4 hours ago, Hummin said:

Again, the verification of the video needs to be done as well.

 

Could be a tricky dirt package from ? 

 

Russia, China, ? You cant trust anything today. 

I thought only right wingers were conspiracy theorists 

5 hours ago, Peter Crow said:

I'd trust Captain Steve a lot more if he was a 787 pilot.. There is a fundamental difference between 787 and any other commercial aircraft: its no bleed architecture.

 

This is why the invoked dual "engine failure" needs more explanation, what looks to some like a gross pilot error could also be a systems fault...

 

Sadly, this would b crashed the be reminiscent to the Max crashes...

 

Not similar.

4 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

You can see the leading-edge flaps?

 

Amazing.

 

Slats

19 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Its quite bizarre that you question this yet believe everything you're told about Trump, covid or Ukraine without batting an eyelid 

Where is it what I question? You've obviously mistaken me. 

Happens to people wearing Alu-Hats. Don't worry. Will not harm you🤓

21 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

I thought only right wingers were conspiracy theorists 

Do you understand a video have to be verified to be used as evidence? 

 

And do you reckoning several strategic western companies being under attack from false information and speculations ? Socalled Dirt packages. I did not say it happened here, and further investigation is necessary. 

 

Everyone more or less is affected by conspiracies, very few state conspiracies are true, or facts because we do not know, while others becomes convinced because it is plausible but not proven, and very few are convinced by false facts 

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Do you understand a video have to be verified to be used as evidence? 

 

And do you reckoning several strategic western companies being under attack from false information and speculations ? Socalled Dirt packages. I did not say it happened here, and further investigation is necessary. 

 

Everyone more or less is affected by conspiracies, very few state conspiracies are true, or facts because we do not know, while others becomes convinced because it is plausible but not proven, and very few are convinced by false facts 

The video has been used by news agencies. It would have been verified. The video I linked shows the original video not the video the news agencies used which is a video of the video.

4 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

If you add to this the cloud of dust just as plane left runway, it now looks like it could have hit something, antennas or wall or...

From this link: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/12/world/video/flight-data-analysis-india-crash-digvid

It shows CCTV capture with the flight reconstruction.

 

If it did hit something and knocked both engines out, that would also cut all the power in the plane, which would result in RAT being lowered.

Plane also doesn't seem to have flaps deployed. Being close to full (90%) at 40C, this would warrant flaps 15 which would definitely be visible but at least they don't seem to be in that video above.

 

So if for some reason flaps didn't deploy, which caused delayed lift due to insufficient speed to take off without flaps, then hitting something at the end of the runway, knocking out all the power and engines... and then pulling nose up to slow it further... that would be one theory that could look just like what we saw.

 

And then there's this: https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/i-was-in-same-flight-2-hours-before-akash-vatsa-claims-he-flew-on-air-india-boeing-787-8-that-later-crashed-101749732636232.html

 

Now you really start to wonder about the quality of Air India maintenance...

 

 

I know the top down view is simulated from other "data" but the vdo shows that the 787 barely gets airborne by the very end of this 11.500 ft runway. As can be expected, the shadow of the plane is only visible on the ground after the climb starts and that shadow only appears on the rough ground but not on the runway itself. So, a very late rotation, which explains the billowing dust on the news vdo. A full length runway takeoff here would normally still give a "heavy" 787 at least 2500ft of spare runway. It looks to me as if something was already wrong before the plane managed to leave the ground. 

10 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The video has been used by news agencies. It would have been verified. The video I linked shows the original video not the video the news agencies used which is a video of the video.

Still for being part of the puzzle, it will be another process veryfing the evidences for manipulation, which will take time. Just normal procedures checking raw data or comprised as it is most likely here.

2 hours ago, IsaanT said:

I'd like to put some perspective on this, from a pilot's point of view.

