undefined | Better HN

0 pointsagubelu8mo ago0 comments

I think there are a couple of factors that disprove these theories:

- The specific mention of "cut off" in the CVR is very telling. If both pilots were genuinely surprised, you'd expect they'd say something like "engine failure" or "loss of thrust" first. Noone thinks the engines have been shut down as a knee-jerk reaction to a sudden loss of thrust.

- If investigators had the slightest indication there's a software or hardware bug out there that randomly causes dual engine failures, an emergency airworthiness directive would have been issued by now. This hasn't happened.

0 comments

manquer8mo ago

> an emergency airworthiness directive would have been issued by now. This hasn't happened.

737 Max incidents proved it isn’t always the case.

This is also not the NTSB or FAA doing direct investigation . Without certainty no one is issuing a directive, at this stage it is simply too early and only a possibility

I wouldn’t read so much intent during high stress part of takeoff from two non native speakers

agubeluOP8mo ago

> 737 Max incidents proved it isn’t always the case.

> This is also not the NTSB or FAA doing direct investigation . Without certainty no one is issuing a directive, at this stage it is simply too early and only a possibility

You are mistaken. The first MAX crash resulted in emergency directives being issued barely a week after the crash. That investigation was conducted by the Indonesian authorities, not US ones.

Emergency directives aren't issued when there's complete certainty, quite the opposite. Hence the "emergency" bit.

> I wouldn’t read so much intent during high stress part of takeoff from two non native speakers

I agree there's some fuzziness since the exact transcription wasn't provided. But "why did you cut out the engines" is by no means a normal question when facing sudden thrust loss.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse