https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead of
the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up at
the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
instead of the gear
On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
at the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
instead of the gear
The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual engine failure as the best guess.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
and most of Youtube)
The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
gear and gravity keeps it down.
On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
at the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
instead of the gear
The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual
engine failure as the best guess.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
and most of Youtube)
The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
gear and gravity keeps it down.
It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?
On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:been contaminated - maybe with water?
On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead of the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up at the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps up instead of the gear
The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual engine failure as the best guess.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV and most of Youtube)
The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the gear and gravity keeps it down.
It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne. It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full load of fuel. Could the new fuel have
On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
at the end' Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of
course there is dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
instead of the gear
The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest
dual engine failure as the best guess.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
and most of Youtube)
The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted
from the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it
through the door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power
to lift the gear and gravity keeps it down.
It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the startApparently it was very hot so would need a longer runway to get airborne.
if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with
water? --
Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
at the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
instead of the gear
The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual >>> engine failure as the best guess.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
and most of Youtube)
The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from >>> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
gear and gravity keeps it down.
It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?
Pilot comments, which I haven’t seen contradicted, about the fuel load state that a full load is circa 220,000lbs, but that for the flight to Gatwick, including plenty for diversions, would have been around 120,000lbs or nearly 50 tons short of full tanks.
If that’s true, then the long take-off run, with an aircraft that wasn’t near its maximum weight, suggests the engines were not producing the
required thrust, possibly gradually failing in some way even during that take-off run and conking out early in the climb-out leading to the ram-air turbine being deployed.
On 16/06/2025 13:51, Spike wrote:
Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:Pilot comments, which I haven’t seen contradicted, about the fuel load
On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the >>>>> gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead >>>>> of the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up >>>>> at the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is >>>>> dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps up >>>>> instead of the gear
The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual >>>> engine failure as the best guess.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in >>>> the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV >>>> and most of Youtube)
The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power >>>> to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from >>>> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the >>>> door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the >>>> gear and gravity keeps it down.
It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start >>> if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water? >>
state that a full load is circa 220,000lbs, but that for the flight to
Gatwick, including plenty for diversions, would have been around 120,000lbs >> or nearly 50 tons short of full tanks.
If that’s true, then the long take-off run, with an aircraft that wasn’t >> near its maximum weight, suggests the engines were not producing the
required thrust, possibly gradually failing in some way even during that
take-off run and conking out early in the climb-out leading to the ram-air >> turbine being deployed.
The pilots had masses of experience. So, I think we can safely ignore
the possibility that the engines weren't working properly at the start
of take-off. Likewise, an overloaded plane, they'd have noticed and
aborted take-off.
Is 37C temperature way out of the ordinary for that area? The forecast suggests not.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/in/ahmedabad/202438/daily-weather-forecast/202438
Contaminated fuel? Possible, but what about all the other planes that
took off safely the same day? Surely, fuel samples are checked as part
of pre-flight safety checks?
Thank goodness the AAIB has access to invaluable resources like Usenet
to fall back on!
One available video, shot from a smartphone, shows "exhaust colour"I thought that was airport CCTV?
on the left engine, less or no exhaust color on the right engine,
and a yaw as if the left engine was pushing the left wing forward.
Thank goodness the AAIB has access to invaluable resources like Usenet
to fall back on!
Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
at the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
instead of the gear
The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual >>> engine failure as the best guess.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
and most of Youtube)
The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from >>> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
gear and gravity keeps it down.
It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?
Pilot comments, which I haven’t seen contradicted, about the fuel load state that a full load is circa 220,000lbs, but that for the flight to Gatwick, including plenty for diversions, would have been around 120,000lbs or nearly 50 tons short of full tanks.
If that’s true, then the long take-off run, with an aircraft that wasn’t near its maximum weight, suggests the engines were not producing the
required thrust, possibly gradually failing in some way even during that take-off run and conking out early in the climb-out leading to the ram-air turbine being deployed.
On 16/06/2025 14:00, Paul wrote:
One available video, shot from a smartphone, shows "exhaust colour"I thought that was airport CCTV?
on the left engine, less or no exhaust color on the right engine,
and a yaw as if the left engine was pushing the left wing forward.
anyway yes. I saw that. Starboard engine failed pretty much as it rotated >Would still have taken off OK
Perhaps..
All airports ought to have a high definition recording of every take off
as some extra evidence of what went wrong?.
If it went wrong of course.
But considering the number of successful take off's and landings every
day?.
Its waay down in the noise..
On 17/06/2025 14:12, tony sayer wrote:
Perhaps..
All airports ought to have a high definition recording of every take off
as some extra evidence of what went wrong?.
If it went wrong of course.
But considering the number of successful take off's and landings every
day?.
Its waay down in the noise..
The same thought had occurred to me: high-def videos of all take-offs and landings, for the infinitesimal chance of it all going horribly wrong.
I remember an after-dinner talk in about 1980 "What goes up might come
down" by a Birmingham air-traffic controller called Dave Gunson in which
he said (I may be paraphrasing slightly)
"Take-offs are easy - it's brute force over ignorance - but landings
*bite* if you get it wrong." and "The definition of a good pilot is one
who has the same number of take-offs as landings."
And "at rotate speed it *will* go up... and the editor's decision is
final on that", which the Air India crash sadly proved not to be true...
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead of
the gear'
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
spun down. If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel switches
are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The RAM was
deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
the gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
instead of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
spun down. If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel
switches are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The
RAM was deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
Stupid question, maybe...
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off - accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight,
given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches *were* turned off and then turned back on straight away.
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
Stupid question, maybe...
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off - accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
turned off and then turned back on straight away.
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
NY wrote:
Stupid question, maybe...
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off - accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
engine fire/fan explosion/whatever
given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were turned off and then turned back on straight away.
Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started
to spool back up, the other didn't have time.
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
In article <[email protected]>,
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the
UK (and former empire)?
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
spun down. If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel switches
are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The RAM was
deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
Stupid question, maybe...
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off - accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight, given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches *were* turned off and then turned back on straight away.
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the
UK (and former empire)?
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
NY wrote:
Stupid question, maybe...
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel
off - accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
engine fire/fan explosion/whatever
given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches
were turned off and then turned back on straight away.
Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had
started to spool back up, the other didn't have time.
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved
to cutoff when this is not wanted?
Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you
have to deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON
in the UK (and former empire)?
Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
Er no.
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off
and then were restored to on again. Too late to make enoughYes, I added that detail later, once I was aware of it, but everybody
difference.
After one cockpit voice asked 'why did you turn the fuel switches off to which the other replied 'I didn't'...
We'll never know if it was suicide, murder or something else ... every
Boeing pilot I've seen says you can't accidentally operate the cut-offs.
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
NY wrote:
Stupid question, maybe...
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
engine fire/fan explosion/whatever
given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
turned off and then turned back on straight away.
Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started
to spool back up, the other didn't have time.
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to
deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the
UK (and former empire)?
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
AIUI it needs a lift and pull type action to move them. Once in place
they are essentially locked.
On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
NY wrote:
Stupid question, maybe...
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off - >>>> accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
engine fire/fan explosion/whatever
I can see that you might want to turn one engine off if it caught fire,
but *all* of them? During take-off, would it be better to keep the fuel
on, risking a fire, or turn it off, risking almost certain death from a
crash due to lack of thrust/lift?
given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
turned off and then turned back on straight away.
Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started >>> to spool back up, the other didn't have time.
Presumably the data recorder will contain information about the engines
to determine whether there was an incident which would have warranted
turning the fuel off. I imagine that is still being investigated and so
has been excluded from the preliminary report. Likewise I imagine the investigators know who said what on the flight deck because the pilot's
and co-pilot's voices are recorded on different, identified tracks on
the cockpit voice recorder - they are being deliberately vague to avoid pointing a finger at either one of them, for the sake of their families.
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to >>> deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in
the
UK (and former empire)?
Do all aeroplanes, worldwide, use the same convention (probably the
American one of up=on) irrespective of the country which owns/operates
the plane, to avoid this indecision?
I wonder if at some stage in the future, CVRs will start to record video
of the pilots to show who did what - who turned the fuel to cutoff and
who turned it back on (were they the same person or different ones).
In general do planes have enough power to take off on one engine, albeit
with a lot of yaw that needs to be corrected very quickly, if a fault
occurs in the seconds after rotate?
Presumably the data recorder will contain information about the enginesSequence of events, this chap usually does the best coverage of plane
to determine whether there was an incident which would have warranted
turning the fuel off.
On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:Well cannot is a very definite and exclusive word.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
the gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
instead of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
The aircraft can distinguish between 'on the ground' and 'in the air'
but not 'one second after takeoff'
There are reasons why you might want to use the engine cutoffs on both engines. If both have flamed out due to e.g volcanic dust...
AIUI using them is party of a restart procedure
On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
NY wrote:
Stupid question, maybe...
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off - >>>> accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
engine fire/fan explosion/whatever
I can see that you might want to turn one engine off if it caught fire,
but *all* of them? During take-off, would it be better to keep the fuel
on, risking a fire, or turn it off, risking almost certain death from a
crash due to lack of thrust/lift?
given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
turned off and then turned back on straight away.
Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started >>> to spool back up, the other didn't have time.
Presumably the data recorder will contain information about the engines
to determine whether there was an incident which would have warranted
turning the fuel off. I imagine that is still being investigated and so
has been excluded from the preliminary report. Likewise I imagine the investigators know who said what on the flight deck because the pilot's
and co-pilot's voices are recorded on different, identified tracks on
the cockpit voice recorder - they are being deliberately vague to avoid pointing a finger at either one of them, for the sake of their families.
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to >>> deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in
the
UK (and former empire)?
Do all aeroplanes, worldwide, use the same convention (probably the
American one of up=on) irrespective of the country which owns/operates
the plane, to avoid this indecision?
I wonder if at some stage in the future, CVRs will start to record video
of the pilots to show who did what - who turned the fuel to cutoff and
who turned it back on (were they the same person or different ones).
Or a very very weird mechanical issue...like an insect got caught in the mechanism or something and moving the switches to 'on' didn't quite
engage the latch..
On 12/07/2025 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The aircraft can distinguish between 'on the ground' and 'in the air'
but not 'one second after takeoff'
There are reasons why you might want to use the engine cutoffs on both
engines. If both have flamed out due to e.g volcanic dust...
AIUI using them is party of a restart procedure
Strain gauges on the undercarriage to distinguish between 'on the
ground' and 'in the air'? As soon as there is no weight on the
undercarriage, 'airborne' rules could take over. I'm speculating wildly!
Would you want to cut off all engines in the critical first few seconds
of takeoff? Is it better to cutoff and restart than to keep the fuel
flowing even though the engines are on fire *in the situation where
cutting off thrust and waiting for the engines to restart would almost certainly be fatal*?
In general do planes have enough power to take off on one engine, albeit
with a lot of yaw that needs to be corrected very quickly, if a fault
occurs in the seconds after rotate?
Strain gauges on the undercarriage to distinguish between 'on the
ground' and 'in the air'? As soon as there is no weight on the
undercarriage, 'airborne' rules could take over. I'm speculating wildly!
Would you want to cut off all engines in the critical first few seconds
of takeoff? Is it better to cutoff and restart than to keep the fuel
flowing even though the engines are on fire *in the situation where
cutting off thrust and waiting for the engines to restart would almost certainly be fatal*?
On 12/07/2025 12:40, NY wrote:
Strain gauges on the undercarriage to distinguish between 'on the
ground' and 'in the air'? As soon as there is no weight on the
undercarriage, 'airborne' rules could take over. I'm speculating wildly!
That's what has been said by pilots that fly that aircraft. Turning the
fuel off whist on the ground doesn't deploy the RAM because there are
"on ground" sensors in the undercarriage.
On 12/07/2025 11:15, NY wrote:
In general do planes have enough power to take off on one engine,
albeit with a lot of yaw that needs to be corrected very quickly,
if a fault occurs in the seconds after rotate?
It has been confirmed that this aircraft could have continued to
climb on one (working) engine, with the undercarriage down and the
flaps withdrawn.
On 12/07/2025 10:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Or a very very weird mechanical issue...like an insect got caught in
the mechanism or something and moving the switches to 'on' didn't
quite engage the latch..
What, two switches suffering a similar jam, at the same time?
On 12/07/2025 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:Well cannot is a very definite and exclusive word.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
the gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
instead of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a problem
there of some switches being fitted without the safety mechanism -
leaving them prone to accidental switching.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I am certain that what is left of the switches will be subject to
intense scrutiny.
Probably more fruitful to look into human factors, such as which pilot
was shagging the other one's wife/girlfriend/boyfriend?
I am certain that what is left of the switches will be subject to
intense scrutiny.
On 12/07/2025 13:14, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Or a very very weird mechanical issue...like an insect got caught in
the mechanism or something and moving the switches to 'on' didn't
quite engage the latch..
What, two switches suffering a similar jam, at the same time?
They are physically adjacent.
I agree, its a very long shot indeed.
In general, do air-crash reports generally consist of an interim report within the statutory 30 days and then nothing until the final report, or
are subsequent interim reports produced as further information becomes available?
On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the >> UK (and former empire)?
Unlikely, plus why would anyone touch a two fuel cut of switches that
were already set correctly to provide fuel for take off? The switches
cannot be accidentally moved and pilots have said (almost) impossible to switch both at the same time, so two actions to move both.
They are switches used at the end of every flight to cut fuel when the aircraft is parked. The pilots were trained and experienced.
The why and who, and maybe how, is just subject to speculation at this time.
On 12/07/2025 10:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
AIUI it needs a lift and pull type action to move them. Once in place
they are essentially locked.
On the other hand, would the interlock logic (electronic as opposed to physical barriers) allow fuel to *all* the engines to be turned off
during take off? If a fire/bird-strike/blade-fracture occurs during
takeoff, is it better to make certain that fuel cannot accidentally be
turned off to the wrong engine (Kegworth), by disabling the second fuel cutoff switch once the first has been turned off and until the first
(wrongly turned off) is providing thrust again. Or maybe disable fuel
cutoff unless a fault (eg fire) is detected in an engine.