Firstly, the plane lifted right at the end of the runway.  We know this because the buildings at the far end are approaching very quickly and dust was blown up by the thrust from the engines (or, additionally, from the downwash from the wings) when it rotated.  This is not normal.  When an airline pilot is planning his flight he looks at the flight conditions (weight of passengers and cargo, amount of fuel onboard, outside temperature, humidity and pressure) and instructs the flight computer on the plane how much power to use for the takeoff.  For short-haul flights it is quite normal to only use 85-95% of available power for the takeoff (no point wasting fuel and causing unnecessary stress and wear on the engines).  The main point, however, is that they will use enough power to lift off around 75% of the length of the runway.

We all know that pilots use V speeds.  V1 is the crucial 'go or no go' speed, above which you are committed to takeoff because there isn't going to be enough runway left to stop.  It is reasonable to assume no problem was known at this point otherwise they would have aborted the takeoff.

However, as stated, they used far more runway than anyone would expect.  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the crew knew they had an issue before they even got airborne because they wouldn't have chosen to leave it so late to rotate.

Secondly, the climb.  As we know, the highest recorded height above the ground was 653 feet, after which it steadily descended.  On initial takeoff, an airliner is typically doing 4000-5000 feet per minute in the climb.  The video shows that it limped up to 653 feet and then levelled off.  It is reasonable to assume that full power was not being delivered almost immediately after rotation, and possibly earlier.

Thirdly, airliners use flaps for takeoff and initial climb.  Not as much flap as when landing but they still need the lift augmentation to get airborne.  Whilst the video doesn't appear to show any flaps, five degrees of flap would be difficult to see clearly.  There are also leading-edge slats that extend forward; there's no way to see if these were deployed.  Given the frequently-stated fact that the plane will issue urgent warnings if takeoff power is applied without flaps it is reasonable to assume they were deployed.

Fourthly, the landing gear being down.  The crew knew they had power issues, as stated in the mayday call.  They would have known that unless they could fix it very quickly gravity would win so the best thing to do when you know you are going down is to leave the undercarriage down to absorb some of the forces when it arrives on the ground again.

Fifthly, the audio does appear to show that the RAT was deployed and working.  It sounds a bit like a NA Harvard taking off (Harvard propellor tips go supersonic on full power and make a din that can be heard miles away) or, more simply, a small two-stroke outboard motor at full chat.  Find other videos of RATs working and you'll recognise the unmistakeable sound.

Lastly, the surviving passenger said that the aircraft seemed to hang in the air for a few moments before descending.  He also stated that the noise of the engines then increased.  The 'hanging in the air' sensation would be felt if the engines weren't producing much thrust - the plane is pointing up and, without thrust, it will be slowing down rapidly and then descending.  Whether the passenger is accurately describing the engines spooling up or not is conjecture - did he mistake the noise of the RAT, perhaps?  However, even if the engines were spooling up, it may have been too late to arrest the descent and get enough speed and thrust to start climbing again.  They only reached a maximum of around 650 feet and may have needed 1000-2000 feet to convert the descent back into a climb (FWIW, I beleive the aircraft's inertia could have taken it to 650 feet after it lifted off, even if there was negligle thrust available).  If full power returned (that's a big 'if') the pilots would have been able to use it and the descent would have been arrested almost immediatly.  Full takeoff power - known as TOGA (takeoff and go-around power) - is the full 100% and watching any airliner descending to land and then deciding to go-around will show that a glide descent (the condition of the Air India plane) can be converted into a climb in 4-5 seconds.  The video appears to show a consistent descent all the way down, with the nose being raised slightly before impact to flare the aircraft, i.e. slow it down further to minimise the speed of impact, as would be expected under the circumstances.

All the above is stated objectively from the visual and audio evidence available.  Anything else is subjective, speculative or conjecture.

I, like you, await the official findings.
 

Thank you for the expert assessment.  It's difficult to image the thoughts of the pilots when they realised they'd passed the point where they needed to rotate, but didn't have enough power.

 

My Father used to fly a T6 Harvard/Texan, and he said if you stood in line with props at full power you'd get serious hearing damage!   So if the RAT makes a noise anything like a Texan, you'd definitely hear it from the ground.

