Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Air India Plane Crash
Comments
-
eastterrace6168 said:Would love to know where the fuel switches are located in the cockpit and if they could be used accidentally, maybe @Sheepie1985 could help us with his apparent knowledge 🤔
The fuel cut off switches are below the throttle quadrant, they're guarded either side and you have to lift them to pull them up/down, there's no way that they can be knocked accidentally at all.
Couple of thoughts as someone who's sat in the flight deck and done a ground engine run, when you're sitting in the pilot seats it's very difficult to move them both at the same time with one hand, not impossible, but not easy at all. So the fact they were both moved within 1 second of each other is very harrowing, especially if either pilot wasn't aware of it. The chance of a mechanical failure within 1 second of each other is virtually impossible too (oh and the previously mentioned technical directive is very old and not really related to this in the slightest, in fact I believe they had a fairly recent throttle quadrant on the aircraft anyways, we've had no directives or safety bulletins issued from Boeing or GE about anything so not putting the accident down to anything mechanical).
Preliminary reports are issued to give understandings of accidents but they're not there to issue why everything happened, that'll come months/years down the line. While I have my assumptions because of working in the industry, I'm not going to speculate what I think happened publicly, but I suspect we might not ever actually find out what truly happened.15 -
Shall add something though, once there was an issue.. the pilots done everything right and the aircraft did exactly what it should do in such circumstances, so there does need to be some credit to the training and for once, Boeing too. Just sadly at that altitude, it just wasn't enough to regain control of the situation.8
-
Without trawling through the whole preliminary report, do we know of the physical cut-off switches were in the office position, or it's just the flight recording registering them in that position.
If it's the latter then it opens up the possibility of a computer error or short circuit triggering the cut-off, rather than one of the pilots activating the physical switches.
Both possibilities are fairly scary, indicating pilot suicide or potential massive design flaw.1 -
We know the physical positions they were in. It takes the mechanical movement of the switches to be picked up by EAFR data.
2 -
I believe they have found bits from the cockpit & the switches were in the open position. Also from what I've read it takes time (seconds but less than a minute) for the fuel to kick back in again.randy andy said:Without trawling through the whole preliminary report, do we know of the physical cut-off switches were in the office position, or it's just the flight recording registering them in that position.
If it's the latter then it opens up the possibility of a computer error or short circuit triggering the cut-off, rather than one of the pilots activating the physical switches.
Both possibilities are fairly scary, indicating pilot suicide or potential massive design flaw.
So it looks like the fuel switches were opened.....then closed.....then opened again.1 -
Christ almighty 🙄stevexreeve said:I always feel that we are being drip-fed information about this sort of thing.
I know it's complicated but how can it have taken so longer to extract this information especially now they have such powerful computers to help them. Has some software been running for weeks to finally extract a fragment of conversation and the fact that two crucial switches had been flipped?1 -
Edit my post.golfaddick said:
I believe they have found bits from the cockpit & the switches were in the open position. Also from what I've read it takes time (seconds but less than a minute) for the fuel to kick back in again.randy andy said:Without trawling through the whole preliminary report, do we know of the physical cut-off switches were in the office position, or it's just the flight recording registering them in that position.
If it's the latter then it opens up the possibility of a computer error or short circuit triggering the cut-off, rather than one of the pilots activating the physical switches.
Both possibilities are fairly scary, indicating pilot suicide or potential massive design flaw.
So it looks like the fuel switches were opened.....then closed.....then opened again.
Just after writing the above I watched BBC news. They said in the Report it states the fuel switch was closed for about 10 seconds before it was switched back to open.
What did make me go 🙄🤔 was interviews with people from the UK who lost family members & who had read the Report.
One basically said...." I dont understand what it means.. ."
No you twerp, because you are not an aviation expert & have no knowledge of cockpits or flying.0 -
All I know is Sheepie seems to have a lot more interesting job than me!4
-
Honestly the standards of reporting on this accident has been utterly dire across all the media. I watched ITV News last night and they had a report with someone who’s using a 737NG simulator, and tried to demonstrate how easy it is to knock the switches.. but it wasn’t reflective of real life at all and absolutely shouldn’t have been used as a comparison, in fact I hoped someone at Boeing saw it because it could be considered slanderous and a smear from how pathetic the reporting was.Edit my post.
Just after writing the above I watched BBC news. They said in the Report it states the fuel switch was closed for about 10 seconds before it was switched back to open.
What did make me go 🙄🤔 was interviews with people from the UK who lost family members & who had read the Report.
One basically said...." I dont understand what it means.. ."