Not a simple solution whatever you do, but I wonder if the Indian crash
will result in any changes to the logic that links the switches to the
actual cutoff valves. Time will tell.
In general do planes have enough power to take off on one engine, albeit
with a lot of yaw that needs to be corrected very quickly, if a fault
occurs in the seconds after rotate?
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the >>> UK (and former empire)?
Unlikely, plus why would anyone touch a two fuel cut of switches that
were already set correctly to provide fuel for take off? The switches
cannot be accidentally moved and pilots have said (almost) impossible to
switch both at the same time, so two actions to move both.
They are switches used at the end of every flight to cut fuel when the
aircraft is parked. The pilots were trained and experienced.
The why and who, and maybe how, is just subject to speculation at this time.
One pilot on the PPRUNE web site claimed that his (unspecified) type of aircraft, which has the same fuel switches as the Air India one, and who
was flying for an (unspecified) airline, has had multiple occurrences of inadvertent fuel shut-offs, but he didn’t elaborate further.
Someone else on the group mentioned an inadvertent FCO due to a bag of sandwiches moving the switches.
And it was reported that the aircraft thought it had left the ground,
because the ‘on ground’ sensor was fitted to the nose wheel, and the aircraft had rotated but still had the main gear on the runway.
On 12/07/2025 11:15, NY wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
AIUI it needs a lift and pull type action to move them. Once in place
they are essentially locked.
On the other hand, would the interlock logic (electronic as opposed to
physical barriers) allow fuel to *all* the engines to be turned off
during take off? If a fire/bird-strike/blade-fracture occurs during
takeoff, is it better to make certain that fuel cannot accidentally be
turned off to the wrong engine (Kegworth), by disabling the second fuel
cutoff switch once the first has been turned off and until the first
(wrongly turned off) is providing thrust again. Or maybe disable fuel
cutoff unless a fault (eg fire) is detected in an engine.
If a crash landing is inevitable, the pilot would wish to shut off fuel
to the engines (at the last moment) to reduce the risk of fire[1].
Sam Plusnet <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:15, NY wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?
AIUI it needs a lift and pull type action to move them. Once in place
they are essentially locked.
On the other hand, would the interlock logic (electronic as opposed to
physical barriers) allow fuel to *all* the engines to be turned off
during take off? If a fire/bird-strike/blade-fracture occurs during
takeoff, is it better to make certain that fuel cannot accidentally be
turned off to the wrong engine (Kegworth), by disabling the second fuel
cutoff switch once the first has been turned off and until the first
(wrongly turned off) is providing thrust again. Or maybe disable fuel
cutoff unless a fault (eg fire) is detected in an engine.
If a crash landing is inevitable, the pilot would wish to shut off fuel
to the engines (at the last moment) to reduce the risk of fire[1].
Would that make a significant difference in reality? The heat generated through friction and kinetic energy would surely be more than enough to
cause ignition of fuel?
Occams razor would suggest that the fuel was turned off deliberately. Suicidal pilots/co-pilots aren’t unknown sadly.
I kinda hope that this wasn’t what happened but until more information comes out we can only speculate. I’ll bet there’s more information to come
from the cockpit voice recorders…
Tim
On 12/07/2025 20:52, Tim+ wrote:
Sam Plusnet <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:15, NY wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to >>>>>> cutoff when this is not wanted?
AIUI it needs a lift and pull type action to move them. Once in place >>>>> they are essentially locked.
On the other hand, would the interlock logic (electronic as opposed to >>>> physical barriers) allow fuel to *all* the engines to be turned off
during take off? If a fire/bird-strike/blade-fracture occurs during
takeoff, is it better to make certain that fuel cannot accidentally be >>>> turned off to the wrong engine (Kegworth), by disabling the second fuel >>>> cutoff switch once the first has been turned off and until the first
(wrongly turned off) is providing thrust again. Or maybe disable fuel
cutoff unless a fault (eg fire) is detected in an engine.
If a crash landing is inevitable, the pilot would wish to shut off fuel
to the engines (at the last moment) to reduce the risk of fire[1].
Would that make a significant difference in reality? The heat generated
through friction and kinetic energy would surely be more than enough to
cause ignition of fuel?
Fuel spraying out under pressure is a big risk - especially around hot
engine parts. I'm pretty sure that cutting the supply before a crash
landing is a normal procedure.
Occams razor would suggest that the fuel was turned off deliberately.
Suicidal pilots/co-pilots aren’t unknown sadly.
Maybe - however articles have stated that the aircraft used the same
type of switches as the 737 and that there had been a number of those installed with the safety mechanism disengaged, resulting in accidental actuations.
I can complete quite complex procedures without thinking. I can do stuff
"in autopilot". Sometimes I get confused, and I perform a standard
procedure correctly, but at the wrong time.
Surely it is possible that a distracted pilot inadvertently performed a landing procedure, on take off. i.e. could it not be just a brain fart?
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
Er no.
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off
And you don't think *THAT* is the thing of significance?
and then were restored to on again. Too late to make enoughYes, I added that detail later, once I was aware of it, but everybody
difference.
was fucked by that point.
After one cockpit voice asked 'why did you turn the fuel switches off
to which the other replied 'I didn't'...
We'll never know if it was suicide, murder or something else ... every
Boeing pilot I've seen says you can't accidentally operate the cut-offs.
Maybe - however articles have stated that the aircraft used the same
type of switches as the 737 and that there had been a number of those installed with the safety mechanism disengaged, resulting in accidental actuations.
Am I the only one to think that it was remiss (to put it mildly) that
when the switches with no safety interlock were discovered, an "all
affected planes must be fixed before being allowed to fly" level of
directive was not issued.
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
spun down. If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel switches
are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The RAM was
deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
On 12/07/2025 20:57, SteveW wrote:
Maybe - however articles have stated that the aircraft used the same
type of switches as the 737 and that there had been a number of those
installed with the safety mechanism disengaged, resulting in
accidental actuations.
Am I the only one to think that it was remiss (to put it mildly) that
when the switches with no safety interlock were discovered, an "all
affected planes must be fixed before being allowed to fly" level of
directive was not issued. I would say that inoperative safety interlocks
is safety-critical. But I'm only a layman ;-)
NY wrote:
Am I the only one to think that it was remiss (to put it mildly) that
when the switches with no safety interlock were discovered, an "all
affected planes must be fixed before being allowed to fly" level of
directive was not issued.
A mandatory SAIB was issued for 737s but only deemed advisory for 787s.
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the >>> UK (and former empire)?
Unlikely, plus why would anyone touch a two fuel cut of switches that
were already set correctly to provide fuel for take off? The switches
cannot be accidentally moved and pilots have said (almost) impossible to
switch both at the same time, so two actions to move both.
They are switches used at the end of every flight to cut fuel when the
aircraft is parked. The pilots were trained and experienced.
The why and who, and maybe how, is just subject to speculation at this time.
One pilot on the PPRUNE web site claimed that his (unspecified) type of aircraft, which has the same fuel switches as the Air India one, and who
was flying for an (unspecified) airline, has had multiple occurrences of inadvertent fuel shut-offs, but he didn’t elaborate further.
Someone else on the group mentioned an inadvertent FCO due to a bag of sandwiches moving the switches.
And it was reported that the aircraft thought it had left the ground,
because the ‘on ground’ sensor was fitted to the nose wheel, and the aircraft had rotated but still had the main gear on the runway.
On 12/07/2025 20:57, SteveW wrote:
Maybe - however articles have stated that the aircraft used the same
type of switches as the 737 and that there had been a number of those
installed with the safety mechanism disengaged, resulting in
accidental actuations.
Am I the only one to think that it was remiss (to put it mildly) that
when the switches with no safety interlock were discovered, an "all
affected planes must be fixed before being allowed to fly" level of
directive was not issued. I would say that inoperative safety interlocks
is safety-critical. But I'm only a layman ;-)
On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
the gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
instead of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
spun down. If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel
switches are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The
RAM was deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
If you read the AAIB report, it gives the timings of when the switches
were moved to cut off, and when the RAM deployed.
Andy Burns wrote:If there was the slightest suspicion on the switches, they could have
A mandatory SAIB was issued for 737s but only deemed advisory for 787s.
Weird, isn't it. On PPRUNE, they are saying that Air India didn't
implement the advisory SAIB. That's not to say the interlocks were
faulty, though.
GB wrote:+1
Andy Burns wrote:If there was the slightest suspicion on the switches, they could have
A mandatory SAIB was issued for 737s but only deemed advisory for 787s.
Weird, isn't it. On PPRUNE, they are saying that Air India didn't
implement the advisory SAIB. That's not to say the interlocks were
faulty, though.
changed it to mandatory for 787s and maybe grounded them until it was
done, but they haven't ... which I think tells you a lot.
On 7/12/25 10:24, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
Er no.
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off
And you don't think *THAT* is the thing of significance?
and then were restored to on again. Too late to make enoughYes, I added that detail later, once I was aware of it, but everybody
difference.
was fucked by that point.
After one cockpit voice asked 'why did you turn the fuel switches off
to which the other replied 'I didn't'...
We'll never know if it was suicide, murder or something else ... every
Boeing pilot I've seen says you can't accidentally operate the cut-offs.
I can complete quite complex procedures without thinking. I can do stuff
"in autopilot". Sometimes I get confused, and I perform a standard
procedure correctly, but at the wrong time.
Surely it is possible that a distracted pilot inadvertently performed a landing procedure, on take off. i.e. could it not be just a brain fart?
The interested thing would to be to know if any other pilots had done
this inadvertently. Are all operations recorded, would a pilot be
required to explain such a mistake? If not, I guess few pilots would
freely admit to such a mistake.
AIUI as soon as both engines are shut down the RAT (not RAM) deploys
The aircaft does not wait for them to spool down
On 12/07/2025 22:32, Pancho wrote:
On 7/12/25 10:24, Andy Burns wrote:Fuel cut off is something a pilot normally only does when the aircraft
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Er no.The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off. >>>>
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off
And you don't think *THAT* is the thing of significance?
and then were restored to on again. Too late to make enoughYes, I added that detail later, once I was aware of it, but everybody
difference.
was fucked by that point.
After one cockpit voice asked 'why did you turn the fuel switches
off to which the other replied 'I didn't'...
We'll never know if it was suicide, murder or something else ...
every Boeing pilot I've seen says you can't accidentally operate the
cut-offs.
I can complete quite complex procedures without thinking. I can do
stuff "in autopilot". Sometimes I get confused, and I perform a
standard procedure correctly, but at the wrong time.
Surely it is possible that a distracted pilot inadvertently performed
a landing procedure, on take off. i.e. could it not be just a brain fart?
The interested thing would to be to know if any other pilots had done
this inadvertently. Are all operations recorded, would a pilot be
required to explain such a mistake? If not, I guess few pilots would
freely admit to such a mistake.
is at the gate, and isn't going anywhere anymore.
Its akin to switching off the ignition on a car when pulling away from
the lights.
Absolutely abnormal and pointless.
I'm surprised really that until the roles of the two pilots have been investigated thoroughly, even the brief extract has been released.
What is a bit odd is the time delay between the fuel switches being
recorded as being turned off and them being turned back on. If you *see*
your colleague turn the switches off then (allowing for a brief WTF
moment) you would turn them back on. A delay of 10 seconds seems
surprisingly long.
And almost impossible for the pilot flying to do whilst concentrating on keeping the aircraft straight and getting ready for the climbout after rotation.
NY wrote:
I'm surprised really that until the roles of the two pilots have been
investigated thoroughly, even the brief extract has been released.
The Indian aviation authorities are obliged to produce an interim report within 30 days, in case that needs to warn of type-safety issues.
I'm surprised really that until the roles of the two pilots have been investigated thoroughly, even the brief extract has been released.The Indian aviation authorities are obliged to produce an interim report
given that it appears to damn one or other of the pilots, even if not identifying which of the two. It means that there will be suspicion of
both of them and both families will take the flak.
NY wrote:
given that it appears to damn one or other of the pilots, even if not
identifying which of the two. It means that there will be suspicion of
both of them and both families will take the flak.
The little reaction I've heard from families of passengers, didn't seem
to have picked up on it likely being deliberate by one of the pilots,
they were saying the need more information, they probably haven't
realised they won't get much more for a year or so ...
On 12/07/2025 19:48, Spike wrote:
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:Any multiple occurrences of a potentially catastrophic event woul 100%
On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON
in the
UK (and former empire)?
Unlikely, plus why would anyone touch a two fuel cut of switches that
were already set correctly to provide fuel for take off? The switches
cannot be accidentally moved and pilots have said (almost) impossible to >>> switch both at the same time, so two actions to move both.
They are switches used at the end of every flight to cut fuel when the
aircraft is parked. The pilots were trained and experienced.
The why and who, and maybe how, is just subject to speculation at
this time.
One pilot on the PPRUNE web site claimed that his (unspecified) type of
aircraft, which has the same fuel switches as the Air India one, and who >> was flying for an (unspecified) airline, has had multiple occurrences of
inadvertent fuel shut-offs, but he didn’t elaborate further.
be a cise ofr a full investigation.
He is bullshitting
On 13/07/2025 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And almost impossible for the pilot flying to do whilst concentrating
on keeping the aircraft straight and getting ready for the climbout
after rotation.
True, although if a PF was planning to crash the plane anyway, he
wouldn't be too bothered about whether he was keeping the plane level
and climbing at the right rate. He could be going through the motions to
keep the PM from suspecting him, and then suddenly flip the switches (overcoming the normal safety interlock).
So I don't think we can rule out the PF.
There is one point about the report. All the timestamps are give to the nearest second. Are they stored internally to that accuracy or have they
been rounded to the nearest second for the report? When a time
difference of 1 second (or "01 second" as the report says it) is
mentioned, is that taken by subtracting rounded or unrounded timestamps?
Suppose (using fictitious figures) two events happened at 8.481 and
8.521 seconds (if internal figures are to nearest millisecond).
