13 ms·

it makes sense to me that the pilot who said "I did not do it" actually did do it without realizing it, was supposed to be putting the landing gear up when he c

it makes sense to me that the pilot who said "I did not do it" actually did do it without realizing it, was supposed to be putting the landing gear up when he committed a muscle memory mistake. it happened around the time the landing gear should be up, and this explanation matches what was said in the cockpit, and the fact that the landing gear wasn't retracted. I think this idea was even floated initially by the youtube pilot/analysts I watch but dismissed as unlikely.

superasn 1y ago
Is there a video feed of the cockpit inside the black box? If not there should be one as even my simple home wifi camera can record hours of hd video on the small sd card. And If there is, wouldn't that help to instantly identify such things?
- dubcanada 1y ago
  No neither black box stores video. One stores audio on flash memory and the other stores flight details, sensors etc. I don’t think video is a bad idea. I assume there is a reason why it wasn’t done. Data wise black boxes actually store very little data (maybe a 100mbs), I don’t know if that is due to how old they are, or the requirements of withstanding extremes.
  - superasn 1y ago
    Not sure why something so important isn't included. Heck they can make a back up directly to the cloud in addition to black box considering I'm able to watch YouTube in some flights nowadays.
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      ALPA (pilot union) has consistently objected to cockpit video recording. I believe other pilot unions have a generally similar stance.
      - account42 1y ago
        So? Those unions act in the interests of pilots so that is to be expected. That doesn't mean that a regulator should be swayed by their objections.
  - interestica 1y ago
    This isn’t true. This was a 787. It does not use a separate recorder for voice and data (CVR, FDR). (Most media outlets also got this wrong and were slow to make corrections. ) Rather, it uses a EAFR (Enhanced airborne flight recorder) which basically combines the functions. They’re also more advanced than older systems and can record for longer. The 787 has two of them - the forward one has its own power supply too. There should be video as well, but I’m not sure what was recovered. Not necessarily part of the flight data recording, but there are other video systems. https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/enhanced-aircraft-flight-recorder-3254F.pdf https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/enhanced-air...
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      That's really interesting. From reading air crash reports there's a lot of times I've seen."Nothing is known about the last 30 seconds because the damage broke the connection to the flight recorders in the tail"
  - bonoboTP 1y ago
    In the US, the NTSB has been recommending it for over 20 years. The pilot unions have been blocking it, due to privacy and other things. I'm not in aviation. But my between-the-lines straightforward reading is that unions see it as something with downsides (legal liability) but not much upside. It could be that there are a million tiny regulations that are known by everyone to be nonsensical, perhaps contradictory or just not in line with reality and it's basically impossible to be impeccably perfect if HD high fps video observation is done on them 24/7. Think about your own job and your boss's job or your home renovation work etc. Theoretically they could say, ok, but the footage can only be used in case the plane crashes or something serious happens. Can't use it to detect minor deviations in the tiniest details. But we know that once the camera is there, there will be a push to scrutinize it all the time for everything. Next time there will be AI monitoring systems that check for alertness. Next time it will be checking for "psychological issues". Next time they will record and store it all and then when something happens, they will in hindsight point out some moment and sue the airline for not detecting that psychological cue and ban the pilot. It's a mess. If there's no footage, there's no such mess. The truth is, you can't bring down the danger from human factors to absolute zero. It's exceedingly rare to have sabotage. In every human interaction, this can happen. The answer cannot be 24/7 full-blown totalitarian surveillance state on everyone. You'd have to prove that the danger from pilot is bigger than from any other occupation group. Should we also put bodycam on all medical doctors and record all surgeries and all interactions? It would help with malpractice cases. How about all teachers in school? To prevent child abuse. Etc. Etc. Regulation is always in balance and in context of evidence possibilities and jurisprudence "reasonableness". If the interpretation is always to the letter and there is perfect surveillance, you need to adjust the rules to be actually realistic. If observation is hard and courts use common sense, rules can be more strict and stupid because "it looks good on paper". You also have to think about potential abuses of footage. It would be an avenue for aircraft manufacturers, airlines, FAA, etc to push more blame on the pilots, because their side becomes more provable but the manufacturing side is not as much. You could then mandate camera video evidence for every maintenance task like with door plugs. I wonder how the introduction of police body cam footage changed regulations of how police has to act. Along the lines of "hm, stuff on this footage is technically illegal but is clearly necessary, let's update the rules".
