Posts by user "T28B" [Posts: 48 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 3]

T28B
July 14, 2025, 12:49:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11922174
Quick mod / admin note:

We should not turn this into a "camera in the cockpits, yes or no" hamster wheel.
That particular topic can be posted about on the Rumors and News page. You can expect a robust discussion of it.
There seems to be some strong positions both for and against (which is fine ) but since this thread topic is the Air India Flight 171 crash, let's take that particular line into its own thread on the Rumors and News sub forum.

Thank you all in advance

T28B

PS: as regards the now removed (off topic) assertion that pilots don't design aircraft, I'll offer the example of the Rutan brothers as but one data point against, and ask that this derail to the topic also be addressed elsewhere.

Subjects: None

T28B
July 15, 2025, 13:01:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11922915
Originally Posted by Weapons Grade
With Airbus it is required. However, I cannot speak about Boeing's operating philosophy.

To quote from Airbus' Flight Crew Training Manual:

In flight, the PF and PM must crosscheck before any action on the following controls:

‐ ENG MASTER lever (With Boeing this would be the fuel cut-off switches)

‐ IR MODE selector

‐ All guarded controls

‐ Cockpit C/Bs.
Since we have had a few 787 qualified pilots contributing lately, hopefully one of them can clear up whether or not that's standard in their checklists / SOPs, etc.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff  Fuel Cutoff Switches  Switch Guards

T28B
July 15, 2025, 17:39:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923110
Originally Posted by JustusW
1982 JAL350, confirmed
1994 RAM630, confirmed
1997 SilkAir 185, NTSB says confirmed, Indonesian NTSC says undetermined, private investigation blames a technical fault
1999 EgyptAir 990, confirmed
2013 LAM470, confirmed
2014 MAH370, no report, no evidence
2015 Germanwings 9525, confirmed
2022 China Eastern 5735, media reports of pilot suicide strongly rejected by investigating agency, no report.

Excluding the last one because the investigating agency explicitly called reports of pilot suicide false we have 7 cases since the beginning of commercial aviation. 2+1 suspected cases since 2000. That's 1:300.000.000 to 1:200.000.000. Actually I erroneously included the last one in my previous posts. I don't think including a case where the investigating agency explicitly refuted claims of suicide is valid.






For those of you who wish to engage on the details of the China Eastern crash, and what is (or isn't) in the report, the thread is here.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): NTSB

T28B
July 15, 2025, 19:40:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923208
Originally Posted by D Bru
I’m for sure not grasping at anything, let alone straws
He perhaps used the wrong turn of phrase there.

Something like sabotage/hacking would be in the realm of what's addressed in a criminal investigation.

Our topic in this thread is the preliminary report of the accident investigation team.
(That's a reminder for all, not just D Bru).

Last edited by T28B; 15th July 2025 at 19:43 . Reason: (I need to stop trying to answer two posts at once).

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Preliminary Report

T28B
July 15, 2025, 20:07:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923228
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there a discussion on the flight deck about the physical position of the switches ie eyeballs saw them in the cutoff position ?
If you would copy and paste which part of the preliminary report has raised this question in your mind, it will help get you a satisfying response from the other posters here.
The report is linked in the first post of this thread, and is attached to post # 3 in .pdf format .

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Fuel (All)  Fuel Cutoff Switches  Preliminary Report

T28B
July 15, 2025, 21:02:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923261
Originally Posted by za9ra22
... I do recall thinking that there have been many messages which (in part) I thought were worthy of unliking if that were possible!
Quick admin note: you can like a post, and you can remove your like for a post. (Just hit the thumb again, it will remove it).
On this forum (unlike some other internet sites) you cannot unlike a post.

Speculation on Maintenance Actions/Ground Crew Actions:
We must accept that there is very little hard information in the Preliminary Report addressing maintenance actions before this flight. When the final report, or perhaps an interim report, is issued then more detail on the activity by the ground crews between the successful flight from Delhi and the unsuccessful flight to Gatwick will become available.

I ask that we all refrain from spinning the hamster wheel regarding
'What if they removed or repaired that gizmo-thingamajig?'
unless there is something to anchor that to from the report.

Thank you all in advance.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Preliminary Report

T28B
July 15, 2025, 23:29:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923347
For GroundedSpanner:
You seem to have left out the fatigue bit.
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
The issue received extensive news coverage. I am sure they felt a need to address it.
From further back in this thread, and as addressed in previous threads, as to what the SAIB that was mentioned in the report covered:
Originally Posted by Garage Years
Originally Posted by someone
Is it possible the switchers were improperly installed and it wasn't noticed/reported? I'd suggest yes since the SAIB was issued at all.
​​​​​ You do realize the switches fitted to the 737 are NOT the same as those fitted to the 787.
These same switches are used on about 7,000 aircraft. A new part (766AT614-3D) with a new locking mechanism that could not be installed incorrectly was made for the 737.
The 787 uses an entirely different part number (4TL837‑3D).
Beyond that, I ask all of you posting in this thread for the first time, or with little aviation experience, to go to post number 1.

Read the entire Preliminary report, and pay particular attention to pages 5 through 9.
Five different buildings were damaged, badly, because this aircraft hit five buildings as it came down with forward momentum.
Parts of the aircraft hit some buildings and not others.
There was a fire. The debris field was spread out over a large area.

There were whole, and broken, and burned parts of this aircraft all over the place at the crash site that the investigators needed to identify and sift through, and then try to use, to come up with the who, what, where, why, when and how of this accident.

The flight deck was found about 650 feet from the initial impact point.
The overall extent of the debris field was roughly 1000 feet by 400 feet. That's about three football pitches/fields long (plus a bit) and one football pitch/field wide (plus a bit).

Cut the investigating team a break, if you please, and exercise a bit of patience.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Preliminary Report  Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin

T28B
July 16, 2025, 00:06:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11923357
EXDAC:
I will thank you for that response, and note that the SAIB was issued for the installation on the 737. I'll go and edit my post.

Done.

And no, I am not impugning the decisions of the investigators to consider that as a possible contribution.
I'd say (having investigated more than one accident) that it's a decent idea to look into that based on similarity of function.

Subjects (links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context): Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin