dr göschl

ahead of any initial report from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau of India, I am attempting an educated look into the crystal ball.

DISCLAIMER: This is a private analysis without any guarantee for the accuracy of the reported facts and conclusions.

a) observation (high confidence) from available video footage:

1. takeoff run after backtrack from VAAH (Ahmedabad) RWY 23. Visual impression that A/C got airborne rather late. Plume of dust indicating significant engine thrust at initial climb over the runway end.
2. regular initial climb attitude.
3. about 12 seconds after rotation, change in pitch attitude, climb terminated within few seconds, no apparent stall, controlled glide into terrain.
4. RAT was deployed on final glide, no audible engine thrust noise, APU inlet open at crash site pictures.
5. wing trailing flaps deployed at crash site pictures.
6. a mayday call indicating thrust problems has been reported by authorities, though literal transcript has not yet been published.
7. gear extended until impact, forwarded tilted gear trucks may indicate initiation of gear-up sequence
8. sole survivor reported green/white (emergency) cabin lights and flickering.

b) apparent final state of A/C at crash:

1. RAT (auto-)deploy, (auto-)initiation of APU startup, flickering lights / switch to emergency cabin lights: loss of electrical power fed from engine driven generators
2. Control surfaces operational (RAT can assure minimum hydraulics + electric control) to maintain wings level and to control glide speed
3. Insufficient/no thrust on both engines to maintain or gain altitude

c) discussion of possible faults and consequences:

hypothesis 1 “a/c misconfiguration for take-off“: erroneous settings of takeoff weight, ambient temperature/pressure, engine de-rating factor, flaps setting, possible miscalculation of V1, VR. Highly unlikely due to B788 automated crosschecking of weight on wheels, flaps settings. Would have triggered warning messages prior to T/O. After all, the A/C had a rather nominal takeoff run and initial climb with no observable “out of envelope” behavior. Hypothesis 1 is inconsistent with observed electrical system + dramatic thrust loss.

hypothesis 2 “unlawful interference, intentional action“: contradicted by a reported technical mayday call. Manually commanded dual-engine shutdown is a complex process and is unlikely performed after rotation in an efficient manner to affect both engines in an apparent simultaneous manner. Intentionally pulling back both thrust levers to flight idle would not be enough to trigger the electrical backup system, i.e. RAT deployment.

hypothesis 3: “a/c misconfiguration on initial climb“: initial climb would have normally seen “gear-up” action and in theory could have been confounded with “flaps up” action by pilot error, resulting in a loss of lift. This unlikely misconfiguration however could have been healed without catastrophic consequences by applying max thrust and manually keeping the A/C within the flight envelope. Hypothesis 3 is also inconsistent with observed electrical system + dramatic thrust loss.

now, leaving us with only scenarios which are able to trigger a rapid, simultaneous dual engine loss of thrust:

hypothesis 4: “fuel contamination / temperature“: A contamination of fuel (water, any sort of dirt) residual to the main tank (feeding the engines) from present or past refueling cannot be rules out, but it is highly unlikely that: i) this would lead to a perfectly synchronous and extremely quick and “efficient” flame-out of both engines without apparent visible clues (smoke, thrust bursts and altitude variations), ii) it has not been experienced (at least in parts noticed by crew or engine telemetry) by any other aircraft refueled from the same hypothetical contaminated airport(s). Although ambient temps in Ahmedabad were high (METAR: VAAH 120830Z 24003KT 6000 NSC 37/17 Q1000 NOSIG), I would also rather discount the possible issue of fuel vapor lock (elevated fuel temperature can result in the development of fuel vapor which cannot be processed by liquid fuel pumps) due to the large amount of fuel very likely drafted from the underground hydrant fuel system available at AMD or residual fuel from the prior flight and short rotation from DEL.

hypothesis 5: “systems commanded dual engine cutoff“: Both engines have their own EEC/FADEC (electronic engine control / full authority digital engine control) units with 2-fold redundancy and electricity generated by engine-mounted redundant generators. As long as the engine is turning, EECs are powered and are able to control fuel flow as commanded by cockpit-side thrust levers and fuel master switch sensors (with redundant sensors and wiring). On the fuel delivery side, each engine has it’s own mechanically coupled fuel pump which is able to directly draft fuel from the main tank – without support of main tank electrical boost pumps. Therefore, even with a total loss of power on all of the A/C electrical busses, each engine – once started – will autonomously continue to operate according to thrust-lever input, until fuel starvation. Now, B787 series got a unique further software package integrated into EEC called TCMA (Thrust Control Malfunction Accomodation System, https://patents.google.com/patent/US6704630B2/en). It actually does what the title is promising: Use a software logic to “correct” any physical misbehavior of an engine with regard to its commanded thrust level, more precisely: It is designed to radically shut down (closing of fuel master valve) a “runaway” engine if all of the following conditions are met: 1) the aircraft is on the ground, 2) thrust lever is at idle position, 3) engine is above idle rpm. TCMA has two independent channels (for each engine, each of the channels has authority to close the fuel valve) which each evaluate the 1-3 conditions. TCMA seems to be the only “authority” – apart from pilot action in the cockpit – to close the fuel valves and to simultaneously and rapidly shut down both engines. From the TCMA conditions, in the present scenario – takeoff thrust – only (3) was true at all times, (1) should have transitioned from true to false after leaving the ground while (2) is supposed to remain false at all times during takeoff.

Now, the real speculation starts: If the aircraft was faced with some additional, electrical issue (moisture, electric arc, power surge … these kind of things) at the very end of the takeoff run (past V1, such that the crew did not consider the option to abort – but possibly was distracted for an instant, explaining the slightly longer than expected ground run) or after rotation (in anticipation of, or at gear retraction) and that electrical interference and/or a software restart condition compromised the readout of the WOW (weight on wheels) and thrust lever sensors such that WOW remained at it’s ground state and thrust lever (both!) readouts were shortly flickering to an idle or null readout (and as such were accepted as valid input !) this could have closed both engine’s fuel valves shortly into the climb, leaving just some residual fuel for the initial positive rate.

I can’t resist my gut feeling, but the “capabilities” of TCMA remind me of MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) of the B737 MAX series (two fatal crashes: Lion-610, 29.10.18, Ethiopian-302, 10.03.19), where a “full authority” automated software system (which was introduced to control a secondary problem) detected an incorrect state from erroneous sensor input and executed an unexpected fatal action – unrelated to the problem it was designed for.

given sets of observations and their temporary sequence, make an educated prediction about the future. That’s not only a fun and useful thing in relationships with people, for business or as an investor, but I just came to a point where I think I had to do this for nothing less than one of the fundamental questions of humanity: are we alone, out there ?

Nope, I am not crazy, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am not an esoteric, I just consider myself being a rational, down-to-earth analytical thinker.

This article reflects my personal opinion and does not constitute any form of advice for the public.

PHENOMENON: starting late November 2024, intensifying through December and eventually decreasing towards the Christmas holiday season, mirroring more isolated but repeated reports over the last 2-3 years, there have been numerous accounts of unexplained aerial (in some occasions even marine or trans-medium) “vehicles” or phenomenon in the US, specifically in – but not limited to – the coastal areas and installations exhibiting high levels of “activity concentrations” of human origin (power stations, airports, airbases, metro areas). Among many, two recent sources: [Reuters, AP]. In the media, things tend to be reported in a rather unspecific way that adds substantial noise to: what exactly had been observed and by whom ?

The “what exactly“: We have seen reports on objects ranging from: powered drones to lighter-than-air balloons to fixed wing or rotary aircraft to other objects (exhibiting none of the properties of the objects mentioned before) at locations ranging from: sea to land with open or protected airspace at those regions. For a suspected significant portion of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS, drones) operated by private or commercial operators in a low altitude band from ground level up to 400ft AGL, starting December 18 the FAA established temporary flight restrictions (TFR) [FAA] which have proven efficient to significantly reduce drone sightings at those low altitudes and locations. Projecting all sightings on a matrix (object type x object location) there are plenty of “benign” (identifiable) objects at “benign” (unprotected, lawful) locations, however a few of those other objects at benign locations and a few other objects at protected locations.

The “by whom“: This is ranging from amateur sightings to unofficial statements from people with current or past active involvement in civil aviation or in the military, to official statements of such professionals in public hearings (under oath) [US house of representatives hearings 2023, 2024], up to statements from federal agencies, such as the DoD or the FAA in an official (public) or classified setting. In the what x by whom space, let’s specifically zoom into the small corner of unidentified (other) phenomenon reported by aviation professionals or federal agencies. There we will find that there are indeed a few, multiple, consistent accounts of unexplained sightings reported from credible sources. To pick only two recent manifestations: [ATC, AARO classified briefing].

Zooming back out into the full picture of sighted aerial objects, it is helpful to understand how lawful vs. unlawful interference with air traffic is regulated. It is essentially a combination of properties or capabilities of the aircraft vs. properties of the airspace at a given location (range) and altitude (range). In brief, FAA dictates that only aircraft with certain properties (such as: aircraft class, altitude, speed, weight, identification lights, electronic id) can navigate certain parts of the US airspace at certain times. Some of those rules are rigid and exclusive, some of them following a request / clearance pattern involving aviation authorities, such as air traffic control (ATC). Again, to be specific, let’s zoom into the requirement for aircraft operating at night and in airspace used by (commercial) civil aviation. In order to operate you need proper aircraft visual and electronic (transponder) identification, i.e. you need those white/red flashing beacons and red/green positional lights and eventually an ATC clearance to enter certain airspaces (i.e. class A/B/C at higher altitudes or in the vicinity of major airports or mil areas). Further you need an active transponder with ADS-B out. That’s an electronic box in the cockpit (and an antenna mounted on the aircraft) that broadcasts your call-sign, speed, altitude (and depending on the aircraft class a couple more parameters) right on the radar screen of the ATC controller overlooking a certain portion of the airspace, having the responsible to issue clearance to enter and navigate parts of this airspace. The FAA transponder rules are simple and specifically exclude aircraft without transponder id operating above 10.000 ft or in the coastal areas, let alone (by other FAA rules) to fly around at night without FAA-compliant lighting.

