorder contiained "I hope this doesn't become news" 4 years later youtube videos getting tens of thousands of views. Despite the slighly hilarity of the event and the startle effect which likely led to the FO not rejecting the takeoff (although clearly he should have), it's understandable that the aircraft hit the wall it was a crazy decision to continue the flight - likely task fixation, poor safety culture or understanding or just an ability to think beyond the requirement for a maintenace inspection by the airline itself (which is probably the most worrying) aspect of this. The pilots seat really is a safety critical piece of equipment, similarly I hope the airport has completed the demolition of that wall rather than requiring aircraft to do it piece by piece!
The other thing that confuses me is why didnt the pilots turn around and immediately land after they were told they hit stuff after takeoff? Even if they were overweight i would think they would circle around near the airport and burn off fuel?
@@greggstrasser5791 I'm failing to see how rejecting a takeoff (a critical phase of flight) when something goes down that ain't supposed to happen to maintain the well-being of your passengers and the airplanes (aka doing his job) and wearing (or not wearing if you chose to ignore mandates) a face mask as per federal mandates.
@@SebastianWoodard Are you familiar with Middle Eastern or Asian culture? FO's are hesitant to speak up out of respect. Western people, most of whom are not pilots, are VERY judgemental. You can see some of the people who judge are ones who wore masks because they were told to. Have you ever stood by while something messed up was going on?
@@greggstrasser5791 I'm aware. That still, however, does not negate the fact a RTO should have been initiated. As for me, if it's my job, or it concerns the safety of myself or others, no, I've never just stood by.
Not a matter of a checklist item, as it was they were within a second or two of a solid impact into those structures. On takeoff roll past V1, you just have to deal with whatever comes your way. Hard to place blame on anyone, except when you get into the seat, move hard back/forward to ensure it’s locked.
Yes exactly my thoughts. If you would start to grab your checklists at such a moment instead of the first thing on the list 'Flying', you probably crash. Do the checklists and checks after liftoff when you are safe in the air, navigate and communicate.
We had something similar happen on a flight from LAX to Sydney in 1993. We were sat opposite the head flight attendant who when we were going down the runway turned white. When we asked him if he was ok he stuttered "we should have taken of by now". When the nose lifted there was an almighty crash from below and we all just stared at each other. We were so close to the cars on the freeway at the end of the runway it was scary as hell. When the seatbelt sign went of the flight attendant went storming up the aisle while shouting over his shoulder " what do you drink?" After a good ten minutes he came back armed with a heap of miniature bottles and told us as the plane had hardly any passengers on board they had stacked it with cargo. Apparently we had taken out the end runway lights but still flew on to Sydney and landed ok. Wasn't to keen on flying again for a while!
ATC: Flight 611, you took out an antenna array and a wall. Flight 611: Roger ATC, no worries, I opted for flight insurance. ATC: I don't think that covers walls. Flight 611: &^%$
I can totally understand The startle effect lasting slightly longer then normal in such an odd sudden mishap… I don’t blame the FO for not rejecting, plus it’s right on edge of V1, and he thought the throttle was still at TOGA…. Deciding to the continue the flight though I think was bad judgment, even if they were positive the plane was air worthy, I imagine it would have been an unrelaxed atmosphere in the cockpit. After the 210 climb to check the planes worthiness, They should have returned…. This accident was as close as it gets to becoming catastrophic
Just curious, would there be a noticeable change in the engine noise when the throttles were changed from 98% to 77%? As a passenger, I do notice there is always a change in the engine noise soon after take off, which is probably due to pull back of the throttles.
