56 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

Ray if you brought in all the flight deck and cabin crew at my airline you would fined most of the cabin crew are on anti depressants of some sort and most of the pilots have got issues at home, it’s just the nature of the industry.  

I can appreciate that for budget airlines there may be greater pressures but this shouldn’t apply to a national airline. As @jon b mentioned only two crew for a 9-10 hour flight isn’t ideal. Company cutting costs?

1 hour ago, rmeier said:

Given what has been reported as a lack of current (and future) qualified applicants for flight schools, I suspect that the energy required to face fierce Union opposition to this proposal would make it DOA.

In addition, any pilot with susceptible mental conditions wouldn't likely alter their motivations while being video recorded.

The question would be; could you eliminate all possibility and prevent an intentional action to cripple the normal operation of an aircraft?

As of now, we only know the cause of the dual engine failure...the root cause for the action may never be truly known. Sadly, this is not the first example of a downed airliner due to a suicidal pilot. (The jury is still out regarding the actual actions of the pilots of Air India 171.)

IF...this proves to be an intentional act, it's very sad for the victims. RIP.

Excuse me, but we're talking about "safety," where a lot of money is spent when there's a plane crash to determine "with certainty" and, if necessary, issue provisions to prevent similar accidents in the future. I don't understand why a cockpit video recording would cause problems.

The cockpit webcam, like the CVR and the FDR, does not serve to change the malicious intentions of a pilot but is an additional help in the search for the causes that led to the accident and this Air India 787 accident could be taken as an example for its usefulness, certainly not to avoid the accident because after the publication of the preliminary report, in the media and on social  two groups of opinions have mainly formed where the first indicates a voluntary action of one of the pilots or, if there was one, of a third person in the cockpit in interrupting the power supply to the engines and the second, after the publication of the FAA bulletin on December 17, 2018 with SAIB code: NM-18-33 and subject: "Engines Fuel Control" which concerned the control and possible replacement if defective, of the blocking/unblocking of the RUN/CUTOFF switches for the fuel supply to the engines, among all the aircraft indicated for this control there are also the Boeing 787-8-9-10, points the finger at Air India for not having had this check been performed on its 787s, attributing this accident to the dislodged switches caused by a malfunction in the lock/unlock system, and the presence of a webcam in the cockpit would have supported one opinion or another, or perhaps a third!

Around the world, where there must be maximum accountability for what is being done, webcams are widely used. I cite South Korea, where they are in operating rooms; in the rest of the world, buses and trains, not to mention the US police force, where webcam images constitute legal evidence of the actions of both police officers and criminals.

8 minutes ago, RobPol471 said:

Excuse me, but we're talking about "safety,"

I didn't mean to "ruffle feathers" so to speak...and I'm not taking a side on the issue either...

The ALPA representing pilots in North America has been long opposed to video recording devices in the cockpit.

https://www2.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?itemid=2672&ModuleId=3357&Tabid=256#:~:text=CIR provides no significant additional,video recording in the cockpit.

I was just stating that I don't believe there is a high drive (for safety) to pick a battle on the installation of video recording devices, that simply will not prevent an intentional act to down an airliner...merely as an additional tool for a post accident investigation.

'nuf said...

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Given they’ve been that way for countless flights I’m still struggling to understand where you’re coming from. It’s clear to me one of the crew wanted to end his life. There are other ways of bringing down an aircraft. Pushing the yoke full forward being the most obvious.

 

Again.... I'm not talking about this particular incident. I'm talking generally, I recall Embraer on some of their aircraft do have the switches guarded, they obviously think its a good idea.

 

Regarding this incident, I'd rather not speculate if it was deliberate or not, despite it seeming likely. Could well have been faulty switch locks for all I know. 

 

 

Quote

 

The ICPA said it was “deeply disturbed by speculative narratives, … particularly the reckless and unfounded insinuation of pilot suicide”.

“There is absolutely no basis for such a claim at this stage,” it said in a statement. “It is deeply insensitive to the individuals and families involved.

 

 

I agree, really. Worth thinking about the families involved.

Edited July 14, 2025Jul 14 by martin-w

1 hour ago, rmeier said:

The question would be; could you eliminate all possibility and prevent an intentional action to cripple the normal operation of an aircraft?

Getting rid of the pilots gets you 99% of the way there, of course introducing new failure modes. There is no free lunch.

