July 14, 2025, 13:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922204
I have flown as a copilot with Indian captains, and as a captain with Indian copilots. I have no negative comments about Indian pilots, and \xabauthority gradient\xbb was not an issue.
The fuel switches will not move by themselves. Electrical gremlins will not change the switch position. One pilot asked the other why he moved the switch(es). It was done manually.
So WHO and WHY is the question. That leads further to done with intent or done without intent.
We can safely say that at the moment, WE DON’T KNOW.
This is not a competition.
The fuel switches will not move by themselves. Electrical gremlins will not change the switch position. One pilot asked the other why he moved the switch(es). It was done manually.
So WHO and WHY is the question. That leads further to done with intent or done without intent.
We can safely say that at the moment, WE DON’T KNOW.
This is not a competition.
July 14, 2025, 14:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922258
The only distinction the report makes is that the question was 'why did you cut off' rather than 'did you cut off', which suggests one of the pilots saw the other cut the switches, which in turn suggests either (a) the pilot who did the cutoff had done it accidentally and wasn't aware of it, or (b) the pilot who did the cutoff was well aware of what they did but then lied about it despite having clearly been seeing doing it.
Given the question was 'why', it seems equally plausible that it was the PF Kunder who transitioned the switches accidentally as part of some muscle memory blunder, and it was the PM Sabharwal who asked Kunder why he cutoff, who then replied that he didn't, because the fact he'd made the mistake hadn't registered.
OTOH, it might just be a sloppy transcription.
While depressed people get lost in their thoughts, this would have been a total reversal of his caring nature. It's just another factor that just doesn't make sense.
I totally agree with this, it makes no sense at all, especially after his 'just one or two more flights' statement. The guy had already moved cities to help look after his father, and was considering retiring early to have even more time to dedicate. Again, for me, this points to a blunder by Kunder.
Last edited by pampel; 14th July 2025 at 15:17 . Reason: made distinction in question more clear
July 14, 2025, 15:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922281
The fact that nobody apparently announced 'engine failure' as per training, but instead asked why the switches were in cut-off, speaks volumes. No need to labor the incredibly improbable double switch failure any further in my humble opinion.
July 14, 2025, 15:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922287
Given the question was 'why', it seems equally plausible that it was the PF Kunder who transitioned the switches accidentally as part of some muscle memory blunder, and it was the PM Sabharwal who asked Kunder why he cutoff, who then replied that he didn't, because the fact he'd made the mistake hadn't registered.
Walk me through how and why that happened/happens. The training and CRM implications of what you propose are pretty serious...for that airline.
OTOH, it might just be a sloppy transcription.
Again, for me, this points to a blunder by Kunder.
Why?
(We had a similar switch on an aircraft I flew some decades ago, and if the spring wasn't working You Replaced The Switch!)
Your previously expressed hypothesis - long sleeve cuff catching on them, and then one at a time this sleeve cuff pulling on each, and then (despite the physical sensation of catching on them and the CM checking to see what the hang up is) changing the position of the switches accidentally - could be easily tested in the simulator.
The investigation team has had between 20 and 30 days to look into that possible explicit accidental switch triggering path.
You seem wedded to it.
Why?
Do you believe that they have, or have not, considered it?
(Part of the reason that I ask this is that the next expected hand movement would probably be forward, not aft, toward the gear handle to raise the gear, in anticipation of a positive rate of climb being called out since they just took off and the PF was setting the climb out attitude...)
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 14th July 2025 at 16:57 .
July 14, 2025, 15:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922290
I disagree.
It was a very small "window of opportunity", maybe 30 seconds longer and the plane could have been saved. Also there's no guarantee the other pilot wouldn't work to prevent it. Indeed, it was deemed that checking the safety latches on the switches was not necessary.
If a pilot were feeling suicidal it would have been so much easier for them to drive off a bridge on the way to work.
The chance of any flight crashing due to pilot suicide is 1 in 122 million. Very, very unlikely.
It was a very small "window of opportunity", maybe 30 seconds longer and the plane could have been saved. Also there's no guarantee the other pilot wouldn't work to prevent it. Indeed, it was deemed that checking the safety latches on the switches was not necessary.
If a pilot were feeling suicidal it would have been so much easier for them to drive off a bridge on the way to work.
The chance of any flight crashing due to pilot suicide is 1 in 122 million. Very, very unlikely.
Logical thinking by a pilot murdering his passengers, crew and himself is non existent.
