[phamilyman]

MSD - Its supposed to be orange - not this charred color!! Interesting.

Here are some more thoughts/theories:
Air India Express B738 crash! - Page 9 - PPRuNe Forums

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post5711196 has even more background info
Reading the responses on PPRune help clear up alot of background info

[CPH]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

MSD - Its supposed to be orange - not this charred color!! Interesting.

Here are some more thoughts/theories:
Air India Express B738 crash! - Page 9 - PPRuNe Forums

Air India Express B738 crash! - Page 9 - PPRuNe Forums has even more background info
Reading the responses on PPRune help clear up alot of background info

What I heard this morning is that the pilot tried to do a touch and go according to the communication from ATC.

This is supposedly backed up by the thrust levers in forward position.

The plane allegedly carried at touch down roughly 5 tons of fuel, which is well above what it needs to carry by regulation, which didn't help.

Aslo it is said that the runway has no lighting at either end (because of the geographical conditions)

But from the communication it is unlikely that the pilot made a distress call.

The pilot supposedly landed 5 days earlier at Mangalore and he has done at least 19 landings before.

Civial aviation authorities are looking now into 2 more 737-800 incidents that might have a link leading to the three fatal crashes.

Aircraft safety and training might not be the bestaccording to the AI B777 trainer, but 10,000 hours of flying no Pilot would have survived especially repeatedly landing at places like Mangalore.

I am not sure about Mangalore, but usually at tricky airports a special license for landing is needed, which make sure that the pilot is aware of the added risks.

I know from Gatwick airport, which was once the second busiest airport in the world (although some time agao) running the operation on one runway, which was well above the capacity. ATS were repeatedly mentioning that they are being forced to have to short intervals between take offs and/or touch downs, which eventually would lead to disaster.

The dead pilot can't defend himself anymore, but it seems to be rather convenient to blame a dead person rather than finding the guilt ones that are alive.

Unlike the pilot who hasn't got to loose anything anymore the people who divulge themselves in their profit greed and carelessness when it comes to losses of lifes, they have to lose a lot.

Crashes like the on of flight IX812 will be only another one in the crash statistics till people realise that human error, technical error and all other errors are money related.

I personally have once grounded an aircraft once as a passenger, because it was not up to standards.

It is within reason in our hands to control safety. The lives lost have been lost in vane. We can't get them back, but we possibly can draw conclusions and force the carriers to increase safety and/or stand up for their carelessness and arrogance.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by CPH

I personally have once grounded an aircraft once as a passenger, because it was not up to standards.

Meaning you refused to fly (travel) in some plane? Where was it and what plane & airline?
With the recent crash, my fear of flying has increased. Statistics can't do anything to remove that feeling.

The Mangalore airport runway is only 1.6 Kms.. is that shorter than normal?

[CPH]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Meaning you refused to fly (travel) in some plane? Where was it and what plane & airline?

With the recent crash, my fear of flying has increased. Statistics can't do anything to remove that feeling.

I forced them to rectify the problem before the plane takes off.

It was a British Airways 757.

[EssYouWe]

Originally Posted by CPH

I forced them to rectify the problem before the plane takes off.

It was a British Airways 757.

What problem? They were trying to operate an airplane with a defect?

[A350XWB]

Originally Posted by CPH

I forced them to rectify the problem before the plane takes off.

It was a British Airways 757.

Could you specify what the problem was?

[CPH]

Originally Posted by A350XWB

Could you specify what the problem was?

Cover over engine number 2 wasn't screwed down properly. I only saw it because of sitting down right next to it. It had some consequnces.

[revtech]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Heard that the passengers were NOT informed about landing, and no warnings were given to put on seat belts. How could that happen?
One passenger who escaped by jumping through the gap is believed to have said this.

that is hard to believe and besides i have personally seen that even after several announcements people dont fasten their seatbelts

[CPH]

Originally Posted by revtech

that is hard to believe and besides i have personally seen that even after several announcements people dont fasten their seatbelts

I can't believe it either.

Did the passenger expect to be thrown out with a parachute rather than landing?

[revtech]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Read that they prolong the touchdown to make a smoother landing. But it is actually not safer than touching down at the right point as suggested by ILS but it will not be a smoother touch down, but considered to be safer.

Its all about coming in at the right speed.if he is fast he has to level of and bleed his speed before he touches down.

and fuel requirements vary .but basically it is fuel req + fuel req to alternate + extra depending on weather conditions.
and it is common to ferry fuel from a location where it is available cheaper