Cheers

9 minutes ago, Luke said:

Getting rid of the pilots gets you 99% of the way there, of course introducing new failure modes. There is no free lunch.

Cheers

I’m not sure if this incident strengthens the case for having two or more pilots or getting rid of them completely, you could argue the case either way with this one.

Certainly I think having 3 pilots on this particular flight may well have prevented this incident, at least at the early stage of flight.

As a side note, I believe all American based Airlines will always have 3 pilots for ocean crossings or flights over a certain length, possibly a union issue.

44 minutes ago, RobPol471 said:

Around the world, where there must be maximum accountability for what is being done, webcams are widely used. I cite South Korea, where they are in operating rooms; in the rest of the world, buses and trains, not to mention the US police force, where webcam images constitute legal evidence of the actions of both police officers and criminals.

You make a valid argument. This idea was shot down by the unions a couple of decades ago, however in this day and age where there’s a camera pointed at everyone their objections don’t seem as solid.

Indeed I can’t help but think if I were to film my own unfounded speculation and ramblings that I’ve posted in this thread and put it on YouTube under the title of “ 787 captain say x about Air India flight” I’d be making a fortune right now, as that’s what a lot of even less qualified people seem to be doing right now.

Just the world we live in I guess, but I’m not keen on it.

17 minutes ago, jon b said:

Certainly I think having 3 pilots on this particular flight may well have prevented this incident, at least at the early stage of flight.

As a side note, I believe all American based Airlines will always have 3 pilots for ocean crossings or flights over a certain length, possibly a union issue.

Given the unexpectedness what happened and the criticality of that stage of flight, I think that's an open question.

It's worth pointing out that there have been just as many incidents (one) where the third person in the cockpit attacked the other two, and I believe there was also a fatal case (PSA) where the jump seat occupant shot the two pilots and the aircraft crashed. Again, there is no free lunch. You introduce new failure modes as you close off others.

Relief crews are a real thing, but they are there to avoid pilot fatigue on flights over 8-12 hours in length. IIUC BA and AF require the relief crew to be in the cockpit at takeoff and landing, but I expect this varies by airline.

42 minutes ago, jon b said:

I’m not sure if this incident strengthens the case for having two or more pilots or getting rid of them completely, you could argue the case either way with this one.

Certainly I think having 3 pilots on this particular flight may well have prevented this incident, at least at the early stage of flight.

As a side note, I believe all American based Airlines will always have 3 pilots for ocean crossings or flights over a certain length, possibly a union issue.

You make a valid argument. This idea was shot down by the unions a couple of decades ago, however in this day and age where there’s a camera pointed at everyone their objections don’t seem as solid.

Indeed I can’t help but think if I were to film my own unfounded speculation and ramblings that I’ve posted in this thread and put it on YouTube under the title of “ 787 captain say x about Air India flight” I’d be making a fortune right now, as that’s what a lot of even less qualified people seem to be doing right now.

Just the world we live in I guess, but I’m not keen on it.

It's important to keep in mind, as you rightly say, that many things need to be reconsidered these days.

First, the images recorded in the cockpit would be part of the "exclusive" investigation in the event of an accident.

Second, I find it ridiculous that this Association calls the presence of a cockpit webcam an "obstacle," when there are hundreds of videos showing what happens inside a cockpit... taken and published online by... pilots. And it doesn't seem to me that all those pilots are concerned... or that they think their webcam is an obstacle in the cockpit!

The following is predicated on this incident being the result of an intentional act by one of the pilots, which we do not know for certain yet.

The fact is that it is almost impossible to prevent a deadly act by someone intent and determined to commit it, especially in the case of a suicidal person who does not care about the consequences.  You simply cannot prevent acts of violence like this committed by insane and/or disturbed people, and I do not want to live in a surveillance/police state because people are scared and believe that the authorities can prevent these acts by watching everyone - they cannot.

A video camera would have done nothing to prevent this, although I don't disagree that they would be useful in determining the cause of a crash or mishap.  This is an issue for the FAA and other aviation authorities to decide, and if it's determined to be in the best interest of aircraft safety, then I don't give a rat's *** what the unions think.   

Dave

18 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

This is an issue for the FAA and other aviation authorities to decide, and if it's determined to be in the best interest of aircraft safety, then I don't give a rat's *** what the unions think.

At the end of the day, if it becomes mandated it doesn't matter what the unions or the airlines think. You can't collectively bargain your way out of a regulatory requirement.

My major concern is regulatory capture by the industry. We've seen this with Boeing.

Cheers

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

Regarding this incident, I'd rather not speculate if it was deliberate or not, despite it seeming likely. Could well have been faulty switch locks for all I know.

I’m not expecting you to come to a decision. That’s your prerogative. But I’ve read enough to form an opinion once it was disclosed the fuel cut-off switches were moved off then back on.

Remember Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes…

”when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

I believe it’s impossible for those switches to be moved by anything other than a human.

1 hour ago, RobPol471 said:

Second, I find it ridiculous that this Association calls the presence of a cockpit webcam an "obstacle," when there are hundreds of videos showing what happens inside a cockpit... taken and published online by... pilots. And it doesn't seem to me that all those pilots are concerned... or that they think their webcam is an obstacle in the cockpit!

Ha yes a very good point you make there.

Although as much as these YouTube celebrity pilots and their cameras are adored by the inquisitive public , I can tell you they aren’t so fondly thought of by the pilot workforce at large, that’s for sure.

Yesterday, the FAA and Boeing made a strange U-turn on the safety of the RUN/CUTOFF switch locks.

Following criticism of the FAA bulletin of December 18, 2018, which "recommended" and not "mandated" airlines to inspect the RUN/CUTOFF switch lockout device, which was reserved for 737s, Boeing, as stated in that report, had told the FAA to extend the inspection to its other aircraft, including the 787-8-9-10,
because the lockout system was "similar" to the one used on 737s. Yesterday, after almost 7 years and "only" after the Air India 787 crash, the FAA and Boeing issued a statement saying, "The fuel switch lockouts are safe."

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/amid-air-india-probe-us-faa-boeing-notify-fuel-switch-locks-are-safe-document-2025-07-13/

 

Air India was reassured by this It has been communicated to the point that they have decided to... check the operation of the RUN/CUTOFF switch lockout on its entire Boeing fleet, and the same has been decided in South Korea and by other airlines.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-orders-its-airlines-check-fuel-switches-boeing-jets-2025-07-14/

"The Wall Street Journal" published an exclusive article with the tragic title:

 

" New Details in Air India Crash Probe Shift Focus to Senior Pilot Black-box recording and report details indicate the flight's captain switched off fuel flow to engines"

 

The article is reserved for newspaper subscribers, but those online who have read it have said this:

"New details in the probe of last month's Air India crash are shifting the focus to the senior pilot in the cockpit.

A black-box recording of dialogue between the flight's two pilots indicates it was the captain who turned off switches that controlled fuel flowing to the plane's two engines, according to people familiar with U.S. officials' early assessment of evidence uncovered in the crash investigation.

The first officer who was flying the Boeing 787 Dreamliner asked the more-experienced captain why he moved the switches to the “cutoff” position after it climbed off the runway, these people said. The first officer expressed surprise and then panicked, these people said, while the captain seemed to remain calm."

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/air-india-crash-senior-pilot-eab72db5?mod=hp_trendingnow_article_pos4

Kinda jumping in on this after a long time has passed, I have this to say... I see an awful lot of Indian media and Indian pilots and Indian aviation employees doing just about everything to absolve the pilots of actually causing this by moving the switches. And it's sick. The amount of denial people are willing to go through is mind-boggling... 

Wild theories of FADEC failures that were never backed up by FDR data in the preliminary report, this is the wildest one I read today... Apparently, this individual believes that the switches may have moved into CUTOFF position by themselves because the aircraft tends to vibrate on takeoff and it can create frequencies that may move things via resonance, so because the switches may have been "loose", they didn't function as intended... /MIND BLOWN. Yeah, they "malfunctioned" and then magically fixed themselves after they were moved back into the RUN detent, and STAYED THERE upon the aircraft's collision with terrain and the resulting chaos. 

 

Greg Feith (if you know who that is), a former NTSB investigator maintains that it was a fact that they were moved, and it's a result of the actions of people in the cockpit (whether or not there was anyone else besides the 2 pilots remains unknown). There is no way around it. The FACT is that they were moved INTENTIONALLY either via erroneous action or malicious action. And it's time people stop conjuring up wild theories of what else caused this. 

Edited July 17, 2025Jul 17 by BostonJeremy77