🚀 go-pugleaf

On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>
> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>
> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>

...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead of
the gear'

Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no ground
effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached

more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up at
the end'
Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
dust, India is dusty.

The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
instead of the gear

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On Mon, 6/16/2025 8:02 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
>> On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>>>>
>>>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>>>>
>>>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead of the gear'
>>>
>>> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
>>>
>>> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up at the end'
>>> Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is dust, India is dusty.
>>>
>>> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up instead of the gear
>>>
>>
>> The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual engine failure as the best guess.
>>
>> The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV and most of Youtube)
>>
>> The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
>>
>> The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the gear and gravity keeps it down.
>>
>
> It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne. It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?

The air temperature at the airport was 37C.

The pilot did the right thing, by realizing he had a full fuel load,
a full passenger complement and a derating to deal with at 37C. That's
why he jogged the plane down to load at the very beginning of the
runway.

One available video, shot from a smartphone, shows "exhaust colour"
on the left engine, less or no exhaust color on the right engine,
and a yaw as if the left engine was pushing the left wing forward.

It could be that one engine was out, and the remaining engine was
constrained by the situation. While the airplane is supposed
to be able to lift out on one engine, there are an awful lot
of things weighing against it in this case.

Boeing has some recommendations for operation, that are counter-intuitive
to a pilot taking control and rescuing an aircraft. There are also
some maths to do, when determining what throttle setting to use.
Which presumably is a reason to not be screwing with the throttles
while in the early part of flight.

The pilot having to perform mental gymnastics, while the ground
is coming up towards them, that's not a good design particularly.
That's why you want to practice that particular situation,
over and over in the behavioral simulator, until it is second
nature.

Only time will tell, which control surfaces were operational in
the last seconds of flight.

The exhaust colour was not the emission of an explosion. It was
the spreading pattern of an engine at a high setting. The right engine,
I couldn't see the same exhaust colour as the left engine. The angle of
the video might have affected what we can see.

Given that the pilot purposely used the entire length of the
runway, logically the engines are going to be set to as high
a setting as is allowed by the derating. The throttle setting
is not arbitrary, like pushing both knobs against the
stops at the top. It's a machine with a performance curve and
for some reason, the pilot is exposed to the math. So rather than
being a virtual throttle ("slam to firewall"), it's a physical throttle
("adjust for known engineering limits").

   Paul

On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>>
>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>>
>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>>
>
> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead of
> the gear'
>
> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no ground
> effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
>
> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up at
> the end'
> Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
> dust, India is dusty.
>
> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
> something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
> instead of the gear
>

The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual
engine failure as the best guess.

The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
and most of Youtube)

The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.

The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
gear and gravity keeps it down.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
>> On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>>>>
>>>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>>>>
>>>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>>> of the gear'
>>>
>>> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
>>> ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
>>>
>>> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
>>> at the end'
>>> Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
>>> dust, India is dusty.
>>>
>>> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
>>> something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
>>> instead of the gear
>>>
>>
>> The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual
>> engine failure as the best guess.
>>
>> The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
>> the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
>> and most of Youtube)
>>
>> The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
>> to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
>>
>> The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
>> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
>> door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
>> gear and gravity keeps it down.
>>
>
> It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
> if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
> It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
> load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?

Pilot comments, which I haven’t seen contradicted, about the fuel load
state that a full load is circa 220,000lbs, but that for the flight to
Gatwick, including plenty for diversions, would have been around 120,000lbs
or nearly 50 tons short of full tanks.

If that’s true, then the long take-off run, with an aircraft that wasn’t
near its maximum weight, suggests the engines were not producing the
required thrust, possibly gradually failing in some way even during that
take-off run and conking out early in the climb-out leading to the ram-air
turbine being deployed.

--
Spike

On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
> On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>>>
>>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>>>
>>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>>>
>>
>> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>> of the gear'
>>
>> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
>> ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
>>
>> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
>> at the end'
>> Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
>> dust, India is dusty.
>>
>> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
>> something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
>> instead of the gear
>>
>
> The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual
> engine failure as the best guess.
>
> The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
> the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
> and most of Youtube)
>
> The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
> to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
>
> The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
> door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
> gear and gravity keeps it down.
>