    - 1y ago
- amelius 1y ago
  My thoughts exactly. In fact, you could add some AI to it, even, as an embedded system with a decent GPU can be bought for under $2000. It could help prevent issues from happening in the first place. Of course airgapped from the actual control system. But an AI can be very helpful in detecting and diagnosing problems.
curiousgal 1y ago
> it makes sense to me that.. This is exactly how the investigations are NOT conducted. You don't find the evidence that confirms your theory and call it a day when the pieces sorta fit together. You look solely at the evidence and listen to what they tell you leaving aside what you think could have happened.
- account42 1y ago
  Gp was posting a comment on an online discussion forum, not conducting an official investigation. Hope that clears things up.
briandear 1y ago
Landing gear controls are nothing like the fuel shutoffs. And they are in completely different locations. Landing gear controls are in front of the throttle, fuel shutoffs are aft of the throttles.
- 1over137 1y ago
  Is that "nothing like" though? You are saying they are in different places, ok, but are they similar in other ways? Are both controls the same shape? size? colour? texture?
  - inoop 1y ago
    Respectfully, it's not up to other people to disprove your toy theory. The question you're asking here can very easily be answered with a quick Google search. The short answer is that they are _very_ different controls, that looks and operate in a completely different way, located in a different place, and it's completely unrealistic to think a pilot could have mistaken one for the other.
  - TylerE 1y ago
    No, no, and no. Different controls with different t shapes, operated in different ways, of different number, different size, and very different positions. One is down almost on the floor, and well rearward, the other is at stomach height and well forward. The fuel cutoffs also require pulling the control out and over a guard.
  - seedless-sensat 1y ago
    The landing great lever is shaped like a wheel as a design affordance. It would be VERY hard to confuse
    - account42 1y ago
      Very hard to confuse if you are thinking about it. Doesn't say anything about the possibility of an action slip.
  - 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
demondlee 1y ago
Not possible. Two fuel cutoffs. Two engines. Two intentional acts in rapid succession. Plane would have survived one cutoff. It is what it appears. Captain crashed the plane.
1024core 1y ago
This photo: https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ai-171-fuel-switches-graphic-jo.jpeg https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ai-171-... from this article: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ai171-investigation-fuel-control-switches/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ai171-investigatio... shows you the switches on a 787. They are protected and hard to futz around with by mistake.
codefeenix 1y ago
even though that raising the gear is a up motion and fuelcut off is a down motion?
- rogerrogerr 1y ago
  And fuel cutoff is _two_ down motions? That's the death knell for this theory, imo.
  - adrianmonk 1y ago
    I don't think the theory is that the muscle memory sequences resemble each other. Instead, it's that because muscle memory allows you to do things without thinking about it, you can get mixed up about which action you meant to perform and go through the whole process without realizing it.
    - mcpeepants 1y ago
      Is actuating the fuel cutoff switches something that is done routinely in these aircraft, to the extent it could reasonably become muscle memory? ETA: downthread it is mentioned that these switches are used on the ground to cut the engines
      - abracadaniel 1y ago
        Seems akin to something like a parking brake. Something you only use at a stop, or rarely during an emergency.
        card_zero 1y ago
        Was amused to see they have one of those too, with "parking brake" written on it.
        fakedang 1y ago
        They're pilots, they do hundreds of stops each year. In case of domestic pilots, even thousands. And with years of experience, switching off fuel control switches is basically muscle memory at this time now.
russdill 1y ago
There is no possible way to confuse these two actions. There's a reason a wheel is attached to the gear lever.
- energy123 1y ago
  I want you to guess how many traffic accidents are caused by accidentally reversing when you intended to go forward. Test your mental model against the real world. This is your opportunity.
  - Mawr 1y ago
    Those are caused by operating the same lever in a slightly different manner. Not comparable to two completely differently designed levers placed far apart. Same goes for accidental acceleration instead of braking. Two of the same kind of lever right next to each other. Accidental acceleration while intending to turn on the wipers would be a fitting example, I don't think that happens though.
    - interestica 1y ago
      You’re just overlaying your mental model. Think of the action as a stored function. Maybe they’ve always recalled the function as part of a certain list. It can be a case where the lists get confused rather than the modality of input (lever etc)