The difference between them is 40 msec. But the rounded values would be
8 seconds and 9 seconds, giving a "time difference" of 1 second.
Surely (surely) the report wouldn't have made such an elementary error. They'd subtract the full-accuracy values and then round the result. Surely.
On 13/07/2025 11:22, Andy Burns wrote:
GB wrote:+1
Andy Burns wrote:If there was the slightest suspicion on the switches, they could have
A mandatory SAIB was issued for 737s but only deemed advisory for 787s. >>>Weird, isn't it. On PPRUNE, they are saying that Air India didn't
implement the advisory SAIB. That's not to say the interlocks were
faulty, though.
changed it to mandatory for 787s and maybe grounded them until it was
done, but they haven't ... which I think tells you a lot.
I am afraid the evidence points to a clear deliberate act of suicide and >murder by probably the captain - the pilot monitoring.
No one is saying it at this stage to avoid legal and social implications.
His private life will be gone over with a tooth comb.
Yes, absolutely abnormal, but with thousands of flights the abnormal
might happen.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 11:26:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 11:22, Andy Burns wrote:
GB wrote:+1
Andy Burns wrote:If there was the slightest suspicion on the switches, they could have
A mandatory SAIB was issued for 737s but only deemed advisory for 787s. >>>>Weird, isn't it. On PPRUNE, they are saying that Air India didn't
implement the advisory SAIB. That's not to say the interlocks were
faulty, though.
changed it to mandatory for 787s and maybe grounded them until it was
done, but they haven't ... which I think tells you a lot.
I am afraid the evidence points to a clear deliberate act of suicide and
murder by probably the captain - the pilot monitoring.
No one is saying it at this stage to avoid legal and social implications.
His private life will be gone over with a tooth comb.
IIRC the pilot of Malayan Airlines Flight 370 which went missing in
March 2014 in the Southern Indian Ocean was thought to have had a
mental breakdown, and deliberately flown his plane on a rather
irregular course down across the Southern Indian Ocean until it ran
out of fuel and crashed into the sea. The wreckage has never been
found.
Asking the co-pilot why he put the switches into the 'off' position
could have been an attempt to throw the blame on the co-pilot, because
the captain would know that his question would be picked up on the
cabin voice recorder.
On 13/07/2025 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And almost impossible for the pilot flying to do whilst concentrating
on keeping the aircraft straight and getting ready for the climbout
after rotation.
True, although if a PF was planning to crash the plane anyway, he
wouldn't be too bothered about whether he was keeping the plane level
and climbing at the right rate. He could be going through the motions to
keep the PM from suspecting him, and then suddenly flip the switches (overcoming the normal safety interlock).
So I don't think we can rule out the PF.
There is one point about the report. All the timestamps are give to the nearest second. Are they stored internally to that accuracy or have they
been rounded to the nearest second for the report? When a time
difference of 1 second (or "01 second" as the report says it) is
mentioned, is that taken by subtracting rounded or unrounded timestamps?
Suppose (using fictitious figures) two events happened at 8.481 and
8.521 seconds (if internal figures are to nearest millisecond).
The difference between them is 40 msec. But the rounded values would be
8 seconds and 9 seconds, giving a "time difference" of 1 second.
Surely (surely) the report wouldn't have made such an elementary error. They'd subtract the full-accuracy values and then round the result. Surely.
It makes a difference if we try to draw inferences about the delay
between engine 1 and engine 2 being moved from Run to Cutoff. 40 msec
could be within normal tolerances for two switches being moved simultaneously, possibly due to accidental operation (assuming the
interlock had been defeated) whereas 1 second is the normal delay
between operating first one switch and then the other for a normal end-of-flight engine shutdown.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the switches remained in Run
all the time and that an electrical or software problem caused the
control signal to the fuel system (and recorded by the flight data
recorder) to transition.
That is difficult to accept given the "why did you cutoff" / "I didn't" conversation.
However I'm cautious about inferring too much from those words because
they have almost certainly been paraphrased and/or translated from the pilots' native language and/or given as reported speech. Do pilots
always speak English to each other on the flight deck, as the do with
ATC messages, or do they tend to speak their native language? In real
life I would imagine that the words exchanged included a few expletives, along the lines of "Why the F did you cut the fuel off? What are you
F-ing playing at?" And I'm sure there other words spoken before and
after this exchange which are not being released at this stage.
I'm surprised really that until the roles of the two pilots have been investigated thoroughly, even the brief extract has been released.
What is a bit odd is the time delay between the fuel switches being
recorded as being turned off and them being turned back on. If you *see*
your colleague turn the switches off then (allowing for a brief WTF
moment) you would turn them back on. A delay of 10 seconds seems
surprisingly long. Was there a stuggle in which one pilot tried to
prevent the other from turn the fuel back on? The wording surrounding
that would be illuminating!
With air crashes like this, do you tend to get a preliminary report and
then nothing until the final report, or do you tend to get further
interim reports?
Do final reports tend to include a full transcript of the relevant words spoken, maybe with just highly personal "I love my wife" or "I don't
want to die" wording redacted.
On 13/07/2025 15:45, NY wrote:
I'm surprised really that until the roles of the two pilots have been
investigated thoroughly, even the brief extract has been released.
The report means that other aircraft of the same type don't have to be grounded or inspected.
What is a bit odd is the time delay between the fuel switches being
recorded as being turned off and them being turned back on. If you
*see* your colleague turn the switches off then (allowing for a brief
WTF moment) you would turn them back on. A delay of 10 seconds seems
surprisingly long.
And if the other pilot was still trying to fly the aircraft and making
sense of what was happening? It has been suggested that pilot flying
first indication of something wrong was hearing the engines spooling
down rather than an in cockpit message or in cockpit observation.
On 13/07/2025 16:03, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:
I'm surprised really that until the roles of the two pilots have been
investigated thoroughly, even the brief extract has been released.
The Indian aviation authorities are obliged to produce an interim
report within 30 days, in case that needs to warn of type-safety issues.
Yes I realise that. I mean that I'm surprised that the brief extract of
the pilots' words was included in that mandatory preliminary report,
given that it *appears* to damn one or other of the pilots, even if not identifying which of the two. It means that there will be suspicion of
both of them and both families will take the flak.
NY wrote:
given that it appears to damn one or other of the pilots, even if not
identifying which of the two. It means that there will be suspicion of
both of them and both families will take the flak.
The little reaction I've heard from families of passengers, didn't seem
to have picked up on it likely being deliberate by one of the pilots,
they were saying the need more information, they probably haven't
realised they won't get much more for a year or so ...
the safety mechanism not being engaged during installation, so the
switches have been capable of being accidentally operated.
On 13/07/2025 16:17, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:
given that it appears to damn one or other of the pilots, even if not
identifying which of the two. It means that there will be suspicion
of both of them and both families will take the flak.
The little reaction I've heard from families of passengers, didn't
seem to have picked up on it likely being deliberate by one of the
pilots, they were saying the need more information, they probably
haven't realised they won't get much more for a year or so ...
As I get older, and my annual %age mortality rate creeps up, I start to wonder whether I'll still be alive when the report is published.
I'm resigned to the likelihood that they won't finish HS2 in my grandchildren's lifetimes.
Pancho wrote:
I can complete quite complex procedures without thinking. I can do
stuff "in autopilot". Sometimes I get confused, and I perform a
standard procedure correctly, but at the wrong time.
Surely it is possible that a distracted pilot inadvertently performed
a landing procedure, on take off. i.e. could it not be just a brain fart?
From what I see of how a cockpit operates, important items like that
are called out before and after they're done, so if one of the pilots
has slipped into "landed and turning off engines" mode, he shouldn't do
it without announcing it?
The investigators are not going beyond the evidence, but they know and
anyone else knows that what the evidence says is overwhelmingly that the captain did it deliberately.
On 13/07/2025 18:18, SteveW wrote:
the safety mechanism not being engaged during installation, so the
switches have been capable of being accidentally operated.
But this failed to happen in the last 12 years of this aircraft's
existence?
Yeah, I've a bridge to sell you..
On 13/07/2025 21:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 18:18, SteveW wrote:
the safety mechanism not being engaged during installation, so the
switches have been capable of being accidentally operated.
But this failed to happen in the last 12 years of this aircraft's
existence?
Yeah, I've a bridge to sell you..
Things get changed over the years and there is no guarantee that another faulty installation doesn't happen.
I don't say that that's what happened, but it can't just be ignored as a possibility.
For such an important function, is there no built in audio generation
over the cockpit audio
"Do you really want to engage this function?"
or even just a distinctive bleep until confirmed/cancelled via a
secondary route.
Also perhaps psychology, and a brain fart from tiredness or whatever. Misinterpretting on means off, the important consideration is fuel
delivery, ie ON state, but those switches would normally indicate OFF
state. Brain fart could say ON means ON and OFF maeans OFF.
For such an important function, is there no built in audio generation
over the cockpit audio
"Do you really want to engage this function?"
On 14/07/2025 00:01, SteveW wrote:
On 13/07/2025 21:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 18:18, SteveW wrote:
the safety mechanism not being engaged during installation, so the
switches have been capable of being accidentally operated.
But this failed to happen in the last 12 years of this aircraft's
existence?
Yeah, I've a bridge to sell you..
Things get changed over the years and there is no guarantee that
another faulty installation doesn't happen.
I don't say that that's what happened, but it can't just be ignored as
a possibility.
Although damaged the switches survived the crash and as they are now
being identified as the reason for the crash I suspect that they would
have been the most scrutinised item in the wreckage. Don't you think
that the report would have mentioned if the locking mechanism had been incorrectly fitted and/or it was suspected that it may have failed?
Only time will tell, which control surfaces were operational in
the last seconds of flight.
We know that one of the pilots turned BOTH engines off
On 13/07/2025 17:47, GB wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:17, Andy Burns wrote:I think I will be. Just.
NY wrote:
given that it appears to damn one or other of the pilots, even if
not identifying which of the two. It means that there will be
suspicion of both of them and both families will take the flak.
The little reaction I've heard from families of passengers, didn't
seem to have picked up on it likely being deliberate by one of the
pilots, they were saying the need more information, they probably
haven't realised they won't get much more for a year or so ...
As I get older, and my annual %age mortality rate creeps up, I start
to wonder whether I'll still be alive when the report is published.
I'm resigned to the likelihood that they won't finish HS2 in myDo you think they will ever finish it at all?
grandchildren's lifetimes.
It was always a vanity EU project, and post Brexit has no real reason
to exist at all
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 09:37:11 +1000, alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:55, NY wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:Stupid question, maybe...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
the gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
instead of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off. >>>>>
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
spun down. If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel
switches are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The
RAM was deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel
off - accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight,
Flame out of an engine when the aircraft is at height, basedon the
information given by a pilot commenting on the report.
You don't get flameout on both engines at once without a bird
strike or very bad fuel and there was no bird strike or bad fuel.
One of the pilots turned both engines off
If there is a flame out the switches will be set to cut-off and then
immediately turned back on but this would not be the first action on
the check sheet.
There is no checklist used in that situation at the altitude, its memory thing
On 13/07/2025 21:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The investigators are not going beyond the evidence, but they know and
anyone else knows that what the evidence says is overwhelmingly that
the captain did it deliberately.
I think most people are starting to think that one of the two pilots did
it deliberately, but it could be either of them.
On 13/07/2025 21:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 17:47, GB wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:17, Andy Burns wrote:I think I will be. Just.
NY wrote:
given that it appears to damn one or other of the pilots, even if
not identifying which of the two. It means that there will be
suspicion of both of them and both families will take the flak.
The little reaction I've heard from families of passengers, didn't
seem to have picked up on it likely being deliberate by one of the
pilots, they were saying the need more information, they probably
haven't realised they won't get much more for a year or so ...
As I get older, and my annual %age mortality rate creeps up, I start
to wonder whether I'll still be alive when the report is published.
I'm resigned to the likelihood that they won't finish HS2 in myDo you think they will ever finish it at all?
grandchildren's lifetimes.
It was always a vanity EU project, and post Brexit has no real reason
to exist at all
What makes you think that it was an EU project?
On 13/07/2025 21:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The investigators are not going beyond the evidence, but they know and
anyone else knows that what the evidence says is overwhelmingly that
the captain did it deliberately.
I think most people are starting to think that one of the two pilots did
it deliberately, but it could be either of them.
Possibly we will never know if it was brain fart but there is still at
least a further year of investigation to try and determine why the
switches were put into the cut-off position.
On 13/07/2025 21:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 18:18, SteveW wrote:
the safety mechanism not being engaged during installation, so the
switches have been capable of being accidentally operated.
But this failed to happen in the last 12 years of this aircraft's
existence?
Yeah, I've a bridge to sell you..
Things get changed over the years and there is no guarantee that another faulty installation doesn't happen.
I don't say that that's what happened, but it can't just be ignored as a possibility.
N_Cook wrote:+1.
For such an important function, is there no built in audio generation
over the cockpit audio
"Do you really want to engage this function?"
"It looks like you're trying to fly an aircraft.
Would you like help?
* Turn the fuel valves back on
* just crash without help"
On 12/07/2025 23:09, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote:
I can complete quite complex procedures without thinking. I can do
stuff "in autopilot". Sometimes I get confused, and I perform a
standard procedure correctly, but at the wrong time.
Surely it is possible that a distracted pilot inadvertently performed
a landing procedure, on take off. i.e. could it not be just a brain
fart?
From what I see of how a cockpit operates, important items like that
are called out before and after they're done, so if one of the pilots
has slipped into "landed and turning off engines" mode, he shouldn't
do it without announcing it?
But it is _never_ "We just touched down, switch off the engines."
Shutting off the engines happens several minutes after landing - as part
of a totally different sequence of events.
On 14/07/2025 12:39, GB wrote:
On 13/07/2025 21:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 17:47, GB wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:17, Andy Burns wrote:I think I will be. Just.
NY wrote:
given that it appears to damn one or other of the pilots, even if
not identifying which of the two. It means that there will be
suspicion of both of them and both families will take the flak.
The little reaction I've heard from families of passengers, didn't
seem to have picked up on it likely being deliberate by one of the
pilots, they were saying the need more information, they probably
haven't realised they won't get much more for a year or so ...
As I get older, and my annual %age mortality rate creeps up, I start
to wonder whether I'll still be alive when the report is published.
I'm resigned to the likelihood that they won't finish HS2 in myDo you think they will ever finish it at all?
grandchildren's lifetimes.
It was always a vanity EU project, and post Brexit has no real
reason to exist at all
What makes you think that it was an EU project?
Because they like to play with trains, and they have a vision of a pan european high speed rail network.
https://railuk.com/rail-news/hs2-secures-eu-funding/
On 14/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
Only time will tell, which control surfaces were operational in
the last seconds of flight.
We know that one of the pilots turned BOTH engines off
You are incredibly certain with your comments, driven by arrogance
rather than knowledge presumably.
It is possible that each pilot turned one engine off, the reality is we
will know nothing until we see the full, or an interim, report.
On 14/07/2025 10:27, Rod Speed wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 09:37:11 +1000, alan_m <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:55, NY wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:Stupid question, maybe...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising >>>>>>> the gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up >>>>>>> instead of the gear'
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off. >>>>>>
The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they
had spun down. If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel
switches are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately.
The RAM was deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel
off - accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight,
Flame out of an engine when the aircraft is at height, basedon the
information given by a pilot commenting on the report.
You don't get flameout on both engines at once without a bird
strike or very bad fuel and there was no bird strike or bad fuel.
One of the pilots turned both engines off
Keep up. The question was why you would want to put the switchws to cut
off whilst in flight.
If there is a flame out the switches will be set to cut-off and then
immediately turned back on but this would not be the first action on
the check sheet.
There is no checklist used in that situation at the altitude, its
memory thing
Do some research. Pilots that flying aircraft of the same type of
aircraft have answered this question and like most (all) procedures
there is a check sheet/procedure associated with flame outs. Turning off
the fuel and turning it back on can automatically initiate an engine
restart.
N_Cook wrote:
For such an important function, is there no built in audio generation
over the cockpit audio
"Do you really want to engage this function?"
"It looks like you're trying to fly an aircraft.
Would you like help?
* Turn the fuel valves back on
* just crash without help"
On 14/07/2025 10:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:We are talking balance of probabilities, not 'any vaguely implausible >narrative should be given attention'
Only time will tell, which control surfaces were operational in
the last seconds of flight.
We know that one of the pilots turned BOTH engines off
You are incredibly certain with your comments, driven by arrogance rather >>than knowledge presumably.
It is possible that each pilot turned one engine off, the reality is we >>will know nothing until we see the full, or an interim, report.
I can think of no reason whatsoever why one pilot should turn one switch
off and the other pilot the other, unless they were both gay and it was a >suicide pact.
In which case why then turn them back on again?
Intelligence is not arrogance.
Refusal to draw obvious conclusions from available evidence however is...
On 14/07/2025 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/07/2025 12:39, GB wrote:
On 13/07/2025 21:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 17:47, GB wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:17, Andy Burns wrote:I think I will be. Just.
NY wrote:
given that it appears to damn one or other of the pilots, even if >>>>>>> not identifying which of the two. It means that there will be
suspicion of both of them and both families will take the flak.
The little reaction I've heard from families of passengers, didn't >>>>>> seem to have picked up on it likely being deliberate by one of the >>>>>> pilots, they were saying the need more information, they probably
haven't realised they won't get much more for a year or so ...
As I get older, and my annual %age mortality rate creeps up, I
start to wonder whether I'll still be alive when the report is
published.
I'm resigned to the likelihood that they won't finish HS2 in myDo you think they will ever finish it at all?
grandchildren's lifetimes.
It was always a vanity EU project, and post Brexit has no real
reason to exist at all
What makes you think that it was an EU project?
Because they like to play with trains, and they have a vision of a pan
european high speed rail network.
https://railuk.com/rail-news/hs2-secures-eu-funding/
So, they provided around £40m right at the outset.
Refusal to draw obvious conclusions from available evidence however is...
The only available evidence is that the fuel was turned off, we don't
know by whom or why so there are no conclusions to be drawn.
It is possible both pilots were gay and had been rejected by the same
lady boy so decided to die in a suicide pact. It is currently no less
likely than any other speculation.
On 14/07/2025 14:51, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Wrong. We know far far more than that.Refusal to draw obvious conclusions from available evidence however is...
The only available evidence is that the fuel was turned off, we don't
know by whom or why so there are no conclusions to be drawn.
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off the
fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both engines attempt
to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
WE know that in the final moments the pilot flying tried to coax a slight >climb out of the aircraft. But it was too late.
It is possible both pilots were gay and had been rejected by the sameIn which case why did one pilot try and restart the engines and fly out
lady boy so decided to die in a suicide pact. It is currently no less >>likely than any other speculation.
oif te situation?
Honestly, I cant believe you are so dim.
There are plausible scenarios and there are implausible ones.
The current plausible one is the pilot monitoring tried to crash the plane >and the pilot flying tried to save it.
On 14/07/2025 in message <10532vk$3dq0c$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/07/2025 14:51, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Wrong. We know far far more than that.Refusal to draw obvious conclusions from available evidence however
is...
The only available evidence is that the fuel was turned off, we don't
know by whom or why so there are no conclusions to be drawn.
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off
the fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both engines
attempt to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
WE know that in the final moments the pilot flying tried to coax a
slight climb out of the aircraft. But it was too late.
It is possible both pilots were gay and had been rejected by the sameIn which case why did one pilot try and restart the engines and fly
lady boy so decided to die in a suicide pact. It is currently no less
likely than any other speculation.
out oif te situation?
Honestly, I cant believe you are so dim.
There are plausible scenarios and there are implausible ones.
The current plausible one is the pilot monitoring tried to crash the
plane and the pilot flying tried to save it.
I think your philosophising has run away with you. We don't know yet and nothing anybody says at this stage will change that so one bit of
speculation is no more or less valuable than any other.
On 14/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Andy
Burns wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
For such an important function, is there no built in audio
generation over the cockpit audio
"Do you really want to engage this function?"
"It looks like you're trying to fly an aircraft.
Would you like help?
* Turn the fuel valves back on
* just crash without help"
Beep, please wait while Windows for Aircraft updates itself....
On 14/07/2025 07:50, alan_m wrote:
Possibly we will never know if it was brain fart but there is still at least a further year of investigation to try and determine why the
switches were put into the cut-off position.
We will discover that the captain had gambling debts, his wife was about
to leave him and he had been named in a case of paedophilia.
In article <10531de$3dq0c$[email protected]>,
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 07:50, alan_m wrote:
Possibly we will never know if it was brain fart but there is still at
least a further year of investigation to try and determine why the
switches were put into the cut-off position.
We will discover that the captain had gambling debts, his wife was about
to leave him and he had been named in a case of paedophilia.
He was, according to The Times, unmarried.
On 14/07/2025 15:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <10532vk$3dq0c$[email protected]> The Natural >>Philosopher wrote:
On 14/07/2025 14:51, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Wrong. We know far far more than that.Refusal to draw obvious conclusions from available evidence however >>>>>is...
The only available evidence is that the fuel was turned off, we don't >>>>know by whom or why so there are no conclusions to be drawn.
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off the >>>fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both engines >>>attempt to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
WE know that in the final moments the pilot flying tried to coax a slight >>>climb out of the aircraft. But it was too late.
It is possible both pilots were gay and had been rejected by the same >>>>lady boy so decided to die in a suicide pact. It is currently no less >>>>likely than any other speculation.In which case why did one pilot try and restart the engines and fly out >>>oif te situation?
Honestly, I cant believe you are so dim.
There are plausible scenarios and there are implausible ones.
The current plausible one is the pilot monitoring tried to crash the >>>plane and the pilot flying tried to save it.
I think your philosophising has run away with you. We don't know yet and >>nothing anybody says at this stage will change that so one bit of >>speculation is no more or less valuable than any other.
I think your Dunning Kruger has run away with itself.
I stated the facts as contained in the report.
Sure, the Spirit airlines squirrel MIGHT have done it...
But the most logical and simple conclusion is the Captain did it.
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.We know that the signal to cutoff the fuel was issued, but not whether
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrustInteresting that the report makes no mention of something that was
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both enginesWe know that the signal to resume the fuel was issued, but not whether
attempt to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:00:34 +1000, Paul <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Mon, 6/16/2025 8:02 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
Mentour Now! has up to date information.
So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
the gear since a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
instead of the gear'
Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly
up at the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there
is dust, India is dusty.
The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened. Engine fail or yanked the flaps
up instead of the gear
The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest
dual engine failure as the best guess.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio
in the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown
on TV and most of Youtube)
The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough
power to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted
from the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it
through the door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic
power to lift the gear and gravity keeps it down.
It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the
start if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get
airborne. It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was
carrying a full load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been
contaminated - maybe with water?
The air temperature at the airport was 37C.
In fact 43C
The pilot did the right thing, by realizing he had a full fuel load,
a full passenger complement and a derating to deal with at 37C. That's
why he jogged the plane down to load at the very beginning of the
runway.
But it managed 600' fine until one of them turned both engines off
One available video, shot from a smartphone, shows "exhaust colour"
on the left engine, less or no exhaust color on the right engine,
and a yaw as if the left engine was pushing the left wing forward.
Because it isnt possible to turn both off simultaneously using the fuel switches
It could be that one engine was out, and the remaining engine was
constrained by the situation. While the airplane is supposed
to be able to lift out on one engine, there are an awful lot
of things weighing against it in this case.
Bullshit. Its designed to fly fine with one engihe in that situation
Boeing has some recommendations for operation, that are counter-intuitive
to a pilot taking control and rescuing an aircraft. There are also
some maths to do, when determining what throttle setting to use.
Which presumably is a reason to not be screwing with the throttles
while in the early part of flight.
In fact one of the pilots turned BOTH engines off
The pilot having to perform mental gymnastics, while the ground
is coming up towards them, that's not a good design particularly.
That wasnt the problem
That's why you want to practice that particular situation,
over and over in the behavioral simulator, until it is second
nature.
That wasnt the problem
Only time will tell, which control surfaces were operational in
the last seconds of flight.
We know that one of the pilots turned BOTH engines off
The exhaust colour was not the emission of an explosion. It was
the spreading pattern of an engine at a high setting. The right engine,
I couldn't see the same exhaust colour as the left engine.
Because it isnt possible to turn both off simultaneously using the fuel switches
The angle of the video might have affected what we can see.
Given that the pilot purposely used the entire length of the
runway, logically the engines are going to be set to as high
a setting as is allowed by the derating. The throttle setting
is not arbitrary, like pushing both knobs against the
stops at the top. It's a machine with a performance curve and
for some reason, the pilot is exposed to the math. So rather than
being a virtual throttle ("slam to firewall"), it's a physical throttle
("adjust for known engineering limits").
That wasnt the problem. One of the pilots turned both engines off
On 14/07/2025 18:15, NY wrote:
hope that the cause isn't the elephant-in-the-room one
Bloody big cockpit on these Dreamliners if you can get two blokes and elephant in it.
hope that the cause isn't the elephant-in-the-room one
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.We know that the signal to cutoff the fuel was issued, but not whether
the switch was moved. There could have been an electrical/software
problem.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrustInteresting that the report makes no mention of something that was
already announced: the mention of "lack of thrust" at the time of the
mayday.
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both enginesWe know that the signal to resume the fuel was issued, but not whether
attempt to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
the switch was moved. There could have been an electrical/software
problem.
Sorry for playing devil's advocate about the switch and an electrical/software problem, but it *is* a (remote?) possibility.
I desperately hope that the cause isn't the elephant-in-the-room one...
I hope every other possible cause is eliminated before that one is considered.
Could it be an electrical open circuit or a short circuit in the fuel
cut off switch thus the engines shutting down even though the fuel cut
off switch never changed position?
The point is and was that the Europhiliac establishment was in charge of
the damned thing. It fits into European transport plans, but is
practically meaningless in UK terms
But the most logical and simple conclusion is the Captain did it.
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.We know that the signal to cutoff the fuel was issued, but not whether
the switch was moved. There could have been an electrical/software problem.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrustInteresting that the report makes no mention of something that was
already announced: the mention of "lack of thrust" at the time of the
mayday.
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both enginesWe know that the signal to resume the fuel was issued, but not whether
attempt to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
the switch was moved. There could have been an electrical/software problem.
Sorry for playing devil's advocate about the switch and an electrical/software problem, but it *is* a (remote?) possibility.
I desperately hope that the cause isn't the elephant-in-the-room one...
I hope every other possible cause is eliminated before that one is considered.
On 14/07/2025 17:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But the most logical and simple conclusion is the Captain did it.
Even if you turn out to be correct, I think it's wrong to say that.
We'll get the full report in due course. In the meantime, is it fair to
sully the captain's reputation and call him a mass murderer? He isn't
able to defend himself, and there could be repercussions for his family.
Even if one of the two pilots switched off the fuel (which is not by any means certain) it seems unfair to conclude he did it deliberately. It
really was possibly an awful mistake.
On 14/07/2025 18:15, NY wrote:
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Ruled out by the fact that someone *noticed* the switches had been
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.We know that the signal to cutoff the fuel was issued, but not whether
the switch was moved. There could have been an electrical/software
problem.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrustInteresting that the report makes no mention of something that was
already announced: the mention of "lack of thrust" at the time of the
mayday.
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both enginesWe know that the signal to resume the fuel was issued, but not whether
attempt to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
the switch was moved. There could have been an electrical/software
problem.
Sorry for playing devil's advocate about the switch and an electrical/
software problem, but it *is* a (remote?) possibility.
moved, and moved them back
Could it be an electrical open circuit or a short circuit in the fuel
cut off switch thus the engines shutting down even though the fuel cut
off switch never changed position?
On 14/07/2025 in message <10539k7$3g6a1$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/07/2025 15:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <10532vk$3dq0c$[email protected]> The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 14/07/2025 14:51, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Wrong. We know far far more than that.Refusal to draw obvious conclusions from available evidence
however is...
