edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
I don’t think it did. From cultural perspective, it make sense. Russians always had cavalier relationship with rules and regulations.
Air India Flight AI171 (Boeing 787-8) Crash
- Thread starter john_pifer
- Start date
As someone once wrote "Drink is the curse of the Rus".
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
What I meant, from cultural perspective, letting kid in makes sense. It was always common practice there. That type of relationship with regulations was always cavalier one.
dr
I worked briefly with their military in 90’s and when they want to be professional, they are really good. I think drinking in Aeroflot, on such route would be even for them too much. Letting kid in? Totally can see it.
Letting a teenage kid take control of a civil airliner seems a long way from professional conduct, although this was obviously a civilian crew, but probably ex military.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Definitely ex military in 90’s.
But it is that cavalier relationship with rules. It is just part of the culture. They can fit in organizations that are highly professional. But when they are left to their own devices, well…
How’re you guys getting to the conclusion of a malicious/hostile actor from “position of the fuel control switches”? Shutting down the wrong engine during an engine failure in a multi engine aircraft is all too common, and the fuel control switches are generally how the crew would do that, usually when directed by checklist, but in some cases from memory. There are confirmation procedures designed to prevent the remaining, functioning engine from being shutdown by mistake but under the physiological effects of startle and surprise the human crew can be unpredictable. If someone moved those switches it was in all likelihood the crew doing so. Time will tell.
There is also the possibility that the crew was moving the fuel control switches as part of a multiple engine fail/stall memory item. In my present Boeing aircraft type it’s one of the very few scenarios we have memory items for (along with unreliable airspeed and rapid depressurization). The multi engine fail stall memory item calls for the affected engine fuel control switches to be moved to cutoff, then back to run, in an attempt to reset/restart the engines.
There is also the possibility that the crew was moving the fuel control switches as part of a multiple engine fail/stall memory item. In my present Boeing aircraft type it’s one of the very few scenarios we have memory items for (along with unreliable airspeed and rapid depressurization). The multi engine fail stall memory item calls for the affected engine fuel control switches to be moved to cutoff, then back to run, in an attempt to reset/restart the engines.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
I am not sure that anyone came to a conclusion.
This might be a completely bogus scenario.
At that stage of flight, the crew would neither attempt to identify nor secure a failed engine.
That would wait until they had some altitude to play with.
This is not a twin with propellers where identifying and feathering the dead side would be the difference between an anemic climb and a quick descent.
That would wait until they had some altitude to play with.
This is not a twin with propellers where identifying and feathering the dead side would be the difference between an anemic climb and a quick descent.
Yes you wouldn't do anything at that point other than try to get enough altitude to make the turn around back to the airport.
If it was double engine failure I still can't believe that none of the numerous witnesses to the crash said anything about engines not running. Maybe living right next to an airport you get jaded to engine noise.
If it was double engine failure I still can't believe that none of the numerous witnesses to the crash said anything about engines not running. Maybe living right next to an airport you get jaded to engine noise.
MolaKule
Staff member
The Air Current is presently reporting that, "Data from the Dreamliner black box points investigators toward improper, inadvertent, or intentional pilot actions" wrt engine control switches. They have a picture of the engine's fuel control group.
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ai171-investigation-fuel-control-switches/
https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ai171-investigation-fuel-control-switches/
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
For this recent story about the fuel switches to be credible it would imply a leak from some person closely involved with the investigation. Is that likely ?
Probably more likely than there being no leaks.
Because that’s not how jet engines work.
First - you fly the airplane, then, you make certain that you’re on the correct ground track to keep you clear of obstacles, then, and only then, you start working the engine problem.
The independent confirmation of which engine is being shut down is critical. The wrong engine has been shut down before, and it will probably happen again, as a result of flight crew error.
These guys did it.
These guys may have done it.
But, once the correct engine is verified/confirmed, you have to stop pumping fuel into a bad engine. It’s not like your car, you don’t just let off the gas with an engine problem.
This is an uncontained failure - it’s a good idea to shut off the fuel to the engine before (or after) this happens.
Letting a damaged turbine engine run means you’re about to start a fire, or have an uncontained failure, so, no, you don’t just go to idle on a bad engine, you go to idle, see if the problem abates, and then shut it down, first with the fuel control, and then, you pull the fire handle to secure/shut off bleed air, fuel shut off valves, electrics, hydraulics, and arm the fire bottles.
Letting a bad engine run will only increase the damage that it does, to itself, and to other, important, parts of the airplane.
Last edited:
The preliminary report is out and crazy as it seems the fuel was cut off to both engines by one of the pilots, they are not saying which. The action was questioned by the other pilot and one engine restarted but too late to recover the plane.
I don't see how either pilot could inadvertently flip both of those switches. Malicious intent seems likely IMO.
Last edited:
With a more thorough reading of the preliminary report, while the switches were moved to cutoff, they were then moved back to run after about ten seconds, too late for a restoration of power although it appears that there was a relight on at least one side.
One pilot asks the other why he placed the switches in cutoff and he replies that he hadn't, which would seem to imply that there was no intent but only a catastrophic error.
Similar threads
