8 hours ago, Radoye said:

Al' jbmmumater mora da postoje i prijatniji nacini da se samoubijes od skoka u kombinaciju masine za mlevenje mesa i krematorijuma...

Bar je trenutno.

6 hours ago, JozoMujica said:

Bar je trenutno.

Nisam bas ubedjen da je trenutnije od metka u glavu ili dobro izvedenog vesanja.

No da ne morbidisemo previse.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250711203907/https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf

Preliminary ReportAccident involving Air India’s B787-8 aircraft bearing registration VT-ANB
at Ahmedabad on 12 June

Oba skoro pa istovremeno... Ne znam, meni nepojmljivo.

Ili je pilot bio mislima isključen iz leta ili dresirani babun koji nema pojma čemu šta služi u kokpitu.

Ostaje mi nada lošeg održavanja i da prekidačima nije radio sigurnosni mehanizam.

6 hours ago, bags said:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250711203907/https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf

Dakle, jedan od dvojice pilota je svega 3-4 sekunde po poletanju tj. odvajanju od zemlje isključio dovod goriva motorima i posle se pretvarao da to nije on učinio ili postavljanjem pitanja o tome onom drugom o tome ili negiranjem. RAT se odmah aktivirao. Zatim su 10-15 sekundi kasnije prekidači vraćeni i dovod goriva ponovo uspostavljen, ali to nije bilo dovoljno da se avion podigne iznad grada pa je 9 sekundi kasnije izrečen mejdej, svega 6 sekundi pre rušenja aviona.

As per the EAFR data, the aircraft crossed the take-off decision speed V1 and achieved 153 kts IAS at 08:08:33 UTC. The Vr speed (155 kts) was achieved as per the EAFR at 08:08:35 UTC. The aircraft air/ground sensors transitioned to air mode, consistent with liftoff at 08:08:39 UTC.

The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off. In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so. The CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed during the initial climb immediately after lift-off (fig. 15). No significant bird activity is observed in the vicinity of the flight path. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport perimeter wall.

As per the EAFR data both engines N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC.

As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction. The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11 UTC At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”. The ATCO enquired about the call sign. ATCO did not get any response but observed the aircraft crashing outside the airport boundary and activated the emergency response.

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by vememah

Neki zanimljivi komentari na prvi klip:

Pilot with more than 15 years of career experience here. Once upon a time, a depressed fellow had privately remarked to me about how he had thoughts about pulling both engine cutoffs in flight and ending it all. He was immediately and permanently grounded. its hard to think about it, but certainly not out of this world.

It’s 2025, and we still don’t have cockpit cameras in commercial jets?!
After incidents like AI171, where a simple overhead camera could’ve shown whether the pilots touched the fuel cutoff switches — it’s ridiculous that we still rely only on audio and data.
We have CCTV in buses and trains... but not in a multi-million dollar flying machine? 🤯
It’s time to add cockpit video recorders.

I am no aviator, but i am surprised to learn that it is even possible to manualy shut off the fuel supply while airborn, especially at low altitude, without some sort of computer warning or (preferably) some sort of double key mechanism, where both pilots agree to the action.

I na drugi, posebno na spominjanje mogućnosti da su prekidači bili neispravni i da ih je slučajno bilo moguće prebaciti u položaj za prekid dovoda goriva:

I worked with switches like that for decades (Lockheed) and there is no way they are being accidentally moved. And personally I think that's a dumb place to put them, They should be in the forward part of the overhead all by their little lonely selves. Maybe even put a guard on them so you have to open the guard to shut off the engine.
And thank you Jaun for sticking to the facts instead of spending 20 minutes telling us how great you are.

I have about 38 years working Lockheed aircraft as an aircraft electrician, and integrated avionics. The aircraft I worked (C-5) has this type of switch used all over the aircraft. I never once saw a locking type toggle switch operate without being pulled out first. Several times this type of switch got hit by something, and bent the toggle, but the locking "hump" never failed on one ever, in my experience. The chances of two switches being actuated by hand pressure, and not being pulled out first, is in my opinion, zero. I only changed this type of switch for 1) Bent toggle 2) Broken toggle 3) Failure of the switch contacts circuit. I never changed this type of switch for the locking function not working.

I've accumulated over 5,000 hours in the C-130 as an FE. It has dozens of those spring-loaded swirches. Never had one fail or accidentally move. They don't move with just a simple flick. In fact, they won't move at all when bumped. It takes a deliberate and specific action to move them. Two failing at the exact same time would be next to impossible.

As an Engineer who has done failure investigations in my own corner of the transportation industry, there's more to do before reaching a proximate root cause. Those switches need to be forensically measured and verified that the movement and the locking guards are within specifications. Are they worn? Do they allow the correct amount of travel in all operating directions? Are they genuine OEM parts? If serialized, are they the parts that came with this aircraft? And so forth. While my gut is saying what many of you who are experienced aviators are saying, that this is looking like a deliberate act, until the lab work and the investigation of the pilots is completed, we're still speculating. Thanks, Juan, for a professional approach to incidents and investigations.

As a Quality Program Manager with decades of experience, I find it unlikely that BOTH switches mechanically failed at the same time even by bumping. One of the pilots intentionally moved both switches.