It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?
--
Cheers,
Roger

On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
> On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>>>
>>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>>>
>>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>>>
>>
>> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>> of the gear'
>>
>> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
>> ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
>>
>> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
>> at the end'
>> Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
>> dust, India is dusty.
>>
>> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
>> something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
>> instead of the gear
>>
>
> The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual
> engine failure as the best guess.
>
> The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
> the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
> and most of Youtube)
>
> The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
> to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
>
> The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
> door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
> gear and gravity keeps it down.
>
This is my understanding, too,

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

In article <mbafevFaqk2U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
<mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
> > On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
> >>>
> >>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
> >>>
> >>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
> >> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
> >> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
> >> of the gear'
> >>
> >> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
> >> ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
> >>
> >> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
> >> at the end' Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of
> >> course there is dust, India is dusty.
> >>
> >> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
> >> something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
> >> instead of the gear
> >>
> >
> > The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest
> > dual engine failure as the best guess.
> >
> > The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
> > the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
> > and most of Youtube)
> >
> > The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
> > to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
> >
> > The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted
> > from the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it
> > through the door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power
> > to lift the gear and gravity keeps it down.
> >

> It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
> if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
> It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
> load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with
> water? --
Apparently it was very hot so would need a longer runway to get airborne.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England -  sent from my RISC OS  4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/06/2025 13:51, Spike wrote:
>> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
>>>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>>>>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>>>>> of the gear'
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
>>>>> ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
>>>>>
>>>>> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
>>>>> at the end'
>>>>> Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
>>>>> dust, India is dusty.
>>>>>
>>>>> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
>>>>> something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
>>>>> instead of the gear
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual
>>>> engine failure as the best guess.
>>>>
>>>> The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
>>>> the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
>>>> and most of Youtube)
>>>>
>>>> The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
>>>> to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
>>>>
>>>> The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
>>>> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
>>>> door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
>>>> gear and gravity keeps it down.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
>>> if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
>>> It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
>>> load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?
>>
>> Pilot comments, which I haven’t seen contradicted, about the fuel load
>> state that a full load is circa 220,000lbs, but that for the flight to
>> Gatwick, including plenty for diversions, would have been around 120,000lbs
>> or nearly 50 tons short of full tanks.
>>
>> If that’s true, then the long take-off run, with an aircraft that wasn’t
>> near its maximum weight, suggests the engines were not producing the
>> required thrust, possibly gradually failing in some way even during that
>> take-off run and conking out early in the climb-out leading to the ram-air
>> turbine being deployed.

> The pilots had masses of experience. So, I think we can safely ignore
> the possibility that the engines weren't working properly at the start
> of take-off. Likewise, an overloaded plane, they'd have noticed and
> aborted take-off.

Some experienced pilots do a check on the time taken from opening the
throttles to e.g. 100kt, just as a confirmation that the aircraft is
configured and operating as expected. Any significant extension of that
time will result in either an aborted take off or the throttles being
jammed to the firewall.

And why do you speculate that the aircraft was overloaded? With a fuel load
sufficient to get to Gatwick and a reserve to get to a raft of alternates,
it was approximately 50 tons below max. Airlines hate hauling dead weight,
it costs for no benefit.

> Is 37C temperature way out of the ordinary for that area? The forecast
> suggests not.

> https://www.accuweather.com/en/in/ahmedabad/202438/daily-weather-forecast/202438

> Contaminated fuel? Possible, but what about all the other planes that
> took off safely the same day?  Surely, fuel samples are checked as part
> of pre-flight safety checks?

> Thank goodness the AAIB has access to invaluable resources like Usenet
> to fall back on!

I now can’t recall the finer details, but once upon a time there was an
aircraft crash in France. The black box was recovered and showed everything
was normal. Later, someone looked at the earlier data and found it referred
to flights in North Africa, where the crashed aircraft had never been.

Think about that.

--
Spike

On 16/06/2025 13:51, Spike wrote:
> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>>>>>
>>>>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
>>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>>>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>>>> of the gear'
>>>>
>>>> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
>>>> ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
>>>>
>>>> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
>>>> at the end'
>>>> Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
>>>> dust, India is dusty.
>>>>
>>>> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
>>>> something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
>>>> instead of the gear
>>>>
>>>
>>> The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual
>>> engine failure as the best guess.
>>>
>>> The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
>>> the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
>>> and most of Youtube)
>>>
>>> The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
>>> to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
>>>
>>> The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
>>> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
>>> door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
>>> gear and gravity keeps it down.
>>>
>>
>> It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
>> if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
>> It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
>> load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?
>
> Pilot comments, which I haven’t seen contradicted, about the fuel load
> state that a full load is circa 220,000lbs, but that for the flight to
> Gatwick, including plenty for diversions, would have been around 120,000lbs
> or nearly 50 tons short of full tanks.
>
> If that’s true, then the long take-off run, with an aircraft that wasn’t
> near its maximum weight, suggests the engines were not producing the
> required thrust, possibly gradually failing in some way even during that
> take-off run and conking out early in the climb-out leading to the ram-air
> turbine being deployed.


