Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
53 minutes ago, RPM said:

Yeah, Boeing isn't going to admit they built a shitty airframe. Obviously it's completely Pilot error.

It should be pretty easy to tell, if the console didn't melt in the fire.  If the switches were both found in the cutoff position there's really no other explanation.  If you have one I'd love to hear it.

Posted
22 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

If you have one I'd love to hear it.

Last week it was a different rumor. I'll wait until the accident investigation is completed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said:

It should be pretty easy to tell, if the console didn't melt in the fire.  If the switches were both found in the cutoff position there's really no other explanation.  If you have one I'd love to hear it.

Boeing probably already knows, switch positions are logged in the EAFR data.

Posted
11 hours ago, RPM said:

Last week it was a different rumor. I'll wait until the accident investigation is completed.

Jon Ostrower, the journalist who provided this information, is very highly regarded, who generally provides accurate information.  This theory is much more credible than the prior AI nonsense and speculation.

Posted

Hypothetically, if I [not a pilot] was flying a light plane and lost all or most engine power, and I believed that a crash was imminent, I might hit the fuel cutoff just before impact in the faint hope that it might reduce the extent of fire or explosion.

But with a 787 full of many tons of jet fuel, I can't imagine it would make any difference.

 

Posted
14 hours ago, RPM said:

Yeah, Boeing isn't going to admit they built a shitty airframe. Obviously it's completely Pilot error.

the 787 is not a shitty airframe.  That's just fucking stupid.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

One of the speculation videos raised a theory that there was an engine failure on one engine that led to a checklist item to shut off the fuel to it, but they cut off the good engine.  This too should be easy to tell from the flight data.  You will see one engine crap out, followed by the wrong engine being cut off, followed by that engine shutting down.  In that case you'd expect to find only one switch in the off position in the wreckage.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, ClubWhatever said:

One of the speculation videos raised a theory that there was an engine failure on one engine that led to a checklist item to shut off the fuel to it, but they cut off the good engine.  This too should be easy to tell from the flight data.  You will see one engine crap out, followed by the wrong engine being cut off, followed by that engine shutting down.  In that case you'd expect to find only one switch in the off position in the wreckage.

There was no asymmetric thrust situation. You can watch the video and see the thing never yaws hard to one direction or has the rudder deflect hard to compensate for one engine at takeoff power. 

The plane will fly and climb just fine on one motor, and will have special procedures in place in the cases where the climb rate is insufficient to clear terrain. Literally no one trains to do anything procedurally related to a simple engine failure below the acceleration altitude in aviation,.  A simple engine failure is a very deliberate and considered exercise and there is no rush to get the thing back on the ground. It’s usually overweight for landing anyway. A situation with something like an engine fire is different, but that didn’t happen here. Add to that the fact that the RAT was out and spinning early on suggests that both engines “failed” simultaneously. Those things take a while to deploy and spin up. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted

The survivor said he heard the engine(s) rev up before impact.  Could that have been the APU, or would there have been enough time to switch the fuel back on, relight the engines, and start generating RPMs?  The whole flight lasted 32 seconds.

Posted
9 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

The survivor said he heard the engine(s) rev up before impact.  Could that have been the APU, or would there have been enough time to switch the fuel back on, relight the engines, and start generating RPMs?  The whole flight lasted 32 seconds.

The motors will relight pretty quickly if they’re already spinning and fuel is added. It takes a while for the APU on most planes to get up to speed. 60 seconds on an Airbus for example. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, ClubWhatever said:

From the comments 

Yeah, not a former pilot, but I can't believe there's any procedures manual that would have you cut off both fuel switches when you are 100 feet off the ground.  Think, McFlyCrash

 

  • Haha 2
Posted

The million dollar question is did the non-murderer see the murderer do it, ask why, and the murderer denied it, OR did the murderer do it and immediately ask the innocent pilot why he did it and the innocent pilot answered honestly.  I suspect we will never know, unless they find some sort of manifesto or suicide letter from one of them.

Posted (edited)

Hmm... I got a flight out of Delhi to Coimbatore on Air India on the 19th...

Should I just kiss my ass goodbye now, or is this something that should be an isolated incident? Not liking that this was in the report...

Quote

The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on
December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking
feature. This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that
the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The airworthiness
concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive
(AD) by the FAA. The fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on
various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D which is fitted in B787-8
aircraft VT-ANB. As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not
carried out
as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. 

 

 

Edited by Laxtonto
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Not liking that this was in the report...

Since they are used every day, non locking would surely be written up in the  thousands of flights since the airplane was delivered.  Besides, it would still have required bumping them once then again a second later.  Not really a reasonable scenario.  Especially since the other guy said why did you do that?  The switches were put back to run just seconds from when they were cut off.  Meaning the other guy saw the first guy do it.  What an utter bastard.

Edited by ClubWhatever
Posted

Another possibility mentioned by the report is that the fuel switches were cut/bumped inadvertently because the locking mechanisms failed (there were issues with this on the 737s apparently).  

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Another possibility mentioned by the report is that the fuel switches were cut/bumped inadvertently because the locking mechanisms failed (there were issues with this on the 737s apparently).  

 

I’ve jumpseated on 787’s. There’s no reason to have a hand anywhere near those things, and the basic design is the same as those used on numerous airframes Boeing and Airbus. The switch has to physically be pulled up and then over a detent before being retracted with a spring like mechanism into its new position. It’s pretty fool proof, and would be interesting for this to suddenly raise its head after the airframe has been flying countless hours over 14 years. Also, two defective switches going into the same plane and failing at the same time is kinda stretching things possibility wise. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

I’ve jumpseated on 787’s. There’s no reason to have a hand anywhere near those things, and the basic design is the same as those used on numerous airframes Boeing and Airbus. The switch has to physically be pulled up and then over a detent before being retracted with a spring like mechanism into its new position. It’s pretty fool proof, and would be interesting for this to suddenly raise its head after the airframe has been flying countless hours over 14 years. Also, two defective switches going into the same plane and failing at the same time is kinda stretching things possibility wise. 

agree.  Intentional act seems more likely.  

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...