By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Someone i know worked at Heathrow a few years ago and part of his job was to collect items which had fallen off aircraft on takeoff. Mostly small items but he did have a couple of wheels.
In the 80s I was flying from Yakutsk to Moscow with Aeroflot. Now I'm not sure what aeroflot is like now, but they were terrible then. About 30mins into the flight there was raised voices behind, basically a kid was playing with the handle of an emergency door. Ultimately the Stewardess stopped him. My colleague who was Russian spoke with the Stewardess and said he was happy to help if required. She whispered to him, thanks I had to stop him but that emergency door, like the others, hasn't worked for months so it wouldn't open anyway but didn't want to make it obvious. I was telling another colleague about it afterwards and I said she probably had a strange sense of humour. He said doubt it, 99% of life jackets never work on Aeroflot aircraft.
Any landing or takeoff with Aeroflot in those days was fun.....
The worst landing I’ve experienced was in an Aeroflot plane in the mid 90s
The backs of all of the empty seats (and there were a lot of them) slammed forward when he hit the ground, loads of the overheads flipped open with luggage flying everywhere, the lights failed.
The worst landing I’ve experienced was in an Aeroflot plane in the mid 90s
The backs of all of the empty seats (and there were a lot of them) slammed forward when he hit the ground, loads of the overheads flipped open with luggage flying everywhere, the lights failed.
The worst landing I’ve experienced was in an Aeroflot plane in the mid 90s
The backs of all of the empty seats (and there were a lot of them) slammed forward when he hit the ground, loads of the overheads flipped open with luggage flying everywhere, the lights failed.
And then everyone started clapping. Nuts.
Very brave indeed to get on an Aeroflot plane from that era!
So fuel switches were cut to both engines, which apparently can’t happen accidentally as they have locks, but I don’t know whether it could happen through an electrical fault. Possibly all this finding does is raise more questions.
I’d heard they’d manage to successfully simulate take offs with no flap settings, even on one engine, so flaps was a red herring.
So fuel switches were cut to both engines, which apparently can’t happen accidentally as they have locks, but I don’t know whether it could happen through an electrical fault. Possibly all this finding does is raise more questions.
I’d heard they’d manage to successfully simulate take offs with no flap settings, even on one engine, so flaps was a red herring.
Expert I was just watching said they can only be switched off and on manually but conceded they are in a position which it could happen accidentally.
Expert I was just watching said they can only be switched off and on manually but conceded they are in a position which it could happen accidentally.
BBC reporting it’s impossible to accidentally knock them off, but I’ve no idea which of those versions is true. Looks like more waiting for the full report. Hopefully they will be able to confirm with high confidence what happened, just so the families can have a bit of closure.
Expert I was just watching said they can only be switched off and on manually but conceded they are in a position which it could happen accidentally.
Don't know anything about 787 cockpits, but it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened. The Harrier at Lowestoft air show was a case of accidentally hit the wrong lever. Pilot went to adjust his nozzles for a manoeuvre, but The throttle level was right next to it he accidentally adjusted both and so turned down his thrust while hovering.
BBC reporting it’s impossible to accidentally knock them off, but I’ve no idea which of those versions is true. Looks like more waiting for the full report. Hopefully they will be able to confirm with high confidence what happened, just so the families can have a bit of closure.
Absolutely … it is at least looking like it could be human origin which would back up the planes incredible safety record which you’d think is good news in the main … of course no comfort to those suffering.
BBC reporting it’s impossible to accidentally knock them off, but I’ve no idea which of those versions is true. Looks like more waiting for the full report. Hopefully they will be able to confirm with high confidence what happened, just so the families can have a bit of closure.
Although reports this morning US aviation investigators identified at issue with the fuel control switches on a different model, where they failed and went into the cut-off position without human interaction. They had advised they should be checked on all models, although appears to be confusion if that check was advisory or mandatory
Very brave indeed to get on an Aeroflot plane from that era!
SB
you should of seen the Aeroflot plane the club hired for us to go to Moscow, it should have been in a museum, also scariest landing as it felt like we did a handbrake turn on the runway, and yes all the seats which were nothing like you find on modern jets, had cargo netting and stuff, all flew forward.
you should of seen the Aeroflot plane the club hired for us to go to Moscow, it should have been in a museum, also scariest landing as it felt like we did a handbrake turn on the runway, and yes all the seats which were nothing like you find on modern jets, had cargo netting and stuff, all flew forward.
at least we had an Airbus on the way back
Yep that flight was scary , my seat i'm sure wasn't fixed down as I could move it about. Especially as it wasn't long after the Twin Tower's wer hit.
