Re: OT: air india crash

Funnily enough, I immediately went on to answer that question. :)

The captain wasn't married but he was very close to his father. The junior pilot was about to get married in two months time. Neither had any obvious reason to kill himself as well as hundreds of other people.

It's clearly possible to do it whilst meaning to do something else. It's not a common occurrence, fortunately, or aircraft would be falling out of the sky all the time.

It's also possible the locking mechanism wasn't working, and the levers got nudged accidentally. You may have seen that India’s aviation authority, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), has directed airlines operating Boeing 787 and 737 aircraft to inspect the locking mechanisms of fuel control switches by July 21, 2025.

I'm just saying that there are several possibilities, and it's wrong to talk evil of these people at this stage.

So, would you say that all these are equally valid speculations:

1. God sent an angel to switch off the switches
2. Zaphod Beeblebrox did it, then vanished using infinite improbability.
3. I did it.

1. You did it. J'accuse!

Speculation is pointless without all the facts.

Sigh. Yes. The full report will have all the facts about the two pilots. But we have all the facts about the aircraft. We know exactly why it crashed and what part one of the pilots played in causing it.

It's nugget, the spirit airlines pet squirrel. He has previous. I just don't understand why so many people are unable to accept the logical and most likely explanation that fits all the known facts perfectly. The captain did it deliberately and precisely at the time when it was most likely to cause an emergency the co pilot would not have the time to react to, and so cause an almost certain and fatal crash.

Total bollox. It's called science.

We never have all the facts. And at best the final report will simply say that, for reasons unknown, but possibly related to [details of his private life] the captain deliberately crashed the aircraft..

There are huge swathes of people, who for one reason or another want the cause to be other than what it clearly was.

And who have adopted their positions for reasons other than rational or on close inspection of the evidence.

AS Sir Roger Scruton once said, you cannot reason a man out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.

So I wont argue further. Some people believe the earth is flat, the holocaust never happened, the moon landings were faked, and in climate change, homeopathy, and baby Jesus.

And the intelligence and logic are no substitute for popular opinion

Nonsense, of course we don't, are you Rod Speed in disguise?

Because we don't know all the facts yet, I just don't understand why you don't understand that.

Irrelevant to your stupid claim that all possibilitys are equally plausible

No. That would be you.

What *relevant* facts about the aircraft do you think we don't have?

Because we have all the relevant facts now about the aircraft, I just don't understand why you don't understand that.

Of course we don't!

What do we know about the condition of the interlocks on the fuel switches on this particular aircraft?

We don't know everything that was said in the cockpit, or by whom.

Fault detailed in SAIB NM‑18‑33

It says that operators were asked to check. And that was 5 years ago, I imagine that has been done.

"The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity:

2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking feature."

Does anyone know what the FAA's "recommend" means exactly?

Andy

I can easily read a book upside-down. Do you find it difficult?

A much nicer story:

My two year old granddaughter has been taught a joke by her father.

You say: What do you do if you see a spaceman?

She replies: Park in it, man.

And then she starts laughing like a drain, and everyone smiles at her.

Jet engines don't respond as quickly as one second. That must be an illusion from the camera angle.

Andy

We know that Air India decided not to carry out that inspection. It wasn't mandatory, so that was ok.

The Indian air authority has now required all Indian airlines to do the check by 21 July. So, they are taking it seriously.

The fact that they passed all relevant maintenance tests and there were no recorded issues. And wer found in good working order

And they weren't interlocks, they were locks

WE dont know whether the stewardesses were having it off in the loos either. Or whether arsenal will win the cup.

We DO know everything that was said in the cockpit. It's on the CVR. The salient information - that one pilots asked thr other 'why did you do that?' and the other replied 'I didn't. Strongly implying that the only actual witness was convinced it had been done deliberately.

You are just hand waving the known facts away because you are in denial.

Nothing more will come out of the final report.

The purpose of the interim report is to summarise all the *salient* information from the perspectives of :

"is there anything to suggest that any remedial action needs to be taken to the aircraft, or to operating procedures, that is so urgent it must be addressed now?"

The very fact that no such recommendations have surfaced is a guarantee that nothing whatsoever was found to suggest a mechanical or software issue of *any* kind.

The investigators are duty bound to report any possible instances of any defect in the aircraft, its maintenance record, or the airline, that may affect passenger safety They have not reported any such issues. Ergo the aircraft was in adequate state of maintenance and was perfectly airworthy.

What they found, that was *relevant*, is that the fuel switches were

And someone asked 'why did you do that?"

What more do you want?

A written confession?

It means we won't close you down if you dont.

The switches are not in a place where they are likely to get knocked, and even if they were, 99.999% of the time it would be 'whoops - we lost one engine - oh pop it back in the run position restart the engine AND REPORT A FAULT TO MAINTENANCE'.

For BOTH switches to move at the only point in the flight where it represents a fatal problem is totally beyond the wildest conspiracy theorists we have here.

The simple explanation is 'a pilot did it' and that's the end of it

And all this will have been checked subsequent to the crash. It hasn't been mentioned in the report - ergo there was nothing wrong.

And whilst inadvertent movement of *one* switch at some *random* time is a remote possibility, *dual* inadvertent movement at the *one and only time* in a flight where it is virtually *guaranteed* to crash the aircraft and kill all on board, is not.