weren't systems installed on may airliners after 9/11 to allow the planes to be remotely controlled from the ground in case of hijacking? If remotely hijacked, couldn't the engines be shut down as a way to murder one or more people aboard?
This could explain the co-pilot's insistence that he hadn't cut off the engines when the captain queried him about it.
Dual engine failure calls for fuel switches to be moved to cutoff as a memory item. It could have been an instinctual reaction to misdiagnosed failure. That being said, it would require some amount of incompetence to diagnose a dual engine failure when there wasn’t one.
No, a duel engine failure doesn't call for the fuel switches to be moved to cutoff, that's nonsense and certainly not any memory item. Any pilot with any common sense knows that would crash the aircraft and they certainly wouldn't be making a radio call about loss of thrust if they knew the fuel had been cutoff.
As an aside, it certainly is convenient for Boeing since they have tens of millions riding on this NOT being a design failure. No pilots around to dispute it either. But it certainly doesn't jive with the radio call and those switches are right in sight of both pilots and require a concerted movement to shut them off since they can't be bumped off by accident.
That procedure can't be successful at 400' just after rotate and climbout. But, if it was a last ditch effort, he would have cycled the fuel cutoff valves one at a time, not just shut both off. Have you ever done an inflight restart? You aren't going to do one at under 170kts and be successful especially if N3 has decayed dramatically, to say nothing of the fact it takes much longer than the time they had to do it even if they were to attempt it, which I doubt they were. If he was trying to restart, he would have turned them off and immediately back on one at a time because that would recycle start mode but not starve the engine of fuel immediately, not leave them off because that would starve the engine of fuel. If he turned them off and did so without trying to kill himself it was probably just prior to impact with the hope that it might mitigate any fire the engine might start after the crash. But that's a LONG shot guess and not likely. I don't know why they were off, maybe the tape will tell us. But I don't trust Boeing at this point and hope they have some investigators that are able to resist the push to a conclusion. Unless of course they come up with a verified suicide letter or something, which has been known to occur.
I agree that the procedure should not be completed at 400’. I agree the procedure should not be done at 170k. The FO was a 1000 hour pilot and maybe, that was a muscle memory move. I am waiting for more to come out, but from preliminary reports, this seems to be the direction. I am a professional pilot and fly the 737 and can see the holes in the Swiss cheese leading to this.
Imagine if they set the alt window to 500 instead of 5000, or forgot to set it and it was preset AFL. Power would reduce immediately on takeoff. Mix in a fresh and eager FO, and a memory item That calls for recycling the fuel levers.
weren't systems installed on may airliners after 9/11 to allow the planes to be remotely controlled from the ground in case of hijacking? If remotely hijacked, couldn't the engines be shut down as a way to murder one or more people aboard?
This could explain the co-pilot's insistence that he hadn't cut off the engines when the captain queried him about it.
They are trying to blame the pilots. It was a maintenance problem. It was a known problem on a critical system and maintenance just kept signing it as ok to fly. Personally, I would not have flown with it, but the consequences in Air India of not flying, could have been significant. The part failure caused the engines to roll back to ground idle. That is the reason for the pilot comments. I also think that it was a design failure of the part. Default should be the current throttle setting, not ground idle.
That manuever has to be done manually- was the copilot Muslim/gay/on psych meds?
Seems quite intentional. Pilot asks why did you cut fuel? I didn't. Obviously he did and it crashed as a direct result. Not pilot error, pilot murder.
weren't systems installed on may airliners after 9/11 to allow the planes to be remotely controlled from the ground in case of hijacking? If remotely hijacked, couldn't the engines be shut down as a way to murder one or more people aboard?
This could explain the co-pilot's insistence that he hadn't cut off the engines when the captain queried him about it.
Dual engine failure calls for fuel switches to be moved to cutoff as a memory item. It could have been an instinctual reaction to misdiagnosed failure. That being said, it would require some amount of incompetence to diagnose a dual engine failure when there wasn’t one.
No, a duel engine failure doesn't call for the fuel switches to be moved to cutoff, that's nonsense and certainly not any memory item. Any pilot with any common sense knows that would crash the aircraft and they certainly wouldn't be making a radio call about loss of thrust if they knew the fuel had been cutoff. As an aside, it certainly is convenient for Boeing since they have tens of millions riding on this NOT being a design failure. No pilots around to dispute it either. But it certainly doesn't jive with the radio call and those switches are right in sight of both pilots and require a concerted movement to shut them off since they can't be bumped off by accident.
Here is the QRH in what to do during loss of thrust in both engines:
http://www.737ng.co.uk/737-800%20Quick%20Reference%20Handbook%20(QRH).pdf#page96
Step two calls for engine start levers to be moved to Cutoff.
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3677650/Boeing-787.html?page=41#manual
And the 787 QRH calling for fuel control switches to be recycled, as step one.
That procedure can't be successful at 400' just after rotate and climbout. But, if it was a last ditch effort, he would have cycled the fuel cutoff valves one at a time, not just shut both off. Have you ever done an inflight restart? You aren't going to do one at under 170kts and be successful especially if N3 has decayed dramatically, to say nothing of the fact it takes much longer than the time they had to do it even if they were to attempt it, which I doubt they were. If he was trying to restart, he would have turned them off and immediately back on one at a time because that would recycle start mode but not starve the engine of fuel immediately, not leave them off because that would starve the engine of fuel. If he turned them off and did so without trying to kill himself it was probably just prior to impact with the hope that it might mitigate any fire the engine might start after the crash. But that's a LONG shot guess and not likely. I don't know why they were off, maybe the tape will tell us. But I don't trust Boeing at this point and hope they have some investigators that are able to resist the push to a conclusion. Unless of course they come up with a verified suicide letter or something, which has been known to occur.
I agree that the procedure should not be completed at 400’. I agree the procedure should not be done at 170k. The FO was a 1000 hour pilot and maybe, that was a muscle memory move. I am waiting for more to come out, but from preliminary reports, this seems to be the direction. I am a professional pilot and fly the 737 and can see the holes in the Swiss cheese leading to this.
Imagine if they set the alt window to 500 instead of 5000, or forgot to set it and it was preset AFL. Power would reduce immediately on takeoff. Mix in a fresh and eager FO, and a memory item That calls for recycling the fuel levers.
What’s N3?
He meant N2. N2 is the internal compressors …they rotate on a shaft.
weren't systems installed on may airliners after 9/11 to allow the planes to be remotely controlled from the ground in case of hijacking? If remotely hijacked, couldn't the engines be shut down as a way to murder one or more people aboard?
This could explain the co-pilot's insistence that he hadn't cut off the engines when the captain queried him about it.
But... to Boeing's credit... ALL the doors stayed on the airplane this time.
To be fair - the crash created it's own doors. Score 1 for the door people and -300 for the fuselage people - and the mechanics.
To Boeing’s credit, that haven't killed any potential whistleblowers…yet.
They are trying to blame the pilots. It was a maintenance problem. It was a known problem on a critical system and maintenance just kept signing it as ok to fly. Personally, I would not have flown with it, but the consequences in Air India of not flying, could have been significant. The part failure caused the engines to roll back to ground idle. That is the reason for the pilot comments. I also think that it was a design failure of the part. Default should be the current throttle setting, not ground idle.
Archive,
https://archive.ph/HYXu4