The only available evidence is that the fuel was turned off, we
don't know by whom or why so there are no conclusions to be drawn.
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off
the fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both engines
attempt to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
WE know that in the final moments the pilot flying tried to coax a
slight climb out of the aircraft. But it was too late.
It is possible both pilots were gay and had been rejected by theIn which case why did one pilot try and restart the engines and fly
same lady boy so decided to die in a suicide pact. It is currently
no less likely than any other speculation.
out oif te situation?
Honestly, I cant believe you are so dim.
There are plausible scenarios and there are implausible ones.
The current plausible one is the pilot monitoring tried to crash the
plane and the pilot flying tried to save it.
I think your philosophising has run away with you. We don't know yet
and nothing anybody says at this stage will change that so one bit of
speculation is no more or less valuable than any other.
I think your Dunning Kruger has run away with itself.
I stated the facts as contained in the report.
Sure, the Spirit airlines squirrel MIGHT have done it...
But the most logical and simple conclusion is the Captain did it.
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since we do not
have all the information yet.
On 14/07/2025 23:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/07/2025 18:15, NY wrote:
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Ruled out by the fact that someone *noticed* the switches had been
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.We know that the signal to cutoff the fuel was issued, but not
whether the switch was moved. There could have been an
electrical/software problem.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrustInteresting that the report makes no mention of something that was
already announced: the mention of "lack of thrust" at the time of the
mayday.
We know the fuel switches were moved to on again, and both enginesWe know that the signal to resume the fuel was issued, but not
attempt to restart, one being partly spooled up at time of impact
whether the switch was moved. There could have been an
electrical/software problem.
Sorry for playing devil's advocate about the switch and an
electrical/ software problem, but it *is* a (remote?) possibility.
moved, and moved them back
The question then becomes How was it noticed?
Did a pilot see:
1. The fuel cut off switches were visually in the wrong position
or
2. See a guage showing that the engine thrust or engine RPM was falling?
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 18:56:01 +0100
mm0fmf <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 18:15, NY wrote:
hope that the cause isn't the elephant-in-the-room one
Bloody big cockpit on these Dreamliners if you can get two blokes and
elephant in it.
Nobody said it had to be a real elephant.
On 14/07/2025 07:50, alan_m wrote:
Possibly we will never know if it was brain fart but there is still at
least a further year of investigation to try and determine why the
switches were put into the cut-off position.
We will discover that the captain had gambling debts, his wife was about
to leave him and he had been named in a case of paedophilia.
I don't know much about railways,
but over on the railways NG they were
terribly keen on HS2. The argument was that the North-South rail network
was at capacity, and what we needed was a whole new line.
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since we do not >>have all the information yet.WE have all the information we are going to get
Its not random speculation
The only available evidence is that the fuel was turned off, we don't
know by whom or why so there are no conclusions to be drawn.
But the investigation will certainly consider which
pilot was more likely to have chosen to suicide
It is possible both pilots were gay and had been rejected by the same
lady boy so decided to die in a suicide pact.
But doesnt explain why the engines were turned on again unless
at least one pilot's insurance wouldnt pay out on suicide
It is currently no less likely than any other speculation.
Its very unlikely to happen like that
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:47:23 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The Natural >>Philosopher wrote:
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since we do not >>>>have all the information yet.WE have all the information we are going to get
Its not random speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
That remains to be seen.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:50:35 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
The only available evidence is that the fuel was turned off, we don't >>>>know by whom or why so there are no conclusions to be drawn.
But the investigation will certainly consider which
pilot was more likely to have chosen to suicide
Of course although it will be some time before we see the final report.
And it remains to be seen if that can conclude why it crashed
It is possible both pilots were gay and had been rejected by the same >>>>lady boy so decided to die in a suicide pact.
But doesnt explain why the engines were turned on again unless
at least one pilot's insurance wouldnt pay out on suicide
It is currently no less likely than any other speculation.
Its very unlikely to happen like that
It's as valid as speculation as all the other suggestions.
Bullahit
Same with the claim that the aliens zapped it
On 14/07/2025 21:49, GB wrote:
On 14/07/2025 17:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Why?
But the most logical and simple conclusion is the Captain did it.
Even if you turn out to be correct, I think it's wrong to say that.
We'll get the full report in due course. In the meantime, is it fairSomeone else said he didnt have one.
to sully the captain's reputation and call him a mass murderer? He
isn't able to defend himself, and there could be repercussions for his
family.
Even if one of the two pilots switched off the fuel (which is not byAll pilots who have flown this type of aircraft say it is not possible
any means certain) it seems unfair to conclude he did it deliberately.
It really was possibly an awful mistake.
to do this by accident
It's as valid as speculation as all the other suggestions.
On 14 Jul 2025 at 13:41:02, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 07:50, alan_m wrote:
Possibly we will never know if it was brain fart but there is still at
least a further year of investigation to try and determine why the
switches were put into the cut-off position.
We will discover that the captain had gambling debts, his wife was about
to leave him and he had been named in a case of paedophilia.
I don't buy the suicide/murder theory.
If you wanted to cause an unsurvivable* crash would you do it
when the aircraft was just off the ground at low speed?
The Eurowings co-pilot showed how to do it.
* and someone did survive the crash.
On 15/07/2025 08:50, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's as valid as speculation as all the other suggestions.
So, would you say that all these are equally valid speculations:
1. God sent an angel to switch off the switches
2. Zaphod Beeblebrox did it, then vanished using infinite improbability.
3. I did it.
4. You did it. J'accuse!
On 15/07/2025 in message <10559pp$ogq$[email protected]> GB wrote:
On 15/07/2025 08:50, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's as valid as speculation as all the other suggestions.
So, would you say that all these are equally valid speculations:
1. God sent an angel to switch off the switches
2. Zaphod Beeblebrox did it, then vanished using infinite improbability.
3. I did it.
4. You did it. J'accuse!
Speculation is pointless without all the facts.
On 15/07/2025 08:50, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It's as valid as speculation as all the other suggestions.
So, would you say that all these are equally valid speculations:
1. God sent an angel to switch off the switches
2. Zaphod Beeblebrox did it, then vanished using infinite improbability.
3. I did it.
4. You did it. J'accuse!
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since we doWE have all the information we are going to get
not have all the information yet.
Its not random speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
On 14 Jul 2025 at 13:41:02, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 07:50, alan_m wrote:
Possibly we will never know if it was brain fart but there is still at
least a further year of investigation to try and determine why the
switches were put into the cut-off position.
We will discover that the captain had gambling debts, his wife was about
to leave him and he had been named in a case of paedophilia.
I don't buy the suicide/murder theory.
If you wanted to cause an unsurvivable* crash would you do it
when the aircraft was just off the ground at low speed?
The Eurowings co-pilot showed how to do it.
* and someone did survive the crash.
It's nugget, the spirit airlines pet squirrel. He has previous.
I just don't understand why so many people are unable to accept the
logical and most likely explanation that fits all the known facts
perfectly.
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The Natural >>Philosopher wrote:Sigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two pilots.
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since we do not >>>>have all the information yet.WE have all the information we are going to get
Its not random speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know exactly why it
crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing it.
On 15/07/2025 07:19, Bob Martin wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 13:41:02, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 07:50, alan_m wrote:
Possibly we will never know if it was brain fart but there is still at >>>> least a further year of investigation to try and determine why the
switches were put into the cut-off position.
We will discover that the captain had gambling debts, his wife was about >>> to leave him and he had been named in a case of paedophilia.
I don't buy the suicide/murder theory.
If you wanted to cause an unsurvivable* crash would you do it
when the aircraft was just off the ground at low speed?
The Eurowings co-pilot showed how to do it.
* and someone did survive the crash.
I'm not a pilot, but it doesn't seem an obvious way to ensure the plane crashes. Indeed, had the other pilot corrected the switch position a few seconds earlier, the crash might have been averted.
On 14/07/2025 23:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/07/2025 21:49, GB wrote:
On 14/07/2025 17:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Why?
But the most logical and simple conclusion is the Captain did it.
Even if you turn out to be correct, I think it's wrong to say that.
Funnily enough, I immediately went on to answer that question. :)
We'll get the full report in due course. In the meantime, is it fairSomeone else said he didnt have one.
to sully the captain's reputation and call him a mass murderer? He
isn't able to defend himself, and there could be repercussions for
his family.
The captain wasn't married but he was very close to his father. The
junior pilot was about to get married in two months time. Neither had
any obvious reason to kill himself as well as hundreds of other people.
Even if one of the two pilots switched off the fuel (which is not byAll pilots who have flown this type of aircraft say it is not possible
any means certain) it seems unfair to conclude he did it
deliberately. It really was possibly an awful mistake.
to do this by accident
It's clearly possible to do it whilst meaning to do something else. It's
not a common occurrence, fortunately, or aircraft would be falling out
of the sky all the time.
It's also possible the locking mechanism wasn't working, and the levers
got nudged accidentally. You may have seen that India’s aviation authority, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), has
directed airlines operating Boeing 787 and 737 aircraft to inspect the locking mechanisms of fuel control switches by July 21, 2025.
https://english.bombaysamachar.com/gujarat/air-india-plane-crash-14/
So, they, at least, are taking this possibility seriously.
I'm just saying that there are several possibilities, and it's wrong to
talk evil of these people at this stage.
WE have all the information we are going to get
Its not random speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
That remains to be seen.
For goodness sake don't be so stupid.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular
individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:57:48 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055osi$4d6l$[email protected]> The Natural >>Philosopher wrote:
It's nugget, the spirit airlines pet squirrel. He has previous.
I just don't understand why so many people are unable to accept the >>>logical and most likely explanation that fits all the known facts >>>perfectly.
Because we don't know all the facts yet,
And it remains to be seen if we ever know who turned the
fuel flow off, who turned them on again too late, or even
which pilot was more likely to choose to suicide
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055osi$4d6l$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It's nugget, the spirit airlines pet squirrel. He has previous.
I just don't understand why so many people are unable to accept the
logical and most likely explanation that fits all the known facts
perfectly.
Because we don't know all the facts yet, I just don't understand why you don't understand that.
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055olh$4d6l$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The NaturalSigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two pilots.
Philosopher wrote:
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since weWE have all the information we are going to get
do not have all the information yet.
Its not random speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know exactly why it
crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing it.
Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?
On 15/07/2025 17:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:No., it wont. Simpleton.
WE have all the information we are going to get
Its not random speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
That remains to be seen.
For goodness sake don't be so stupid.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular
individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information, simples.
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:57:48 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055osi$4d6l$[email protected]> The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
It's nugget, the spirit airlines pet squirrel. He has previous.
I just don't understand why so many people are unable to accept the
logical and most likely explanation that fits all the known facts
perfectly.
Because we don't know all the facts yet,
And it remains to be seen if we ever know who turned the
fuel flow off, who turned them on again too late, or even
which pilot was more likely to choose to suicide
Thank goodness, you finally understand.
On 15/07/2025 15:57, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055osi$4d6l$[email protected]> The NaturalBecause we have all the relevant facts now about the aircraft,
Philosopher wrote:
It's nugget, the spirit airlines pet squirrel. He has previous.
I just don't understand why so many people are unable to accept the
logical and most likely explanation that fits all the known facts
perfectly.
Because we don't know all the facts yet, I just don't understand why
you don't understand that.
I just don't understand why you don't understand that.
Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a problem
there of some switches being fitted without the safety mechanism -
leaving them prone to accidental switching.
There is an old tale, about a young man who left a village, where no one could read, and went to town and learnt to read.
He came back to the village, and there was a man, with a book, reading
aloud to the villagers, who listened with rapt attention
The young man noticed that the man was holding the book upside down.
"Hey, you aren't reading, the book is upside down""
The man replied :
"What difference does it make to a man who can read, which way up the
book is?"
And the villagers all cheered.
You absolutely remind me of that man.
Others may disagree, but I can see on one video a clear yaw to the right
that suggests that the starboard engine was cut first, The aircraft yaws enough to move the fuselage from an angle to the camera to pointing
*directly away* from the camera before it straightens up , and during
this time the port engine is at full thrust kicjking up dust from the
runway edge.
I think there was about a second, or more between each engine being cut
off.
On 15/07/2025 17:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:02, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:No., it wont. Simpleton.
WE have all the information we are going to get
Its not random speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
That remains to be seen.
For goodness sake don't be so stupid.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular
individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information, simples.
Why not?
On 12/07/2025 12:39, SteveW wrote:
Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a problem
there of some switches being fitted without the safety mechanism -
leaving them prone to accidental switching.
Fault detailed in SAIB NM‑18‑33
<https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/ BBE820D0419DB3358625836600761396.0001?modalOpened=true>
It says that operators were asked to check. And that was 5 years ago, I imagine that has been done.
"The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected
airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity:
1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting up
the switch. If the switch can be moved without lifting it up, the
locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at
the earliest opportunity.
2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes
and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control
switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a
switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking feature."
Does anyone know what the FAA's "recommend" means exactly?
Andy
On 15/07/2025 17:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 15:57, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055osi$4d6l$[email protected]> The NaturalBecause we have all the relevant facts now about the aircraft,
Philosopher wrote:
It's nugget, the spirit airlines pet squirrel. He has previous.
I just don't understand why so many people are unable to accept the
logical and most likely explanation that fits all the known facts
perfectly.
Because we don't know all the facts yet, I just don't understand why
you don't understand that.
I just don't understand why you don't understand that.
Of course we don't!
What do we know about the condition of the interlocks on the fuel
switches on this particular aircraft?
We don't know everything that was said in the cockpit, or by whom.
On 12/07/2025 12:39, SteveW wrote:
Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a problem
there of some switches being fitted without the safety mechanism -
leaving them prone to accidental switching.
Fault detailed in SAIB NM‑18‑33
<https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/BBE820D0419DB3358625836600761396.0001?modalOpened=true>
It says that operators were asked to check. And that was 5 years ago, I imagine that has been done.
