scdriver wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 2:14 pm
I genuinely can’t tell if I’m fckn dense or if these posts don’t make much sense…
It’s not you, no one seems to be able to make sense of the gibberish that pdw posts, I assume it makes sense to he/her/they/them.
The one thing you need to consider is that this poster has zero relevant experience to the events he posts about, he has a fixation with wind and quite possible experienced an incident caused by wind that perhaps caused a TBI, then you begin to understand!
pdw wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:22 pm
In researching it became clearer that this aircraft’s flightpath transitioned from V-1/V-2 in a runway headwind to more-like tailwind by 200agl into/closer-up-to drier/hotter inversion (narrow transition / coolest at the surface).
Looking at the smoke plume, the upper wind appears to continue to follow the same direction as it was on the ground, at least to the approximate height the aircraft was able to climb to.
scdriver wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 2:14 pm
I genuinely can’t tell if I’m fckn dense or if these posts don’t make much sense…
It’s not you, no one seems to be able to make sense of the gibberish that pdw posts, I assume it makes sense to he/her/they/them.
The one thing you need to consider is that this poster has zero relevant experience to the events he posts about, he has a fixation with wind and quite possible experienced an incident caused by wind that perhaps caused a TBI, then you begin to understand!
PDW's OK. But you're not wrong in your critique.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
The photo above, also a fair distance, is very low smoke, taking a real close look (doesn’t show ANY opposite smoke though because smoke still too low there, maybe well after). The camera is facing toward/into that smoke, camera facing basically SouthWest.
The shear rate IMO is only very significant for just those few minutes around this tragic take-off. A smoke photo on Aviation Herald’s site (mentioned earlier in this thread) is very soon after the impact, “from a distance”, facing mostly North, appears to barely capture the two nearly opposing directions; the 8:00z metar (8minutes prior) indicated surface reading was 7kts 20degrees off the beak closest to that take-off time (worked out to 6.58kts rwy-headwind). The opposing direction air above 200agl (aforementioned), ie the real hot dry air moving in from east/higher-ground … still requires some interpolation to prove accurately (lndore wx-hist/East .. 12mph/ene)
In the hour of this accident, just after high noon, the extreme hot dry air is moving in steady from ENE (along the north/ne side of an eastward moving low pressure centre situated well SE of VAAH ) … the hottest in India
in 2025 (118.4F).
A shear rate, is expressed in knots per 1000 feet. To compare with other shears one would have to multiply any potentially provable negative shear-numbers here by a factor of 5 (what ever they actually were in just these approx 200 feet above ground level of this aircraft).
pdw wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:22 pm
In researching it became clearer that this aircraft’s flightpath transitioned from V-1/V-2 in a runway headwind to more-like tailwind by 200agl into/closer-up-to drier/hotter inversion (narrow transition / coolest at the surface).
Looking at the smoke plume, the upper wind appears to continue to follow the same direction as it was on the ground, at least to the approximate height the aircraft was able to climb to.
Did not see it right away, that the impact smoke on this photo is up to 4000 meters away and SW of the camera (the AC on the pic is ready to roll rwy23?). An illusion of being higher due to the distance; rising toward east at shallow angle. After the accident 3knots/240 reported, later 2kts, meaning this photo at least 20 minutes later …smoke has travelled slow/low for that great a distance, maybe not as accurate a marker ….
I am so utterly, fist fuckingly confused here... is your working theory that some sort of extremely (so much so as to be undetectable) minor atmospheric anomaly could have the same catastrophic end result on an airliner as shutting down the engines?
The warmer inversion air above is travelling almost directly opposite here (rare I might add) and is still capping the 98F cooler air beneath it that we see there moving toward the camera, preventing it from rising ….in the photo above. The shear-effect would be more than one might think; it is just fact (clear to me) that it is there as a factor. What was going on with the engines is separate, happens at the same time, but it is still (must be) a separate issue.
