- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Looks like there may be more problems for Boeing regarding that Air India crash
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:27 am to HeadCall
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:27 am to HeadCall
quote:
Unless they were shutting one down because it failed and accidentally killed fuel to the remaining good engine.
I haven’t flown the 787 but on every other airplane I’ve flown this step isn’t performed until a safe altitude is achieved (1000’ AGL, for example). Also, the switch movement is confirmed by both pilots.
The A350 had a design issue where liquid intrusion on the center pedestal could cause the engines to fail (oops!) that has since been addressed but this isn’t the case here.
It’s interesting that Boeing nor any overseeing agency hasn’t issued a maintenance or operating directive for the 787 in the weeks following the crash.
2
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:49 am to LarryCLE
quote:
Airbus planes are just as susceptible to potentially suicidal pilots. See Germanwings.
Possible sabotaged. Could've been a Pakistani undercover patsy.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:50 am to HeyCap
The fuel was turned back on but there’s no mention of it in the voice recordings, that seems odd?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:51 am to castorinho
quote:
Also was wondering why that would even be possible (cut off fuel on both engines) while airborne.
You would cut the fuel off if there was a fire in the engine.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:52 am to diat150
quote:
Bloody goat
Mudder bish
Posted on 7/12/25 at 9:56 am to HeyCap
I thought they referred everyone back to TSB 1.3.001:
Don't let suicidal numbnuts fly the airplane
Don't let suicidal numbnuts fly the airplane
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:42 am to baldona
quote:
The fuel was turned back on but there’s no mention of it in the voice recordings, that seems odd?
They knew someone fricked up and didn’t want it on the recording
Plus they were probably really busy scrambling to save it
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 10:43 am
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:50 am to baldona
quote:
The fuel was turned back on
I've seen this too, but so there's no misunderstanding toggling the fuel cutoff switch, which is spring loaded and must be pulled out and lifted over a detent, back to on (actually RUN) does more than turn the fuel on. The switch activates the FADEC (full authority digital engine control) which is the brains of the engine and controls fuel flow and ignition among other things. The FADEC also protects the engine, if running, from overspeeding, over-temping, etc but I am unaware of a situation where it wouldn't try to re-start an engine. Maybe if the engine was severely damaged but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Something that may be considered is the speed needed to restart an engine if the APU was shut down, which is typically done after engine start on the ground. The minimum windmilling speed of the A350 is typically over 250kts, altitude dependent. If not mistaken Air India didn't get above 180kts.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 10:55 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
It's 2025. Why don't we have video cameras in the cockpit recording every action to the black box so we can definitively see if the pilot cut the fuel or not?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 11:19 am to Reubaltaich
I envision the exchange went something like this…
Posted on 7/12/25 at 1:02 pm to forkedintheroad
quote:
It's 2025. Why don't we have video cameras in the cockpit recording every action to the black box so we can definitively see if the pilot cut the fuel or not?
Good question but I bet it has something to do with labor agreements. I know a lot of guys in company vehicles and a few in locomotives, they all have driver-facing cams and hate them. I probably would, too.
I know some UAW guys that kept tearing off cameras because they thought they were being watched.
Maybe this is the event that changes this all.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 1:16 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Boeing fault that Indians can’t figure out how to fly a plane?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 1:35 pm to HeyCap
To those that saying that there’s no automated fuel shut off mechanism, what happens if there is a flame out? Do the igniters automatically kick on? Seems like that would be extremely dangerous if the plane kept pumping fuel into the hot section after the reaction had been broken?
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 7/12/25 at 2:05 pm to HeyCap
quote:
Something that may be considered is the speed needed to restart an engine if the APU was shut down, which is typically done after engine start on the ground. The minimum windmilling speed of the A350 is typically over 250kts, altitude dependent. If not mistaken Air India didn't get above 180kts.
The report says one engine did restart and the other was attempting to, but didn’t have enough time.
Sure the pilots were busy, but i still can’t see how there was no communication at all the fuel was turned back on. The only logical reason, would be that the person that turned them off turned it back on without saying anything either way.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 2:20 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
If you think this has anything to do with Boeing and not India you are delusional.
That aircraft was over 12 years old with no reported issues.
That aircraft was over 12 years old with no reported issues.
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 7/12/25 at 2:40 pm to WestlakeTiger
quote:
Sure the pilots were busy, but i still can’t see how there was no communication at all the fuel was turned back on. The only logical reason, would be that the person that turned them off turned it back on without saying anything either way.
There was no communication before it was turned off either so why is it strange? The plane was in an abnormal and more importantly catastrophic condition. If your oxygen to breathe is turned off your only goal is to get it turned back on regardless of formalities. Either pilot could have switched them back on. But I’d say it’s more logical the pilot that didn’t turn them off turned them back on.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 3:55 pm to baldona
quote:
The chances of it happening at take off when pilots are very active compared to the other 95% of the time? Seems glaringly like pilot error whether they meant to or not
I'd say .000001% chance of error.
It could have been intentional.
Posted on 7/14/25 at 7:29 pm to Charter Embers
quote:
To those that saying that there’s no automated fuel shut off mechanism, what happens if there is a flame out? Do the igniters automatically kick on?
There's no automated fuel shutoff. If the pilots don't shut the engine down and the engines are on fire they will bring you expeditiously to the crash site. If I understand your question, if there's a flameout the FADEC figures out why and tries to relight the engine if possible. So yes, both igniters will be utilized. The FADEC has to be energized (fuel switch to run) to do so but I haven't read a case where the FADEC has failed.
Posted on 7/14/25 at 7:49 pm to moneyg
quote:
It could have been intentional.
I agree. This crash reminds me of the German co-pilot who locked the pilot out of the cabin and flew the passenger jet into a mountain, killing all 150 people in board.
I also think one of the pilots of the Malaysian jet that still hasn’t been found deliberately killed himself and everyone else on board.
It’s a form of Pseudocommando Mass Murder.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News