      - vachina 1y ago
        Then that would be pilot error, and an aggravating error.
  - bravesoul2 1y ago
    Driving isn't trained to anywhere near the same standard. Probably more training required to bake a cake than drive a car (hours wise). If we had your typical driver fly a plane we'd be doomed to a lot of crashes.
zamadatix 1y ago
One of the nice things about finally having the preliminary report is I get to stop hearing all of the same assumptions/theories/YouTuber said/"a guy I know got a leaked report"/etc in water cooler talk at work because the preliminary report solidly disproved all of them so far. If anyone even had and stuck with an idea matching this report it wouldn't have stood out in the conversations anyways. The collection of comments on this post remind me it'll just be a brand new set of random guesses until the final report is released. Or worse - the final report reaches no further conclusions and it just has to fade out of interest naturally over time.
- swores 1y ago
  It's human nature to want to guess at possible explanations for things that are unusual and unexpected. If hearing those guesses annoys you, nobody is forcing you to read through comments on a thread of people making them! (I hope - sorry if you are being forced after all.)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    Idle speculation is far from the only thing you won't find me supporting just because it's human nature. Thankfully, HN comment threads tend to include a lot more than just that kind of discussion, which is why I read them. Indeed there are lots of great details I didn't glean or fully understand in the report covered in the comments. That doesn't mean I will always agree with the comments (or that everyone will always agree with mine) and that's okay. It'd be a very limited value discussion if we could only ever comment when we agree. It seems exceedingly unlikely any of this has something to do with users being forced to be here though.
    - swores 1y ago
      Having just found myself in a similar situation to the one you were complaining about, I'd like to withdraw and apologise for my previous comment :D
747fulloftapes 1y ago
The landing gear lever is rather prominently featured in the 787 in a panel central to the cockpit layout so that either pilot can easily reach it. For decades and across many manufacturers, the landing gear lever has traditionally featured a knob that deliberately resembles an airplane wheel. It's very hard to mistake it for anything else. It's actuated by simply moving it up or down. The fuel control switches are behind the throttle stalks above the handles to release the engine fire suppression agents. These switches are markedly smaller and have guards on each side protecting them from accidental manipulation. You need to reach behind and twirl your fingers around a bit to reach them. Actuating these switches requires pulling the knob up sufficiently to clear a stop lock before then rotating down. There are two switches that were activated in sequence and in short order. The pilot monitoring is responsible for raising the gear in response to the pilot flyings' instruction. I would find it very difficult to believe this was a muscle memory mistake. At the very least, I would want to more evidence supporting such a proposition. This idea strikes me as even more unlikely than someone shifting their moving vehicle into reverse while intending to activate the window wipers.
- macintux 1y ago
  > This idea strikes me as even more unlikely than someone shifting their moving vehicle into reverse while intending to activate the window wipers. I suspect you've never driven an older vehicle with the shifter on the steering column.
  - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
    > I suspect you've never driven an older vehicle with the shifter on the steering column. Or a new Mercedes ;)
  - bravesoul2 1y ago
    But if he did, would have done hours of retraining in a simulator?
  - losvedir 1y ago
    Or a Tesla. I've done this exact thing, although the car just beeped at me and refused to go into reverse, of course.
dyauspitr 1y ago
If you shut off the engines a couple of dozen meters above ground shouldn’t every alarm be blaring or there should be some sort of additional lever you have to pull way out of the way to enable shutting off the engine that close to the ground.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Consider a case where the engine starts to violently vibrate. This can tear the structure apart. Delaying shutting off the engine can be catastrophic. It's very hard to solve one problem without creating another. At some point, you just gotta trust the pilot.
  - dyauspitr 1y ago
    Would it matter in this case since you would crash either ways. I’m talking about protection in a very specific situation where you make it harder to shut off both engines when you’re very close to the ground.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      If the ground you are over is a good landing spot, your best chance is to cut off the fuel to that engine ASAP.
      - dyauspitr 1y ago
        All I’m saying is in those situations it should involve another toggle or pedal that needs to be pushed to cut off the engines so it’s outside the realm of muscle memory.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        Ok, but that also will delay the shutdown and if it's too complicated the pilot may forget it in his extreme stress.

