←back to thread

358 points cjr | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.403s | source
Show context
decimalenough ◴[] No.44536914[source]
> The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.

So the fuel supply was cut off intentionally. The switches in question are also built so they cannot be triggered accidentally, they need to be unlocked first by pulling them out.

> In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

And both pilots deny doing it.

It's difficult to conclude anything other than murder-suicide.

replies(25): >>44536947 #>>44536950 #>>44536951 #>>44536962 #>>44536979 #>>44537027 #>>44537520 #>>44537554 #>>44538264 #>>44538281 #>>44538337 #>>44538692 #>>44538779 #>>44538814 #>>44538840 #>>44539178 #>>44539475 #>>44539507 #>>44539508 #>>44539530 #>>44539532 #>>44539749 #>>44539950 #>>44540178 #>>44541039 #
lazystar ◴[] No.44536962[source]
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/NM-18-33

well hold your horses there... from the FAA in their 2019 report linked above:

> The Boeing Company (Boeing) received reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The fuel control switches (or engine start switches) are installed on the control stand in the flight deck and used by the pilot to supply or cutoff fuel to the engines. The fuel control switch has a locking feature to prevent inadvertent operation that could result in unintended switch movement between the fuel supply and fuel cutoff positions. In order to move the switch from one position to the other under the condition where the locking feature is engaged, it is necessary for the pilot to lift the switch up while transitioning the switch position. If the locking feature is disengaged, the switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting the switch during transition, and the switch would be exposed to the potential of inadvertent operation. Inadvertent operation of the switch could result in an unintended consequence, such as an in-flight engine shutdown. Boeing informed the FAA that the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models. The table below identifies the affected airplane models and related part numbers (P/Ns) of the fuel control switch, which is manufactured by Honeywell.

> If the locking feature is disengaged, the switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting the switch during transition, and the switch would be exposed to the potential of inadvertent operation. Inadvertent operation of the switch could result in an unintended consequence, such as an in-flight engine shutdown

replies(11): >>44536982 #>>44537000 #>>44537463 #>>44537519 #>>44537557 #>>44537793 #>>44538056 #>>44538109 #>>44538902 #>>44539136 #>>44541478 #
sillysaurusx ◴[] No.44537557[source]
https://www.youtube.com/live/SE0BetkXsLg?si=LPss_su3PVTAqGCO

Both of these extremely-experienced pilots say that there was near zero chance that the fuel switches were unintentionally moved. They were switched off within one second of each other, which rules out most failure scenarios.

If it was an issue with the switches, we also would have seen an air worthiness directive being issued. But they didn’t, because this was a mass murder.

replies(8): >>44537913 #>>44538126 #>>44539382 #>>44539905 #>>44539974 #>>44541395 #>>44541488 #>>44541549 #
chrisandchris ◴[] No.44539382[source]
> If it was an issue with the switches, we also would have seen an air worthiness directive being issued.

I do not trust these air worthiness directives 100.0%. The 737 Max also required two catastrophic failures before it was grounded.

replies(1): >>44539897 #
decimalenough ◴[] No.44539897[source]
The issue with the 737 MAX became evident within months of the plane's launch. By contrast, the Dreamliner has accumulated over a decade of flying history across over 1000 aircraft with precisely zero fatal accidents.
replies(2): >>44540738 #>>44541741 #
sgt101 ◴[] No.44540738[source]
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

The fact that the pilots denied that they had shut the switch (one asking the other why they had done so and the other denying it), and that they restarted the engines should be taken into account. Ok, murder suicide is definitely on the table but I would want to see some other reasons for believing that this is so.

replies(1): >>44541067 #
jon_smark ◴[] No.44541067[source]
Sorry to nitpick, but for a good Bayesian, absence if evidence is evidence of absence. If you want the aphorism to be technically correct, you should say "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

A note on the terminology: "evidence" is a piece of data that suggests a conclusion, while not being conclusive by itself. Whereas "proof" is a piece of data that is conclusive by itself.

replies(2): >>44543282 #>>44544578 #
1. sgt101 ◴[] No.44543282[source]
For a long time my wife refused to accept that Tree Kangaroos existed and insisted that I'd made them up. When the internet came along she looked them up and treated me strangely for a while.

What things that you have never seen do you not believe in?

replies(1): >>44544617 #
2. YeGoblynQueenne ◴[] No.44544617[source]
(not the OP) Giant isopods. They're not real. I know there are pictures of what are supposed to be giant isopods but they are not real animals, instead they're clearly fake models of made-up animals.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod#/media/File:Bathy...

Clearly some kind of plastic model. I mean its eyes are gleaming menacingly. Or look at this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod#/media/File:Giant...

Seriously, wikipedia? Seriously? That's clearly a hoax.

Giant isopods are. not. real.