Posts about: "Thread Moderation" [Posts: 120 Pages: 6]

The mods are paying attention.....

Fuel control switches will cut off the fuel at any thrust or thrust lever setting - they need to be able to deal with an uncommanded thrust increase from an engine fault.

I guess I\x92m hoping that there is (and trying to find) a logical explanation to this accident that we can all learn from and make sure it never happens again. There aren\x92t that many things that scare me in my job. Some of the alternatives I find terrifying for the industry, the manufacturer, the operators and the travelling public.

PPRUNE could make a rule that all accident threads are locked until the final report is published when it can be discussed (I\x92m sure the mods have been tempted at times)! I suspect the website wouldn\x92t get many hits if it did\x85..

I agree in principle, but it's not even a new theory, and the wait is just two days

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, could I suggest another perspective?

I have lost close friends and colleagues in civil aircraft accidents and done my best to support their families afterwards. It is common in that situation that the families are desperate for any news (who/what/when/where/how/why) and it can make big difference if they get good quality information and right now . They don't care about Annex 13 procedures or timelines.

Case in point: UTA772. A close friend was on that. I spent some time with his family immediately afterwards. Official UK government sources were unwitting so basically useless. I managed to hack into a major news organisation's computer network that gave me access to their news feeds (Agence France Presse was the best, naturally). Then I could give the family the information which they craved. With that access I was also able to find out the three other UK victims families (one I then realised was a colleague) and put them in touch with each other. I think that their common suffering brought some, but tiny, comfort to the families.

My point is that the families of this accident will be scouring the Internet for information. They might come across this thread. They might find it, in a small way, helpful. That depends on the quality of the posts here.

I don't see people arguing that a pilot didn't move the switches. I see people offering various alternative possibilities. I do see posters, and mods, insisting that we not suggest deliberate operation of the switches with evil intent without evidence and I think that's an excellent idea.

Also: The preliminary report does not include any specific language for the question and answer about moving the engine control switches . Please, let's stop the imaginary quoting and responses to it.

The Mods have stuck to this principle, which I shall try to adhere to.
This preliminary report is just that, but maybe consider the issues the Indian AAIB have had to address in publishing it. They will have a similar concern to the pP mods, maybe more so since any apparent accusations directed at the pilots may lead to physical retribution.
I therefore conclude great care has been taken to "sanitise" what the AAIB know, or at least strongly suspect, (from EAFR) into the report. They have conspicuously failed to identify which of the pilots was each half of the conversation they have not repeated the exact words, there's a lot missing (was positive rate ever called, was rotate ever called, any discussion about putting FC back to Run, who/how flying aircraft meanwhile). As a result we, the reader, should step back and not over-interpret this sanitised report.

Secondly, given the mod statement above, if a criminal act is suspected by the AAIB, this will likely trigger all sorts of 'primacy' issues in the investigation i.e. police? AAIB? or joint? and all the history that involves (SAS Linate?) - in Europe we have 996-2010 Article 12 para 2, but India?

Summary : For good reason I believe this report has been very carefully worded, sanitised with great care, and as such easy to inappropriately speculate what went on.

Aside from anything technical, I find this attitude really strange. This is a discussion forum, of course there is (and should be!) significant discussion about a bizarre crash of a modern widebody aircraft. There will naturally be speculation and some nonsense but this is a discussion forum and that is to be expected. What's the point in locking threads until the final report comes out?

You can always not read it.

Seriously??
Come on! The gear never moved! You're an Airbus pilot; do you really think that could happen? If so, would the captain then sit there fat, dumb and happy wondering what was now going on... for 10 seconds? Even I would say "Sh1t" and whip those fuel switches back on quicker than the FO could say "WTF!".

Mods, if you don't lock the thread, I'm going back to Facebook!

Firstly, 10 seconds is a more than reasonable time for startle factor to impair cognition (as discussed repeatedly). Secondly, why do so many people assume it was the FO that moved the cutoff switches? He was PF, I find it more likely that the PM moved the switches (for whatever reason).

This is a Professional Pilot's Forum. Nonsense and bizzaredness doesn't live here.