Suicide is the number one likely cause of this crash. Fuel control switches do not move by itself of an iPad hitting it. A pilot needs to move the switches by hand.
I cannot find any other cause for this crash. Especially the question ' why did you move the switches' is extremely suspicious. I bet the captain said that. He was the only one with his hands free to move the switches.
July 14, 2025, 15:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922292
I'm sure the current team has already done the systems analysis to see if there was any possible way these weren't completely isolated systems (which I'm pretty confident they are). Let alone the initial report categorically says at this point there are no design issues found with Boeing or GE.
July 14, 2025, 15:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922308
Former Boeing Engineer who was in the room for some 787 AD discussions.... What exactly would you expect Boeing to put in the AD? "Don't put the fuel switches to cutoff unless you really mean to"? Let alone ADs are not in anyway a method for pilot training or actions, they are for the airline engineering and maintenance teams. What would you think Boeing should ask airlines to do in this proposed AD?
I'm sure the current team has already done the systems analysis to see if there was any possible way these weren't completely isolated systems (which I'm pretty confident they are). Let alone the initial report categorically says at this point there are no design issues found with Boeing or GE.
I'm sure the current team has already done the systems analysis to see if there was any possible way these weren't completely isolated systems (which I'm pretty confident they are). Let alone the initial report categorically says at this point there are no design issues found with Boeing or GE.
July 14, 2025, 16:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922332
Former Boeing Engineer who was in the room for some 787 AD discussions.... What exactly would you expect Boeing to put in the AD? "Don't put the fuel switches to cutoff unless you really mean to"? Let alone ADs are not in anyway a method for pilot training or actions, they are for the airline engineering and maintenance teams. What would you think Boeing should ask airlines to do in this proposed AD?
I'm sure the current team has already done the systems analysis to see if there was any possible way these weren't completely isolated systems (which I'm pretty confident they are). Let alone the initial report categorically says at this point there are no design issues found with Boeing or GE.
I'm sure the current team has already done the systems analysis to see if there was any possible way these weren't completely isolated systems (which I'm pretty confident they are). Let alone the initial report categorically says at this point there are no design issues found with Boeing or GE.
Last edited by sorvad; 14th July 2025 at 21:11 .
July 14, 2025, 16:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922344
Why is the report worded this way, and not that way?
The preliminary report narrows things down a lot but not as much as it could have done. The report will have been approved by several people. What we see is their consensus. Why did they choose this version?
The report is written to point the finger directly at: (i) the fuel cutoff switches and (ii) either pilot error or pilot mal-intent using them. The report is not written to point the finger at an electrical or mechanical malfunction.
We have all role-played in our heads what would have been said in the cockpit in different scenarios. The investigating team already knows. They could have disclosed more of the cockpit conversation, which would be a lot of help to us PPRuNers, but didn't need to. They have let Boeing and the type off the hook and put the blame on the pilots. They have fulfilled the primary purpose of an investigation -- to find out what happened.
Interestingly, they did not disclose whether it was error and mal-intent. Perhaps that is because they couldn't answer the grisly question: which is least worst, from the point-of-view of the airline, the victims' families and future customers?
Two posters above have quoted AvHerald's report that "... India's media reports that the investigation is NOT focusing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure." One interpretation of this is that the investigation knows all about the human action and that the system they refer to is the industry's approach to pilot mental heath and well-being.
YYZJim
The report is written to point the finger directly at: (i) the fuel cutoff switches and (ii) either pilot error or pilot mal-intent using them. The report is not written to point the finger at an electrical or mechanical malfunction.
We have all role-played in our heads what would have been said in the cockpit in different scenarios. The investigating team already knows. They could have disclosed more of the cockpit conversation, which would be a lot of help to us PPRuNers, but didn't need to. They have let Boeing and the type off the hook and put the blame on the pilots. They have fulfilled the primary purpose of an investigation -- to find out what happened.
Interestingly, they did not disclose whether it was error and mal-intent. Perhaps that is because they couldn't answer the grisly question: which is least worst, from the point-of-view of the airline, the victims' families and future customers?
Two posters above have quoted AvHerald's report that "... India's media reports that the investigation is NOT focusing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure." One interpretation of this is that the investigation knows all about the human action and that the system they refer to is the industry's approach to pilot mental heath and well-being.