superasn 1y ago

Is there a video feed of the cockpit inside the black box? If not there should be one as even my simple home wifi camera can record hours of hd video on the small sd card. And If there is, wouldn't that help to instantly identify such things?

dubcanada 1y ago
No neither black box stores video. One stores audio on flash memory and the other stores flight details, sensors etc. I don’t think video is a bad idea. I assume there is a reason why it wasn’t done. Data wise black boxes actually store very little data (maybe a 100mbs), I don’t know if that is due to how old they are, or the requirements of withstanding extremes.
- superasn 1y ago
  Not sure why something so important isn't included. Heck they can make a back up directly to the cloud in addition to black box considering I'm able to watch YouTube in some flights nowadays.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    ALPA (pilot union) has consistently objected to cockpit video recording. I believe other pilot unions have a generally similar stance.
    - account42 1y ago
      So? Those unions act in the interests of pilots so that is to be expected. That doesn't mean that a regulator should be swayed by their objections.
- interestica 1y ago
  This isn’t true. This was a 787. It does not use a separate recorder for voice and data (CVR, FDR). (Most media outlets also got this wrong and were slow to make corrections. ) Rather, it uses a EAFR (Enhanced airborne flight recorder) which basically combines the functions. They’re also more advanced than older systems and can record for longer. The 787 has two of them - the forward one has its own power supply too. There should be video as well, but I’m not sure what was recovered. Not necessarily part of the flight data recording, but there are other video systems. https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/enhanced-aircraft-flight-recorder-3254F.pdf https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/enhanced-air...
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    That's really interesting. From reading air crash reports there's a lot of times I've seen."Nothing is known about the last 30 seconds because the damage broke the connection to the flight recorders in the tail"
- bonoboTP 1y ago
  In the US, the NTSB has been recommending it for over 20 years. The pilot unions have been blocking it, due to privacy and other things. I'm not in aviation. But my between-the-lines straightforward reading is that unions see it as something with downsides (legal liability) but not much upside. It could be that there are a million tiny regulations that are known by everyone to be nonsensical, perhaps contradictory or just not in line with reality and it's basically impossible to be impeccably perfect if HD high fps video observation is done on them 24/7. Think about your own job and your boss's job or your home renovation work etc. Theoretically they could say, ok, but the footage can only be used in case the plane crashes or something serious happens. Can't use it to detect minor deviations in the tiniest details. But we know that once the camera is there, there will be a push to scrutinize it all the time for everything. Next time there will be AI monitoring systems that check for alertness. Next time it will be checking for "psychological issues". Next time they will record and store it all and then when something happens, they will in hindsight point out some moment and sue the airline for not detecting that psychological cue and ban the pilot. It's a mess. If there's no footage, there's no such mess. The truth is, you can't bring down the danger from human factors to absolute zero. It's exceedingly rare to have sabotage. In every human interaction, this can happen. The answer cannot be 24/7 full-blown totalitarian surveillance state on everyone. You'd have to prove that the danger from pilot is bigger than from any other occupation group. Should we also put bodycam on all medical doctors and record all surgeries and all interactions? It would help with malpractice cases. How about all teachers in school? To prevent child abuse. Etc. Etc. Regulation is always in balance and in context of evidence possibilities and jurisprudence "reasonableness". If the interpretation is always to the letter and there is perfect surveillance, you need to adjust the rules to be actually realistic. If observation is hard and courts use common sense, rules can be more strict and stupid because "it looks good on paper". You also have to think about potential abuses of footage. It would be an avenue for aircraft manufacturers, airlines, FAA, etc to push more blame on the pilots, because their side becomes more provable but the manufacturing side is not as much. You could then mandate camera video evidence for every maintenance task like with door plugs. I wonder how the introduction of police body cam footage changed regulations of how police has to act. Along the lines of "hm, stuff on this footage is technically illegal but is clearly necessary, let's update the rules".
  - 1y ago
amelius 1y ago
My thoughts exactly. In fact, you could add some AI to it, even, as an embedded system with a decent GPU can be bought for under $2000. It could help prevent issues from happening in the first place. Of course airgapped from the actual control system. But an AI can be very helpful in detecting and diagnosing problems.