No you twerp, because you are not an aviation expert & have no knowledge of cockpits or flying.The media and many aviation “experts” have completely got this one wrong, and really need to stop speculating because they’re just making it worse.13 -
As a general question - how different is a cockpit of a 737 from a 787 one? You'd think that boeing and airbus would want to keep them fairly similiar so they can re-use parts / reduce learning curve for pilots.0
- Sponsored links:
-
787 and 777 cockpits are fairly similar, but the 737 cockpit is an anachronism of modern glass cockpit technology tied to 60s tech, with a design goal of not requiring any expensive pilot retraining. So it's ended up a mish mash of various technologies and interfaces that it's accrued over time, rather than a single coherent design. The 777 was designed in the 90s and is therefore far more modern, and the 787 is designed along very similar lines.cafcnick1992 said:As a general question - how different is a cockpit of a 737 from a 787 one? You'd think that boeing and airbus would want to keep them fairly similiar so they can re-use parts / reduce learning curve for pilots.
The 737 really should have been replaced a generation or two ago, but since the merger with McDonald-Douglas, Boeing has been about penny pinching accountancy more than engineering excellence. Therefore they just kept the 737 going far beyond what should have been it's end of life. The sales figures back this up. Despite being launched 20 years later, the Airbus A320 family has not overtaken the B737 family in total sales. The 737 is kept going by the airlines who already have huge numbers of the type (and therefore don't want the maintenance complexity of multiple types/manufacturers), the likes of RyanAir, South West, Alaskan, etc., and by offering big discounts to anybody else who will buy them.
The problem with Boeing is they have lost all confidence in their own ability to develop a new plane, and the accountants in charge won't commit the billions needed to do it. The 787 was delayed and had problems, the 777X is massively delayed too, and the 737 MAX has had issues. They desperately need a clean sweep in senior management to regain their mojo.0 -
"accountants in charge", eh ? Will we ever learn ?randy andy said:
......cafcnick1992 said:As a general question - how different is a cockpit of a 737 from a 787 one? You'd think that boeing and airbus would want to keep them fairly similiar so they can re-use parts / reduce learning curve for pilots.
The problem with Boeing is they have lost all confidence in their own ability to develop a new plane, and the accountants in charge won't commit the billions needed to do it. The 787 was delayed and had problems, the 777X is massively delayed too, and the 737 MAX has had issues. They desperately need a clean sweep in senior management to regain their mojo.0 -
Boeing always had a reputation for engineering excellence, but then they "bought" MD around 2000. I put that bought in quotes because the buy-out ended up with former MD management in practically all the senior roles, the head office being moved from Seattle (near the factories) to Chicago (near the accountants) and the long path to where Boeing are today.Hex said:
"accountants in charge", eh ? Will we ever learn ?randy andy said:
......cafcnick1992 said:As a general question - how different is a cockpit of a 737 from a 787 one? You'd think that boeing and airbus would want to keep them fairly similiar so they can re-use parts / reduce learning curve for pilots.
The problem with Boeing is they have lost all confidence in their own ability to develop a new plane, and the accountants in charge won't commit the billions needed to do it. The 787 was delayed and had problems, the 777X is massively delayed too, and the 737 MAX has had issues. They desperately need a clean sweep in senior management to regain their mojo.0 -
Starting to look as if the plane was fine and the switches were deliberately moved0
-
Bloody hell. If it was suicide then at least do it without killing hundreds of others
0 -
A few papers now reporting that the pilot’s health records are being examined as he may have had mental health and depression issues. Seems a bit drastic but although rare, has happened before that a pilot has deliberately caused a plane to crash.jimmymelrose said:Bloody hell. If it was suicide then at least do it without killing hundreds of others0 -
I guess the theory is that if you try and crash the plane in a way that makes the issue look mechanical, then your family gets a huge payout and are not subjected to huge amounts of shame?1
-
It's starting to look like gross pilot error or suicide. More will come to light when it's disclosed who popped the question about the fuel switches being turned off and who denied doing soCafcWest said:
A few papers now reporting that the pilot’s health records are being examined as he may have had mental health and depression issues. Seems a bit drastic but although rare, has happened before that a pilot has deliberately caused a plane to crash.jimmymelrose said:Bloody hell. If it was suicide then at least do it without killing hundreds of others0 -
If it was suicide, then the sequence of events is confusing.One pilot is suicidal, so turns both engines off to try and cause a deathly crash. Other pilot notices and questions why they're off. The suicidal pilot then denies he turned them off and immediately turns them back on.That makes no sense, if we're to believe that pilot truly was suicidal then surely they would keep them turned off, or at the very least delay turning them back on as long as possible.Even then, there's only two possible reasons to turn them back on if the pilot was suicidal. One they had a change of heart, or two, they always intended to turn them back on at the last moment so the switches were in the correct position when the wreckage was recovered. That would take the pilot completely forgetting about both black boxes.Either way, it doesn't make a lot of sense2
-