YYZJim
July 14, 2025, 16:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922355
Why do you think it is a "fact that nobody apparently announced 'engine failure'?" That was not included in the preliminary report or, as far as I know, in any other credible reporting here or elsewhere.
July 14, 2025, 16:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922363
The preliminary report narrows things down a lot but not as much as it could have done. The report will have been approved by several people. What we see is their consensus. Why did they choose this version?
.....
Two posters above have quoted AvHerald's report that "... India's media reports that the investigation is NOT focusing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure." One interpretation of this is that the investigation knows all about the human action and that the system they refer to is the industry's approach to pilot mental heath and well-being.
YYZJim
.....
Two posters above have quoted AvHerald's report that "... India's media reports that the investigation is NOT focusing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure." One interpretation of this is that the investigation knows all about the human action and that the system they refer to is the industry's approach to pilot mental heath and well-being.
YYZJim
July 14, 2025, 16:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922366
Two posters above have quoted AvHerald's report that "... India's media reports that the investigation is NOT focusing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure." One interpretation of this is that the investigation knows all about the human action and that the system they refer to is the industry's approach to pilot mental heath and well-being.
YYZJim
YYZJim
July 14, 2025, 17:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922380
Good analysis; AvH MN4 thing is an absolute ruse
The preliminary report narrows things down a lot but not as much as it could have done. The report will have been approved by several people. What we see is their consensus. Why did they choose this version?
The report is written to point the finger directly at: (i) the fuel cutoff switches and (ii) either pilot error or pilot mal-intent using them. The report is not written to point the finger at an electrical or mechanical malfunction.
...... The investigating team already knows. They could have disclosed more of the cockpit conversation, which would be a lot of help to us PPRuNers, but didn't need to. They have let Boeing and the type off the hook and put the blame on the pilots. They have fulfilled the primary purpose of an investigation -- to find out what happened.
Interestingly, they did not disclose whether it was error and mal-intent. Perhaps that is because they couldn't answer the grisly question: which is least worst, from the point-of-view of the airline, the victims' families and future customers?
Two posters above have quoted AvHerald's report that "... India's media reports that the investigation is NOT focusing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure." One interpretation of this is that the investigation knows all about the human action and that the system they refer to is the industry's approach to pilot mental heath and well-being.
YYZJim
The report is written to point the finger directly at: (i) the fuel cutoff switches and (ii) either pilot error or pilot mal-intent using them. The report is not written to point the finger at an electrical or mechanical malfunction.
...... The investigating team already knows. They could have disclosed more of the cockpit conversation, which would be a lot of help to us PPRuNers, but didn't need to. They have let Boeing and the type off the hook and put the blame on the pilots. They have fulfilled the primary purpose of an investigation -- to find out what happened.
Interestingly, they did not disclose whether it was error and mal-intent. Perhaps that is because they couldn't answer the grisly question: which is least worst, from the point-of-view of the airline, the victims' families and future customers?
Two posters above have quoted AvHerald's report that "... India's media reports that the investigation is NOT focusing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure." One interpretation of this is that the investigation knows all about the human action and that the system they refer to is the industry's approach to pilot mental heath and well-being.
YYZJim
July 14, 2025, 17:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922392
Two questions for
tdracer
:
1. What happens to the FADEC channels if both channels have different data / information (e.g. T/L encoders or fuel switches)?
- Will the currently active channel win?
- Or will the most sensible information be used (e.g. keep the engines running)?
- Will there be a disagree message?
- Logged to the DFDR?
2. As per the data sheet the fuel switches are 4 pole versions. 1 pole will be used for each FADEC channel. Will one (or both) of the other poles be used for the DFDR or is that information collected from the FADEC through some data bus?
I know, it's very specific stuff that might only be known by the designer of the FADEC system.
1. What happens to the FADEC channels if both channels have different data / information (e.g. T/L encoders or fuel switches)?
- Will the currently active channel win?
- Or will the most sensible information be used (e.g. keep the engines running)?
- Will there be a disagree message?
- Logged to the DFDR?
2. As per the data sheet the fuel switches are 4 pole versions. 1 pole will be used for each FADEC channel. Will one (or both) of the other poles be used for the DFDR or is that information collected from the FADEC through some data bus?
I know, it's very specific stuff that might only be known by the designer of the FADEC system.
July 14, 2025, 18:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922406
Two questions for
tdracer
:
1. What happens to the FADEC channels if both channels have different data / information (e.g. T/L encoders or fuel switches)?
- Will the currently active channel win?
- Or will the most sensible information be used (e.g. keep the engines running)?
- Will there be a disagree message?
- Logged to the DFDR?
2. As per the data sheet the fuel switches are 4 pole versions. 1 pole will be used for each FADEC channel. Will one (or both) of the other poles be used for the DFDR or is that information collected from the FADEC through some data bus?
I know, it's very specific stuff that might only be known by the designer of the FADEC system.
1. What happens to the FADEC channels if both channels have different data / information (e.g. T/L encoders or fuel switches)?
- Will the currently active channel win?
- Or will the most sensible information be used (e.g. keep the engines running)?
- Will there be a disagree message?
- Logged to the DFDR?
2. As per the data sheet the fuel switches are 4 pole versions. 1 pole will be used for each FADEC channel. Will one (or both) of the other poles be used for the DFDR or is that information collected from the FADEC through some data bus?
I know, it's very specific stuff that might only be known by the designer of the FADEC system.
Again, not familiar with the specifics of the 787, but on the 747-400/-8, one pole of the fuel switch feeds EICAS - which uses it in various message logic - and sends it out to any other aircraft systems that use it. There is "Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit) DFDAU (pronounced Daff Du) that takes all the various system digital signals, sorts them and provides them to the DFDR and QAR. The 787 has something similar to the DFDAU but I don't recall what it's called.
July 14, 2025, 18:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922425
... The fuel switch discrete doesn't really get used except for engine start - if it falsely indicates shutdown (on one or both channels), the FADEC won't do anything if the engine is already running. All this will set maintenance faults - and associated EICAS Status messages (L/R ENGINE CONTROL or ENGINE C1)...
July 14, 2025, 19:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922444
Breaking News:
On Jul 14th 2025 India's DGCA instructed airlines to check the fuel switches on the Boeing 787 and Boeing 737 aircraft as used by Air India Group, Indigo and Spicejet for possible disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature according to the SAIB released by the FAA on Dec 17th 2018. The checks have to be completed by Jul 21st 2025.
Source: Avherald.com
July 14, 2025, 19:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922448
If you think everything is said...
Breaking News:
On Jul 14th 2025 India's DGCA instructed airlines to check the fuel switches on the Boeing 787 and Boeing 737 aircraft as used by Air India Group, Indigo and Spicejet for possible disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature according to the SAIB released by the FAA on Dec 17th 2018. The checks have to be completed by Jul 21st 2025.
Source: Avherald.com
Breaking News:
On Jul 14th 2025 India's DGCA instructed airlines to check the fuel switches on the Boeing 787 and Boeing 737 aircraft as used by Air India Group, Indigo and Spicejet for possible disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature according to the SAIB released by the FAA on Dec 17th 2018. The checks have to be completed by Jul 21st 2025.
Source: Avherald.com
FWIW I don't think everything is said, and further elements may be uncovered - I just think the investigators have laid out pretty clearly areas they think are (and are not) likely causes when you read between the lines.
Incidentally the above smacks of optics to me following it being shared that air India had not performed these checks, and the associated speculation of cause, but that's just a theory 😉
July 14, 2025, 19:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922454
Upfront: Sorry for my initial post on the topic, like some other people in this thread it obviously touches a nerve and was rightly removed for exceeding the rules of civil discussion.
This is my attempt to shed a bit of light on why I find pushing theories of suicide very objectionable at this point in time.
Let's actually run some numbers here.
https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/b...df/statsum.pdf gives us a nice statistic over the last 20 years and also has this little tidbit:
"965 million departures since 1959. 63% of those departures were on Boeing airplanes. (609 million on Boeing airplanes)"
For the last 20 years I'd eyeball an average of between 20-25 million departures per year. So 400-500 million flights in just 20 years. Maybe let that sink in for a moment. We have doubled the total number of flights in the 20 years since 2005.
In that timeframe we have:
Nov 2013, LAM 470, 33 fatalities, confirmed by CVR
Mar 2015, Germanwings 9525, 150 fatalities, confirmed by CVR
There are additionally these:
Mar 2014, MH370, 239 fatalities, no final report, no information available
Mar 2022, CES5735, 132 fatalities, no final report, media reports claiming pilot suicide, strong counter by the investigating agency: "CAAC has previously said speculation surrounding the crash had "gravely misled the public" and interfered with accident investigation work."
Both confirmed cases in that time have a very clear pattern that does in no way resemble the Air India Crash.
