Air India crash

[Massive Attack]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... st-updates

Perfect weather conditions, immaculate Boeing safety record on a newer plane, flight from India to London. Possible Terrorist attack or human error?

[Mike Oxsaw]

Pointly argument as usual Oxbore. IKf the fuel is cut off from the engines they won't work pure and simple. To switch off they have to be raised and then positoned down. They are protected by brackets so accidental switch off for both is near impossible, Therefore one of the pilots did it manually and then why?
Its a stressful job. 

The one thing is can the plane take off with the fuel switches off as in is there is residual fuel in ''pipes" to take off only? 

Well that's assuming the pilot who commented actually looked down and saw the switches in the off position, AND, as it's a fly-by-wire aircraft that the operating system cannot activate the switches without pilot intervention.

I know (KNOW) you'd love and need me to be wrong on this, but you'll need to wait before you go for your annual money shot.

"'Well that's assuming the pilot who commented actually looked down and saw the switches in the off position"' Why on earth would he ask the question without seeing that they were OFF? 

You really are senile aren't you?

You clearly need me to be, but can we stay on-topic for once?

[Massive Attack]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1ExrFRL6W8/

[Swiss.]

No, you are correct.

Jet engines do, indeed, have a separate electric starting system (bit like a spark plug in an old car). But there's no need for it to have an on/off option, just as there's no need to keep the starter motor on a car turning once the engine is running.

Turning off the fuel will stop the engine and, so long as the ignition system is not damaged (or drenched in unburnt fuel), it can be restarted by turning the fuel on again and triggering an ignition. (That BA 747 bound for Australia that lost all 4 engines flying through a cloud of volcanic dust a while back being an example of the process working)

It seems that the crew were aware of what happened and were following the SOP to get the engines re-started. From what I read, they got one going but they were too low to allow it to allow it to generate enough thrust to prevent the crash.

Pointly argument as usual Oxbore. IKf the fuel is cut off from the engines they won't work pure and simple. To switch off they have to be raised and then positoned down. They are protected by brackets so accidental switch off for both is near impossible, Therefore one of the pilots did it manually and then why?
Its a stressful job. 

The one thing is can the plane take off with the fuel switches off as in is there is residual fuel in ''pipes" to take off only? 

Well that's assuming the pilot who commented actually looked down and saw the switches in the off position, AND, as it's a fly-by-wire aircraft that the operating system cannot activate the switches without pilot intervention.

I know (KNOW) you'd love and need me to be wrong on this, but you'll need to wait before you go for your annual money shot.

"'Well that's assuming the pilot who commented actually looked down and saw the switches in the off position"' Why on earth would he ask the question without seeing that they were OFF? 

You really are senile aren't you?

[Mike Oxsaw]

BBC have it wrong fuel cutoffs are separate from engine starters. Or maybe I'm wrong?

No, you are correct.

Jet engines do, indeed, have a separate electric starting system (bit like a spark plug in an old car). But there's no need for it to have an on/off option, just as there's no need to keep the starter motor on a car turning once the engine is running.

Turning off the fuel will stop the engine and, so long as the ignition system is not damaged (or drenched in unburnt fuel), it can be restarted by turning the fuel on again and triggering an ignition. (That BA 747 bound for Australia that lost all 4 engines flying through a cloud of volcanic dust a while back being an example of the process working)

It seems that the crew were aware of what happened and were following the SOP to get the engines re-started. From what I read, they got one going but they were too low to allow it to allow it to generate enough thrust to prevent the crash.

Pointly argument as usual Oxbore. IKf the fuel is cut off from the engines they won't work pure and simple. To switch off they have to be raised and then positoned down. They are protected by brackets so accidental switch off for both is near impossible, Therefore one of the pilots did it manually and then why?
Its a stressful job. 

The one thing is can the plane take off with the fuel switches off as in is there is residual fuel in ''pipes" to take off only? 

Well that's assuming the pilot who commented actually looked down and saw the switches in the off position, AND, as it's a fly-by-wire aircraft that the operating system cannot activate the switches without pilot intervention.

I know (KNOW) you'd love and need me to be wrong on this, but you'll need to wait before you go for your annual money shot.

[Swiss.]

BBC have it wrong fuel cutoffs are separate from engine starters. Or maybe I'm wrong?

No, you are correct.

Jet engines do, indeed, have a separate electric starting system (bit like a spark plug in an old car). But there's no need for it to have an on/off option, just as there's no need to keep the starter motor on a car turning once the engine is running.

Turning off the fuel will stop the engine and, so long as the ignition system is not damaged (or drenched in unburnt fuel), it can be restarted by turning the fuel on again and triggering an ignition. (That BA 747 bound for Australia that lost all 4 engines flying through a cloud of volcanic dust a while back being an example of the process working)

It seems that the crew were aware of what happened and were following the SOP to get the engines re-started. From what I read, they got one going but they were too low to allow it to allow it to generate enough thrust to prevent the crash.