Don't know anything about 787 cockpits, but it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened. The Harrier at Lowestoft air show was a case of accidentally hit the wrong lever. Pilot went to adjust his nozzles for a manoeuvre, but The throttle level was right next to it he accidentally adjusted both and so turned down his thrust while hovering.
but the difference there is jet fighter cockpits are more cramped, and the throttle and the nozzle on a harrier are intended to be used during flight so are positioned near each other to aid the pilot control the engine, its just unfortunate the pilot in that case mistook what he was doing.
in the 787 the fuel switches are in a position on the centre pedestal console, behind the throttle levers, but theyve got guard brackets around them, and its a bit hard to explain in words but theyre not plain toggle on/off switches, theyve got a locking mechanism so you have to pull the switch first before you can move it down or up, if fitted of course, and theyre done that way because Boeing and Airbus assume aircrews are competent and wont switch things off critical to safety.
but so designed in a way they can only be moved deliberately with a positive interaction, its not impossible obviously, but exceedingly unlikely they could be moved accidentally or inadvertently, and it would even more unlikely both were moved accidentally or inadvertently.
as to the possibility of an electrical issue, cant be ruled out obviously, but the data theyve published suggests the switches were returned from cutoff to run, the cvr theyve released doesnt suggest the flight crew noted the switches were in the correct position still whilst not producing the expected results, and the engines were spooling up again and engine 1 had restarted successfully but couldnt produce enough thrust in the time left, whilst engine 2 had reignited but couldnt spool up in time.
so the electrical connections were all working again at that point. its just they ran out of time and altitude to correct the loss of engine power on take off.
also note there has been no grounding of the 787 fleet, or safety notice around these switches since the crash, which implies the investigators do not believe the switches were malfunctioning in any way.
but the difference there is jet fighter cockpits are more cramped, and the throttle and the nozzle on a harrier are intended to be used during flight so are positioned near each other to aid the pilot control the engine, its just unfortunate the pilot in that case mistook what he was doing.
in the 787 the fuel switches are in a position on the centre pedestal console, behind the throttle levers, but theyve got guard brackets around them, and its a bit hard to explain in words but theyre not plain toggle on/off switches, theyve got a locking mechanism so you have to pull the switch first before you can move it down or up, if fitted of course, and theyre done that way because Boeing and Airbus assume aircrews are competent and wont switch things off critical to safety.
but so designed in a way they can only be moved deliberately with a positive interaction, its not impossible obviously, but exceedingly unlikely they could be moved accidentally or inadvertently, and it would even more unlikely both were moved accidentally or inadvertently.
as to the possibility of an electrical issue, cant be ruled out obviously, but the data theyve published suggests the switches were returned from cutoff to run, the cvr theyve released doesnt suggest the flight crew noted the switches were in the correct position still whilst not producing the expected results, and the engines were spooling up again and engine 1 had restarted successfully but couldnt produce enough thrust in the time left, whilst engine 2 had reignited but couldnt spool up in time.
so the electrical connections were all working again at that point. its just they ran out of time and altitude to correct the loss of engine power on take off.
also note there has been no grounding of the 787 fleet, or safety notice around these switches since the crash, which implies the investigators do not believe the switches were malfunctioning in any way.
Oh I appreciate the difference in operating environments. However this sort of human factors in design are important and can be issues in all sorts of designs. I understand what you mean about them being protected/covered switches too and if they are fitted like that, then that should eliminate any reasonable chance of accidental activation.
I'll bow to your knowledge about the data as I've not seen anything. Although it indicates a pretty doomed scenario if you're restarting engines at the altitude we saw the plane in videos. It's at a point where the pilot wants to be calling on a majority of available power and to go to none is hard to recover. Restarting these engines takes time and it still takes time to spool to the speed the pilots need. Double engine failure is a nightmare scenario at any time, but takeoff and just after is when you have the least time and fewest options.
Although reports this morning US aviation investigators identified at issue with the fuel control switches on a different model, where they failed and went into the cut-off position without human interaction. They had advised they should be checked on all models, although appears to be confusion if that check was advisory or mandatory
Not sure if this has been updated since with more detail, but BBC reporting it's the the locking safety that was found to be installed in the wrong position (on a different aircraft) meaning that they would theoretically be able to toggle without pulling them first. Also reported this was a low level advisory for aircraft with the same consoles.
There's still the guards to prevent them being knocked, and nothing to suggest they could jump without human interaction from the reporting I've read.
Not sure if this has been updated since with more detail, but BBC reporting it's the the locking safety that was found to be installed in the wrong position (on a different aircraft) meaning that they would theoretically be able to toggle without pulling them first. Also reported this was a low level advisory for aircraft with the same consoles.
There's still the guards to prevent them being knocked, and nothing to suggest they could jump without human interaction from the reporting I've read.
This would be extremely unlikely Especially has they had detents to to Turn them off
And then they were turned on again
This smacks of “sh1t I’ve pressed the wrong button”
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
