←back to thread

Preliminary report into Air India crash released

(www.bbc.co.uk)
336 points cjr | 2 comments | 11 Jul 25 20:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.415s | source
Show context
melenaboija ◴[12 Jul 25 06:16 UTC] No.44539771[source]▶
I'm completely ignorant about this matter, but why is it even possible to cut off fuel while taking off? Shouldn't there be a control that completely disables this? Is there actually a situation where cutting off both engines could be necessary and wouldn't lead to a catastrophe?
replies(4): >>44539810 #>>44540081 #>>44540275 #>>44541065 #
xlbuttplug2 ◴[12 Jul 25 07:33 UTC] No.44540081[source]▶
I'm assuming fuel being cut off is salvageable if not in the middle of a densely populated city, especially if above a plain or water. So it could be the favorable option in case of an engine fire.

Also, such complexity would introduce additional points of failure - as a sister comment mentions, a faulty altimeter (or whatever sensor) could prevent you from cutting off fuel when you need to.

replies(1): >>44541037 #
1. nosianu ◴[12 Jul 25 10:46 UTC] No.44541037[source]▶
> if not in the middle of a densely populated city, especially if above a plain or water

What is on the ground below does not matter at that point - how far above that ground you are is what is important. More altitude is more time.

This flight was less than 200 meters up in the air. Sully's flight that you probably remember, that made a successful emergency landing on the river, was about 860 meters high, giving them much more time - about 3.5 minutes of glide time, vs. 32 seconds in the air, total, for the Air India flight.

replies(1): >>44543346 #
2. xlbuttplug2 ◴[12 Jul 25 17:01 UTC] No.44543346[source]▶
Okay, maybe there is little hope of making an ideal landing. But the likelihood of it being a fatal accident is significantly reduced without the building in the equation, no?