As with all other videos, draws no conclusions whatsoever because litigation.
(The captain did it. Deliberately).
What a pity you and Rod Steel lack the intelligence to do the same.
You see, I at least am smart enough to know that no one is going to sue me. So I can tell the truth.
As can the WSJ, because it is big enough .
You on the other hand appear to be unable to draw logical conclusions from basic facts. You have to be 'told' by an 'expert' in a 'report'.
Is it important to you that others acknowledge how clever you are?
From the beginning I said it was fuel failure, but didn't believe anybody was foolish enough to switch off the fuel supply.
Not really. I don't need any proof.
Well I went from 'clearly both engines failed' to 'clearly someone switched the fuel off on both engines' as soon as the preliminary report came out and I had listened to the people who understand 777 fuel systems.
I selected the captain on the grounds of opportunity. He wasn't flying.
I ruled out accidental because the odds of *all* those things happening at *exactly* the worst possible time to *two independent systems* as frankly zero
If I were investigating anything, I would begin by leaving my "no one would be that stupid" hat at home.
I refer you to the endless parade of Darwin Awards as a suggestion you may wish to adopt a similar strategy.
In general, in any incident I *begin* by eliminating the "Surely no one would .....?" possibilities before proceeding. Saves an awful lot of time.
Even without such expert knowledge I would intuitively believe two switches failing to be less likely than a deliberate (albeit possibly unknowing) action.
I dont think anyone starts with that premise. I've watched dozens of air crash investigation videos, and the usual theme is multiple things wrong leading up to the crash, of which pilot error is usually only a small part.
Well yes, letting your teenage son fly an airliner is fairly stupid.,
I don't, I look at *what* exactly happened, before even considering the why. There were theories about bird strikes, wrong flaps, overloaded aircraft etc etc.
These were dismissed as the facts started to come to light.
Prior to the interim report all that we knew was that both engines had failed. For no apparent reason.
There were rumours about the fuel cutoff switches, but no firm information.
We waited for the interim, and then it was clear that *both* the switches were moved *twice*, at which point given the actual physical nature of the switches as described by many pilots and maintenance people, that it could only be a deliberate act.
Which is so inconceivably dumb that you had to be suicidal to do it.
It was not both pilots, one was trying to save the aircraft and moved the switches to 'on' again.
The most *likely* candidate was the pilot monitoring - the captain, who also *chose* to be the PM
None of this takes an Einstein. Its just logical inferences drawn from the data.
Yes. And if you have more information, like the switches never having ever done this before in the entire history of the aircraft, the fact it happened to *both*, plus the fact that it happened at exactly the time when the aircraft had committed to take off, but was close enough to the ground to make recovery impossible...
...It stretches coincidence a bit too far.
The time must be approaching, rapidly, when this forum needs to be moderated in order to keep out all of the crap like this. ... and what mental disturbance leads people to want to speculate on accident causes, about which they have no specialist, or inside, knowledge?
You mean from the incomplete data we have from a miscellany of sources which may prove to be incorrect when we get the full report.
No litigation is possible
No litigation is possible
There is no Air India stock
Its a 787
Perfectly possible for the pilot flying to turn those switches to cutoff while flying
I dunno. Ask Jeff Gaines. And when does technical analysis become 'speculation' IF you don't want to see it, use the kill file. Wanker
No. Your ignorance is showing again. The interim report my not be full, but it is never ever comprised of data that is subsequently revised.
This isn't your armchair theorising,. This is real life engineering led technically competent reporting on a very important matter, and if they aren't sure they wont say.
I begin to see your problem. You are so stuck in the world of the ArtStudent™ that you dont even realise its not the real one.
A postModern poppet 'reality is a social construct' 'there are no facts only opinions' 'the truth is whatever enough people especially people with letters behind their names say it is'
No wonder the country is going to the dogs
Until we have the final report everybody's ignorance is equal, including yours.
As I have said many times until the final report is published what you say is just speculation however clever you think you are. You really ought to zip it out of respect for the families of the bereaved.
Do you have good enough manners to do that?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required