 

And the noise on the fooftop video does sound a bit like a Texan, and not a lot like a jet engine.

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Still for being part of the puzzle, it will be another process veryfing the evidences for manipulation, which will take time. Just normal procedures checking raw data or comprised as it is most likely here.

What are you talking about? There's absolutely no rationality to your comments crying manipulation and compromised data. If you think you can support these ridiculous claims with some facts then please go right ahead. A jet flies overhead. You can see the gear is down. You can hear the RAT. You can see the plane lose thrust. You can see the fireball when it crashes. There's videos and images of the crash site. The black box has been recovered. There is, as amazing as it is, one survivor. What the hell are you on about?

6 hours ago, Peter Crow said:

I'd trust Captain Steve a lot more if he was a 787 pilot.. There is a fundamental difference between 787 and any other commercial aircraft: its no bleed architecture.

 

With respect, I disagree for several reasons:

1) All pilots are trained on the principles of flight, and meaningful analysis of the videos can be done at this stage by simply understanding the principles of flight.

2) Commercial airline pilots are trained to a much greater degree to understand the complexities of large aircraft.  It's generally accepted that it takes around £100,000 worth of training - most of which is in a classroom, not a cockpit - to get an airline pilot's licence.

3) Whilst I agree that there are specifics about the 787's design and operation that we may not all know, 99% of what you need to evaluate what happened here is known by most pilots.  N.B. evaluation is not the same as root cause identification - we'll leave that to the crash investigators.

If you've ever watched the film 'Flight of the Phoenix' you may recall that part-way through the construction of the Phoenix, the passengers discovered that the man doing the design and calculations had 'only' designed model aircraft, not any real ones.  When challenged about this, the designer retorted that model aircraft have to be fundamentally correct and fly themselves, without the help of a pilot (this was in the days before radio-controlled models).  It was a valid point about understanding the principles of flight.
 

30 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

What are you talking about? There's absolutely no rationality to your comments crying manipulation and compromised data. If you think you can support these ridiculous claims with some facts then please go right ahead. A jet flies overhead. You can see the gear is down. You can hear the RAT. You can see the plane lose thrust. You can see the fireball when it crashes. There's videos and images of the crash site. The black box has been recovered. There is, as amazing as it is, one survivor. What the hell are you on about?

You obviously do not understand how an investigation precedes. The black box can take weeks to analyze, in mean time witnesses will be questioned, evidence collected and verified. Checked for manipulation and so on. 
 

Here help yourself 😉

AI-oversikt

 

During an investigation, forensic analysis of video raw data aims to verify its authenticity and integrity, checking for signs of manipulation or tampering.This involves examining metadata, pixel data, and other technical indicators to confirm the video's validity and ensure it hasn't been altered to mislead or misrepresent events. 

 

Here's a breakdown of the process:

 

1. Data Acquisition and Preservation:

• Working with Original Files:

  Investigators should prioritize working with the original video file, rather than converted or edited versions, to avoid introducing potential alterations. 

   
• Hash Values:

  Generating and verifying hash values of the original video file is crucial to ensure data integrity. Any changes to the video will result in a different hash value. 

   
• Imaging:

  Creating a bit-for-bit copy of the video source, often called imaging, ensures that the original evidence remains untouched during analysis. 

   

2. Examining Metadata:

• Metadata Analysis:

  Examining metadata (information about the video, like date, time, location, and device) can reveal inconsistencies or tampering.
• Metadata Verification:

  Investigators verify the accuracy of the metadata to ensure it aligns with the video's content and context. 

   

3. Visual and Audio Analysis:

• Pixel-Level Analysis:

  Analyzing individual pixels for inconsistencies, unnatural movements, or alterations in the visual elements of the video can indicate tampering. 

   
• Audio Analysis:

  Examining audio for unnatural speech patterns, background noise manipulation, or altered pitch can reveal audio manipulation. 

   
• Object Recognition:

  Analyzing the video for inconsistencies in object recognition and scene composition can reveal signs of tampering. 