To start, this is long. I'm sorry. I wanted to figure it out the best I could. But I've only flown single engine props so I'm only guessing here but I'd say no, for 1 of 3 reasons: 1. If the noise could be heard, then the cockpit would have be relatively noisy when the throttles were actually pulled back. The chair and the fall would've made a noise that could've covered any major noise change, not to mention the pilots are already wearing radio headsets that block out a lot of excess noise to protect their hearing. 2. Have you ever heard of how during stressful times, pilots can simply be overloaded with information and miss something important? Piloting is often 99.9% boredom, 0.1% pure pandemonium that tends to start like this: sudden. It's enough to cause crashes in the past. The crash that really pushed CRM to be adopted involved all 4 flight crew focused on a single light for the noisegear that they ended up crashing. (EDIT: It's Eastern Air Lines Flight 401. All 4 were so distracted they crashed into the Everglades, where 101 people died and 75 survived. And 8 of them had to go into hyperbaric chambers due to gas gangrene found in the Everglades.) This FO could've been so focused on his tasks at hand that when this happened, he was surprised enough not to react properly. He didn't take control immediately, and he didn't follow a checklist he should have memorized. He could've been trying to catch up and thus didn't even notice the change. 3. Or more than likely, no, they probably couldn't easily hear it but probably felt it. Have you within the past decade flown in a 737 near or in the first row, like with a company such as Southwest where you easily can? If so, think of how quiet that was - you could easily talk to people and probably used headphones. And if you ever rode near where the engines are, just think of how much quieter the front row is. Now add the distance from the front row to the cockpit door. Now consider that noise cancelation as it's super reinforced. Finally, the pilots both would have radio headphones on. So a small change from 98 to 77 wouldn't have been that loud for passengers but even quieter for the pilots, and any shaking from the chair going back could've hidden that feeling of the change. Lastly... you likely hear this because airports are often built in cities and noise abatement laws require that between 800 and 3000 feet, planes are not above a specific noise level. Where I fly out of, we cannot go over a specific housing area because their wealthy development managed to be the only area to pass any noise laws. (EDIT: Actually, I'm going to believe Tom Riley too. I know noise abatement is enforced in many areas but this makes sense too.)
Shortly after takeoff the throttles are throttled back from TOGA (Takeoff/go around - slightly less than the absolute maximum that the engines can produce but as much as they're designed to produce on a regular bases) to climb thrust which is quieter, more sustainable by the engines, more efficient.
Absolutely! in this situation the first officer was blowing bubbles instead of doing his job. Two things to say here. The first officer should had rejected the takeoff, period. The second one, this crew was not acting as a professional airline crew whatsoever.
I'm from the city, and it was the next morning I heard the news. I was astonished, like "literally what you have broken a wall and went across the sea and again how!!!" And then there was not much spoken about it. I could notice that many channels recently covering the incident. And as usual great video!
Had this happen while driving my car once… scared the crap outta me. Literally had to pull over and panic. The mechanism just broke and slid. And when I managed to reach the brakes, I am short, I braked too hard and the chair and me shot forward and I was winded by the steering wheel in my chest. Thankfully only a suburban road.
This is why both pilots should have their hand on the throttles and the FO with his right hand lightly on the yoke during the critical roll out phase. As covered in the video, if they had not yet reached V1 they could have aborted take off.
I've only seen military having both pilots place hands on the levers. Some airlines do have the FO place his left hand immediately behind the levers in case they are pulled back.
Both pilots having hands on the throttles can be a bad idea. What I have seen as SOP is to have the pilot flying set the thrust while the pilot monitoring places their hands at the base of the thrust levers but not actually touch the levers. This is to prevent any accidental pullback on the throttle but not influence the setting of the throttles.
Both pilots hands on the yoke and throttles is a bad idea. One pilot's instinctive reaction to an upset could cancel the effectiveness of recovery if the other pilot's reaction cancelled the first pilot's input. You put your life in the other pilot's hands if you are pilot monitoring. CRM is a must, especially during TO and landing.
Something similar almost killed me. Always check your seats, especially if someone else has been using them! Once I lent my Crown Vic to a neighbor who was very short (4'11".) I'm a foot taller. When I got it back, she'd adjusted the seat by pulling up on the bar, but hadn't properly had it lock in place. I had no idea until I had to brake at a stoplight. My whole body rolled forward on the seat until my chest was smashed against the steering wheel, left boob blowing the horn. Luckily I had my foot on the brake, but my body being thrown forward, I inadvertently slammed it hard and made my tires screech to a halt. Thank God I didn't miss it or even worse, hit the gas, and fly into the cars going across the intersection. I got pulled over after, but didn't get a ticket -- the cop was driving the same model and said he'd had it happen to him, too, after someone else used his cruiser.
I fuckin love these videos. They are the perfect length, keep me on my toes, whilst also providing tons of interesting and technical information about flight systems. Keep it up my guy this is by far my favorite channel!
Seems like they would have just let it continue to Dubai since it was nearly there. It's a major airport with full emergency, maintenance and service capabilities. Would have been better for sure than flying back across an ocean with what it now known to be a damaged aircraft.
DXB is a major airport, but not necessarily for AI. EK doesn't have 737s in their fleet, so there wouldn't be a lot of spare 737 parts hanging around that place. Plus it's much cheaper to have your own personnel at a home maintenance base do the repairs if that's an option.
