so you guys with much more knowlage than me, think this may be "experts" jumping in with their own opinions ?
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Even if this aircraft had switches installed from that same batch that went into the Max's, it would not cause a cascading failure of both. One or the other, not one then a second later the other.
Adding this SAIB from a different airframe into the report is a deflection maneuver.
so you guys with much more knowlage than me, think this may be "experts" jumping in with their own opinions ?The guards are secondary. Even without the guard you cannot "accidentally" shut them off.
so you guys with much more knowlage than me, think this may be "experts" jumping in with their own opinions ?
The guards are secondary. Even without the guard you cannot "accidentally" shut them off.
EDIT -DerAdlerIstGelandet covered this in post 122
On most if not all 787's these are not guarded toggle switches.
These are the sort where the lever is spring loaded so that a V in the handle locks in to a detent on the switch base so that you must pull the switch handle out before you can lift it up. Unfortunately I cannot quickly find a photo on line but they are as common as dirt in aviation.
Yeah i got that, just wondered if the locks that are mentioned as "disengaged " in the BBC article were those metel rings ?No, I'm just saying the switch has to be manually pulled. You have to pull up on it first. If you bump it, nothing happens. The switch does not move by bumping it.
Yeah i got that, just wondered if the locks that are mentioned as "disengaged " in the BBC article were those metel rings ?
Do those switches have the v cut and indent mentioned byMiTasol included as well ?
Surely, as you guys keep saying it cant be accidently knocked off.
Just trying to learn something.
From my memory there is no way that the lock can be disengaged on those sort of switches. On the older style switches that had a cover that had to be lifted before use some of the covers could be left "open" which would in affect be a lock disengaged situation but I have never seen any "pull then select" type switches that could be set in an unlocked condition. That does not mean they do not exist but such a switch defeats the whole purpose for having detented switches so I can see no purpose in having them.
It would like fitting a foolproof lock on your house and then leaving home with the door wide open.
Many of the lift the cover type covers were spring loaded to ensure that the switch was always locked in the selected position.
One thing you will often find in cockpits that people find strange is that some switches are up for on and some are down for on. The reason for this is that in an emergency the crew can swipe down across the switch panels and this will place all switches in the safest condition for further operation. It saves critical time compared to the old (roughly pre 50s) aircraft where the crew had to waste time working out what to switch off and what to leave on.
The traditional Guarded electrical switches changed form about 30 years ago. but they still have RED guards over them, and are usually safety wired with 0.020" copper breakaway wire to discourage accidental deployment of the switches.
The Traditional Toggle switches as seen on a DC9's overhead panel, these are raised plastic guards that cover the old style toggle switch's, compared to the flat RED guards over the push button switch's on a A320's overhead Panel.
And while I have never been in the cockpit of a 787, I assume they are similar to the cockpits of 757, 767, & 747-400's that I used to be taxi qualified on. And yes the fuel control cut off switches had to be pulled up to change the position of the switches. So I agree that inadvertently "bumping" the switches would not be enough to change the switches position.
Source my old NWA training Manuals
I am leaning towards deliberate and whomever turned the switches, planned to do so.The fuel switches were deliberately shut off in turn one second apart.
Whether the pilot had brain fade and momentarily thought he was back at the gate and not intentional, it still was deliberate. That's the best positive spin I could put on this.
I am leaning towards deliberate and whomever turned the switches, planned to do so.
I wouldn't jump to a suicide theory. Far more likely a brain fade or similar. It will be interesting to see the full report including how long the crew had been operating for beforehand.