Even beyond that timeframe no confirmed pilot suicide involved any measures against discovery by the departed.
There is speculation regarding Silk Air 185 because the CVR failed to record the relevant part of the accident, but it is firmly in the "debated" category.
But we can ignore all of that. Even if we put any theoretically possible Pilot Suicide into the equation one fact remains: The actual likeliness of pilot suicide has not changed. There were 2 confirmed prior to 2005 and 2 after and 2 suspected prior to 2005 2 and after. And that is despite a higher sensitivity and a more stressful job as well as significantly increased environmental stress factors. Obviously we are talking about, statistically speaking, numbers too small for analysis, but all of this is actually well within expected parameters. The recent years have seen a focus on mental health in general in many countries worldwide, and mental healthcare availability is growing in most countries. And here the US is a great example as far as aviation goes: https://casten.house.gov/media/press...tion-committee With this bill whose merit can be assessed by the people supporting it: " The legislation is endorsed by the Pilot Mental Health Campaign, Air Line Pilots Association, Airlines for America, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, National Flight Training Alliance, the National Business Aviation Association, and NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots (NJASAP)."
Summing up I would like to point out that there are good indications that there are no mental health issues involved here. Taking the aforementioned accidents as reference the issues were usually quite obvious once any kind of scrutiny was placed on the individuals involved. The individuals also made little to no effort of concealment in all confirmed cases and while the absence of evidence can be interpreted as indicative of successful concealment it is not proof and cannot be treated as such. Especially when it is documented that the overwhelming majority of suicides do not involve any element of concealment, and the psychological mechanisms at work commonly preclude any thought about what happens after, as far as medical study of the issue is concerned. This does not mean it does not happen, cases of concealment attempts or even partial successes are well documented, but it is a lot less prevalent. In this case estimates range mostly from between 10% to 30% of all suicides being misreported as unintentional injury with massive variation depending on multiple factors like country, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, etc.
In final conclusion: Anyone can make mistakes. It is possible one or both of these pilots made a mistake. It is also possible that a combination of bad luck lead to an alignment of the holes. In my opinion the inability to receive urgently required medical support is as much a hole in the Swiss Cheese as the worst maintenance or design error imaginable. We know from the previous discussions in all threads on this Accident and the report itself that the pilots were flying their aircraft until they ran out of time and airspace. One cannot demand more from a human being, no matter what the final cause is ultimately determined to be.
This is my attempt to shed a bit of light on why I find pushing theories of suicide very objectionable at this point in time.
Let's actually run some numbers here.
https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/b...df/statsum.pdf gives us a nice statistic over the last 20 years and also has this little tidbit:
"965 million departures since 1959. 63% of those departures were on Boeing airplanes. (609 million on Boeing airplanes)"
For the last 20 years I'd eyeball an average of between 20-25 million departures per year. So 400-500 million flights in just 20 years. Maybe let that sink in for a moment. We have doubled the total number of flights in the 20 years since 2005.
In that timeframe we have:
Nov 2013, LAM 470, 33 fatalities, confirmed by CVR
Mar 2015, Germanwings 9525, 150 fatalities, confirmed by CVR
There are additionally these:
Mar 2014, MH370, 239 fatalities, no final report, no information available
Mar 2022, CES5735, 132 fatalities, no final report, media reports claiming pilot suicide, strong counter by the investigating agency: "CAAC has previously said speculation surrounding the crash had "gravely misled the public" and interfered with accident investigation work."
Both confirmed cases in that time have a very clear pattern that does in no way resemble the Air India Crash.
Even beyond that timeframe no confirmed pilot suicide involved any measures against discovery by the departed.
There is speculation regarding Silk Air 185 because the CVR failed to record the relevant part of the accident, but it is firmly in the "debated" category.
But we can ignore all of that. Even if we put any theoretically possible Pilot Suicide into the equation one fact remains: The actual likeliness of pilot suicide has not changed. There were 2 confirmed prior to 2005 and 2 after and 2 suspected prior to 2005 2 and after. And that is despite a higher sensitivity and a more stressful job as well as significantly increased environmental stress factors. Obviously we are talking about, statistically speaking, numbers too small for analysis, but all of this is actually well within expected parameters. The recent years have seen a focus on mental health in general in many countries worldwide, and mental healthcare availability is growing in most countries. And here the US is a great example as far as aviation goes: https://casten.house.gov/media/press...tion-committee With this bill whose merit can be assessed by the people supporting it: " The legislation is endorsed by the Pilot Mental Health Campaign, Air Line Pilots Association, Airlines for America, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, National Flight Training Alliance, the National Business Aviation Association, and NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots (NJASAP)."
