Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Last Index Page
| Dimitris
July 16, 2025, 14:26:00 GMT permalink Post: 11923766 |
Not trying to be part of the on-going hamster wheel. But the discussions regarding the odds of this being pilot suicide based on historical rates are missing a very critical statistical point.
Let's just assume that rate of commercial airliner crashes due to pilot suicide is 1 in 100 million departures. Simply put, that means that if you get on a commercial aircraft to fly from point A to point B, the historical odds are that there is a 1 in 100 million chance that your flight will crash due to an intentional suicidal pilot act. However, the historical odds say that the odds of your flight crashing for any reason are several million to one. Since the turn of the century, the fatal cash rate has been something around 1 in 5 million departures. Now, we know for a fact that the Air India 787 crashed - hence the probability of a crash for this particular flight is not 1 in 5 million - it's ONE! That means the historical odds of this crash being due to an intentional act by a pilot (i.e. suicide) is ~5%, not one in 100 million (obviously a rough number, but you get the idea). Oh, another to consider with regard to a pilot having a monumental 'brain fart'. We don't know where the pilot's mind was at during the takeoff. Was he focused on the task at hand, or was he preoccupied with the health of his father and what he was going to do about it. About 35 years ago, my one-time fianc\xe9 left me for another guy. I was devastated. Some of my friends were worried that I might attempt suicide, but that never entered my mind. However, I was horribly distracted and my work performance suffered greatly since my mind was not on the tasks at hand. I could have easily done something really stupid that could have endangered my life - such as missing a stop sign while driving or running a red light because I wasn't paying attention.
I have to say I'm really impressed with your work. It's no co-incidence that this image has been used noting that the rat is deployed which means the generators are already offline,
I'm equally impressed by how quickly No1 engine recovered. I think it's safe to say that this situation is not recoverable, but a truly impressive piece of engineering all the same. Regardless of what happened and why regarding the switches going to off, there is now a documented failure mode of the system that needs mitigation (?): Fuel switches off at less than XXX ft lead to unrecoverable AC. If fuel cut off during take off leads to unrecoverable at less than XXX ft or risk of error i.e. switching one vs the other, then inhibit them. I'm putting it too simplistically, but if after V1 the AC is GO and there is a range of altitude/speed that engines loss leads to unrecoverable some mitigation is needed. In the meantime maybe ban jump seating during such phases of flight regardless of it is relevant to this accident. If there is intention for something like that, less people with access reduces the possibility of happening. Too much discussion I think for the 10s to bring the switches back to on.... Pilots are not super humans. By that time the situation the AC was at must have been very clear, some hands shaking is expected... I wonder if based on the data from the flight, sim-runs have been made to see if the situation would be more survivable had the AC 'slammed' itself back to the runway. --> Any estimation of how many seconds in 'off' would not change the end result? If it is 2-3 seconds, its better to stop discussing if 10s response by pilots was ok or not. The 'why' and 'preventive' of going to 'off' is a lot more important. Edit: Have been reading tdracer posts for many many years now. Thank you! Last edited by Dimitris; 16th July 2025 at 14:31 . Reason: avoid post being regarded as 'dry' or confrontational to exceptional professionals on this forum |
Page Links: First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Last Index Page