And the CVR? "why did you cutoff?" ... "I didn't, the ipad did!".

​​​​​​​

From a PPRuNe perspective, good discussion here is desirable, as it is from a pilot perspective too. Nonsense or needlessly accusatory discussion, though it is discussion here, is not so good for pilots, and other well informed readers.

Some members want this thread locked, which is a choice we moderators can make, other members want discussion, which, if good, is desirable for everyone. We moderators prefer to not lock threads, we like to moderate, not terminate!

So, could we all agree that knowing that both condition switches were selected to cutoff by a pilot, we do not have information as to which pilot? What interest are we serving anyone by speculating which pilot here and now? Perhaps later, a full report adds to this knowledge, but possibly never.

I see four groups of readers here: Pilots of two crew airplanes, who are now instinctively more alert to what they are doing, and what their co crew is doing; Single crew pilots, who know that they are their own guardian against mistakes anyway; Designers, who are now thinking about improving designs to minimize the effects of pilot error; And, politely, everyone else.

Pilots of two crew airplanes, you know what you have to do. Is slighting two members of our community helpful right now? In my opinion, I don't see how...

Single pilots, you're on your own. Designers, yeah, we're thinking....

Everyone else, the professional pilots forum is accepting your participation, please be respectful with what you post - you're posting it about pilots who recently passed away with high trauma. Is what you're about to post something helpful? Do you really want to say it? Will the pilot group be better because you did?

We moderators don't want to lock the thread. And, we don't want to allow our core group of professional pilots to become profoundly aggravated by pages of low value posts. Please make our moderator jobs easier for us!

Thanks, Pilot DAR

Let’s remember that this was a somber event, and some respect is appreciated. When I see Youtube videos with bold yellow “Batman” text angled across, and a person with a perplexed expression on their face, I hardly think that the somber nature of this event is being respected – so please consider, before linking them.

For those here who are not pilots, welcome, and please remember that this is a pilot’s forum, we welcome you as participants, and would like your respect for our profession. For those with other aviation skills, that wisdom is also appreciated here. Please post based upon fact, rather than wild speculation, or things found after Batman text!

Some established basics (all previously stated here with authority) going forward as we discuss:

The engine “run/cutoff” switches have a well designed locking mechanism, visible in the photo in the report as being in place to “run”. Grip by a hand is required to lift them over a lock, before they can be repositioned. One hand cannot lift and reselect both switches at the same time. Those switches energize the fuel valves to either [open/closed] position. In the absence of any electrical power supplied to them, the fuel valves remain as last positioned.

It is not impossible that one switch could be snagged by something (strap on a flight bag) and moved. But both switches, with a one second interval between the movements? Unlikely in the extreme! Snagging/bumping unintended switch motion does not require further discussion, without new authoritative evidence.

The report states that the switches were each moved one second apart from the other, from “run” to “cutoff” then returned to the “run” position seconds later. None of those motions of both switches in both directions were likely made by anything other than a hand motion from a pilot.

If you would like to cite something, please assure that it is authoritative (again, things beginning with Batman text may be a poor start!). Links to authoritative reports, SOP’s, Flight Manuals, official service information are welcomed, as long as permission to link and reproduce is being respected.

Let’s make the continuation of this thread something to be proud of?

Thanks for your consideration,

Pilot DAR
One of your moderators.

Sorry you are missing my point.

I'm talking about an electrical failure (for example a short), which is already implausibly affecting both (independent) circuits, causing an issue in a circuit that as I understand it fails open anyway, then resolving itself to become functional again - incidentally in roughly the same time frame that a pilot would notice an issue and seek to correct.

This doesn't require knowledge of the cockpit conversation or judgement on speed (or otherwise) of the recovery. It's purely that an already incredibly unlikely scenario (electrical failure) becomes even more unlikely with the spontaneous *and synchronised, but not perfectly so* removal of the fault state of whatever this failure was.

*Edit* Given my previous post has been removed it would appear that the mods also misread this to do with timing of *pilots response*, which I find a little odd as it was in response to a comment about electrical failure...

To be honest at this point for me we are immediately hamster wheeling again, and this time because any commentary around either electrical circuit issues (astronomical odds) or accidental device triggering cut off (no evidence nor can there be right now) are speculation in nature and have to be. Equally, while the obvious culprit is hands on the switches, any comments about why again are speculation and have to be.

There's nothing more anyone can get to on this one until further CVR data is released in my view. Bowing out.

Either the mods have removed the multiple previous posts in the thread that ask precisely this question, or you have some more reading to do...

After what's quickly approaching 5,000 posts, I have to agree, I think any further "discussion" until the final report is out should be blocked. The repeated exhortations by the mods not to post repetitive cr@p clearly don't work, and their other request for people to read the previous posts just isn't realistic - there's probably been not much more than 100 posts with anything insightful in them which means 98% of what's posted has been dross. I used to come to pprune fairly regularly for informed comment, that's no longer possible for high-interest topics such as the Air India crash.

Look at the language he uses. He’s not presenting it as an option, he’s insisting it is the only option and he’s using emotive language such as murder. All whilst there are other plausible options that don’t cast aspersions on pilots whose guilt has not been proven. He is presenting it distastefully and needs moderating. It is far from professional.

There is always some virtue signalling poster on all these threads saying “we shouldn’t speculate until the full report comes out”…I’m not one of those, but I’m happy to call out someone pointing the finger when the available evidence still very inconclusive. I hope the mods frustrate him further by deleting his efforts.

In answer to those asking "why can't we talk about suicide?", the simple answer is because the mods have repeatedly asked that posts take this approach:
Most people don't think it's unavoidable, with the information available right now. For sure, the dogs in the street have known since day 1 that it's possible , but unavoidable? No.

Yes, it is an unavoidable discussion topic now, based on the information in the report. (That's my post being quoted).

So, how about we professional pilots, and forum members of the Professional Pilots Rumour Network adopt an attitude of compassion. There's no way this is good, let's still try to not make it more bad than it already is. Two of our colleagues died. It seems evident that at least one was really heroic in the totally unexpected circumstances, let's have a favourable thought for him!

Just to endorse CaptainBiggles101 post #557. Speculation based on this preliminary report should not start encouraging the simplistic mass media attitude of \x93we don\x92t know what happened so it must be pilot initiated\x94, Don't put together complicated theories about potential sequences of crew actions to give that an air of authority.

We have a very limited initial report which meets the ICAO requirement to produce one. It may or may not be written in the investigators and/or authors\x92 native language, and will have been the subject of considerable \x93negotiation\x94 before release as to its contents. While the bald facts are stated, some cannot be taken at face value without much more context. For example the use of the word \x93transitioned\x94 rather than \x93moved\x94 or \x93placed\x94 in regard to the fuel switches positions may be significant.

There is a summary of only two elements of intra-crew voice communications, which again may or may not be in the right language, and one radio message, as yet unattributable to individuals. Everyone here should know that there are many missing elements which could be just as significant.

It\x92s highly regrettable that even \x93reputable\x94 media use such summaries and extracts in headlines and jump to simplistic conclusions. The complete story may be totally different and follow an extremely improbable sequence of events. This is nothing new - for example forty years ago the BBC\x92s first broadcast report of the crash of JAL 123 B747 included a statement that first information indicated it to be \x93almost certainly the result of pilot error\x94. I was the ranking IFALPA spokesman at the time and quickly got this removed from their reports with a later apology from the head of BBC news. The accident was actually due to catastrophic structural failure following an inadequate repair of a tail-strike 7 years earlier, and the crew had struggled heroically for 30 minutes to keep an a physically unflyable aircraft airborne.

I mention it simply to illustrate that professionals here should do as little as possible to feed unverifiable conclusions, and follow the mods guidance. Rant over.
Steve

I find it ironic I got shut down by mods here fur posting about suicide on the AI tech thread.

Where some very fanciful idea as about AG logic where being trotted out etc .

How about suicide by FCS and use the CVR to blame the other guy ? Doesn\x92t seem so far fetched now