Juan..I'm sorta surprised at the "Bump" theory on the fuel switches. Having flown the 787 for six years, I can tell you that there is no way in hell those switches were inadvertently moved. The spring needs considerable force to move them above the detent. Trust me one of the pilots deliberately turned off those switches! I know you are on the 777 (which I love as well )...but still believe the Dreamliner is probably the safest commercial jet today.😊

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by vememah

Evo i trećeg klipa koji se bavi ovim preliminarnim izveštajem:

Na zalost sve ukazuje na nameru pilota da obori avion. Podseti me na slican zakljucak kome je vodila istraja o kineskom letu gde je pre mesec dana Kina, nakon godina istrage, samo rekla da se konacni rezultati istrage nece objavljivati zbog nacionalne sigurnosti. Verovatno zelja da se izbegne panika u javnosti jer su dosli do zakljucka da je pilot namerno oborio avion: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/china-eastern-airlines-flight-5735-crashes-en-route-to-guangzhou/

Investigation updates - June 2025

Chinese authorities have decided to withhold the annual interim report required under ICAO annex 13 on the crash of MU5735, citing threats to “national security and social stability.”

Annual interim reports are required on the anniversary of the accident when an investigation extends beyond 12 months. A previous version of this post incorrectly stated that the report being withheld was the final investigative report.

U sve stresnijem i nehumanijem svetu, mozda cemo morati sve vise da racunamo i kako da se spreci pilot koji je suicidalan da uradi ovako nesto.

On 1. 7. 2025. at 2:04, 3opge said:

bolje prvo pogledaj od momenta koji sam postavio pa onda proceni.

Kaže li šta The Surprised o tome kako su maintenance kodu izrasle ruke pa je pogasio fizičke prekidače, ili je i on iznenađen ovim izveštajem?

Ovo je to spominjano FAA obaveštenje NM-18-33 o problemima s mehanizmom za zaključavanje tog prekidača. Odnosi se i na 787-8, model koji je koristila Air India i koji se srušio.

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18-33.pdf/SIB_NM-18-33_1

Uglavnom, koliko vidim, nije reč o njegovom otkazivanju, već o problemu da na modelu 737 u nekim slučajevima zaključavanje ne radi od ugradnje. Preporuke su da se proveri na svim modelima (uključujući i 787) i da se na 737 zameni pouzdanijim prekidačem, kakav je izgleda ugrađivan u kasnije modele.

U obaveštenju se takođe pozivaju svi koji primete probleme sa zaključavanjem tog prekidača da odmah obaveste Boing. S obzirom da je prošlo 7 godina od obaveštenja i da nije bilo novog u kome bi se spominjalo njegovo otkazivanje nakon izvesnog vremena (Indijci bi ga sigurno spomenuli u preliminarnom izveštaju), reklo bi se da nije bilo problema s novom verzijom mehanizma za zaključavanje.

The Boeing Company (Boeing) received reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. (...)

Recommendations

The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity:

1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without lifting it up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at the earliest opportunity.

2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes and Boeing Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking feature.

We request that owners and operators report any failure of the locking feature of the fuel control switch to Boeing (see contact information provided below). The report should include the date the failure occurred, the fuel control switch P/N, airplane model, airplane serial number, and airplane registration number. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection contained in this SAIB, and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0731.

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18-33.pdf/SIB_NM-18-33_1

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by vememah

Kontekst je ovde jako bitan, a njega ne znamo.

Panika u glasu npr, da li je kopilot bio isto u panici kao i pilot kada ga ovaj pita u vezi sa prekidacima ili se jednostavno pravio blesav?

Da li je saradjivao sa pilotom da uspostavi kontrolu nad avionom ili nije?

Ono, ako si resio da se samoubijes odglumi ludilo do kraja, nemoj se cimati sa prijavljivanjem bilo cega...

Nisu me ubedili da nije bilo elektricnog kvara koji je komandovao ventilima da prekine dovod goriva. False trigger iz bilo kog razloga je i dalje moguc. Da li se uopste cuo zvuk deaktiviranja prekidaca npr (ako ih je uopste moguce cuti)?

Jedno je ako je pilot video poruku na ekranu: fuel cutoof ili kako je to vec slucaj, a drugo ako je video kopilota da je fizicki iskljucio prekidace pa ga pitao: sto si iskljucio prekidace. Pri tom kada je negirao iskljucenje - da li je stvarno zvucao iznenadjeno i uplasen.

Cekam vise detalja, ovo jos uvek nije potpuno jasno.

"I don't want to use the word [suicide], but I've heard that the captain had some medical history..."

https://x.com/ndtv/status/1943948323288936640

I meni se čini da je najvjerojatniji zaključak suicide by plane, naime, da je nešto te prekidače isključilo negdje drugdje umjesto u kokpitu, ne bi ih se moglo na jednostavan način ponovno mehanički uključiti (jer bi bili cijelo vrijeme u RUN položaju, pa bi ih trebalo prvo isključiti, pa tek onda uključiti za full cycle).

Međutim, prema FDR za vraćanje u RUN im je bilo potrebno netipično puno vremena, tako da joooooš ne oslobađam Boeing krivnje, možda su radili upravo to, full cycle, i zato je (pre)dugo trajalo. Ili to ili su se samubojica i drugi pilot tukli u kokpitu.

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by Roger Sanchez

Treba imati u vidu i da uvlačenje točkova nije došlo na red, što takođe možda ukazuje na preča posla.

Tuča bi se valjda čula na audio-snimaču, mada nije nemoguće da su je ostavili za finalni izveštaj s obzirom na to da nisu hteli da objave ko je postavio pitanje, a ko odgovorio.

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by vememah