   

4. Forensic Techniques:

• Reverse Steganography:

  Extracting hidden data within the video file to reveal potential tampering. 

   
• File Carving:

  Recovering deleted or fragmented video files to analyze potentially tampered portions. 

   
• Video Source Camera Identification (VSCI):

  Using unique camera sensor properties (like PRNU) to identify the camera used and verify the video's origin. 

   
• Deepfake Detection:

  Employing specialized tools and techniques to identify deepfake videos, which involve sophisticated manipulation of visual and audio data. 

   

5. Reporting:

• Documentation:

  Meticulously documenting all steps of the investigation, including the methods used and the findings, is crucial. 

   
• Evidence Presentation:

  Presenting the evidence in a clear and concise manner, including the identified inconsistencies or signs of manipulation, is essential for investigations. 

   

Examples of Manipulation:

• Editing: Cutting and splicing video segments to change the context or meaning. 
   
• Mislabeling: Using video from one event to represent another. 
   
• Speed Changes: Altering the playback speed to distort perception. 
   
• Deepfakes: Using AI to create realistic but fabricated videos of individuals. 
   

By employing these techniques, investigators can determine the authenticity and integrity of video evidence, ensuring its reliability during investigations and court proceedings

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You obviously do not understand how an investigation precedes. The black box can take weeks to analyze, in mean time witnesses will be questioned, evidence collected and verified. Checked for manipulation and so on. 
 

Here help yourself 😉

 

AI-oversikt

 

During an investigation, forensic analysis of video raw data aims to verify its authenticity and integrity, checking for signs of manipulation or tampering.This involves examining metadata, pixel data, and other technical indicators to confirm the video's validity and ensure it hasn't been altered to mislead or misrepresent events. 

 

Here's a breakdown of the process:

 

1. Data Acquisition and Preservation:

• Working with Original Files:

  Investigators should prioritize working with the original video file, rather than converted or edited versions, to avoid introducing potential alterations. 

   
• Hash Values:

  Generating and verifying hash values of the original video file is crucial to ensure data integrity. Any changes to the video will result in a different hash value. 

   
• Imaging:

  Creating a bit-for-bit copy of the video source, often called imaging, ensures that the original evidence remains untouched during analysis. 

   

2. Examining Metadata:

• Metadata Analysis:

  Examining metadata (information about the video, like date, time, location, and device) can reveal inconsistencies or tampering.
• Metadata Verification:

  Investigators verify the accuracy of the metadata to ensure it aligns with the video's content and context. 

   

3. Visual and Audio Analysis:

• Pixel-Level Analysis:

  Analyzing individual pixels for inconsistencies, unnatural movements, or alterations in the visual elements of the video can indicate tampering. 

   
• Audio Analysis:

  Examining audio for unnatural speech patterns, background noise manipulation, or altered pitch can reveal audio manipulation. 

   
• Object Recognition:

  Analyzing the video for inconsistencies in object recognition and scene composition can reveal signs of tampering. 

   

4. Forensic Techniques:

• Reverse Steganography:

  Extracting hidden data within the video file to reveal potential tampering. 

   
• File Carving:

  Recovering deleted or fragmented video files to analyze potentially tampered portions. 

   
• Video Source Camera Identification (VSCI):

  Using unique camera sensor properties (like PRNU) to identify the camera used and verify the video's origin. 

   
• Deepfake Detection:

  Employing specialized tools and techniques to identify deepfake videos, which involve sophisticated manipulation of visual and audio data. 

   

5. Reporting:

• Documentation:

  Meticulously documenting all steps of the investigation, including the methods used and the findings, is crucial. 

   
• Evidence Presentation:

  Presenting the evidence in a clear and concise manner, including the identified inconsistencies or signs of manipulation, is essential for investigations. 

   

Examples of Manipulation:

• Editing: Cutting and splicing video segments to change the context or meaning. 
   
• Mislabeling: Using video from one event to represent another. 
   
• Speed Changes: Altering the playback speed to distort perception. 
   
• Deepfakes: Using AI to create realistic but fabricated videos of individuals. 
   

By employing these techniques, investigators can determine the authenticity and integrity of video evidence, ensuring its reliability during investigations and court proceedings

Are you seriously suggesting the video I linked is somehow a deep fake or somehow manipulated? You can bet your bottom dollar that investigators have viewed the only two available videos of this plane taking off and crashing. Do you not think that if there was something dodgy about the videos this would not have been shared not only by the crash investigators but all experts that have seen them? Simply absurd. More than 260 people have died and your line on this is to call the two videos manipulated or fake. Incredible.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Are you seriously suggesting the video I linked is somehow a deep fake or somehow manipulated? You can bet your bottom dollar that investigators have viewed the only two available videos of this plane taking off and crashing. Do you not think that if there was something dodgy about the videos this would not have been shared not only by the crash investigators but all experts that have seen them? Simply absurd. More than 260 people have died and your line on this is to call the two videos manipulated or fake. Incredible.

I give up, I have continuously explained to you how the investigation will proceed, and you still not able to understand. 
 

It is not what I believe or think, it is how the investigation proceeds 

 

Sorry can’t help you anymore if you do not understand simple things. 
 

you think they look at the video and make conclusions like people often do on social media or other web related forums? 
 

Aviation accidents takes time before they will release information 

Oohhh God.....

At V1 he had to lift off Alarms would be sounding in the cockpit im sure he had more to worry then lifting the undercarriage. This Pilot was not fresh from a simulator he was very experienced. He would have already done all the pre-take off checks on his list an alarm would tell him flaps were not set prior to lift off. Some catastrophic event occurred as he lifted off which sadly for him and the passengers ended there lives. One video that brought me to tears was a family saying goodbye to there young daughter as she walked into the airport, not knowing it was the last time they saw her alive. 

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I give up, I have continuously explained to you how the investigation will proceed, and you still not able to understand. 
 

It is not what I believe or think, it is how the investigation proceeds 

 

Sorry can’t help you anymore if you do not understand simple things. 
 

you think they look at the video and make conclusions like people often do on social media or other web related forums? 
 

Aviation accidents takes time before they will release information 

Topic. RAT was deployed. Supporting this are videos. You're suggesting the investigators will check if the videos are somehow fake. Why? Why would they bother. They have the block box, cockpit data and the remains of the Dreamliner and as I said they have surely already viewed the images of the plane taking off and then crashing.

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Its quite bizarre that you question this yet believe everything you're told about Trump, covid or Ukraine without batting an eyelid 

Wrong thread, chap........🙄

36 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You obviously do not understand how an investigation precedes. The black box can take weeks to analyze, in mean time witnesses will be questioned, evidence collected and verified. Checked for manipulation and so on. 
 

Here help yourself 😉

 

AI-oversikt

 

During an investigation, forensic analysis of video raw data aims to verify its authenticity and integrity, checking for signs of manipulation or tampering.This involves examining metadata, pixel data, and other technical indicators to confirm the video's validity and ensure it hasn't been altered to mislead or misrepresent events. 

 

Here's a breakdown of the process:

 

1. Data Acquisition and Preservation:

• Working with Original Files:

  Investigators should prioritize working with the original video file, rather than converted or edited versions, to avoid introducing potential alterations. 

   
• Hash Values:

  Generating and verifying hash values of the original video file is crucial to ensure data integrity. Any changes to the video will result in a different hash value. 

   
• Imaging:

  Creating a bit-for-bit copy of the video source, often called imaging, ensures that the original evidence remains untouched during analysis. 

   

2. Examining Metadata:

• Metadata Analysis:

  Examining metadata (information about the video, like date, time, location, and device) can reveal inconsistencies or tampering.
• Metadata Verification:

  Investigators verify the accuracy of the metadata to ensure it aligns with the video's content and context. 

   

3. Visual and Audio Analysis:

• Pixel-Level Analysis:

  Analyzing individual pixels for inconsistencies, unnatural movements, or alterations in the visual elements of the video can indicate tampering. 

   
• Audio Analysis:

  Examining audio for unnatural speech patterns, background noise manipulation, or altered pitch can reveal audio manipulation. 

   
• Object Recognition:

  Analyzing the video for inconsistencies in object recognition and scene composition can reveal signs of tampering. 

   

4. Forensic Techniques:

• Reverse Steganography:

  Extracting hidden data within the video file to reveal potential tampering. 

   
• File Carving:

  Recovering deleted or fragmented video files to analyze potentially tampered portions. 

   
• Video Source Camera Identification (VSCI):

  Using unique camera sensor properties (like PRNU) to identify the camera used and verify the video's origin. 

   
• Deepfake Detection:

  Employing specialized tools and techniques to identify deepfake videos, which involve sophisticated manipulation of visual and audio data. 

   

5. Reporting:

• Documentation:

  Meticulously documenting all steps of the investigation, including the methods used and the findings, is crucial. 

   
• Evidence Presentation:

  Presenting the evidence in a clear and concise manner, including the identified inconsistencies or signs of manipulation, is essential for investigations. 

   

Examples of Manipulation:

• Editing: Cutting and splicing video segments to change the context or meaning. 
   
• Mislabeling: Using video from one event to represent another. 
   
• Speed Changes: Altering the playback speed to distort perception. 
   
• Deepfakes: Using AI to create realistic but fabricated videos of individuals. 
   

By employing these techniques, investigators can determine the authenticity and integrity of video evidence, ensuring its reliability during investigations and court proceedings

No, no, no, @dinsdale is the expert on most stuff on here..................😏.............

47 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

With respect, I disagree for several reasons:

1) All pilots are trained on the principles of flight, and meaningful analysis of the videos can be done at this stage by simply understanding the principles of flight.

2) Commercial airline pilots are trained to a much greater degree to understand the complexities of large aircraft.  It's generally accepted that it takes around £100,000 worth of training - most of which is in a classroom, not a cockpit - to get an airline pilot's licence.

3) Whilst I agree that there are specifics about the 787's design and operation that we may not all know, 99% of what you need to evaluate what happened here is known by most pilots.  N.B. evaluation is not the same as root cause identification - we'll leave that to the crash investigators.

If you've ever watched the film 'Flight of the Phoenix' you may recall that part-way through the construction of the Phoenix, the passengers discovered that the man doing the design and calculations had 'only' designed model aircraft, not any real ones.  When challenged about this, the designer retorted that model aircraft have to be fundamentally correct and fly themselves, without the help of a pilot (this was in the days before radio-controlled models).  It was a valid point about understanding the principles of flight.
 

 

Good movie.

2 minutes ago, transam said:

No, no, no, @dinsdale is the expert on most stuff on here..................😏.............

I know.

 

And here is 

 

AI-oversikt

 

The time it takes to examine a black box after a plane crash varies, but initial data analysis can take a few weeks to a couple of months, while a comprehensive investigation, including report finalization, can take 12 to 24 months or longer. Factors like the condition of the black box and the complexity of the incident influence the duration. 

 

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Initial Data Download and Review:

  If the black box is in good condition, the initial data download and review can be completed relatively quickly, often within a few weeks. 

   
• Detailed Analysis:

  A thorough investigation, including cross-referencing data, examining wreckage, and analyzing maintenance records, takes significantly longer, potentially stretching to a year or more. 

   
• Final Report:

  The time required for the final report depends on the complexity of the incident and the extent of damage to the black box. Some reports can take several months, while others may take over a year or even longer. 

   
• Preliminary Report:

  International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules mandate a preliminary report within 30 days. 

   

Factors Affecting Examination Time:

• Black Box Condition: Damage to the black box can significantly increase the time required for data recovery and analysis. 
   
• Complexity of the Incident: More complex accidents require more in-depth analysis, extending the overall investigation time. 
   
• Availability of Data: Missing or corrupted data can also delay the process

Data Recorder Is Found for Air India Plane That Crashed

The flight data recorder has been recovered and should shed some light on the cause of the disaster, which killed at least 270 people.

It could be months before a definitive explanation emerges, but videos of the accident and other evidence have begun to offer clues about what might have brought down the plane. Among the initial questions: whether the plane’s wing flaps and slats were properly extended, and why the landing gear, which creates drag, remained down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/world/asia/air-india-crash-investigators.html

Just now, dinsdale said:

Data Recorder Is Found for Air India Plane That Crashed

The flight data recorder has been recovered and should shed some light on the cause of the disaster, which killed at least 270 people.

It could be months before a definitive explanation emerges, but videos of the accident and other evidence have begun to offer clues about what might have brought down the plane. Among the initial questions: whether the plane’s wing flaps and slats were properly extended, and why the landing gear, which creates drag, remained down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/world/asia/air-india-crash-investigators.html

We know that........😉

5 minutes ago, transam said:

We know that........😉

Note the bit I underlined. 

"videos of the accident and other evidence have begun to offer clues about what might have brought down the plane."

17 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I know.

 

And here is 

 

 

AI-oversikt

 

The time it takes to examine a black box after a plane crash varies, but initial data analysis can take a few weeks to a couple of months, while a comprehensive investigation, including report finalization, can take 12 to 24 months or longer. Factors like the condition of the black box and the complexity of the incident influence the duration. 

 

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Initial Data Download and Review:

  If the black box is in good condition, the initial data download and review can be completed relatively quickly, often within a few weeks. 

   
• Detailed Analysis:

  A thorough investigation, including cross-referencing data, examining wreckage, and analyzing maintenance records, takes significantly longer, potentially stretching to a year or more. 

   
• Final Report:

  The time required for the final report depends on the complexity of the incident and the extent of damage to the black box. Some reports can take several months, while others may take over a year or even longer. 

   
• Preliminary Report:

  International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules mandate a preliminary report within 30 days. 

   

Factors Affecting Examination Time:

• Black Box Condition: Damage to the black box can significantly increase the time required for data recovery and analysis. 
   
• Complexity of the Incident: More complex accidents require more in-depth analysis, extending the overall investigation time. 
   
• Availability of Data: Missing or corrupted data can also delay the process

Amazing that Artificial Intelligence is being used.  I think I'll wait for the other version of AI to get used; Actual Intelligence.

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Note the bit I underlined. 

"videos of the accident and other evidence have begun to offer clues about what might have brought down the plane."

I have watched LOADS f stuff on the subject, but, I have seen nothing concrete yet........🤔

8 minutes ago, transam said:

I have watched LOADS f stuff on the subject, but, I have seen nothing concrete yet........🤔

Sure seems that the RAT was deployed which supports the dual engine failure theory rather than flaps not being set or pilot error. Tis true though that everyone has to wait for the conclusions of the air crash investigations.

Yes I like his videos and trust his views and instincts. As for the audio of the cleaner video (where he says it sounds like a cessna) I'm not so sure. It sounded like jet engines to me. He said the RAT could be deployed if there was hydrolic issue too - not just if engines failed - so that could be the cause too (of the RAT deploying because the flaps not extended properly if hydrolic issue).

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Speculation and assumptions? Sure seems the RAT was deployed so why was this the case?

quite sure there is more than the RAT deployed or not, thus better wait for official report

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Data Recorder Is Found for Air India Plane That Crashed

The flight data recorder has been recovered and should shed some light on the cause of the disaster, which killed at least 270 people.

It could be months before a definitive explanation emerges, but videos of the accident and other evidence have begun to offer clues about what might have brought down the plane. Among the initial questions: whether the plane’s wing flaps and slats were properly extended, and why the landing gear, which creates drag, remained down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/14/world/asia/air-india-crash-investigators.html

thus my statement that it's better to wait regardless how long it takes, the truth and the facts will be explained, stop trying to master the topic, you once again  are wrong and you can't admit it, stop the specultion, let the professional s do their job and after you can make you case if you do have a case to make