@@stalisuhail Yes that's true, but it's still a rather large part of the Indian Ocean right? How long does it take to fly across the Arabian Sea? It just seemed like a strange choice to take a damaged aircraft back across a large body of water rather than land at the closest airport. Emergency water landings seldom turn out good.
A series of terrible, baffling decisions by the flight crew. First, continuing the takeoff, obviously. Second, continuing to destination in a damaged plane. WTF? Who does that? This time it wasn't a split second decision. They had time to think about it, and they still did something insane. Third, following the order to divert all the way back across the ocean. The pilots are always the ones ultimately responsible for the plane, not anyone on the ground. They have no obligation to follow an insane and dangerous order. In fact, it is their duty to reject such an order.
I'll start with your 2nd question (I addressed the 1st question in a reply to another person's comment). They felt vibrations after wheels up, but that doesn't necessarily mean damage. They ran tests on the critical systems of the aircraft and discovered no faults. Since everything appeared to be in order, and there was no way of knowing the damage from inside the cockpit, I can understand the decision to continue the flight. As for your 3rd question, a long diversion is not an "insane, dangerous decision." The aircraft was flying normally and all systems were functioning properly. There was no reason to think the aircraft was in any kind of dangerous condition. 95% of the route was overwater with limited diversion options to begin with, so the crew was fully ready to be operating over the ocean in a potential abnormal state, that's all part of ETOPS training.
@@derekashworth5884 They were not questions. They were statements. The pilots knew that they overran the runway, they also had a report from the cabin crew of a loud bang from under the floor and a witness report from the ground that they had gone through a wall. They would have to have been insane to think that their plane was fine. They had ample evidence to think that they had taken an unknown amount of damage to the aircraft, and in that situation, you land as soon as it is safe to do so. Doing anything else is crazy. The diversion all the back across the water when they were low on fuel would be questionable even in a fully functional aircraft. They practically doubled the length of their planned flight. There's no way they did that without eating into their fuel reserve, and in a plane which is known to be damaged, it was stupid and dangerous to do. One long over water leg was already stupid and dangerous, and doing another one was doubly so.
Generally takeoff briefings are made for high and low speed abort criteria with the cutoff being 80 knots. Below 80, abort for any abnormalities. Above, only for engine failure, fire, loss of directional control, or thrust reverser deployment. It may be different for the 737 (I start 737 training next week) but that may be why the FO didn't prompt an abort especially with the captain having the tiller once it gets to a low speed.
Staggering! I had no idea about this one. I love how your channel has rare and interesting content. Not always crashes- these incidents are just as fascinating.
The biggest issue is the fact they didn’t immediately turn around and land or go to the nearest airport with an appropriate runway if that one lacked something. They were aware that they had hit both a antenna and a brick wall theres no way that, that can be legitimately seen as not a serious incident.
Oh my God, probably this is called luck. those passengers and pilots were really very lucky to have survived this incident on a very very thin margin dividing them between successful landing and disaster, the first thing is, as soon as the pilots came to know, after the ATC told them, that there plane had hit a wall while taking off, all though everything was fine in the cockpit, to be safe at least the pilots could have came back and landed their plane from the place where they took off to be safe, or another thing was the higher authorities really took a very dangerous chance asking the plane to come back all the way back to Mumbai, to be safe the authority could have made some arrangement to land the plane nearest to the place where it was flying and more importantly the best option was to immediately abort the takeoff instead of the chance they took to fly the plane. here everything just work on pure good luck and chance the luck that the engines didn't get damaged when they took off and hit the wall and it is very fortunate that the plane didn't give out anywhere over the ocean, after the level it was damaged, it's very lucky it stayed in one piece until they came back to Mumbai, probably the people aboard that plane have a very good luck story to tell their entire life. And thank you very much for explaining the incident in a very good way, with also adding the options that they had and what they could have done.
Calculation of V1 is dependent on the power and expected acceleration. If their acceleration was less than calculated, the V1 would be invalid. After the power was reduced, they used up so much runway that they couldn’t stop before the end, even though they were below V1.
Strong dreams already explained it pretty well, but yeah. At that point, all the V speeds became question marks; the captain saw their speed & where they were on the runway and made the split second call. Imho, he made the right one. After takeoff however I would've dumped fuel and landed nearest suitable. I'm not going over water without knowing the state of my aircraft. Also, I totally understand the need for ILS antennas at the end of the runway, but a brick wall..?? Not to be that guy but "who tf put THAT there??"