curiousgal 1y ago

> it makes sense to me that.. This is exactly how the investigations are NOT conducted. You don't find the evidence that confirms your theory and call it a day when the pieces sorta fit together. You look solely at the evidence and listen to what they tell you leaving aside what you think could have happened.

account42 1y ago
Gp was posting a comment on an online discussion forum, not conducting an official investigation. Hope that clears things up.

briandear 1y ago

Landing gear controls are nothing like the fuel shutoffs. And they are in completely different locations. Landing gear controls are in front of the throttle, fuel shutoffs are aft of the throttles.

1over137 1y ago
Is that "nothing like" though? You are saying they are in different places, ok, but are they similar in other ways? Are both controls the same shape? size? colour? texture?
- inoop 1y ago
  Respectfully, it's not up to other people to disprove your toy theory. The question you're asking here can very easily be answered with a quick Google search. The short answer is that they are _very_ different controls, that looks and operate in a completely different way, located in a different place, and it's completely unrealistic to think a pilot could have mistaken one for the other.
- TylerE 1y ago
  No, no, and no. Different controls with different t shapes, operated in different ways, of different number, different size, and very different positions. One is down almost on the floor, and well rearward, the other is at stomach height and well forward. The fuel cutoffs also require pulling the control out and over a guard.
- seedless-sensat 1y ago
  The landing great lever is shaped like a wheel as a design affordance. It would be VERY hard to confuse
  - account42 1y ago
    Very hard to confuse if you are thinking about it. Doesn't say anything about the possibility of an action slip.
- 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

demondlee 1y ago

Not possible. Two fuel cutoffs. Two engines. Two intentional acts in rapid succession. Plane would have survived one cutoff. It is what it appears. Captain crashed the plane.

1024core 1y ago

This photo: https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ai-171-fuel-switches-graphic-jo.jpeg https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ai-171-... from this article: https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ai171-investigation-fuel-control-switches/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ai171-investigatio... shows you the switches on a 787. They are protected and hard to futz around with by mistake.

codefeenix 1y ago

even though that raising the gear is a up motion and fuelcut off is a down motion?

rogerrogerr 1y ago
And fuel cutoff is _two_ down motions? That's the death knell for this theory, imo.
- adrianmonk 1y ago
  I don't think the theory is that the muscle memory sequences resemble each other. Instead, it's that because muscle memory allows you to do things without thinking about it, you can get mixed up about which action you meant to perform and go through the whole process without realizing it.
  - mcpeepants 1y ago
    Is actuating the fuel cutoff switches something that is done routinely in these aircraft, to the extent it could reasonably become muscle memory? ETA: downthread it is mentioned that these switches are used on the ground to cut the engines
    - abracadaniel 1y ago
      Seems akin to something like a parking brake. Something you only use at a stop, or rarely during an emergency.
      - card_zero 1y ago
        Was amused to see they have one of those too, with "parking brake" written on it.
      - fakedang 1y ago
        They're pilots, they do hundreds of stops each year. In case of domestic pilots, even thousands. And with years of experience, switching off fuel control switches is basically muscle memory at this time now.

russdill 1y ago

There is no possible way to confuse these two actions. There's a reason a wheel is attached to the gear lever.

energy123 1y ago
I want you to guess how many traffic accidents are caused by accidentally reversing when you intended to go forward. Test your mental model against the real world. This is your opportunity.
- Mawr 1y ago
  Those are caused by operating the same lever in a slightly different manner. Not comparable to two completely differently designed levers placed far apart. Same goes for accidental acceleration instead of braking. Two of the same kind of lever right next to each other. Accidental acceleration while intending to turn on the wipers would be a fitting example, I don't think that happens though.
  - interestica 1y ago
    You’re just overlaying your mental model. Think of the action as a stored function. Maybe they’ve always recalled the function as part of a certain list. It can be a case where the lists get confused rather than the modality of input (lever etc)
    - vachina 1y ago
      Then that would be pilot error, and an aggravating error.
- bravesoul2 1y ago
  Driving isn't trained to anywhere near the same standard. Probably more training required to bake a cake than drive a car (hours wise). If we had your typical driver fly a plane we'd be doomed to a lot of crashes.

zamadatix 1y ago

One of the nice things about finally having the preliminary report is I get to stop hearing all of the same assumptions/theories/YouTuber said/"a guy I know got a leaked report"/etc in water cooler talk at work because the preliminary report solidly disproved all of them so far. If anyone even had and stuck with an idea matching this report it wouldn't have stood out in the conversations anyways. The collection of comments on this post remind me it'll just be a brand new set of random guesses until the final report is released. Or worse - the final report reaches no further conclusions and it just has to fade out of interest naturally over time.

swores 1y ago
It's human nature to want to guess at possible explanations for things that are unusual and unexpected. If hearing those guesses annoys you, nobody is forcing you to read through comments on a thread of people making them! (I hope - sorry if you are being forced after all.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- zamadatix 1y ago
  Idle speculation is far from the only thing you won't find me supporting just because it's human nature. Thankfully, HN comment threads tend to include a lot more than just that kind of discussion, which is why I read them. Indeed there are lots of great details I didn't glean or fully understand in the report covered in the comments. That doesn't mean I will always agree with the comments (or that everyone will always agree with mine) and that's okay. It'd be a very limited value discussion if we could only ever comment when we agree. It seems exceedingly unlikely any of this has something to do with users being forced to be here though.
  - swores 1y ago
    Having just found myself in a similar situation to the one you were complaining about, I'd like to withdraw and apologise for my previous comment :D

747fulloftapes 1y ago

The landing gear lever is rather prominently featured in the 787 in a panel central to the cockpit layout so that either pilot can easily reach it. For decades and across many manufacturers, the landing gear lever has traditionally featured a knob that deliberately resembles an airplane wheel. It's very hard to mistake it for anything else. It's actuated by simply moving it up or down. The fuel control switches are behind the throttle stalks above the handles to release the engine fire suppression agents. These switches are markedly smaller and have guards on each side protecting them from accidental manipulation. You need to reach behind and twirl your fingers around a bit to reach them. Actuating these switches requires pulling the knob up sufficiently to clear a stop lock before then rotating down. There are two switches that were activated in sequence and in short order. The pilot monitoring is responsible for raising the gear in response to the pilot flyings' instruction. I would find it very difficult to believe this was a muscle memory mistake. At the very least, I would want to more evidence supporting such a proposition. This idea strikes me as even more unlikely than someone shifting their moving vehicle into reverse while intending to activate the window wipers.

macintux 1y ago
> This idea strikes me as even more unlikely than someone shifting their moving vehicle into reverse while intending to activate the window wipers. I suspect you've never driven an older vehicle with the shifter on the steering column.
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  > I suspect you've never driven an older vehicle with the shifter on the steering column. Or a new Mercedes ;)
- bravesoul2 1y ago
  But if he did, would have done hours of retraining in a simulator?
- losvedir 1y ago
  Or a Tesla. I've done this exact thing, although the car just beeped at me and refused to go into reverse, of course.

dyauspitr 1y ago

If you shut off the engines a couple of dozen meters above ground shouldn’t every alarm be blaring or there should be some sort of additional lever you have to pull way out of the way to enable shutting off the engine that close to the ground.

WalterBright 1y ago
Consider a case where the engine starts to violently vibrate. This can tear the structure apart. Delaying shutting off the engine can be catastrophic. It's very hard to solve one problem without creating another. At some point, you just gotta trust the pilot.
- dyauspitr 1y ago
  Would it matter in this case since you would crash either ways. I’m talking about protection in a very specific situation where you make it harder to shut off both engines when you’re very close to the ground.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    If the ground you are over is a good landing spot, your best chance is to cut off the fuel to that engine ASAP.
    - dyauspitr 1y ago
      All I’m saying is in those situations it should involve another toggle or pedal that needs to be pushed to cut off the engines so it’s outside the realm of muscle memory.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        Ok, but that also will delay the shutdown and if it's too complicated the pilot may forget it in his extreme stress.