The pilots had masses of experience. So, I think we can safely ignore
the possibility that the engines weren't working properly at the start
of take-off. Likewise, an overloaded plane, they'd have noticed and
aborted take-off.

Is 37C temperature way out of the ordinary for that area? The forecast
suggests not.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/in/ahmedabad/202438/daily-weather-forecast/202438

Contaminated fuel? Possible, but what about all the other planes that
took off safely the same day?  Surely, fuel samples are checked as part
of pre-flight safety checks?

Thank goodness the AAIB has access to invaluable resources like Usenet
to fall back on!

On 16/06/2025 13:51, Spike wrote:
> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2025 12:13, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 12/06/2025 20:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 12/06/2025 18:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGgKSDJcb54
>>>>>
>>>>> Mentour Now! has up to  date information.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far. Full runway appears to have been used.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and aircraft did reach a gear up altitude,. but didn't gear up.
>>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>>>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>>>> of the gear'
>>>>
>>>> Lots of tosh about 'flying in ground effect' which is bollox, no
>>>> ground effect at 400 feet or whatever it reached
>>>>
>>>> more tosh about 'only used half the runway - you can see dust fly up
>>>> at the end'
>>>> Ever stood behind a jet aircraft on takeoff power? Of course there is
>>>> dust, India is dusty.
>>>>
>>>> The preliminary facts seem to be that it took off fine, bu then
>>>> something catastrophic happened.  Engine fail or yanked the flaps up
>>>> instead of the gear
>>>>
>>>
>>> The more informed speculation from pilots who fly the plane suggest dual
>>> engine failure as the best guess.
>>>
>>> The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was automatically deployed based on audio in
>>> the better quality original video (not the second hand copy shown on TV
>>> and most of Youtube)
>>>
>>> The flaps were deployed - and the aircraft should have had enough power
>>> to fly/climb if the flaps were in the wrong position.
>>>
>>> The landing gear had been tilted for retraction. The gear is tilted from
>>> the takeoff/landing position prior to retraction to get it through the
>>> door opening. The RAT cannot supply enough hydraulic power to lift the
>>> gear and gravity keeps it down.
>>>
>>
>> It sounds as if the engines weren't developing full power from the start
>> if, as reported, it took the full length of the runway to get airborne.
>> It had obviously just been re-fuelled because it was carrying a full
>> load of fuel. Could the new fuel have been contaminated - maybe with water?
>
> Pilot comments, which I haven’t seen contradicted, about the fuel load
> state that a full load is circa 220,000lbs, but that for the flight to
> Gatwick, including plenty for diversions, would have been around 120,000lbs
> or nearly 50 tons short of full tanks.
>
> If that’s true, then the long take-off run, with an aircraft that wasn’t
> near its maximum weight, suggests the engines were not producing the
> required thrust, possibly gradually failing in some way even during that
> take-off run and conking out early in the climb-out leading to the ram-air
> turbine being deployed.
>
Airliners do not use maximum power on takeoff if they don't need it.

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

  Frédéric Bastiat

On 16/06/2025 14:00, Paul wrote:
> One available video, shot from a smartphone, shows "exhaust colour"
> on the left engine, less or no exhaust color on the right engine,
> and a yaw as if the left engine was pushing the left wing forward.
I thought that was airport CCTV?
anyway yes. I saw that. Starboard engine failed pretty much as it rotated
Would still have taken off OK


--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

  Frédéric Bastiat

On 16/06/2025 15:33, GB wrote:
> Thank goodness the AAIB has access to invaluable resources like Usenet
> to fall back on!

Lol!

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

In article <102pkba$1p59m$2@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 16/06/2025 14:00, Paul wrote:
>> One available video, shot from a smartphone, shows "exhaust colour"
>> on the left engine, less or no exhaust color on the right engine,
>> and a yaw as if the left engine was pushing the left wing forward.
>I thought that was airport CCTV?
>anyway yes. I saw that. Starboard engine failed pretty much as it rotated
>Would still have taken off OK
>
>

Perhaps..

All airports ought to have a high definition recording of every take off
as some extra evidence of what went wrong?.

If it went wrong of course.

But considering the number of successful take off's and landings every
day?.

Its waay down in the noise..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 17/06/2025 14:12, tony sayer wrote:
> Perhaps..
>
> All airports ought to have a high definition recording of every take off
> as some extra evidence of what went wrong?.
>
> If it went wrong of course.
>
> But considering the number of successful take off's and landings every
> day?.
>
> Its waay down in the noise..

The same thought had occurred to me: high-def videos of all take-offs
and landings, for the infinitesimal chance of it all going horribly wrong.

I remember an after-dinner talk in about 1980 "What goes up might come
down" by a Birmingham air-traffic controller called Dave Gunson in which
he said (I may be paraphrasing slightly)

"Take-offs are easy - it's brute force over ignorance - but landings
*bite* if you get it wrong." and "The definition of a good pilot is one
who has the same number of take-offs as landings."

"NY" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:102rqhm$2dht9$2@dont-email.me...
> On 17/06/2025 14:12, tony sayer wrote:
>> Perhaps..
>>
>> All airports ought to have a high definition recording of every take off
>> as some extra evidence of what went wrong?.
>>
>> If it went wrong of course.
>>
>> But considering the number of successful take off's and landings every
>> day?.
>>
>> Its waay down in the noise..
>
> The same thought had occurred to me: high-def videos of all take-offs and
> landings, for the infinitesimal chance of it all going horribly wrong.
>
> I remember an after-dinner talk in about 1980 "What goes up might come
> down" by a Birmingham air-traffic controller called Dave Gunson in which
> he said (I may be paraphrasing slightly)
>
> "Take-offs are easy - it's brute force over ignorance - but landings
> *bite* if you get it wrong." and "The definition of a good pilot is one
> who has the same number of take-offs as landings."

And "at rotate speed it *will* go up... and the editor's decision is final
on that", which the Air India crash sadly proved not to be true...

On 17/06/2025 14:34, NY wrote:
> And "at rotate speed it *will* go up... and the editor's decision is
> final on that", which the Air India crash sadly proved not to be true...

At rotate it did go up. It just didn't keep going up.

Andy

--
Do not listen to rumour, but, if you do, do not believe it.
Ghandi.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead of
> the gear'

Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.

On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>> of the gear'
>
> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
>

The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.

An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
spun down.  If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel switches
are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The RAM was
deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>>> of the gear'
>>
>> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
>>
>
> The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
>
> An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
> seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
> spun down.  If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel switches
> are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The RAM was
> deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.

Stupid question, maybe...

Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight, given that
if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches *were*
turned off and then turned back on straight away.

What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
cutoff when this is not wanted?

On 11/07/2025 23:55, NY wrote:
> On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
>> On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
>>>> the gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
>>>> instead of the gear'
>>>
>>> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
>>>
>>
>> The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
>>
>> An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
>> seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
>> spun down.  If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel
>> switches are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The
>> RAM was deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
>
> Stupid question, maybe...
>
> Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
> accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight,

Flame out of an engine when the aircraft is at height, based on the
information given by a pilot commenting on the report. If there is a
flame out the switches will be set to cut-off and then immediately
turned back on but this would not be the first action on the check sheet.

> given that
> if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
> wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches *were*
> turned off and then turned back on straight away.

Its speculated that they wouldn't have had enough time to consult a
check sheet.


>
> What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
> cutoff when this is not wanted?

The (toggle type) switches have to pulled up using a thumb and finger
against spring loading to be moved over a mechanical detent. They have
to be lifted to put them back. They cannot accidentally be knocked out
of position. It also takes two deliberate actions to put both switches
in the cut-off position.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

NY wrote:

> Stupid question, maybe...
>
> Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
> accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight

engine fire/fan explosion/whatever

> given that
> if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
> wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
> turned off and then turned back on straight away.

Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started
to spool back up, the other didn't have time.

> What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
> cutoff when this is not wanted?

Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to
deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.

On 12/07/2025 00:37, alan_m wrote:


The report

<https://aaib.gov.in/What%27s%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf>

It indicates that the fuel switches were subsequently changed from
cut-off to run and one engine began to spin up again before the crash.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article <mdec80Fq35tU1@mid.individual.net>,
   Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> NY wrote:

> > Stupid question, maybe...
> >
> > Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
> > accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight

> engine fire/fan explosion/whatever

> > given that
> > if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
> > wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
> > turned off and then turned back on straight away.

> Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started
> to spool back up, the other didn't have time.

> > What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
> > cutoff when this is not wanted?

> Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to
> deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.

could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the
UK (and former empire)?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England -  sent from my RISC OS  4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>> of the gear'
>
> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
>
Er no.
Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off and
then were restored to on again. Too late to make enough difference.

After one cockpit voice asked 'why did you turn the fuel switches off to
which the other replied 'I didn't'...

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
> On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising the
>>> gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up instead
>>> of the gear'
>>
>> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
>>
>
> The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
>
Well cannot is a very definite and exclusive word.

> An observation from a pilot is that working engines take maybe 30+
> seconds to spin down and the RAM wouldn't be deployed until they had
> spun down.  If the aircraft is not on the ground and both fuel switches
> are in the cutoff position the RAM deploys immediately. The RAM was
> deployed a lot sooner than 30 seconds of flight.
>
Not quite, The engines take about 10 seconds to spin down. The rest is
correct.


--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
> In article <mdec80Fq35tU1@mid.individual.net>,

> could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the
> UK (and former empire)?
>

Unlikely, plus why would anyone touch a two fuel cut of switches that
were already set correctly to provide fuel for take off? The switches
cannot be accidentally moved and pilots have said (almost) impossible to
switch both at the same time, so two actions to move both.

They are switches used at the end of every flight to cut fuel when the
aircraft is parked. The pilots were trained and experienced.

The why and who, and maybe how, is just subject to speculation at this time.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 11/07/2025 23:55, NY wrote:
> Stupid question, maybe...
>
> Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
> accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight, given that
> if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
> wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches *were*
> turned off and then turned back on straight away.

Because mostly what they are intened for is an engine failure,
especially a fire.

In that case a master isolation switch - like a car ignition - is handy
to ensure no fuel is delivered.

>
> What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
> cutoff when this is not wanted?

AIUI it needs a lift and pull type action to move them. Once in place
they are essentially locked.

Conceptually like a car handbrake [used to be]



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
> could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the
> UK (and former empire)?

On an aircraft both pilots had over 1000 hours on?

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On Sat, 12 Jul 25 09:00:02 UTC
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <mdec80Fq35tU1@mid.individual.net>,
>    Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> > NY wrote:  
> 
> > > Stupid question, maybe...
> > > 
> > > Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel
> > > off - accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight  
> 
> > engine fire/fan explosion/whatever  
> 
> > > given that 
> > > if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably 
> > > wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches
> > > were turned off and then turned back on straight away.  
> 
> > Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had
> > started to spool back up, the other didn't have time.  
> 
> > > What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved
> > > to cutoff when this is not wanted?  
> 
> > Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you
> > have to deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.  
> 
> could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON
> in the UK (and former empire)?
> 

I would guess that the switches were not unmarked, and both pilots were
trained and experienced with this aircraft.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/07/11/pilot-error-air-india-crash-investigation/

Amid the confusion, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why
“did you cut off” to the fuel supply in the recovered cockpit voice
recording.

The other pilot responded that he “didn’t”, according to the report.

The switches were then moved back to their normal position, which
automatically started the process of relighting the engines.

One of the engines was in the process of regaining power at the time
the aircraft crashed. The other was relit but was not yet regaining
thrust.


-- 
Joe

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
>
> Er no.
> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off

And you don't think *THAT* is the thing of significance?

> and then were restored to on again. Too late to make enough
> difference.
Yes, I added that detail later, once I was aware of it, but everybody
was fucked by that point.
> After one cockpit voice asked 'why did you turn the fuel switches off to
> which the other replied 'I didn't'...

We'll never know if it was suicide, murder or something else ... every
Boeing pilot I've seen says you can't accidentally operate the cut-offs.

On 12/07/2025 10:24, Andy Burns wrote:
> We'll never know if it was suicide, murder or something else ... every
> Boeing pilot I've seen says you can't accidentally operate the cut-offs.

Or a very very weird mechanical issue...like an insect got caught in the
mechanism or something and moving  the switches to 'on' didn't quite
engage the latch..

I am certain that what is left of the switches will be subject to
intense scrutiny.

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
> In article <mdec80Fq35tU1@mid.individual.net>,
>     Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> NY wrote:
>
>>> Stupid question, maybe...
>>>
>>> Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
>>> accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
>
>> engine fire/fan explosion/whatever

I can see that you might want to turn one engine off if it caught fire,
but *all* of them? During take-off, would it be better to keep the fuel
on, risking a fire, or turn it off, risking almost certain death from a
crash due to lack of thrust/lift?