This incident had happened in the time when a building construction proposal was submitted to the Airport Authorities of India mentioning a rooftop Solar installation on the roof of the prposed building, right outside the airport and the location of the building was adjacent to the direct flight path of Runway 09 at Trichy Airport. No surprises after the approval was denied.
Take off should have been rejected imho, and as it did get airborne she should have been landed straight away, dang lucky it didn’t end up worse for the flight.
Something does not add up... 2:23 - "the captain pushed the throttles to max power" 6:22 - "even when the captain was back, he still didn't notice the throttle levers". The latter seems to be the right one, considering the graphs at 6:18 that say full power was restored AFTER hitting the wall...
When you said his seat collapsed I busted out laughing. Best practical joke ever. I'm going to pull this joke on the pilot in charge next time I'm co-piloting a commercial route.
For the First Officer, I would expect that while he definitely had the knowledge to do something after the pilot fell down, he must have thought that the situation was too sudden to make a decision on. As for why the flight was redirected to Mumbai, I guess that wrong estimates of how far the plane could have gone were given to the control tower by mistake. In that case, you would definitely need another individual to check the estimate before performing such an action.
Could there have been reasons other than that for the chosen redirection? Maybe the ATC and other parties acknowledged that landing in a country you aren't supposed to be landing in isn't always a good idea. Also there may have been a language barrier. Just an idea, not exactly knowledgeable in middle-eastern culture/language/other stuff.
@@xcharke3126 oh I think more than likely. It's easy these days inadvertently to wander into dangerous territory when you start bringing up "differences". Accusations of r4c1sm can quickly abound and, while I do of course see the necessity to avoid that where possible, it is nonetheless something which, in extreme situations like this, may just have to be addressed. By all means as dispassionately and as sensitively as possible, but addressed nevertheless. My own feelings are it was likely to have been down to money, more than anything else. You don't have to be of any particular colour, creed, gender or anything else - to suffer from this affliction - only be of the species H. Sapiens! With the several hours that had passed by the time the flight nearly arrived at it's intended destination, the airline was likely to have had a pretty good idea of the extent of the damage to the plane, given what was immediately noticed - and reported to the crew - in terms of how the impact had affected infrastructure on the ground. Correspondingly, the senior management would have made a fairly easy calculation that it was serious and that it was pure chance that the damage was done in a way which neither caused any warnings in the cabin, nor affected the flight characteristics of the aircraft. They'd have been pretty worried about all the possible ramifications but costs would certainly have been one of them. Compounding that, and here's where we return to that marshy ground, along the lines of what you started to suggest, I strongly suspect there would have been a lot of personal pride and reputation at stake. The relevant senior officials at the airline would probably have been squirming in mortification at the thought of another country's officials becoming aware that one of their planes, loaded with over 130 people, had flown somewhere around 1500 miles, over a ruddy great ocean, with scrapes and holes gouged out the underbelly and its landing gear all snarled up. Sheesh. To then have to try to sort it out with both the authorities, the maintenance/repair people in Muscat and arranging for the passengers' onward transfer to their actual destination - I forget now, Dubai was it? A logistical nightmare at the very least, likely a legal one, and that's before you consider the customer service snags which would have no doubt triggered a raft of further costs - again, the level of difficulty magnified by the distance and cultural/reputational/linguistic factors although to be fair, both parties were most likely proficient in English - but I stand by theory of good old fashioned pride/embarrassment - and simply downright hassle - of having first, your company's code breaches exposed and having to deal with the aftermath at arms length..... such "vague" factors are probably not often referred to within incident reports - and to be fair, it is a fairly unusual one, but not unique. Again, it is not blind prejudice - but weary experience - that rings many alarm bells when you hear about East African Airlines doing a multi legged journey starting in Khartoum, via Addis Ababa, via Tripoli etc etc. I'm not going to get snared up in the works, but it is an unarguable fact that third world aviation has a worse safety record than developed countries and that is a very complex subject. But for an issue with such diabolical implications, I don't think the conversation should be stymied concerning whatever has contributed even if they encompass wider topics than merely management and maintenance, crew and training, and the CVR, flight data records and all the physical aspects of the aircraft.
Τhe decision to take off was maybe not the best decision, but it was still a sound decision based on the few seconds they had to decide. But the decision to continue to fly after they received the damage report and the return to Mumbai were inexcusable.
I'm sure they called flight back to Mumbai because they were uncertain about safe landing, hence they didn't wanted any mishap happening outside India due to the fault caused in India while taking off, it would make sense to settle the entire investigation within the country, but still it wasn't advisable to make the damaged flight turn back and fly all the way over the Indian Ocean landing at Mumbai airport, it surely would have been fatal, THEY WERE SIMPLY LUCKY THAT THEY MADE IT SAFELY.
Answers: FO sat tight, did not reject because he was not in the cockpit. Not his sector you see. That’s a mindset I see among many young Indian pilots. Especially those who have started out too young. Next, the authorities asked the airplane to land back all the way to BOM because any over up on home soil is easier. They have to cover their arse you see. Now, most importantly the PIC acted that way because of “it can’t happen to me…”. Plus Don’t care attitude. Cross check with the Mangalore, Calicut crashes by the same operator. The training head and line ops head should’ve been fired by a firing squad. Such mishaps will continue to be done by these guys. Hope I am proved wrong.
I think that the checklist that was provided for pilot incapacitation might not included accidents during take-off, and even if it did, the pilots might not have known about it. I think that if the engines had hit the wall, the plane would have gone down, but I wonder if the people on board would have survived, or if the terrain/structures after the wall would have destroyed the plane entirely. Thanks for the frequent uploads! Please don't stop.
5:58: Didn't have time to check if all the controls and knobs were supposed to be when they were on the runway taking off. It happened so sudden; what else can you expect of the copilot?
I assume the FO didn't perform an RTO is because that is solely based on the captain's decision and never realised the reduction in thrust. Any remarks?
They flew it across the Indian Ocean and then sent it back again when it was nearly there? Why not let it land in Dubai as it was closer? Instead of making the plane fly back again across the Indian Ocean, risk fuel outages and just add significantly more risk and cost to an already bad situation? They put the plane and its passengers in far greater danger by diverting to Mumbai AFTER it had already crossed the ocean. Making it cross back again is ludicrous.
I lust wondering there is same rule for cars like all car accent have investigation and change the design 🤔 how safe the roads there is faa live you channel
In the US, vehicle safety standards are created by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). A few significant accidents are investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); this is an independent body that can make recommendations but can’t actually issue regulations.
As take-off is such a dangerous part of flying, and as engines are rather an important element in taking off, surely the answer is to have on the dashboard 2 LCD panels ( one for each pilot ) that display the engine power percentages, enabling them to see at a glance if anything is wrong. ...... If the percentage is too low for take-off at take-off, then the percentages could display in RED, and FLASH, directing the pilots to the problem.
The return to mumbai is probably to reduce the maintenance and repair cost. Airlines usually have a maintenance contract in different hubs. logistics and parts are priced depending on all these factors and its faster and easier to let your own engines to work on ur craft to know what is going on ect
you mention that TOGA thrust was initiated for the takeoff. This seems highly unlikely. Almost all commercial flights use considerably less than TOGA for take off, usually around 85% power. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Re the flight to Mombay . My guess is that once in the middle East the plane would stay there until repaired. The airline maybe felt that it would be cheaper to fix it "in house" . They may not of wanted their First Officer blood tested. His inaction is a bit odd. It is not like the captain turned into an Octopus. People fall out of chairs or have their car seat give way all the time. If I was his employer I would send him for some training.
You don't need simulations for these first tested scenarios, this is what the take-off performance calculations are for and is distilled down to very simple go/no-go V1, Vr, V2 calls.
Rejected takeoffs over 100 knots are considered very 'dangerous' ... the FO should have easily been able to take over and continue the takeoff but you are correct that he did not notice the reduction in thrust probably due to at least in part to the 'startle factor'.
“Saw the plane fly through a brick wall”!! What could possibly be wrong with that? Perhaps they shoulda charged the flight officers with theft of brickwork from the airport. The charges of theft of bricks would have carried more weight in calling the crew back to the ground. Yeah, this could have gone worse. Just how man bricks does it take to ground an aircraft?
Where a potentially damaged plane is asked to land depends not just on how near an airport is but whether the airport they are landing at has the facilities to repair said damage. Of course this depends on the severity of the damage. I guess the pilots reported back that their plane still handled well so their company took the risk that it can stay in the air to make it to their repair base. If I was a passenger I would have been outraged they were gambling with my life.