Wild speculation time: the suicidal pilot turns them off then deliberately asks/accuses the other one to cause confusion/create "cover" - the other pilot immediately tries to rectify the situation but is unable to do so in time.randy andy said:If it was suicide, then the sequence of events is confusing.One pilot is suicidal, so turns both engines off to try and cause a deathly crash. Other pilot notices and questions why they're off. The suicidal pilot then denies he turned them off and immediately turns them back on.That makes no sense, if we're to believe that pilot truly was suicidal then surely they would keep them turned off, or at the very least delay turning them back on as long as possible.Even then, there's only two possible reasons to turn them back on if the pilot was suicidal. One they had a change of heart, or two, they always intended to turn them back on at the last moment so the switches were in the correct position when the wreckage was recovered. That would take the pilot completely forgetting about both black boxes.Either way, it doesn't make a lot of sense
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Someone suicidal would possibly/likely not be thinking a lot of sense.randy andy said:If it was suicide, then the sequence of events is confusing.One pilot is suicidal, so turns both engines off to try and cause a deathly crash. Other pilot notices and questions why they're off. The suicidal pilot then denies he turned them off and immediately turns them back on.That makes no sense, if we're to believe that pilot truly was suicidal then surely they would keep them turned off, or at the very least delay turning them back on as long as possible.Even then, there's only two possible reasons to turn them back on if the pilot was suicidal. One they had a change of heart, or two, they always intended to turn them back on at the last moment so the switches were in the correct position when the wreckage was recovered. That would take the pilot completely forgetting about both black boxes.Either way, it doesn't make a lot of sense2 -
One thing I’ve learnt from personal experience is that you cannot make sense of suicide, which makes this even harder for the experts to try and solve.7
-
Suicidal pilots also have a history of trying to confuse accident investigators. China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 and MH370 spring to mind.0
-
You only realise just how poor news reporting is when they write about something you know a lot about.Sheepie1985 said:
Honestly the standards of reporting on this accident has been utterly dire across all the media. I watched ITV News last night and they had a report with someone who’s using a 737NG simulator, and tried to demonstrate how easy it is to knock the switches.. but it wasn’t reflective of real life at all and absolutely shouldn’t have been used as a comparison, in fact I hoped someone at Boeing saw it because it could be considered slanderous and a smear from how pathetic the reporting was.Edit my post.
Just after writing the above I watched BBC news. They said in the Report it states the fuel switch was closed for about 10 seconds before it was switched back to open.
What did make me go 🙄🤔 was interviews with people from the UK who lost family members & who had read the Report.
One basically said...." I dont understand what it means.. ."
No you twerp, because you are not an aviation expert & have no knowledge of cockpits or flying.The media and many aviation “experts” have completely got this one wrong, and really need to stop speculating because they’re just making it worse.4 -
Literally whenever there is any aviation story in the news the first thing I do is go to Simple Flying to confirm the details. It's not perfect, but a hell of a lot more accurate than any mainstream news source is going to be
https://simpleflying.com/1 -
You don't really need to know a "lot" about it !Jints said:
You only realise just how poor news reporting is when they write about something you know a lot about.Sheepie1985 said:
Honestly the standards of reporting on this accident has been utterly dire across all the media. I watched ITV News last night and they had a report with someone who’s using a 737NG simulator, and tried to demonstrate how easy it is to knock the switches.. but it wasn’t reflective of real life at all and absolutely shouldn’t have been used as a comparison, in fact I hoped someone at Boeing saw it because it could be considered slanderous and a smear from how pathetic the reporting was.Edit my post.
Just after writing the above I watched BBC news. They said in the Report it states the fuel switch was closed for about 10 seconds before it was switched back to open.
What did make me go 🙄🤔 was interviews with people from the UK who lost family members & who had read the Report.
One basically said...." I dont understand what it means.. ."
No you twerp, because you are not an aviation expert & have no knowledge of cockpits or flying.The media and many aviation “experts” have completely got this one wrong, and really need to stop speculating because they’re just making it worse.0 -
I think there are still questions to be answered.0
-
Who says the one that turned the fuel switches off was the one to turn them back on again ?randy andy said:If it was suicide, then the sequence of events is confusing.One pilot is suicidal, so turns both engines off to try and cause a deathly crash. Other pilot notices and questions why they're off. The suicidal pilot then denies he turned them off and immediately turns them back on.That makes no sense, if we're to believe that pilot truly was suicidal then surely they would keep them turned off, or at the very least delay turning them back on as long as possible.Even then, there's only two possible reasons to turn them back on if the pilot was suicidal. One they had a change of heart, or two, they always intended to turn them back on at the last moment so the switches were in the correct position when the wreckage was recovered. That would take the pilot completely forgetting about both black boxes.Either way, it doesn't make a lot of sense
The little info given at the moment just says that from the cockpit recorder there was a question asked. At this stage we don't know who said what & who then switched them back on again.1 -
RIP to the four souls lost at Southend Airport yesterday2
-
It's not suicide if your actions kill others, it's murder1