Pointly argument as usual Oxbore. IKf the fuel is cut off from the engines they won't work pure and simple. To switch off they have to be raised and then positoned down. They are protected by brackets so accidental switch off for both is near impossible, Therefore one of the pilots did it manually and then why?
Its a stressful job. 

The one thing is can the plane take off with the fuel switches off as in is there is residual fuel in ''pipes" to take off only? 

[Mike Oxsaw]

BBC have it wrong fuel cutoffs are separate from engine starters. Or maybe I'm wrong?

No, you are correct.

Jet engines do, indeed, have a separate electric starting system (bit like a spark plug in an old car). But there's no need for it to have an on/off option, just as there's no need to keep the starter motor on a car turning once the engine is running.

Turning off the fuel will stop the engine and, so long as the ignition system is not damaged (or drenched in unburnt fuel), it can be restarted by turning the fuel on again and triggering an ignition. (That BA 747 bound for Australia that lost all 4 engines flying through a cloud of volcanic dust a while back being an example of the process working)

It seems that the crew were aware of what happened and were following the SOP to get the engines re-started. From what I read, they got one going but they were too low to allow it to allow it to generate enough thrust to prevent the crash.

[Far Cough UKunt]

BBC have it wrong fuel cutoffs are separate from engine starters. Or maybe I'm wrong?

[Mike Oxsaw]

They were talking about fuel cutoff switches not engine cutoff switches and an engine can be turned off in flight due to fire.

Are they not one and the same thing? The BBC seem to suggest so:

..."It drew no conclusions, but found that the fuel switches - which turn the engines on and off - were in the cut-off position moments before the plane crashed."...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p2x9093t

[Swiss.]

So the investigators are saying the fuel switches were ON after takeoff . So the co- pilot set them from 1 to 2 in less than 1 sec to CUT OFF. So suicide ??? If that’s some fault  in the switch it’s as scary as hell but unlikely . It’s strange that when the pilot asks him why they are CUT OFF he says he didn’t . Not really the reaction of someone killing himself. 

[Westham67]

It's a spring issue by the sound of it. All aircraft should have emergency springs in case the landing gear fails

[Swiss.]

SThis pilot explains these situations very well.

yeah I posted one of this guy’s videos a few weeks ago. Loves his RAT 

[Far Cough UKunt]

They were talking about fuel cutoff switches not engine cutoff switches and an engine can be turned off in flight due to fire.

[Mike Oxsaw]

"But investigators are also zeroing in on what they describe is an interesting point in the report.It says in December 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) highlighting that some Boeing 737 fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged.While the issue was noted, it wasn't deemed an unsafe condition requiring an Airworthiness Directive (AD) - a legally enforceable regulation to correct unsafe conditions in a product.The same switch design is used in Boeing 787-8 aircraft, including Air India's VT-ANB which crashed. As the SAIB was advisory, Air India did not perform the recommended inspections."

From BBC

Yeah, I read that.

My first though was: "What cսnt at Boeing thought that the ability to switch the engines off during any point of the flight was safe practice?"

[Far Cough UKunt]

"But investigators are also zeroing in on what they describe is an interesting point in the report.It says in December 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) highlighting that some Boeing 737 fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged.While the issue was noted, it wasn't deemed an unsafe condition requiring an Airworthiness Directive (AD) - a legally enforceable regulation to correct unsafe conditions in a product.The same switch design is used in Boeing 787-8 aircraft, including Air India's VT-ANB which crashed. As the SAIB was advisory, Air India did not perform the recommended inspections."

From BBC

[zico]

This pilot explains these situations very well.

[Sydney_Iron]

Looks like there was nothing wrong with the aircraft! Pilot error or fuck up or will we see the conspiracy theorist suggesting something more sinister......

[Massive Attack]

Here geez, I found this the other day, were you looking for it?

Cheers, mate. Don't suppose you found a parrot, too?

Only a dead Norwegian Blue.

[Amputee Actor again]

Here geez, I found this the other day, were you looking for it?

Cheers, mate. Don't suppose you found a parrot, too?

[Massive Attack]

Here geez, I found this the other day, were you looking for it?

[Amputee Actor again]

All Actors. Even the people that died in it.

Shhh!

[Westham67]

Ron A shot JFK FACT

[Collins Wong - A Free Man]

Still the only 3 buildings (yes, 3 - building 7) whose collapses were due to fire. Funny that. 

[Massive Attack]

All Actors. Even the people that died in it.

[Nurse Ratched]

Arf! The bit that made me cackle the most was 'It was a US military plane made to look like a passenger jet and the windows were painted on'

[SurfaceAgentX2Zero]

Melting point of steel

Controlled demolition 

Windows were painted on

Yadda 

I miss Ron Antley. He was a loop, but he was also a gentleman. 

I particularly love that 'melting point  of steel' one.

SAX20: So, Ron. You don't think steel might buckle and weaken a bit before it actually melts?
Antly: ***fucks off for a few days***