The West Ham Fan Forum | More like the terraces than the family stand!
https://forum.westhamonline.co.uk/
Swiss. wrote: ↑15 Jul 2025, 10:01Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 12:08Swiss. wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 11:55Pointly 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" wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 12:08Swiss. wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 11:55Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 18:28No, 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. wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 11:55Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 18:28Far Cough UKunt" wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 18:00 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" wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 18:28Far Cough UKunt" wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 18:00 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" wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 18:00 BBC have it wrong fuel cutoffs are separate from engine starters. Or maybe I'm wrong?
Far Cough UKunt" wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 12:27 They were talking about fuel cutoff switches not engine cutoff switches and an engine can be turned off in flight due to fire.
Far Cough UKunt" wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 10:43 "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
Amputee Actor again" wrote: ↑19 Jun 2025, 18:53Massive Attack" wrote: ↑19 Jun 2025, 18:49
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" wrote: ↑19 Jun 2025, 18:49
Here geez, I found this the other day, were you looking for it?
Nurse Ratched" wrote: ↑19 Jun 2025, 16:06 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.