Summing up I would like to point out that there are good indications that there are no mental health issues involved here. Taking the aforementioned accidents as reference the issues were usually quite obvious once any kind of scrutiny was placed on the individuals involved. The individuals also made little to no effort of concealment in all confirmed cases and while the absence of evidence can be interpreted as indicative of successful concealment it is not proof and cannot be treated as such. Especially when it is documented that the overwhelming majority of suicides do not involve any element of concealment, and the psychological mechanisms at work commonly preclude any thought about what happens after, as far as medical study of the issue is concerned. This does not mean it does not happen, cases of concealment attempts or even partial successes are well documented, but it is a lot less prevalent. In this case estimates range mostly from between 10% to 30% of all suicides being misreported as unintentional injury with massive variation depending on multiple factors like country, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, etc.
In final conclusion: Anyone can make mistakes. It is possible one or both of these pilots made a mistake. It is also possible that a combination of bad luck lead to an alignment of the holes. In my opinion the inability to receive urgently required medical support is as much a hole in the Swiss Cheese as the worst maintenance or design error imaginable. We know from the previous discussions in all threads on this Accident and the report itself that the pilots were flying their aircraft until they ran out of time and airspace. One cannot demand more from a human being, no matter what the final cause is ultimately determined to be.
ANY Boeing pilot who grabs for the FCSs immediately after takeoff has SOME type of mental health issue. It might be suicidal, it might be cognitive, it might be a stroke, it might be some type of blood interruption to the brain, chemical imbalance, drug reaction, or whatever.
It’s not a simple mistake.
I’m not saying it’s necessary deliberate or homicidal (which it could be) but there is some type of impairment there. Everyone knows the consequences of shutting off a FCS or pulling a fire handle. The switches aren’t easily confused with others. Bumping them doesn’t cause them to go to cut off. And have dire consequences if actuated at the wrong time.
I guess there might theoretically be a way to snag them with loose clothing (like having a very frayed sweater with holes in the sleeve putting one’s arm in a really strange place) somehow and while pulling to free it manage to pull them out and down but I’m going to put this in the asteroid hitting earth category.
July 14, 2025, 19:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11922462
I find it hard to believe that, in this instance, there is anything inherently wrong in the aircraft or its associated powerplants. The report appears to indicate that all the correct parameters had been met with regard to W&B and performance planning whilst the aircraft was performing normally until just after rotate.
The apparent lack of information with regard to the CVR transcript appears to be telling. If the F/O was handling pilot using a mixture of visual references and the HUD, one wonders what he would have seen or sensed to make him ask the question ‘why did you do that ?’ when it became apparent through Eicas or simple loss of thrust that the engines had shut down - his remark is very specific and not perhaps the normal expletive ridden response that one might expect.
Again, here, I am making as assumption that the initial remark was made by the FO because the report does not tell us who said what. Whilst it may be easy to jump on the bandwagon of the deliberate and premeditated act I would still give some credence to the idea that the fuel control switches were actioned in a completely erroneous act if for no other reason that I have seen similar faux pas in the simulator on multiple occasions.
There may of course be a cultural issue in play here with the relationship between the two pilots which has been seen in many previous accidents/incidents. Equally the strange timing of the releasing of the report potentially raises a question or two though maybe that is a conspiracy theory too far !
The apparent lack of information with regard to the CVR transcript appears to be telling. If the F/O was handling pilot using a mixture of visual references and the HUD, one wonders what he would have seen or sensed to make him ask the question ‘why did you do that ?’ when it became apparent through Eicas or simple loss of thrust that the engines had shut down - his remark is very specific and not perhaps the normal expletive ridden response that one might expect.
Again, here, I am making as assumption that the initial remark was made by the FO because the report does not tell us who said what. Whilst it may be easy to jump on the bandwagon of the deliberate and premeditated act I would still give some credence to the idea that the fuel control switches were actioned in a completely erroneous act if for no other reason that I have seen similar faux pas in the simulator on multiple occasions.
There may of course be a cultural issue in play here with the relationship between the two pilots which has been seen in many previous accidents/incidents. Equally the strange timing of the releasing of the report potentially raises a question or two though maybe that is a conspiracy theory too far !