July 9Jul 9 Yeah, Boeing isn't going to admit they built a shitty airframe. Obviously it's completely Pilot error.
July 9Jul 9 53 minutes ago, RPM said: Yeah, Boeing isn't going to admit they built a shitty airframe. Obviously it's completely Pilot error. It should be pretty easy to tell, if the console didn't melt in the fire. If the switches were both found in the cutoff position there's really no other explanation. If you have one I'd love to hear it.
July 9Jul 9 22 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said: If you have one I'd love to hear it. Last week it was a different rumor. I'll wait until the accident investigation is completed.
July 9Jul 9 1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said: It should be pretty easy to tell, if the console didn't melt in the fire. If the switches were both found in the cutoff position there's really no other explanation. If you have one I'd love to hear it. Boeing probably already knows, switch positions are logged in the EAFR data.
July 9Jul 9 11 hours ago, RPM said: Last week it was a different rumor. I'll wait until the accident investigation is completed. Jon Ostrower, the journalist who provided this information, is very highly regarded, who generally provides accurate information. This theory is much more credible than the prior AI nonsense and speculation.
July 9Jul 9 Hypothetically, if I [not a pilot] was flying a light plane and lost all or most engine power, and I believed that a crash was imminent, I might hit the fuel cutoff just before impact in the faint hope that it might reduce the extent of fire or explosion. But with a 787 full of many tons of jet fuel, I can't imagine it would make any difference.
July 9Jul 9 26 minutes ago, lemonlime said: Jon Ostrower, the journalist who provided this information, is very highly regarded,
July 9Jul 9 14 hours ago, RPM said: Yeah, Boeing isn't going to admit they built a shitty airframe. Obviously it's completely Pilot error. the 787 is not a shitty airframe. That's just fucking stupid.
July 9Jul 9 One of the speculation videos raised a theory that there was an engine failure on one engine that led to a checklist item to shut off the fuel to it, but they cut off the good engine. This too should be easy to tell from the flight data. You will see one engine crap out, followed by the wrong engine being cut off, followed by that engine shutting down. In that case you'd expect to find only one switch in the off position in the wreckage.
July 10Jul 10 1 hour ago, Gil Bang said: the 787 is not a shitty airframe. That's just fucking stupid. It really has had more than it's fair share of gremlins https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/boeing-investigates-quality-problem-undelivered-787s-sources-say-rcna157034 This is just one of the more recent quality control issues with the airframe production
July 10Jul 10 16 hours ago, ClubWhatever said: One of the speculation videos raised a theory that there was an engine failure on one engine that led to a checklist item to shut off the fuel to it, but they cut off the good engine. This too should be easy to tell from the flight data. You will see one engine crap out, followed by the wrong engine being cut off, followed by that engine shutting down. In that case you'd expect to find only one switch in the off position in the wreckage. There was no asymmetric thrust situation. You can watch the video and see the thing never yaws hard to one direction or has the rudder deflect hard to compensate for one engine at takeoff power. The plane will fly and climb just fine on one motor, and will have special procedures in place in the cases where the climb rate is insufficient to clear terrain. Literally no one trains to do anything procedurally related to a simple engine failure below the acceleration altitude in aviation,. A simple engine failure is a very deliberate and considered exercise and there is no rush to get the thing back on the ground. It’s usually overweight for landing anyway. A situation with something like an engine fire is different, but that didn’t happen here. Add to that the fact that the RAT was out and spinning early on suggests that both engines “failed” simultaneously. Those things take a while to deploy and spin up.
July 10Jul 10 The survivor said he heard the engine(s) rev up before impact. Could that have been the APU, or would there have been enough time to switch the fuel back on, relight the engines, and start generating RPMs? The whole flight lasted 32 seconds.
July 10Jul 10 9 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said: The survivor said he heard the engine(s) rev up before impact. Could that have been the APU, or would there have been enough time to switch the fuel back on, relight the engines, and start generating RPMs? The whole flight lasted 32 seconds. The motors will relight pretty quickly if they’re already spinning and fuel is added. It takes a while for the APU on most planes to get up to speed. 60 seconds on an Airbus for example.
July 11Jul 11 From the comments Quote ww.youtube.com/live/HuyKnjN... As per this former pilot, the shut off was an effort to reboot when both engines fail, and is as per the Boeing Manual Yeah, not a former pilot, but I can't believe there's any procedures manual that would have you cut off both fuel switches when you are 100 feet off the ground. Think, McFly
July 11Jul 11 5 hours ago, ClubWhatever said: From the comments Yeah, not a former pilot, but I can't believe there's any procedures manual that would have you cut off both fuel switches when you are 100 feet off the ground. Think, McFlyCrash
July 11Jul 11 The million dollar question is did the non-murderer see the murderer do it, ask why, and the murderer denied it, OR did the murderer do it and immediately ask the innocent pilot why he did it and the innocent pilot answered honestly. I suspect we will never know, unless they find some sort of manifesto or suicide letter from one of them.
July 11Jul 11 Hmm... I got a flight out of Delhi to Coimbatore on Air India on the 19th... Should I just kiss my ass goodbye now, or is this something that should be an isolated incident? Not liking that this was in the report... Quote The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) by the FAA. The fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB. As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. Edited July 11Jul 11 by Laxtonto
July 11Jul 11 So I'm sure they yare looking into the pilots backgrounds already. Recent traumas, evidence of radical beliefs, etc.
July 11Jul 11 17 minutes ago, Laxtonto said: Not liking that this was in the report... Since they are used every day, non locking would surely be written up in the thousands of flights since the airplane was delivered. Besides, it would still have required bumping them once then again a second later. Not really a reasonable scenario. Especially since the other guy said why did you do that? The switches were put back to run just seconds from when they were cut off. Meaning the other guy saw the first guy do it. What an utter bastard. Edited July 11Jul 11 by ClubWhatever
July 12Jul 12 Another possibility mentioned by the report is that the fuel switches were cut/bumped inadvertently because the locking mechanisms failed (there were issues with this on the 737s apparently).
July 12Jul 12 If you were gonna do pilot suicide seems like an unlikely way to do it. Feels more like a mistake or what that video says.
July 12Jul 12 Popular Post 8 minutes ago, bschoolprof said: Another possibility mentioned by the report is that the fuel switches were cut/bumped inadvertently because the locking mechanisms failed (there were issues with this on the 737s apparently). I’ve jumpseated on 787’s. There’s no reason to have a hand anywhere near those things, and the basic design is the same as those used on numerous airframes Boeing and Airbus. The switch has to physically be pulled up and then over a detent before being retracted with a spring like mechanism into its new position. It’s pretty fool proof, and would be interesting for this to suddenly raise its head after the airframe has been flying countless hours over 14 years. Also, two defective switches going into the same plane and failing at the same time is kinda stretching things possibility wise.
July 12Jul 12 43 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said: I’ve jumpseated on 787’s. There’s no reason to have a hand anywhere near those things, and the basic design is the same as those used on numerous airframes Boeing and Airbus. The switch has to physically be pulled up and then over a detent before being retracted with a spring like mechanism into its new position. It’s pretty fool proof, and would be interesting for this to suddenly raise its head after the airframe has been flying countless hours over 14 years. Also, two defective switches going into the same plane and failing at the same time is kinda stretching things possibility wise. agree. Intentional act seems more likely.
July 12Jul 12 Yeah, Boeing isn't going to admit they built a shitty airframe. Obviously it's completely Pilot error.Lulz
July 12Jul 12 On 7/9/2025 at 5:17 AM, RPM said: Last week it was a different rumor. I'll wait until the accident investigation is completed. and now it is.
July 12Jul 12 13 hours ago, bschoolprof said: agree. Intentional act seems more likely. Like the German pilot a few years ago in Europe.
July 14Jul 14 On 7/12/2025 at 10:20 AM, Armybrat said: Like the German pilot a few years ago in Europe. And the Malaysia air guy
July 15Jul 15 Mayeb we can offer more therapy. Or take guys in therapy off the line. Or offer depressed pilots some easy/free assisted suicide so they can stop taking 250 folks with them. Just spitballing here. Not sure what the regulatory fix is.
July 15Jul 15 2 minutes ago, CycleTex87 said: And one dude just walked out of the whole mess with just some cuts and bruises. I mean straight up walked away.
July 16Jul 16 On 7/14/2025 at 10:05 PM, Rip76 said: I mean straight up walked away. Some people swear there is no such thing as luck, but then only a few win lotteries and some win a life.
July 30Jul 30 7 minutes ago, HenryJames said: Did any of those safety lapses include not making sure their pilots know that keeping fuel running to their engines is a good thing?
July 30Jul 30 28 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said: Great, but the crash in question was a 787 plane. make that 52 safety lapses, then.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.