"The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected
airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity:
1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting up
the switch. If the switch can be moved without lifting it up, the
locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at
the earliest opportunity.
2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes
and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control
switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a
switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking feature."
Does anyone know what the FAA's "recommend" means exactly?
On 15/07/2025 17:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/07/2025 12:39, SteveW wrote:
Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a problem
there of some switches being fitted without the safety mechanism -
leaving them prone to accidental switching.
Fault detailed in SAIB NM‑18‑33
<https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
BBE820D0419DB3358625836600761396.0001?modalOpened=true>
It says that operators were asked to check. And that was 5 years ago,
I imagine that has been done.
"The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected
airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity:
1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure
its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether the
fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without
lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without lifting it
up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be
replaced at the earliest opportunity.
2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes
and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control
switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a
switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking
feature."
Does anyone know what the FAA's "recommend" means exactly?
Andy
We know that Air India decided not to carry out that inspection. It
wasn't mandatory, so that was ok.
The Indian air authority has now required all Indian airlines to do the
check by 21 July. So, they are taking it seriously.
Because we never ever have 'all the information' Only God allegedly has
that.
Its ArtStudent™ think all over again 'no information',' some
information'. 'All of the information'. These are not precise terms.
We have *enough* information to rule out design faults in the aircraft
We have enough information to rule out maintenance issues in the aircraft
We have enough information to rule out flaps, gear up, bird strikes, or misplaced throttles.
WE know *exactly* what happened, and *when* it happened.
Someone cut fuel to both engines at the worst possible moment. Just
after takeoff
Someone tried to reverse this action, about 10 seconds later, but didn't succeed in saving the plane.
Those are the relevant *facts*. They are enough to rule out anything but deliberate pilot action and the balance of probabilities is that it was
the captain.
On 15/07/2025 17:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There is an old tale, about a young man who left a village, where no
one could read, and went to town and learnt to read.
He came back to the village, and there was a man, with a book, reading
aloud to the villagers, who listened with rapt attention
The young man noticed that the man was holding the book upside down.
"Hey, you aren't reading, the book is upside down""
The man replied :
"What difference does it make to a man who can read, which way up the
book is?"
And the villagers all cheered.
You absolutely remind me of that man.
I can easily read a book upside-down. Do you find it difficult?
On 15/07/2025 17:39, GB wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/07/2025 12:39, SteveW wrote:
Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a
problem there of some switches being fitted without the safety
mechanism - leaving them prone to accidental switching.
Fault detailed in SAIB NM‑18‑33
<https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
BBE820D0419DB3358625836600761396.0001?modalOpened=true>
It says that operators were asked to check. And that was 5 years ago,
I imagine that has been done.
"The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected
airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity: >>>
1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure
its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether
the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions
without lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without
lifting it up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch
should be replaced at the earliest opportunity.
2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes
and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control
switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a
switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking
feature."
Does anyone know what the FAA's "recommend" means exactly?
Andy
We know that Air India decided not to carry out that inspection. It
wasn't mandatory, so that was ok.
The Indian air authority has now required all Indian airlines to do
the check by 21 July. So, they are taking it seriously.
Imagine what the public would think if they didn't
But it wasn't the cause and you know it
On 15/07/2025 17:34, GB wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:But do you choose to do it?
There is an old tale, about a young man who left a village, where no
one could read, and went to town and learnt to read.
He came back to the village, and there was a man, with a book,
reading aloud to the villagers, who listened with rapt attention
The young man noticed that the man was holding the book upside down.
"Hey, you aren't reading, the book is upside down""
The man replied :
"What difference does it make to a man who can read, which way up the
book is?"
And the villagers all cheered.
You absolutely remind me of that man.
I can easily read a book upside-down. Do you find it difficult?
I think not
Stop wriggling and weaselling
On 13/07/2025 20:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Others may disagree, but I can see on one video a clear yaw to the
right that suggests that the starboard engine was cut first, The
aircraft yaws enough to move the fuselage from an angle to the camera
to pointing *directly away* from the camera before it straightens up ,
and during this time the port engine is at full thrust kicjking up
dust from the runway edge.
I think there was about a second, or more between each engine being
cut off.
Jet engines don't respond as quickly as one second. That must be an
illusion from the camera angle.
On 15/07/2025 18:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:34, GB wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:But do you choose to do it?
There is an old tale, about a young man who left a village, where no
one could read, and went to town and learnt to read.
He came back to the village, and there was a man, with a book,
reading aloud to the villagers, who listened with rapt attention
The young man noticed that the man was holding the book upside down.
"Hey, you aren't reading, the book is upside down""
The man replied :
"What difference does it make to a man who can read, which way up
the book is?"
And the villagers all cheered.
You absolutely remind me of that man.
I can easily read a book upside-down. Do you find it difficult?
I think not
Funnily enough, I can read as easily whichever way up the book is.
You're beginning to make it sound like that's unusual?
Stop wriggling and weaselling
On 15/07/2025 18:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:39, GB wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/07/2025 12:39, SteveW wrote:
Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a
problem there of some switches being fitted without the safety
mechanism - leaving them prone to accidental switching.
Fault detailed in SAIB NM‑18‑33
<https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
BBE820D0419DB3358625836600761396.0001?modalOpened=true>
It says that operators were asked to check. And that was 5 years
ago, I imagine that has been done.
"The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected
airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest
opportunity:
1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure
its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether
the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions
without lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without
lifting it up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the
switch should be replaced at the earliest opportunity.
2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series
airplanes and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a
fuel control switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control
switch with a switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an
improved locking feature."
Does anyone know what the FAA's "recommend" means exactly?
Andy
We know that Air India decided not to carry out that inspection. It
wasn't mandatory, so that was ok.
The Indian air authority has now required all Indian airlines to do
the check by 21 July. So, they are taking it seriously.
Imagine what the public would think if they didn't
But it wasn't the cause and you know it
How do I know it? You're being obsessive.
On 15/07/2025 17:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Because we never ever have 'all the information' Only God allegedly
has that.
You know perfectly well what was meant.
Its ArtStudent™ think all over again 'no information',' some
information'. 'All of the information'. These are not precise terms.
We have *enough* information to rule out design faults in the aircraft
You keep ignoring the possibility that the switches may have had a problem.
Oh purlease.We have enough information to rule out maintenance issues in the aircraft
We have enough information to rule out flaps, gear up, bird strikes,
or misplaced throttles.
WE know *exactly* what happened, and *when* it happened.
Someone cut fuel to both engines at the worst possible moment. Just
after takeoff
Someone tried to reverse this action, about 10 seconds later, but
didn't succeed in saving the plane.
Those are the relevant *facts*. They are enough to rule out anything
but deliberate pilot action and the balance of probabilities is that
it was the captain.
That's incorrect.
Yes, the switches went to off, and were put on again.
The possible reasons are:
Deliberate
Accidental because someone's mind wasn't on the job
Accidental because the lock thingies were not working.
Hopefully, the AAIB final report will clarify. In the meantime, you are starting to appear a bid odd because you refuse to accept that there are
in fact 3 possibilities.
On 15/07/2025 17:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
Fault detailed in SAIB NM‑18‑33
<https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
BBE820D0419DB3358625836600761396.0001?modalOpened=true>
It says that operators were asked to check. And that was 5 years ago,
I imagine that has been done.
"The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected
airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity:
1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure
its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether the
fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without
lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without lifting it
up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be
replaced at the earliest opportunity.
2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes
and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control
switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a
switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking
feature."
Does anyone know what the FAA's "recommend" means exactly?
Andy
We know that Air India decided not to carry out that inspection. It
wasn't mandatory, so that was ok.
The Indian air authority has now required all Indian airlines to do the
check by 21 July. So, they are taking it seriously.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
On 15/07/2025 17:36, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/07/2025 20:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Oh they do perceptibly respond. Have you never ridden cross wind and turbulence down to the deck? Or been in, or seen a plane do a go around?
Others may disagree, but I can see on one video a clear yaw to the
right that suggests that the starboard engine was cut first, The
aircraft yaws enough to move the fuselage from an angle to the camera
to pointing *directly away* from the camera before it straightens
up , and during this time the port engine is at full thrust kicjking
up dust from the runway edge.
I think there was about a second, or more between each engine being
cut off.
Jet engines don't respond as quickly as one second. That must be an
illusion from the camera angle.
But that is not relevant. They responds at the same rate so if one was
cut off a second before the other the effect will be seen one second
before the other
E.g.
"Specifically, the time it takes for the engine to transition from idle
to full thrust can range from a few seconds to upwards of eight seconds, depending on the specific engine and its operating conditions. "
And presumably similar in the downward direction. There will be an
instant loss of jet thrust, but the turbofan will keep going a bit
longer obviously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7q2rdb9xcw
Look at 3:49 where a pilot slams on the brakes and rejects a takeoff.
You can hear the revs drop in less than a couple of seconds
Turbofans are not instant, but they are pretty fast to respond
Or check this for idle to full power transition
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n8X0hULXiYs
Way less than 3 seconds
On 15/07/2025 17:39, GB wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
Fault detailed in SAIB NM‑18‑33
<https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
BBE820D0419DB3358625836600761396.0001?modalOpened=true>
It says that operators were asked to check. And that was 5 years ago,
I imagine that has been done.
"The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected
airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity: >>>
1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure
its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether
the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions
without lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without
lifting it up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch
should be replaced at the earliest opportunity.
2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes
and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control
switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a
switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking
feature."
Does anyone know what the FAA's "recommend" means exactly?
Andy
We know that Air India decided not to carry out that inspection. It
wasn't mandatory, so that was ok.
The Indian air authority has now required all Indian airlines to do
the check by 21 July. So, they are taking it seriously.
Please share the source for that information.
Incidentally I consider it unlikely that none of their pilots read that
SAIB, and didn't out of curiosity check that it didn't apply to their aircraft, _even though_ it had a different type of switch.
Andy
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular
individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
On 15/07/2025 18:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 17:36, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/07/2025 20:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Oh they do perceptibly respond. Have you never ridden cross wind and
Others may disagree, but I can see on one video a clear yaw to the
right that suggests that the starboard engine was cut first, The
aircraft yaws enough to move the fuselage from an angle to the
camera to pointing *directly away* from the camera before it
straightens up , and during this time the port engine is at full
thrust kicjking up dust from the runway edge.
I think there was about a second, or more between each engine being
cut off.
Jet engines don't respond as quickly as one second. That must be an
illusion from the camera angle.
turbulence down to the deck? Or been in, or seen a plane do a go around?
But that is not relevant. They responds at the same rate so if one was
cut off a second before the other the effect will be seen one second
before the other
E.g.
"Specifically, the time it takes for the engine to transition from
idle to full thrust can range from a few seconds to upwards of eight
seconds, depending on the specific engine and its operating conditions. "
And presumably similar in the downward direction. There will be an
instant loss of jet thrust, but the turbofan will keep going a bit
longer obviously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7q2rdb9xcw
Look at 3:49 where a pilot slams on the brakes and rejects a takeoff.
You can hear the revs drop in less than a couple of seconds
Turbofans are not instant, but they are pretty fast to respond
Or check this for idle to full power transition
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n8X0hULXiYs
Way less than 3 seconds
I've been in a four engined plane when the pilot shut an engine down,
and I didn't feel a damn thing.
And I've been in all sorts of bumpy weather, and felt the plane go all
over the place, even though the engines were running at steady power.
And there's an awful lot of inertia in that big fan at the front, and it provides most of the thrust.
Andy
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the balance
of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire in a loom of >thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the pilot
did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts.
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let
alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report essentially >means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft fault, a maintenance >fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India.
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the plane, >its maintenance record or the airline.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 07:03:06 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
Realistic.
Fantasy actually
On 15/07/2025 in message <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular
individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the
balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire in
a loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months
of looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip
trying to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the
pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts.
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let
alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft
fault, a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air
India.
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the
plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
The final report will cover all those points.
On 15/07/2025 15:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055olh$4d6l$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The NaturalSigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two
Philosopher wrote:
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since weWE have all the information we are going to get Its not random
do not have all the information yet.
speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
pilots. But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know exactly
why it crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing it.
Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?
No. That would be you.
What *relevant* facts about the aircraft do you think we don't have? -
On 16/07/2025 08:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]> The Natural >>Philosopher wrote:Please change the record
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the balance >>>of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire in a loom of >>>thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip trying >>>to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the pilot >>>did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts.
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let >>>alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report essentially >>>means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft fault, a >>>maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India.
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the >>>plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
The final report will cover all those points.
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't magically make it true.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 17:48:36 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 16/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 07:03:06 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
Realistic.
Fantasy actually
The final report will have all the information.
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
In article <1055v2v$6506$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 15:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055olh$4d6l$[email protected]> The NaturalNo. That would be you.
Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The Natural >>>>> Philosopher wrote:Sigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since we >>>>>>> do not have all the information yet.WE have all the information we are going to get Its not random
speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
pilots. But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know exactly
why it crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing it.
Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?
What *relevant* facts about the aircraft do you think we don't have? -
Can the fuel switches be operated remotely?
On 16/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:36:18 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 16/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 17:48:36 +1000, Jeff Gaines
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 16/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 07:03:06 +1000, Jeff Gaines
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed
wrote:
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>>>> individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned >>>>>>>>>> them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
Realistic.
Fantasy actually
The final report will have all the information.
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
Nobody knows what it will contain at the moment,
So why did you stupidly claim that it would have all the information ?
Your English comprehension is sadly lacking, we won't know what it will contain except that it will obviously contain all the information they
are able to ascertain.
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off the
fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:36:18 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 16/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 17:48:36 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
On 16/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 07:03:06 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed >>>>>>wrote:
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>>>individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned >>>>>>>>>them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
Realistic.
Fantasy actually
The final report will have all the information.
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
Nobody knows what it will contain at the moment,
So why did you stupidly claim that it would have all the information ?
