4 ms·

still, it at least shows that there's been issues with the locking mechanism in the past. inadvertently bumping something that was assumed to be locked is a sim

still, it at least shows that there's been issues with the locking mechanism in the past. inadvertently bumping something that was assumed to be locked is a simpler theory; i find it hard to believe that a murder suicider would take this route, when the china nosedive option is easier, faster, and has a higher chance of success.

ggreer 1y ago
The preliminary report says the switches were triggered a second apart, so it would have to have been faulty switches and two inadvertent bumps. That seems unlikely to me.
- somat 1y ago
  Within a second apart. If I read the report right. The time resolution of the recorder? And yes, it does sound like it was probably intentional. I would still like to see an engineering review of the switch system. Are they normally open or normally closed, In the end the switch instructs the FADEC to cut the fuel, but where does the wiring go in the meantime? what software is in the path? would the repair done before the flight be in that area?(pilot defect report for message STABS POS XCDR), and perhaps compromised the wires?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
cosmicgadget 1y ago
Cutting fuel just after takeoff leaves almost zero time for the other pilot to recover.
- manquer 1y ago
  it only guarantees an accident it doesn’t guarantee death of the pilot, at such low altitude and speed anyone can survive as the one passenger did . Why would anyone risk potentially surviving a sabotage like that ?
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    A fully fueled plane crashing in takeoff guarantees a huge fire.
    - manquer 1y ago
      That doesn’t mean the cockpit will burn . The wings hosts the engine and a good portion of the fuel is quite a bit back from the nose in a big plane like 787. The engines lost power and hit just 180 knots just 4 seconds after the plan lifted off. The plane could have just easily broken up differently where the nose crashed in a different spot than where the fire would likely start. At such a slow speed and altitude they could even have well crashed inside the airport perimeter and got a quicker/ better emergency response from the fire units at the airport. Attempting this during takeoff or landing when the pilot monitoring is fully engaged and closely observing would be most difficult to execute .
- bombcar 1y ago
  It's interesting to try to imagine a device that would prevent that, without causing more issues. My preliminary idea is a "fuel bladder" for take-off that inflates with enough fuel to get the plane to a recoverable altitude, maybe a few thousand feet?
  - sugarpimpdorsey 1y ago
    > My preliminary idea is a "fuel bladder" for take-off that inflates Will the bladder be marketed by Kramerica Industries?
  - sitharus 1y ago
    Or you simply interlock the engine cutoff with the thrust lever position, any position other than idle prevents shutdown. This all goes through the flight computers already. If there’s a fire or similar problem the fire handles will cut off fuel without the normal shutdown procedure, but the normal switches only need to be used at idle thrust. I wonder if Airbus has this logic, since their philosophy is to override the pilot commands if they’d endanger the aircraft (which has its own issues of course) where’s Boeing will alert the pilots and still perform the action. I don’t have access to that information.
    - 0_-_0 1y ago
      According to AI, Airbus places these switches on the overhead panel, so that alone would make it harder to inadvertently move them. Apparently, Airbus "protections do not extend to mechanical or FADEC‑controlled systems like the engine‑fuel shutoff valves. If you deliberately pull and flip the ENG MASTER lever to OFF, the FADEC will immediately close the LP and HP fuel valves and the engine will flame out. If you then return the lever to RUN (and you meet relight conditions), it will automatically relight."
      - Gare 1y ago
        Well, AI is plain wrong. Fuel cutoff switches on Airbus are in the same position as in Boeing planes, below the throttle.

ggreer 1y ago

The preliminary report says the switches were triggered a second apart, so it would have to have been faulty switches and two inadvertent bumps. That seems unlikely to me.

somat 1y ago
Within a second apart. If I read the report right. The time resolution of the recorder? And yes, it does sound like it was probably intentional. I would still like to see an engineering review of the switch system. Are they normally open or normally closed, In the end the switch instructs the FADEC to cut the fuel, but where does the wiring go in the meantime? what software is in the path? would the repair done before the flight be in that area?(pilot defect report for message STABS POS XCDR), and perhaps compromised the wires?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

cosmicgadget 1y ago

Cutting fuel just after takeoff leaves almost zero time for the other pilot to recover.

manquer 1y ago
it only guarantees an accident it doesn’t guarantee death of the pilot, at such low altitude and speed anyone can survive as the one passenger did . Why would anyone risk potentially surviving a sabotage like that ?
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  A fully fueled plane crashing in takeoff guarantees a huge fire.
  - manquer 1y ago
    That doesn’t mean the cockpit will burn . The wings hosts the engine and a good portion of the fuel is quite a bit back from the nose in a big plane like 787. The engines lost power and hit just 180 knots just 4 seconds after the plan lifted off. The plane could have just easily broken up differently where the nose crashed in a different spot than where the fire would likely start. At such a slow speed and altitude they could even have well crashed inside the airport perimeter and got a quicker/ better emergency response from the fire units at the airport. Attempting this during takeoff or landing when the pilot monitoring is fully engaged and closely observing would be most difficult to execute .
bombcar 1y ago
It's interesting to try to imagine a device that would prevent that, without causing more issues. My preliminary idea is a "fuel bladder" for take-off that inflates with enough fuel to get the plane to a recoverable altitude, maybe a few thousand feet?
- sugarpimpdorsey 1y ago
  > My preliminary idea is a "fuel bladder" for take-off that inflates Will the bladder be marketed by Kramerica Industries?
- sitharus 1y ago
  Or you simply interlock the engine cutoff with the thrust lever position, any position other than idle prevents shutdown. This all goes through the flight computers already. If there’s a fire or similar problem the fire handles will cut off fuel without the normal shutdown procedure, but the normal switches only need to be used at idle thrust. I wonder if Airbus has this logic, since their philosophy is to override the pilot commands if they’d endanger the aircraft (which has its own issues of course) where’s Boeing will alert the pilots and still perform the action. I don’t have access to that information.
  - 0_-_0 1y ago
    According to AI, Airbus places these switches on the overhead panel, so that alone would make it harder to inadvertently move them. Apparently, Airbus "protections do not extend to mechanical or FADEC‑controlled systems like the engine‑fuel shutoff valves. If you deliberately pull and flip the ENG MASTER lever to OFF, the FADEC will immediately close the LP and HP fuel valves and the engine will flame out. If you then return the lever to RUN (and you meet relight conditions), it will automatically relight."
    - Gare 1y ago
      Well, AI is plain wrong. Fuel cutoff switches on Airbus are in the same position as in Boeing planes, below the throttle.