>>> given that
>>> if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
>>> wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
>>> turned off and then turned back on straight away.
>
>> Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started
>> to spool back up, the other didn't have time.

Presumably the data recorder will contain information about the engines
to determine whether there was an incident which would have warranted
turning the fuel off. I imagine that is still being investigated and so
has been excluded from the preliminary report. Likewise I imagine the
investigators know who said what on the flight deck because the pilot's
and co-pilot's voices are recorded on different, identified tracks on
the cockpit voice recorder - they are being deliberately vague to avoid
pointing a finger at either one of them, for the sake of their families.
>>> What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
>>> cutoff when this is not wanted?
>
>> Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to
>> deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.
>
> could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in the
> UK (and former empire)?

Do all aeroplanes, worldwide, use the same convention (probably the
American one of up=on) irrespective of the country which owns/operates
the plane, to avoid this indecision?


I wonder if at some stage in the future, CVRs will start to record video
of the pilots to show who did what - who turned the fuel to cutoff and
who turned it back on (were they the same person or different ones).

On 12/07/2025 10:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
>> cutoff when this is not wanted?
>
> AIUI it needs a lift and pull type action to move them. Once in place
> they are essentially locked.

On the other hand, would the interlock logic (electronic as opposed to
physical barriers) allow fuel to *all* the engines to be turned off
during take off? If a fire/bird-strike/blade-fracture occurs during
takeoff, is it better to make certain that fuel cannot accidentally be
turned off to the wrong engine (Kegworth), by disabling the second fuel
cutoff switch once the first has been turned off and until the first
(wrongly turned off) is providing thrust again. Or maybe disable fuel
cutoff unless a fault (eg fire) is detected in an engine.

Not a simple solution whatever you do, but I wonder if the Indian crash
will result in any changes to the logic that links the switches to the
actual cutoff valves. Time will tell.


In general do planes have enough power to take off on one engine, albeit
with a lot of yaw that needs to be corrected very quickly, if a fault
occurs in the seconds after rotate?

NY wrote:

> Presumably the data recorder will contain information about the engines
> to determine whether there was an incident which would have warranted
> turning the fuel off.
Sequence of events, this chap usually does the best coverage of plane
crashes

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA_UZeHZwSw>

On 12/07/2025 11:05, NY wrote:
> On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
>> In article <mdec80Fq35tU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>     Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> NY wrote:
>>
>>>> Stupid question, maybe...
>>>>
>>>> Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
>>>> accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
>>
>>> engine fire/fan explosion/whatever
>
> I can see that you might want to turn one engine off if it caught fire,
> but *all* of them? During take-off, would it be better to keep the fuel
> on, risking a fire, or turn it off, risking almost certain death from a
> crash due to lack of thrust/lift?
>
The aircraft can distinguish between 'on the ground' and 'in the air'
but not 'one second after takeoff'

There are reasons why you might want to use the engine cutoffs on both
engines. If both have flamed out due to e.g volcanic dust...

AIUI using them is party of a restart procedure

>>>> given that
>>>> if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
>>>> wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
>>>> turned off and then turned back on straight away.
>>
>>> Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started
>>> to spool back up, the other didn't have time.
>
> Presumably the data recorder will contain information about the engines
> to determine whether there was an incident which would have warranted
> turning the fuel off. I imagine that is still being investigated and so
> has been excluded from the preliminary report. Likewise I imagine the
> investigators know who said what on the flight deck because the pilot's
> and co-pilot's voices are recorded on different, identified tracks on
> the cockpit voice recorder - they are being deliberately vague to avoid
> pointing a finger at either one of them, for the sake of their families.

I think that is exactly true. At the moment the evidence is that one of
the two - most likely the captain, as the first officer was pilot flying
- simply shut the engines off for who knows what reason.

>>>> What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
>>>> cutoff when this is not wanted?
>>
>>> Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to
>>> deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.
>>
>> could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in
>> the
>> UK (and former empire)?
>
> Do all aeroplanes, worldwide, use the same convention (probably the
> American one of up=on) irrespective of the country which owns/operates
> the plane, to avoid this indecision?
>
Every aircraft has a more or less unique cockpit layout. Familiarising
with that is part of type training on the aircraft.