(So much as to be undetectable)
This very dry inversion air (hottest ever) would be mostly tailquartering relative to the aircraft once it got high enough with sky above remaining clear, but then no condensation is possible to form cloud in that airport area at that time. So yes, it is invisible, “undetectable”, unanticipated and unexpected.
DanWEC wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 8:22 pm
I am so utterly, fist fuckingly confused here... is your working theory that some sort of extremely (so much so as to be undetectable) minor atmospheric anomaly could have the same catastrophic end result on an airliner as shutting down the engines?
I am quite surprised the moderator(s) still permits this dude(pdw)“ flowery nonsense “ disguised as “technical expertise” to be posted on this very tragic crash that resulted in the loss of many lives
Old fella wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:15 am
I am quite surprised the moderator(s) still permits this dude(pdw)“ flowery nonsense “ disguised as “technical expertise” to be posted on this very tragic crash that resulted in the loss of many lives
the pdw account is essentially a very old, not very smart by modern standards, auto posting bot designed to inject aviation terminology into threads to increase view counts. It's all about increasing revenue from adds. I'm sure a modern AI could inject considerably more intelligent posts into a thread, but, implementation would likely cost more than the add revenue generated....
Old fella wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:15 am
I am quite surprised the moderator(s) still permits this dude(pdw)“ flowery nonsense “ disguised as “technical expertise” to be posted on this very tragic crash that resulted in the loss of many lives
the pdw account is essentially a very old, not very smart by modern standards, auto posting bot designed to inject aviation terminology into threads to increase view counts. It's all about increasing revenue from adds. I'm sure a modern AI could inject considerably more intelligent posts into a thread, but, implementation would likely cost more than the add revenue generated....
I’m not up on bots and or how they work but based on previous posts from this account giving background information, I feel it is a human posting this nonsense!
According to a not to distant past posting, he was a farm equipment salesman who had a couple close calls which were according to him attributed to inversion and or quartering tailwinds, bear in mind I’m going from memory and the details are likely not exactly as described.
Suffice to say, this poster has a singular focus on wind and temperature inversions and only comes out of the woodwork when there is a slight chance this could be a factor.
The only part any inversion could have played in this accident is where they initially hit the building, the plane was going down regardless of any difference in temperature or wind, the why both engines were shut off is the only real question that needs to be answered, anything else about the conditions is just noise and from him, utter and complete nonsense!
Handy guide to blocking posters you don't like on AvCanada:
Find a post they made and click on their username.
This will take you to their user profile.
Find "Add foe" and click on it. You can always undo it later if you wish.
The forum software will remove posts of anyone on your foes list, and highlight posts of anyone on your friends list.
You will still be able to see if a foe posted on a thread, and if you want to see what they posted, you can click on their post to reveal it.
Enjoy!
I haven't banned pdw because they honestly appear to mean well, and they don't go out of their way to offend anyone. I think they might be a little bit eccentric (I'm being diplomatic), and I confess that reading their stuff hurts my brain a little bit if I try to process it (so I don't try to process it) but aviation is also full of strong personalities and we see lots of other peoples' hot buttons on full display here on a regular basis too.
The Air India 787 crash was caused by fuel starvation. How that happened is not yet determined.
It had nothing to do with your man's wind theories.
Well said, Sulako.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
cncpc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 30, 2025 1:31 pm
It had nothing to do with your man's wind theories.
I think pdw is just trying to explain the dreaded 1 knot decreasing perfomace shear they "might" have encountered. I'm sure we have all experienced this many times and never even noticed it. Now with this information presented by pdw we're considering modifying our SOPs to have the NFP fixate on the OAT guage to identify any impending inversions and immediately call out any airspeed fluctuations exceeding +/- 1 knot. Safety First.
6 1/2 knots given for the runway and if there is just 3 1/2 knots going nearly opposite direction (hot/hotter) closer overhead it is already ten knots negative up into the inversion’s transition . Then a “1kt” you could say could be eddy enhancement (ten percent more in this case) , if present. There are diagrams of L.L. inversions available to import that show simply what that would be.
Here seems to be in sync with a very strange power anomaly, barring suicide of course.
