The little reaction I've heard from families of passengers, didn't seem to have picked up on it likely being deliberate by one of the pilots, they were saying the need more information, they probably haven't realised they won't get much more for a year or so ...
It could even be that the system only scans once per second (maybe less often on less critical systems) to avoid huge quantities of data.
Rigorous pilot training is designed to make sure it *doesn't* happen. Not ever. Years after he stopped flying my father followed 'cockpit drill' before doing *anything* to make sure he had all he needed and all relevant facts were checked out first.
It is second nature to run through the checklists, not arbitrarily diddle with the knobs and blinkenlights. Anyone who cant do this doesnt become a pilot
The report is economical. What it means is unequivocal but not explicitly stated.
Those in the industry understand - those outside are spared an ugly truth, for now
I think I will be. Just.
Do you think they will ever finish it at all? It was always a vanity EU project, and post Brexit has no real reason to exist at all
But it is _never_ "We just touched down, switch off the engines."
Shutting off the engines happens several minutes after landing - as part of a totally different sequence of events.
I think most people are starting to think that one of the two pilots did it deliberately, but it could be either of them.
Things get changed over the years and there is no guarantee that another faulty installation doesn't happen.
I don't say that that's what happened, but it can't just be ignored as a possibility.
Although damaged the switches survived the crash and as they are now being identified as the reason for the crash I suspect that they would have been the most scrutinised item in the wreckage. Don't you think that the report would have mentioned if the locking mechanism had been incorrectly fitted and/or it was suspected that it may have failed?
For such an important function, is there no built in audio generation over the cockpit audio "Do you really want to engage this function?" or even just a distinctive bleep until confirmed/cancelled via a secondary route.
Also perhaps psychology, and a brain fart from tiredness or whatever. Misinterpretting on means off, the important consideration is fuel delivery, ie ON state, but those switches would normally indicate OFF state. Brain fart could say ON means ON and OFF maeans OFF.
In a high workload situation warnings can easily be ignored and too many warnings/beeps/confirmations can have the opposite effects what was intended.
"Do you really want to engage this function?" is possibly the absolute worst wording of a warning especially with multiple pilots in the cockpit.
Possibly why they don't label them OFF and ON.
Possibly we will never know if it was brain fart but there is still at least a further year of investigation to try and determine why the switches were put into the cut-off position.
"It looks like you're trying to fly an aircraft.
Would you like help?
The Natural Philosopher snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid wrote
Which isnt surprising given the almost max weight and 43C temp
The Natural Philosopher snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid wrote
Which isnt surprising given that someone had turned the engines off and there were no hydraulics to do that once that had happened
That isnt what happened
600' acually
Someone turned the engines off
Nope, flaps off at 600' wouldnt be a problem
Someone turned the engines off
alan_m snipped-for-privacy@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote
Turns out one of the pilots turned the engines off
Nor with the engines off. That's why the RAT deployed
In fact they weren't producing any power because one of the pilots had turned them off using the shutdown switches
That's why the RAT deployed
Not surprising given close to max takeoff weight, 43C and the altitude
Turns out one of the pilots turne the engines off using the fuel switches
In fact it was only a bit below max weight
suggests the engines were not producing the
In fact one of the pilots turned both engines off
In fact 43C
But it managed 600' fine until one of them turned both engines off
Because it isnt possible to turn both off simultaneously using the fuel switches
Bullshit. Its designed to fly fine with one engihe in that situation
In fact one of the pilots turned BOTH engines off
That wasnt the problem
That wasnt the problem
We know that one of the pilots turned BOTH engines off
Because it isnt possible to turn both off simultaneously using the fuel switches
That wasnt the problem. One of the pilots turned both engines off
Yep, 43C and close to max takeoff weight and not at sea level
Nope, only the captain did and he wasnt flying, he was monitoring
Nope, and it was actually 43C
Correct
Nope, that isnt possible
And we know that one of the pilots turned the engines off but for some reason the AAIB isnt telling us which one asked the other why he had done that even tho it must be possible to identify the individual who asked that question, but it is certainly possible that it was the one who did that
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required