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off
the fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
I've come across that type of switch before, where you have to pull it
out, to change it's setting. I wonder if whoever set them to on, pulled
them out, flipped them to almost the on position, but not all the way
over the mechanical 'hump' latched position? Vibration, from take-off,
might have been enough to move the switches back to engine off position.
On 16/07/2025 19:02, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each
other. WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn
off the fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
I've come across that type of switch before, where you have to pull
it out, to change it's setting. I wonder if whoever set them to on,
pulled them out, flipped them to almost the on position, but not
all the way over the mechanical 'hump' latched position? Vibration,
from take-off, might have been enough to move the switches back to
engine off position.
Both of them? At exactly the same time? At the worst possible time?
never before reported as an issue on any 787?
Yeah Sure.
Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:15:02 +1000, charles <[email protected]> wrote:Wh
In article <1055v2v$6506$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 15:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055olh$4d6l$[email protected]> The NaturalNo. That would be you.
Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> TheSigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two
Natural Philosopher wrote:
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since weWE have all the information we are going to get Its not random
do not have all the information yet.
speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
pilots. But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know
exactly why it crashed and what part one of the pilots played in
causing it.
Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?
What *relevant* facts about the aircraft do you think we don't have? -
Can the fuel switches be operated remotely?
Nope, that would be MUCH too dangerous
GB wrote:
I don't know much about railways,
I don't use trains much, so neither do I.
but over on the railways NG they were
terribly keen on HS2. The argument was that the North-South rail network
was at capacity, and what we needed was a whole new line.
I can't think of of one time in the past 35 years when I failed to get a train when I wanted one, yes sometimes they're quite full, but
commercially you'd expect that.
You aren’t a container , there is little capacity to increase freight and get more of those pesky lorries off the road because the passenger trains
are in the way.
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off the fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
I've come across that type of switch before, where you have to pull it
out, to change it's setting. I wonder if whoever set them to on, pulled
them out, flipped them to almost the on position, but not all the way
over the mechanical 'hump' latched position? Vibration, from take-off,
might have been enough to move the switches back to engine off position.
But I wouldnt be so sure about the final report given how the
preliminary report didnt bother to spell out which pilot said
what about the switches given that it is obviously possible to
identify them from their recorded voices
Marland wrote:
You aren’t a container , there is little capacity to increase
freight and get more of those pesky lorries off the road because
the passenger trains are in the way.
Maybe. Around here they seem to have been raising bridges to improve
the rail usage (Hi-cube containers) I haven't noticed lots of daytime freight passing through the stations while I'm waiting, but around Lincolnshire they seem to be using many more (and much longer) trains
during the day, which isn't popular with locals in towns divided by level-crossings.
In article <1058pf1$rmru$[email protected]>,
Harry Bloomfield Esq <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each
other. WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn
off the fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
I've come across that type of switch before, where you have to pull
it out, to change it's setting. I wonder if whoever set them to on,
pulled them out, flipped them to almost the on position, but not
all the way over the mechanical 'hump' latched position? Vibration,
from take-off, might have been enough to move the switches back to
engine off position.
If the supply to the switch was interupted - would the switch drop
OFF?
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 19:10:30 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 16/07/2025 19:02, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:I don't think it is possible. The lock mechanism isn't hidden inside the switch, you can see it, and you can see that it's a sharp V shape. I
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each
other. WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn
off the fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
I've come across that type of switch before, where you have to pull
it out, to change it's setting. I wonder if whoever set them to on,
pulled them out, flipped them to almost the on position, but not
all the way over the mechanical 'hump' latched position? Vibration,
from take-off, might have been enough to move the switches back to
engine off position.
Both of them? At exactly the same time? At the worst possible time?
never before reported as an issue on any 787?
Yeah Sure.
have tried balancing such a switch on top of the V, and it seems to be impossible. It always fell very positively to one side or other.
Certainly it could never happen accidentally, it would be like tossing
a coin and having it land on edge. Two coins, in this case.
I can't think of of one time in the past 35 years when I failed to get a train when I wanted one, yes sometimes they're quite full, butHah. So many times. The trains pack up long before I do even these days.
commercially you'd expect that.
In article <1058pf1$rmru$[email protected]>,
Harry Bloomfield Esq <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off the
fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
I've come across that type of switch before, where you have to pull it
out, to change it's setting. I wonder if whoever set them to on, pulled
them out, flipped them to almost the on position, but not all the way
over the mechanical 'hump' latched position? Vibration, from take-off,
might have been enough to move the switches back to engine off position.
If the supply to the switch was interupted - would the switch drop OFF?
On 17/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
But I wouldnt be so sure about the final report given how the
preliminary report didnt bother to spell out which pilot said
what about the switches given that it is obviously possible to
identify them from their recorded voices
For obvious reasons that have been explained for the benefit of those
too dim to understand!
On Thu, 17 Jul 25 08:00:02 UTC
charles <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <1058pf1$rmru$[email protected]>,
Harry Bloomfield Esq <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each
other. WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn
off the fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
I've come across that type of switch before, where you have to pull
it out, to change it's setting. I wonder if whoever set them to on,
pulled them out, flipped them to almost the on position, but not
all the way over the mechanical 'hump' latched position? Vibration,
from take-off, might have been enough to move the switches back to
engine off position.
If the supply to the switch was interupted - would the switch drop
OFF?
No, they are purely mechanical. Of course, these days they are only
signal inputs to a computer, but I suspect a fair bit of work has been
done to minimise computer glitches.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:20:23 +1000, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 17/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:
But I wouldnt be so sure about the final report given how the
preliminary report didnt bother to spell out which pilot said
what about the switches given that it is obviously possible to
identify them from their recorded voices
For obvious reasons
There are no obvious reasons, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist
that have been explained
Nope, stupidly claimed
On 17/07/2025 08:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 17/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:Yep. Litigation. Everybody knows what happened (except you) but the >'official' sources don't want to actually spell it out for fear of getting >sued.
But I wouldnt be so sure about the final report given how the
preliminary report didnt bother to spell out which pilot said
what about the switches given that it is obviously possible to
identify them from their recorded voices
For obvious reasons that have been explained for the benefit of those too >>dim to understand!
But the Wall Street Journal has broken ranks and so now everybody's story
is that 'the wall street journal says' ...'that the captain did it'.
On 17/07/2025 in message <105ac45$1960e$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:Bollocks.
On 17/07/2025 08:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 17/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:Yep. Litigation. Everybody knows what happened (except you) but the
But I wouldnt be so sure about the final report given how the
preliminary report didnt bother to spell out which pilot said
what about the switches given that it is obviously possible to
identify them from their recorded voices
For obvious reasons that have been explained for the benefit of
those too dim to understand!
'official' sources don't want to actually spell it out for fear of
getting sued.
But the Wall Street Journal has broken ranks and so now everybody's
story is that 'the wall street journal says' ...'that the captain did
it'.
Nobody knows what happened because the final report has yet to be
issued.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 18:07:43 +1000, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 07:43:21 +0100
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
Marland wrote:
You aren’t a container , there is little capacity to increase
freight and get more of those pesky lorries off the road because
the passenger trains are in the way.
Maybe. Around here they seem to have been raising bridges to
improve the rail usage (Hi-cube containers) I haven't noticed lots
of daytime freight passing through the stations while I'm waiting,
but around Lincolnshire they seem to be using many more (and much
longer) trains during the day, which isn't popular with locals in
towns divided by level-crossings.
Those who have driven in the USA will have waited at crossings
while a few big diesels pulled containers past for several minutes.
I waited for one I estimated at about a mile and a half long,
pulled by five locos. But only one driver.
We have MUCH longer iron ore trains which have FAR more locos and no
drivers at all, its all remotely controlled from Petth, thousands of
km away
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular
individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the
balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of >looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the
pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts.
Petter H�rnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let
alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India.
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the
plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
In article <1055v2v$6506$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher ><[email protected]d> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 15:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055olh$4d6l$[email protected]> The NaturalNo. That would be you.
Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The NaturalSigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two
Philosopher wrote:
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since weWE have all the information we are going to get Its not random
do not have all the information yet.
speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
pilots. But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know exactly
why it crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing it.
Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?
What *relevant* facts about the aircraft do you think we don't have? -
Can the fuel switches be operated remotely?
In article <1058pf1$rmru$[email protected]>,
Harry Bloomfield Esq <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
WE know that both switches were moved within a second of each other.
WE know that a mayday was issued reporting lack of thrust
We know that a conversation took place asking 'why did you turn off the
fuel switches' and the answer' I didn't'
I've come across that type of switch before, where you have to pull it
out, to change it's setting. I wonder if whoever set them to on, pulled
them out, flipped them to almost the on position, but not all the way
over the mechanical 'hump' latched position? Vibration, from take-off,
might have been enough to move the switches back to engine off position.
If the supply to the switch was interupted - would the switch drop OFF?
In article <[email protected]>, charles <[email protected]> scribeth thus
In article <1055v2v$6506$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 15:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055olh$4d6l$[email protected]> The NaturalNo. That would be you.
Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The Natural >>>>>> Philosopher wrote:Sigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since we >>>>>>>> do not have all the information yet.WE have all the information we are going to get Its not random
speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
pilots. But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know exactly >>>>> why it crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing it.
Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?
What *relevant* facts about the aircraft do you think we don't have? -
Can the fuel switches be operated remotely?
No, entirely passive devices their just simple switches not relays or
remote activated devices..
Not as such, heres the switch in question download the data sheet that
tells you all about it their quite well priced being Mil spec!...
On 14/07/2025 18:15, NY wrote:
hope that the cause isn't the elephant-in-the-room one
Bloody big cockpit on these Dreamliners if you can get two blokes and >elephant in it.
In message <1053gbi$3hknk$[email protected]>, mm0fmf <[email protected]>
writes
On 14/07/2025 18:15, NY wrote:They normally use the jump seat. My theory is neither of the pilots
hope that the cause isn't the elephant-in-the-room one
Bloody big cockpit on these Dreamliners if you can get two blokes and
elephant in it.
would open its bag of complimentary peanuts and it leaned over with its
trunk and flipped the switches out of spite.
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote:No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular
individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the
balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of
looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the
pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts.
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let
alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India.
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the
plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of 1,700
quid each aren't anything special, just a changeover multipole one the
spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket
science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it
over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work and not
to bugger around with them at that phase of the take off, at several thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very
prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or
wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
On 17/07/2025 16:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular
individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the
balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire in a >>> loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of
looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip trying >>> to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the
pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts.
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let
alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft fault, >>> a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India.
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the
plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of 1,700
quid each aren't anything special, just a changeover multipole one the
spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket
science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it
over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work and not
to bugger around with them at that phase of the take off, at several
thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very
prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or
wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
It does look like the Captain. However, there have been reports of the
same switches, on 737s, being installed without the safety mechanism
being engaged and consequent accidental operation.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 01:03:31 +1000, tony sayer <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, charles
<[email protected]> scribeth thus
In article <1055v2v$6506$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 15:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055olh$4d6l$[email protected]> The NaturalNatural
Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The
exactlyPhilosopher wrote:Sigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since we >>>> >>>>> do not have all the information yet.WE have all the information we are going to get Its not random
speculation
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
pilots. But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know
No. That would be you.why it crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing it. >>>> >Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?
What *relevant* facts about the aircraft do you think we don't have? -
Can the fuel switches be operated remotely?
No, entirely passive devices their just simple switches not relays or
remote activated devices..
Those switches do control relays but it is impossible for both to fail
the same way within 1 second, let alone be able to have the failure
reversed only a few more seconds later and the FDR does show the
use of the switches
In message <1053gbi$3hknk$[email protected]>, mm0fmf <[email protected]>
writes
On 14/07/2025 18:15, NY wrote:They normally use the jump seat. My theory is neither of the pilots
hope that the cause isn't the elephant-in-the-room one
Bloody big cockpit on these Dreamliners if you can get two blokes and
elephant in it.
would open its bag of complimentary peanuts and it leaned over with its
trunk and flipped the switches out of spite.
Brian
On 17/07/2025 16:11, tony sayer wrote:
Not as such, heres the switch in question download the data sheet thatActually THIS is the switch in question. It probably costs thousands as
tells you all about it their quite well priced being Mil spec!...
it will be made to aviation standards.
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Odds%20and%20Ends/switch1.png
It also has a lamp inside as far as I can make out to show at a glance
when its on
It forms part of the whole throttle sub assembly and is not normally
changed as a separate item
On 18/07/2025 02:02, SteveW wrote:
On 17/07/2025 16:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>> individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the
balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire
in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of >>>> looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip
trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the
pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts.
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let
alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft
fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India.
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the
plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of 1,700
quid each aren't anything special, just a changeover multipole one the >>> spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket
science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it
over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work and not
to bugger around with them at that phase of the take off, at several
thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very
prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or
wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
It does look like the Captain. However, there have been reports of the
same switches, on 737s, being installed without the safety mechanism
being engaged and consequent accidental operation.
I think you will find that those reports are mischievous misdirection.
Those switches do control relays but it is impossible for both to fail
the same way within 1 second, let alone be able to have the failure
reversed only a few more seconds later and the FDR does show the
use of the switches
How do you know that operate further relays?, they could control other devices and input circuits.
Unless you have access to the 787 series service manuals;?...
On 18/07/2025 10:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/07/2025 02:02, SteveW wrote:
On 17/07/2025 16:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod SpeedNo, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
wrote:
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>>> individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned
them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the
balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire
in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of >>>>> looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip
trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the
pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts. >>>>>
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let >>>>> alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft
fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India. >>>>>
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the
plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of 1,700 >>>> quid each aren't anything special, just a changeover multipole one the >>>> spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket
science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it
over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work and not >>>> to bugger around with them at that phase of the take off, at several >>>> thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very
prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or
wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
It does look like the Captain. However, there have been reports of
the same switches, on 737s, being installed without the safety
mechanism being engaged and consequent accidental operation.
I think you will find that those reports are mischievous misdirection.
