comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
There's no physical ,blinds on a B787, the glass just darkens/illuminates but the passenger usually has control.

I flew on a Saudi 787 from Jeddah to Manchester last year, the captained darkend the windows just after takeoff and left them dark for the whole flight except for the last 10 minutes, the personal screens weren't working either.

So a 6 hour flight with blacked out windows and no map to chart your progress, really was a bit spooky as we could have been absolutely anywhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you sure they didn't take you to a black site for some probing and then woke up in MAN?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were very gentle if that's what really happened

The reason is the engines both failed, now they will look into why they failed

If the video of the day before is true and all the Aircon and screens and buttons were not working, it will be some kind of computer/electrical fault.

Really sad.

comment by Bored As Fudge Again (U21998)
posted 20 minutes ago
The reason is the engines both failed, now they will look into why they failed

If the video of the day before is true and all the Aircon and screens and buttons were not working, it will be some kind of computer/electrical fault.

Really sad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New evidence suggests that a double engine failure COULD be the cause but nothing is definitive at this stage as I understand it. 48 hours ago the most probable cause was a co-pilot error - this stuff changes all the time, we just don’t know yet

Again this “new evidence” of a dual engine failure is coming from yet another pilots opinion which has been picked up on by the media as the ‘most probable cause’.

Again - 48 hours ago it was the co-pilot activating the wrong lever and retracting the flaps instead of the landing gear according to an “expert” pilot

it wuz gremlinz

comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 10 minutes ago
Again this “new evidence” of a dual engine failure is coming from yet another pilots opinion which has been picked up on by the media as the ‘most probable cause’.

Again - 48 hours ago it was the co-pilot activating the wrong lever and retracting the flaps instead of the landing gear according to an “expert” pilot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think was ever any doubt about the engines, the pilot said no thrust.

They need to now route back for cause.

It can fly on one engine.

Both engines don't just fail, something stopped them.

Ironically, it could be a safety feature that's caused it.

comment by Bored As Fudge Again (U21998)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 10 minutes ago
Again this “new evidence” of a dual engine failure is coming from yet another pilots opinion which has been picked up on by the media as the ‘most probable cause’.

Again - 48 hours ago it was the co-pilot activating the wrong lever and retracting the flaps instead of the landing gear according to an “expert” pilot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think was ever any doubt about the engines, the pilot said no thrust.

They need to now route back for cause.

It can fly on one engine.

Both engines don't just fail, something stopped them.

Ironically, it could be a safety feature that's caused it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but here’s the point - the belief that this was a co-pilot error (because originally the video shows the landing gear still deployed and flaps possibly retracted) was the dominant theory when the accident happened. That was before the mayday message from the pilot was shared. A double engine failure is so extremely rare that originally that wasn’t the favoured theory.

The point is - there will be more evidence released which changes things again.

comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 8 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Bored As Fudge Again (U21998)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 10 minutes ago
Again this “new evidence” of a dual engine failure is coming from yet another pilots opinion which has been picked up on by the media as the ‘most probable cause’.

Again - 48 hours ago it was the co-pilot activating the wrong lever and retracting the flaps instead of the landing gear according to an “expert” pilot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think was ever any doubt about the engines, the pilot said no thrust.

They need to now route back for cause.

It can fly on one engine.

Both engines don't just fail, something stopped them.

Ironically, it could be a safety feature that's caused it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but here’s the point - the belief that this was a co-pilot error (because originally the video shows the landing gear still deployed and flaps possibly retracted) was the dominant theory when the accident happened. That was before the mayday message from the pilot was shared. A double engine failure is so extremely rare that originally that wasn’t the favoured theory.

The point is - there will be more evidence released which changes things again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully agree. They will try their hardest to make this human error, so as not to lose confidence to the public.

I'm flying in 3 weeks. I'm not worried, but it does make you just hesitate a little.