>
> I wonder if at some stage in the future, CVRs will start to record video
> of the pilots to show who did what - who turned the fuel to cutoff and
> who turned it back on (were they the same person or different ones).
>

Its possible.  But not necessarily that useful

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 12/07/2025 11:15, NY wrote:
> In general do planes have enough power to take off on one engine, albeit
> with a lot of yaw that needs to be corrected very quickly, if a fault
> occurs in the seconds after rotate?

Yes.
AIUI the yaw correction is automatic up to a point

One engine takeoffs are recommended if the aircraft is above V1 (no
going back speed)


--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 12/07/2025 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
>> On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
>>>> the gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
>>>> instead of the gear'
>>>
>>> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
>>>
>>
>> The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
>>
> Well cannot is a very definite and exclusive word.

Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a problem
there of some switches being fitted without the safety mechanism -
leaving them prone to accidental switching.

On 12/07/2025 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> The aircraft can distinguish between 'on the ground' and 'in the air'
> but not 'one second after takeoff'
>
> There are reasons why you might want to use the engine cutoffs on both
> engines. If both have flamed out due to e.g volcanic dust...
>
> AIUI using them is party of a restart procedure

Strain gauges on the undercarriage to distinguish between 'on the
ground' and 'in the air'? As soon as there is no weight on the
undercarriage, 'airborne' rules could take over. I'm speculating wildly!

Would you want to cut off all engines in the critical first few seconds
of takeoff? Is it better to cutoff and restart than to keep the fuel
flowing even though the engines are on fire *in the situation where
cutting off thrust and waiting for the engines to restart would almost
certainly be fatal*?

On 12/07/2025 11:05, NY wrote:
> On 12/07/2025 10:00, charles wrote:
>> In article <mdec80Fq35tU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>     Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> NY wrote:
>>
>>>> Stupid question, maybe...
>>>>
>>>> Why would you ever want the fuel cutoff switches to turn the fuel off -
>>>> accidentally or deliberately - when the plane is in flight
>>
>>> engine fire/fan explosion/whatever
>
> I can see that you might want to turn one engine off if it caught fire,
> but *all* of them? During take-off, would it be better to keep the fuel
> on, risking a fire, or turn it off, risking almost certain death from a
> crash due to lack of thrust/lift?
>
>>>> given that
>>>> if it happened when the plane was at low altitude, there probably
>>>> wouldn't be time for the engines to spin back up if the switches were
>>>> turned off and then turned back on straight away.
>>
>>> Apparently both switches were turned back to run, one engine had started
>>> to spool back up, the other didn't have time.
>
> Presumably the data recorder will contain information about the engines
> to determine whether there was an incident which would have warranted
> turning the fuel off. I imagine that is still being investigated and so
> has been excluded from the preliminary report. Likewise I imagine the
> investigators know who said what on the flight deck because the pilot's
> and co-pilot's voices are recorded on different, identified tracks on
> the cockpit voice recorder - they are being deliberately vague to avoid
> pointing a finger at either one of them, for the sake of their families.
>>>> What sort of safety interlock protects the switches being moved to
>>>> cutoff when this is not wanted?
>>
>>> Apparently you don't just "knock" the switch from on to off, you have to
>>> deliberately lift it past an over-centre point.
>>
>> could there be a confusion between UP = ON in the USA and DOWN = ON in
>> the
>> UK (and former empire)?
>
> Do all aeroplanes, worldwide, use the same convention (probably the
> American one of up=on) irrespective of the country which owns/operates
> the plane, to avoid this indecision?
>
>
> I wonder if at some stage in the future, CVRs will start to record video
> of the pilots to show who did what - who turned the fuel to cutoff and
> who turned it back on (were they the same person or different ones).
>


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 12/07/2025 10:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Or a very very weird mechanical issue...like an insect got caught in the
> mechanism or something and moving  the switches to 'on' didn't quite
> engage the latch..

What, two switches suffering a similar jam, at the same time?

On 12/07/2025 12:40, NY wrote:
> On 12/07/2025 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> The aircraft can distinguish between 'on the ground' and 'in the air'
>> but not 'one second after takeoff'
>>
>> There are reasons why you might want to use the engine cutoffs on both
>> engines. If both have flamed out due to e.g volcanic dust...
>>
>> AIUI using them is party of a restart procedure
>
> Strain gauges on the undercarriage to distinguish between 'on the
> ground' and 'in the air'? As soon as there is no weight on the
> undercarriage, 'airborne' rules could take over. I'm speculating wildly!
>
Not strain gauges,  as is commonly understood. Sensors that measure
whether the wheels have compressed the struts, I think

> Would you want to cut off all engines in the critical first few seconds
> of takeoff? Is it better to cutoff and restart than to keep the fuel
> flowing even though the engines are on fire *in the situation where
> cutting off thrust and waiting for the engines to restart would almost
> certainly be fatal*?