But, that’s exactly what we observe in a few cases (no transponder, no standard lights, no clearance for the airspace) and without transparent consequences. In the majority of cases, though, aircraft with proper id can be tracked down to their operators and point of origin, some of them – usually by human error – violate FAA rules and are facing immediate investigation, if not criminal prosecution. In US airspace, under the intense surveillance from military and civil radar facilities, it is simply impossible to mess around with the system without being immediately addressed by ATC, escorted by military aviation and subsequently “handled” by law enforcement.

POLITICS: In a current climate of geopolitical tensions and rivalries between global powers, the protection of national assets and capabilities is given very high priority. Unfortunately – specifically on a military level – protection goes along with early detection and monitoring capabilities and the revelation of such strategic assets is somewhat connected to the revelation of what actually has been detected / protected – and what not. Therefore, we can expect some reluctance to the disclosure of findings relating to homeland security and defense.

Second, in government affairs in general and public security more specifically, it is not well regarded to talk about threats or problems without proposing solutions for which any consensus exists that is acceptable by the wider public. It’s a sign of weakness to ask questions without giving answers. If you are in politics or higher up in the administration, you better attempt to shut down discussion on issues for which you don’t have a plan or elegantly try to pass them on as someone other department’s issue.

Third, politics is entangled with economy: the industry, the capital market. Aerospace is a giant technology-heavy market embracing both the civil and the military sector, nationally and globally. We are seeing large corporations with high stakes as defense contractors and partners of civil aviation. We are equally seeing a growing base of civil providers of space technology partnering with the national (aeronautics and) space administration. Success in those markets is not related to marketing, but to hard “rocket-science”, technological capabilities. Yet, the industrial-political complex seems naively helpless to explain and amazingly passive to explore, analyze, perhaps even engineer some of the phenomena described in the first section. In the recent past, there have been bi-partisan attempts by a few lawmakers to promote legislation [congressional record, Senate 07 2023, see section 10 and others] that would require any private industry with access to material related to such unexplained technology to collaborate with the federal government. One of the sponsors of this initiative Sen. M. Rubio has now been appointed as future secretary of state to the upcoming Trump administration. If I were the CEO of such defense or aerospace contractor knowing what (intellectual) property may be buried deep in the secret corners of my company, I would frankly be much worried about my future legal situation, the fate of my IP and, of course, the fate of my shareholders. Hence, back to politics, this is not a cork that one wants just pop out of the bottle, fearing shock waves on the legal and financial side.

Bottom line on the political end: If there is anything that the public would need to know – irrespective if such matter poses a direct threat or not – one cannot expect this to happen without establishing (in a classified framework) a prior consensus between the political, legal and financial system, preferably on an international level. We should not be surprised such things take time, a lot of time !

PSYCHOLOGY:

For most people, the unknown is associated with fear. When faced with new issues that we have not yet learned how to deal with, we are more likely to expect a negative outcome than to have (self-)confidence in a positive outcome. In an anxious mood, we either look for trusted leaders to provide us with answers or comfort, or we seek to share our anxiety with a larger, like-minded group of people. Sadly, the pattern of “fear” is a popular tool – facilitated by modern media – to cement the bond between government leadership and the people, thus enabling them to trust and obey without reservations. Another possible way out of anxiety about a particular matter is to escape into other areas of our lives that keep us busy and reward us with some sort of routine stability, i.e. the daily pursuit of going to work and making ends meet. Both routes nicely complement each other, i.e. daily routine sets in quickly to stabilize trust and comfort offered from the outside.

At the level of information intake by individuals (through multiple sensory channels), we must be aware that the ability to perceive and process information is not evenly distributed in society, especially when it comes to intellectual and emotional capacities [such as HSP, SPS]. This also includes a gray area between thinking and feeling, which is determined by intuition or transcendent spiritual abilities. While it is common in “modern” Western societies (oriented towards an economy of material goods & services) to classify people by education or income, perhaps it is time to consider a change in thinking in the evaluation of perception, emotions and intuition, especially with regard to dealing with unexplained phenomena of supposedly non-human origin. However, when it comes to tackling a response to the “unknown” for a society at large, you better be prepared to develop a strategy that cautiously also includes those who may not be able to adequately (consciously, structured and peacefully) adopt the news. The “therapy” of choice against anxiety consists of an escalating sequence of dealing with the matter, with the individual escalation steps being interrupted by methods of relaxation.

Against this background, I find it plausible that the December 2024 “drone rush” – which is still partly unexplained but is accompanied by numerous official statements on public safety – could have been such a “therapeutic tool” to prepare the wider public for the reception of further news.

CONCLUSION:

back to the initial question: what is next ?

With a) a growing number and impact of sources and reports of various origin, b) authorities falling behind to provide transparency in the elaboration and communication of fact-based answers, c) a noticeable increase and simultaneous trivialization of the topic in the media, d) a change in leadership in the US, linked to individuals that appear more open to address the matter, I am of the opinion that we a very close to witnessing a public disclosure of historic dimensions.