The SAIB issued in 2018 for the disengaged safety mechanism and the possibility of accidental operation is in the FAA's online database.
There is nothing to preclude the same problem having recurred during
build or maintenance.
In article <105bg5d$1gdtr$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 17/07/2025 16:11, tony sayer wrote:
Not as such, heres the switch in question download the data sheet thatActually THIS is the switch in question. It probably costs thousands as
tells you all about it their quite well priced being Mil spec!...
it will be made to aviation standards.
Well mil spec, thats how they justify the £1,400 odd price!...
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Odds%20and%20Ends/switch1.png
It also has a lamp inside as far as I can make out to show at a glance
when its on
It doesn't say that on the spec sheet..
On 18/07/2025 12:29, SteveW wrote:
On 18/07/2025 10:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:But nbot for the 787 IIRC
On 18/07/2025 02:02, SteveW wrote:
On 17/07/2025 16:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod SpeedNo, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
wrote:
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>>>> individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned >>>>>>>>>> them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the
balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken
wire in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18
months of
looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip
trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the >>>>>> pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts. >>>>>>
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let >>>>>> alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft
fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India. >>>>>>
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the >>>>>> plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of
1,700
quid each aren't anything special, just a changeover multipole one >>>>> the
spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket
science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it >>>>> over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work and
not
to bugger around with them at that phase of the take off, at several >>>>> thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very
prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or
wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
It does look like the Captain. However, there have been reports of
the same switches, on 737s, being installed without the safety
mechanism being engaged and consequent accidental operation.
I think you will find that those reports are mischievous misdirection.
The SAIB issued in 2018 for the disengaged safety mechanism and the
possibility of accidental operation is in the FAA's online database.
There is nothing to preclude the same problem having recurred duringExcept that the switches are not the same
build or maintenance.
On 18/07/2025 13:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/07/2025 12:29, SteveW wrote:
On 18/07/2025 10:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:But nbot for the 787 IIRC
On 18/07/2025 02:02, SteveW wrote:
On 17/07/2025 16:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher >>>>>> <[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed >>>>>>>> wrote:No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now. >>>>>>>
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that >>>>>>>>>>> it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>>>>> individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned >>>>>>>>>>> them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the >>>>>>> balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken
wire in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18
months of
looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip >>>>>>> trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the >>>>>>> pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the
facts.
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let >>>>>>> alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft >>>>>>> fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India. >>>>>>>
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the >>>>>>> plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of
1,700
quid each aren't anything special, just a changeover multipole
one the
spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket >>>>>> science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it >>>>>> over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work
and not
to bugger around with them at that phase of the take off, at several >>>>>> thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very >>>>>> prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or >>>>>> wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
It does look like the Captain. However, there have been reports of
the same switches, on 737s, being installed without the safety
mechanism being engaged and consequent accidental operation.
I think you will find that those reports are mischievous misdirection.
The SAIB issued in 2018 for the disengaged safety mechanism and the
possibility of accidental operation is in the FAA's online database.
Yes, for the 787.
There is nothing to preclude the same problem having recurred duringExcept that the switches are not the same
build or maintenance.
They are, which is why the 787 is included.
Direct from the relevant SAIB: "This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is to advise registered owners and operators of The
Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes; Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes; Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes; Model 747-400,
-400D, -400F, -8, and -8F series airplanes; Model 757-200, -200CB,
-200PF, and -300 series airplanes; Model 767-200, -300, -300F, -400ER,
and -2C series airplanes; Model 787-8, -9, and -10 airplanes; Model
MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes; and Model MD-90-30 airplanes of the
potential for disengagement of the fuel control switch locking
feature."and it was a 787-8 that crashed.
On 18/07/2025 in message <105e97a$283fr$[email protected]> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In the wreck the locks were clearly INSTALLED so this SAIB is totally
irrelevant - simply pontifications from self styled experts
Oh the irony, the delicious irony :-)
In the wreck the locks were clearly INSTALLED so this SAIB is totally >irrelevant - simply pontifications from self styled experts
On 18/07/2025 13:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/07/2025 12:29, SteveW wrote:
On 18/07/2025 10:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:But nbot for the 787 IIRC
On 18/07/2025 02:02, SteveW wrote:
On 17/07/2025 16:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher >>>>>> <[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed >>>>>>>> wrote:No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now. >>>>>>>
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that >>>>>>>>>>> it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>>>>> individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned >>>>>>>>>>> them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the >>>>>>> balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken
wire in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18
months of
looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip >>>>>>> trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the >>>>>>> pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the
facts.
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let >>>>>>> alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft >>>>>>> fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India. >>>>>>>
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the >>>>>>> plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of
1,700
quid each aren't anything special, just a changeover multipole
one the
spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket >>>>>> science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it >>>>>> over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work
and not
to bugger around with them at that phase of the take off, at several >>>>>> thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very >>>>>> prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or >>>>>> wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
It does look like the Captain. However, there have been reports of
the same switches, on 737s, being installed without the safety
mechanism being engaged and consequent accidental operation.
I think you will find that those reports are mischievous misdirection.
The SAIB issued in 2018 for the disengaged safety mechanism and the
possibility of accidental operation is in the FAA's online database.
Yes, for the 787.
There is nothing to preclude the same problem having recurred duringExcept that the switches are not the same
build or maintenance.
They are, which is why the 787 is included.
Direct from the relevant SAIB: "This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is to advise registered owners and operators of The
Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes; Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes; Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes; Model 747-400,
-400D, -400F, -8, and -8F series airplanes; Model 757-200, -200CB,
-200PF, and -300 series airplanes; Model 767-200, -300, -300F, -400ER,
and -2C series airplanes; Model 787-8, -9, and -10 airplanes; Model
MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes; and Model MD-90-30 airplanes of the
potential for disengagement of the fuel control switch locking
feature."and it was a 787-8 that crashed.
On 18/07/2025 12:29, SteveW wrote:
On 18/07/2025 10:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:But nbot for the 787 IIRC
On 18/07/2025 02:02, SteveW wrote:
On 17/07/2025 16:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod SpeedNo, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now.
wrote:
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that
it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>>>> individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned >>>>>>>>>> them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the
balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire >>>>>> in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of >>>>>> looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip
trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the >>>>>> pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts. >>>>>>
Petter H�rnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let >>>>>> alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft
fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India. >>>>>>
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the >>>>>> plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of 1,700 >>>>> quid each aren't anything special,� just a changeover multipole one the >>>>> spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket
science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it >>>>> over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work and not >>>>> to bugger around with them at that� phase of the take off, at several >>>>> thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very
prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or
wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
It does look like the Captain. However, there have been reports of
the same switches, on 737s, being installed without the safety
mechanism being engaged and consequent accidental operation.
I think you will find that those reports are mischievous misdirection.
The SAIB issued in 2018 for the disengaged safety mechanism and the
possibility of accidental operation is in the FAA's online database.
There is nothing to preclude the same problem having recurred duringExcept that the switches are not the same
build or maintenance.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:49:14 +1000, tony sayer <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, Rod Speed
<[email protected]> scribeth thus
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 01:03:31 +1000, tony sayer <[email protected]>
wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, charles
<[email protected]> scribeth thus
In article <1055v2v$6506$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 15:56, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055olh$4d6l$[email protected]> The Natural >>>>>> > Philosopher wrote:Natural
On 15/07/2025 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <1053vv2$3lah2$[email protected]> The
exactlyPhilosopher wrote:Sigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two >>>>>> >> pilots. But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know
I note your view, I believe it is pointless speculating since >>>>>> weWE have all the information we are going to get Its not random >>>>>> >>>> speculation
do not have all the information yet.
Nonsense, the full report will have all the information.
No. That would be you.why it crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing >>>>>> it.
Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?
What *relevant* facts about the aircraft do you think we don't have? >>>>>> -
Can the fuel switches be operated remotely?
No, entirely passive devices their just simple switches not relays or
remote activated devices..
Those switches do control relays but it is impossible for both to fail
the same way within 1 second, let alone be able to have the failure
reversed only a few more seconds later and the FDR does show the
use of the switches
How do you know that operate further relays?,
That's what it says in the utube video from the 787 maintenance
fella at about 15 mins that the turnip posted a link too, with a full
wiring diagram of the fuel switches and fuel pumps etc.
And they are pretty big high pressure pumps, you wouldnt
switch those high pressure fuel pumps using little switches
like that in the cockpit on a heavy like that.
they could control other devices and input circuits.
Unless you have access to the 787 series service manuals;?...
The maintenance bloke who posted the video
does and showed the relevant part of that.
On 18/07/2025 11:51, tony sayer wrote:
In article <105bg5d$1gdtr$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 17/07/2025 16:11, tony sayer wrote:
Not as such, heres the switch in question download the data sheet that >>>> tells you all about it their quite well priced being Mil spec!...Actually THIS is the switch in question. It probably costs thousands as >>> it will be made to aviation standards.
Well mil spec, thats how they justify the �1,400 odd price!...
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Odds%20and%20Ends/switch1.png
It also has a lamp inside as far as I can make out to show at a glance
when its on
It doesn't say that on the spec sheet..
There is no spec sheet. What you posted a link to is not the part in
question
The part in question have I think a cross on top of the plastic that is >translucent with a red light behind it, that presumably shows as a red
cross when the fuel is on. Or off.
I am not clear on that as I wasn't interested enough to find out.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMMIAEOvXQS/
A picture saves a thousand words
In article <105deji$221c0$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 18/07/2025 12:29, SteveW wrote:
On 18/07/2025 10:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:But nbot for the 787 IIRC
On 18/07/2025 02:02, SteveW wrote:
On 17/07/2025 16:00, tony sayer wrote:
In article <1056glt$9e4a$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher >>>>>> <[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 15/07/2025 22:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/07/2025 in message <[email protected]> Rod Speed >>>>>>>> wrote:No, it wont, and we have more than enough information right now. >>>>>>>
It remains to be seen if it can provide the EVIDENCE that >>>>>>>>>>> it was suicide by one particular pilot or even which particular >>>>>>>>>>> individual turned the engines off, or even which one turned >>>>>>>>>>> them back on again, too late
The final report will have all the information,
Like I said, you don't know that it will have what I listed
simples.
Simplistic in your case
The final report will have all the information.
Realistic.
You are being very simple minded. I can recall one AAIB where the >>>>>>> balance of probabilities pointed to a bad connection or broken wire >>>>>>> in a
loom of thousands of wires, but they never found it after 18 months of >>>>>>> looking.
WE have case of a pilot who hadn't come down from a mushroom trip >>>>>>> trying
to crash the plane.
We have MH370, where the balance of probabilities is that again the >>>>>>> pilot did it, but we have no idea why.
And the final report was ages ago, but we still don't know the facts. >>>>>>>
Petter Hörnfeldt made the point that the lack of ANY advisories, let >>>>>>> alone mandatory actions, coming out of the preliminary report
essentially means that nothing was found to indicate any aircraft >>>>>>> fault,
a maintenance fault or any operational short cuts made by Air India. >>>>>>>
Ergo they are completely satisfied there was nothing wrong with the >>>>>>> plane, its maintenance record or the airline.
Those switches which are on the Mouser website at a cool price of 1,700 >>>>>> quid each aren't anything special, just a changeover multipole one the >>>>>> spec sheet is there saying what combo 's can be had its not rocket >>>>>> science to inspect them if you can move the switch without lifting it >>>>>> over the detent then its not working as it ought.
And i very much suspect that any pilot knows that how they work and not >>>>>> to bugger around with them at that phase of the take off, at several >>>>>> thousand feet or and engine fire ok with that but Two switches very >>>>>> prominent ones either the captain must have been off his trolley or >>>>>> wanted to end it all for a lot of people..
It does look like the Captain. However, there have been reports of
the same switches, on 737s, being installed without the safety
mechanism being engaged and consequent accidental operation.
I think you will find that those reports are mischievous misdirection.
The SAIB issued in 2018 for the disengaged safety mechanism and the
possibility of accidental operation is in the FAA's online database.
If you look the 2018 report all the Boeing and manufactures part numbers
are listed and on the Mouser website the PDF, several pages long, goes
into the operation and what they will and won't do an as their Mil spec
thats why for a relatively simple switch unit they can charge 1,400 or
so for them each!.
In article <105deho$221c0$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 18/07/2025 11:51, tony sayer wrote:The part number given by Boeing for the Honeywell part is this
In article <105bg5d$1gdtr$[email protected]>, The Natural Philosopher
<[email protected]d> scribeth thus
On 17/07/2025 16:11, tony sayer wrote:
Not as such, heres the switch in question download the data sheet that >>>>> tells you all about it their quite well priced being Mil spec!...Actually THIS is the switch in question. It probably costs thousands as >>>> it will be made to aviation standards.
Well mil spec, thats how they justify the £1,400 odd price!...
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Odds%20and%20Ends/switch1.png
It also has a lamp inside as far as I can make out to show at a glance >>>> when its on
It doesn't say that on the spec sheet..
There is no spec sheet. What you posted a link to is not the part in
question
The part in question have I think a cross on top of the plastic that is
translucent with a red light behind it, that presumably shows as a red
cross when the fuel is on. Or off.
I am not clear on that as I wasn't interested enough to find out.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMMIAEOvXQS/
A picture saves a thousand words
4TL837-3D
If this link opens it will give you al you need to know and a lot more of that series of switches!..
https://www.mouser.co.uk/datasheet/2/187/honeywell_hwscs06627_1-1735572.pdf
The maintenance bloke who posted the videoHave you got a Youtube ref for that, the very few I've found aren't that informative!..
does and showed the relevant part of that.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 18:29:04 +1000
"Rod Speed"<[email protected]> wrote:
We have MUCH longer iron ore trains which have FAR more locos and noIt's all bigger and better in Australia, isn't it? Including the authoritarianism. I can remember when Australians were known for their suspicion of authorities.
drivers at all, its all remotely controlled from Petth, thousands of
km away
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:49:33 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,093 |