You don't waste time and money compensating for a problem that has never
ever occurred before and looks likely can never occur again.

But it would not be hard to do this.

The final report wont be out for 18 months.

The interim conclusion is that one of the pilots almost certainly
deliberately crashed the aircraft, for reasons unknown.



--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

On 12/07/2025 12:40, NY wrote:

> Strain gauges on the undercarriage to distinguish between 'on the
> ground' and 'in the air'? As soon as there is no weight on the
> undercarriage, 'airborne' rules could take over. I'm speculating wildly!

That's what has been said by pilots that fly that aircraft. Turning the
fuel off whist on the ground doesn't deploy the RAM because there are
"on ground" sensors in the undercarriage.

>
> Would you want to cut off all engines in the critical first few seconds
> of takeoff? Is it better to cutoff and restart than to keep the fuel
> flowing even though the engines are on fire *in the situation where
> cutting off thrust and waiting for the engines to restart would almost
> certainly be fatal*?

Again according to pilots who fly this or similar aircraft, on a single
engine failure or fault warning on takeoff the pilots would wait until
they have obtained a greater height, ideally 1000ft, before following
any procedure to determine the fault or even restart the engine.
However, this is both engines switched off.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 12/07/2025 11:15, NY wrote:

> In general do planes have enough power to take off on one engine, albeit
> with a lot of yaw that needs to be corrected very quickly, if a fault
> occurs in the seconds after rotate?

It has been confirmed that this aircraft could have continued to climb
on one (working) engine, with the undercarriage down and the flaps
withdrawn.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 13:25:29 +0100
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 12/07/2025 11:15, NY wrote:
>
> > In general do planes have enough power to take off on one engine,
> > albeit with a lot of yaw that needs to be corrected very quickly,
> > if a fault occurs in the seconds after rotate?
>
> It has been confirmed that this aircraft could have continued to
> climb on one (working) engine, with the undercarriage down and the
> flaps withdrawn.
>
>

Some of the controls were recoverable, and the flap control was set to
5 degrees, which is correct for the conditions.

--
Joe

On 12/07/2025 13:22, alan_m wrote:
> On 12/07/2025 12:40, NY wrote:
>
>> Strain gauges on the undercarriage to distinguish between 'on the
>> ground' and 'in the air'? As soon as there is no weight on the
>> undercarriage, 'airborne' rules could take over. I'm speculating wildly!
>
> That's what has been said by pilots that fly that aircraft. Turning the
> fuel off whist on the ground doesn't deploy the RAM because there are
> "on ground" sensors in the undercarriage.

Not RAM but RAT (Ram Air Turbine)



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article <104thgl$24ava$1@dont-email.me>,
   SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
> On 12/07/2025 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 11/07/2025 23:16, alan_m wrote:
> >> On 11/07/2025 21:50, Andy Burns wrote:
> >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Opinions split between dual engine failure and no pint in raising
> >>>> the gear since  a crash was inevitable, and 'pulled the flaps up
> >>>> instead of the gear'
> >>>
> >>> Preliminary report says both engines fuel switches turned to cut-off.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The switches cannot be accidentally knocked to that position.
> >>
> > Well cannot is a very definite and exclusive word.

> Apparently they use the same switches in 737s and there was a problem
> there of some switches being fitted without the safety mechanism -
> leaving them prone to accidental switching.

or excesive vibration?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England -  sent from my RISC OS  4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 12/07/2025 13:14, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
> On 12/07/2025 10:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Or a very very weird mechanical issue...like an insect got caught in
>> the mechanism or something and moving  the switches to 'on' didn't
>> quite engage the latch..
>
> What, two switches suffering a similar jam, at the same time?

They are physically adjacent.
I agree, its a very long shot indeed.



--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I am certain that what is left of the switches will be subject to
> intense scrutiny.

Probably more fruitful to look into human factors, such as which pilot
was shagging the other one's wife/girlfriend/boyfriend?

On 12/07/2025 15:17, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I am certain that what is left of the switches will be subject to
>> intense scrutiny.
>
> Probably more fruitful to look into human factors, such as which pilot
> was shagging the other one's wife/girlfriend/boyfriend?

Indeed.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain