Harsh Jones

Get murdered ?

Does anyone know how to drive in CM ? Just look at the last few headlines.

I'd laugh if the first guy caught his sack at the end

“Ashish used his medical knowledge to administer sedatives to my daughter and conspired to drown her. He later told us she died by drowning but I am convinced he murdered her.” He intended to kill her on the trip.

That one is awfully rough

You could say the guy was an idiot. But some ppl get away with things for a long time. And they start to convince themselves that the risk is lower than they thought going in. Now the guy is screwed for a long time.

Cultural thing. It was never intended to be romantic.

At the very least, the black boxes should be connected to the electrical system of the aircraft. In the 737, they are not. The black boxes completely bypass the electrical system and are just hard wired to the generator. If the black boxes were wired like 99.9% of all car stereos are wired, then they wouldn't be missing the critical 4 minutes. It is just common sense. The batteries everyone is talking about is something different.

There could have been smoke/fumes through the AC system. It could have led to a hasty reaction vs. a controlled, checklist-oriented one.

The 737 has 60 minutes of backup electrical power, supplied by 2 main system batteries. The the event that all fuel is lost, for both engines and the APU, there is an hours worth of electrical power to run all the electrical systems. The battery people are talking about in the news is something separate when the aircraft breaks up or is at the bottom of the ocean. That battery is there to run the pinger and is not relevant to an intact aircraft.

The engines are the RAT. The engines generate power when they windmill.

That is incorrect The 737NG has two 24 volt nickel–cadmium batteries, one main and one auxiliary, located in the electronics compartment. The auxiliary battery operates in parallel with the main battery when powering the standby system. The batteries can power all systems for 60 minutes. A dual engine failure does not lead to instantaneous loss of electrical power. The B737 flight controls are hydraulically powered. There are three hydraulic systems: System A, System B, and Standby. Only one main system (A or B) is required for hydraulically flying the aircraft, during normal operation they are both operational. The two main hydraulic systems have an Engine Driven Pump (EDP), which can continue delivering hydraulic pressure when the associated engine is windmilling. All three hydraulic systems are also powered by their own Electric Motor Driven Pump (EMDP). In case of dual engine failure the APU can power the electrical systems for the EMDPs, still delivering full hydraulic power. If the fuel has run out and the APU cannot operate, two batteries provide at least 60 minutes of backup power for the electrical systems. The EDMPs can be powered in this stage, however they provide a high load.

This is a compete fantasy. There is 2 main battery systems to run everything in the event that both engines , APU and RAT fail. Plus a wind milling engine can generate power. How could you possibly think that a 2 engine failure will lead to no electical power instantaneously? Even your car has electrical power after it runs out of gas

Now some ppl are saying that the dual engine failure caused all power to be lost. This of course , is nonsense. There is 2 separate battery systems in the aircraft that can run everything in the event that both engines are out and even if the APU is out. Wind milling engines also still can generate power. There's also some nonsense in the news about how this aircraft didn't have a data box battery. This is irrelevant. Those batteries are for when an aircraft breaks up and is sitting at the bottom of the ocean. It runs the pinger so the box can be found. It is not there to have power backup for when engines are out. It amazes me how many people think an aircraft will have no electrical power bevause the engines broke down.

Comments: I’m a mechanic for many years on 737-800. There is no reason they will stop recording, They work on battery power also The APU is a one flick of the finger start that takes around 30 seconds. No idea unless circuit breakers are pulled. This is very strange. That was always going to happen, the loss of face to have such a monumental cock up laid bare for the world to see would’ve been unforgivable.

I can accept that all of those things failed. And even with that , crash landing the aircraft is not the right course of action. Because that's what they did. It was a crash landing. I've watched hundreds of hours of flight crash investigations. I can tell who the commenters are who've barely watched any. It is almost comical that you think that a basic technical problem or even 2 or 3 serious technical problems would be grounds to crash land an aircraft. It doesn't work like that at all. Hey, no hydraulics. gotta crash land. Engine out , gotta crash land. 2 engines out , gotta crash land. Nothing short of uncontrolled fire in the flight deck is a reason to crash land. Things go wrong with aircraft all the time. And the reason flying is safe is because you almost never have to crash land.

He didn't mean that losing that engine means losing gear hydraulic pressure. That would mean there's no redundancy which is clearly untrue. Even with both engines and the RaT out , there's nitrogen charged accumulators. Im not trying to throw the pilots under the bus. I'm just stating the obvious. Things go wrong with aircraft all the time. And crash landing is never on the checklist.

He doesn't say that at all. What are you talking about ? He says that the primary feed for the landing gear happens to be on the same side as the engine that went out. He does not say that this means they couldn't get the gear down. Both sides are connected all the time. Both sides are redundant to each other At 23:30 he says it was quite "terrible airmanship and terrible judgment and there is NO reason to rush like this." And he says the 737 "flies beautifully" on one engine Then he follows it up by saying there's 20,000 bird strikes a year in North America alone. And then at 26:50 he says "all of this was apparently caused by very very poor decision making by the pilots" And you think a bird strike basically took a plane. Nonsense.

A former air-force pilot and current commercial pilots take. At 11:50 he says "have you run the numbers?". He meant that literally. You have to run the numbers.

There's no way that this happened. It just isn't possible. Anyone who's taken an interest in this topic and has watched some crash investigations knows that this isn't what happened. I wouldn't even fly if I thought this was remotely possible. Perfectly flyable aircraft have been crashed many times due to mistakes and unfortunate situations in the cockpit. South Korean Asiana Air 214 being a recent example. 3 captains and one first officer and they crashed an aircraft with nothing wrong with it. The investigation by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the (Asiana Air 214) accident was caused by the flight crew's mismanagement of the airplane's final approach. Deficiencies in Boeing's documentation of complex flight control systems and in Asiana Airlines' pilot training were also cited as contributory factors.[ And these pilots did not have a perfectly flyable aircraft. They had one engine out. Which is still a flyable aircraft but it just introduced a lot of variance for them. These pilots took off at literally 2 am. 2 am is the most out of sync time to be awake. Pilot error is more than likely the cause of the crash.

I am unsure why they were so quick to do a go-around after the bird strike. An aircraft is hit by birds while on final approach to land - should the pilot continue the approach or initiate a go around/missed approach? Having encountered birds, the question to be answered is "what is the damage to the aircraft and what effect will this have on the safe conduct of the flight?". The full extent of any damage, to the engines and/or the control surfaces and landing gear, may not be apparent until applying power, configuring, or manoeuvring the aircraft. It might therefore be the case that, if a go-around is initiated, the pilots rapidly find themselves in a situation where the runway is disappearing beneath them but the aircraft cannot safely fly a missed approach. Therefore, in the above scenario, it is advisable to continue the approach and land.

A pilots take which is similar to what I have been saying all along Surely I cannot be the only professional aviator wading through this thread thinking that the whole "berm debate" is...superfluous? In what world does landing unconfigured more than halfway down a runway carrying a tremendous amount of energy NOT have a bad outcome? While airport design of course has a role to play in overall safety, ultimately it is OUR job (speaking to other actual pilots, please, not simmers and enthusiasts) to keep the operation within the lines. This wasn't marginally outside those lines. In that light the endless ruminating about The Berm is pointless when I'd wager every actual working pilot is quietly mulling how they never want to perform this "landing", and wanting to know what combination of technical and human factors led to the aircraft being in the aforementioned state. The placement of the obstacle was tragically unfortunate but the allocation of discussion to it is astonishingly misplaced.

This is most likely what happened. An accident that will end up being similar in the way that they reacted to the bird strike.

Perfectly good runway ? The runway is only useful if you land within the minimum distance available. They weren't even close. That is one of the golden rules of airmanship. Why ? We can see with this accident why. So again, no technical fault, nothing, will be a good enough reason to do what they did. It is like aborting a landing after V1. The golden rule.

None of this technical stuff is relevant. Any pilot following any checklist would not have had any aircraft in this state at this part of any runway. If everything was lost (it wasn't, we can clearly see the aircraft was trimmed , flying inline with the runway), the procedure is ditching on water. The aircraft didn't just happen to descend to stall speed at this point in the runway. It was flown and landed there.