Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Last Index Page
| Musician
January 25, 2026, 09:58:00 GMT permalink Post: 12026812 |
The responses to the article are very interesting. And pretty much go to reaffirming my point about vested interests.
it was the same with the MH370 accident. If you’re American or worked/flew Boeing aircraft you’re more likely to blame the pilots. If you’re Indian or Asian you’re more likely to blame the aircraft. Unless someone produces a smoking gun, which is very unlikely, then the causes will always be up for debate. Here in the U.K. we had the Chinook crash, where the pilots were instantly blamed. It makes me very uncomfortable to blame one individual for mass murder without a smoking gun as such. It's incorrect to say we're blaming the pilots; the prevailing opinion seems to be that ONE pilot (but we don't know who) inadvertantly flipped the switches in lieu of another task ("action slip"). It's incorrect to call this "mass murder", and I don't think anyone did (and stayed unmoderated). It's also incorrect to say there's no smoking gun: the preliminary report is very clear that the fuel cutoff switches transitioned, i.e. somebody moved them such that one set of contacts was registered by the electronics and the FDR, and another set of contacts operated the fuel valve. The whole accident sequence follows from this logically and without contradictions. It is clear that MH370 deviated off course intentionally, but we cannot say if a pilot planned this, or if the aircraft was hijacked. It is false to say that the pilots were blamed "instantly" for the 1994 Chinook crash; the RAF board of inquiry did not do that. That ruling was overturned at first, but two subsequent inquiries re-overturned that, so that the pilots stand exonorated today. Please do review the facts. Subjects
Action slip
FDR
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Preliminary Report
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Someone Somewhere
January 26, 2026, 07:33:00 GMT permalink Post: 12027289 |
I don't think we have any real evidence for intentional vs action slip. From what I've seen, the moderation has been light since the preliminary report came out showing the cutoff switches were used.
From what I've seen here, the consensus is somewhere around 70% intentional 30% action slip. I agree that we're unlikely to ever know; several of the discussions around cockpit video recorders were kicked off by that. Last edited by Someone Somewhere; 27th January 2026 at 05:02 . Subjects
Action slip
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Preliminary Report
Thread Moderation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| DBYO
January 26, 2026, 11:40:00 GMT permalink Post: 12027436 |
The idea is to protect the engines against
inadvertant
dual shutdown in some way.
(There's always another way to deliberately crash an aircraft.) The problem is, what do you do when the shutdown protection fails and doesn't let you shut down an engine you really need to shut down? Action slips generally result from confusing two different but frequently-performed actions. The obvious safety mechanism is to ensure that use of the cut-off switches is not a frequently-performed action. Future aircraft designs could move the end-of-fight engine shutdown process to a software screen, leaving the use of the physical buttons for emergencies only. I agree that addressing potential deliberate action is far more challenging. Subjects
Action slip
Engine Failure (All)
Engine Shutdown
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |