> The report is actually a little cagey about whether the locks were properly installed on these switches. Said locks are supposedly optional.
The locks/gates on the switches are definitely NOT optional. There was an SAIB about some switches that may have been installed improperly. It didn't result in an AD, which likely means the extent was limited or potentially even nil.
The switches were moved to cutoff with a one second delay between the first and second switch. That's pretty suggestive of deliberate movement. I've flown a Max9 simulator, which has the same switches. Moving one of them by accident would be impossible, let alone two of them.
I agree with not jumping to conclusions about the pilots and possible motives or circumstances, but I will bet a lot of money that the switches were just fine.
The CVR will likely have audio of the switch movement to confirm as well.
The switch must be lifted and turned. The optional posts block you from inadvertently knocking the switch (that you must pull up and turn).
I second that it’s not an accidental motion, you must actively manipulate the switch. But just like your turn signal in your car, it is muscle memory when you use it. I just wonder what action the pilot mistook the fuel cutoff for. Looking around the cockpit shows just how unique those switches are and not something you mistake with another common activity.
did the report say a one second delay or that the two switches were turned off at consecutive seconds? The latter is what I remembered, but I'll check again.
> did the report say a one second delay or that the two switches were turned off at consecutive seconds?
The report states, on page 14:
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.
"with a time gap of 01 sec" seems fairly clear. The final report will have more granularity, but I don't think that's very ambiguous.
Not at all. First of all writing it as "01" begs the question if there is a typo (is that really supposed to mean 1 or 0.1?) but even without that only specifying the interval to a second precision makes is much more likely that the difference is between samples of the switch state that are recorded at that rate.
Genuine question not from a judgy space but from an interested one.. what motivates you to do this? I feel like I would find the pat down far more invasive than someone seeing a sort of nude picture of my body.. again, I’m asking because I would like to understand, not because I’m judging the choice. Appreciate your insight!
Heh, cannot give it a rationale answer. I mostly started as the most minor form of political protest against the security theater. Then there were the few inevitable scandals: instances where images were saved, some of the machines were miscalibrated and delivering far too much energy to people, whatever. Sorta some justification, but I really do not have much to point. I can just say that it has never been a huge inconvenience to opt out.
I am also a boring white guy so the pat downs have always been perfunctory -never feared being groped by a thug.
I've been without an IT gig for the last year, though it had nothing to do with the overall tech market tightening.
Prior to my gig ending, I'd already made the decision to change careers (at least for a while), so I haven't really looked for anything new, I've been focusing on the career change. At 46, I just wasn't really looking forward to starting to experience the tech ageism; and, the AI craziness is really grating to me. It's feels like the seagulls from Finding Nemo except instead of "Mine Mine Mine" it's "AI AI AI". :-D
I'm about two weeks away from leaving for pilot training at a regional airline, so hopefully in a few months I'll be just another cog in a machine for a while, flying people around on jet powered busses. If the airline life turns out to be my speed for the long haul, then the goal would be to get over to a mainline carrier ASAP; if not, I can always fall back to tech later, and for now I'll enjoy the office view from 34k ft.
I'm aware that I've traded upcoming implicit ageism for explicitly regulated ageism, but if I am lucky enough to stay healthy I don't have to worry about that kicking in until I'm 65.
I did a chunk of my primary training back when I was 21, but as often happens, I got to around the cross country solo portion and ran out of money and life priorities changed.. unfortunately, I then set it down for a really long time; sort of forgot that I actually really loved it, I guess.
Came back to flying in 2019 and finished up my private certificate, with no particular intention other than I wanted to fly because I enjoyed it, and perhaps instruct because I do enjoy teaching. Went on to get my instrument and commercial, and around the time I got my commercial certificate, I started toying with the idea of pursuing it as a possible career change. Went on to get my multi-engine add on, which kind of cemented the idea of trying it for a living. CFI and CFII after that, and between doing some instructing and flying a lot just because I liked flying, I started applying at airlines around December of last year and I crossed the 1500hr mark in March of this year. Interviewed at my first choice regional in May, they gave me a CJO, and training class date in mid July.
Pilot hiring right now is pretty tight, so I've been pretty fortunate to get the regional I wanted right out of the gate, and to not have a long delay for a class date. As with anything involving timing in life, I definitely timed it wrong -- my earning potential and qualify of life outlook would've been vastly improved if I'd been ready to make this jump 2 to 3 years ago, but what can you do :-D
I'm not sure why you find it distracting, it's an on point extension of the scenario. There are rules by which companies are supposed to operate, and evaluations (audits, for example) intended to ensure compliance with those rules. That an LLM may react differently when being evaluated (audited) than when in normal operation means that it may be quite happy to lie to auditors while making money illegally.
I'm just about to start my new job as an airline pilot at 46. I didn't primarily decide to career shift away from IT because of AI, but it was definitely a consideration.
No, I was meant to book a one-way ticket, since I was moving offices. But I had to have evidence to show that booking round-trip was cheaper in case anyone questioned why I had purchased round-trip instead of one-way.
Mass and volume both count, in an aircraft, don't they? And many oversize humans present logistical and safety challenges:
- Taking up more than one seat with girth, needing a seatbelt extender.
- Fitting through narrow passages, tight turns, limited headroom
- An unconscious person may need to be lifted, and transported somehow
- Toilets and life vests and other safety equipment, rated for your "standard average man size"
- Total mass of passengers/cargo, and its distribution on the aircraft itself
Elevators in the US have a maximum weight and maximum occupancy rating.
Arguably, if obesity is a disability, then appeal to the Americans with Disability Act or similar regulations, but from a standpoint of safety and the common good, it does not seem unreasonable for airlines to charge extra to cover their expenses above.
> That’s part of the intention. Europe specifically is underproductive and the hope is that these tariffs and the change of tone for defense agreements will bolster Europes domestic industrial and defensive capabilities
So, rather than sell Europe weapons that we create in the United States, part of the “intention” of this policy is to cut off the European demand for our weapons systems and cause them to manufacture their own? How is that helpful to the United States and our bottom line? How is that at all in the US interests?
I agree that’s what is going to happen, but I see no evidence that it was part of the intention.
> So, rather than sell Europe weapons that we create in the United States, part of the “intention” of this policy is to cut off the European demand for our weapons systems and cause them to manufacture their own? How is that helpful to the United States and our bottom line? How is that at all in the US interests?
Are you asking why a single point of failure is a bad thing?
To restate what you asked: “if the USA weapons manufacturing capability is compromised and cannot sell weapons to approved parties, and said parties also cannot manufacture their own weapons, how is this in the interest of the US?”
> Are you asking why a single point of failure is a bad thing?
>To restate what you asked: “if the USA weapons manufacturing capability is compromised and cannot sell weapons to approved parties, and said parties also cannot manufacture their own weapons, how is this in the interest of the US?”
You can't equate weapons manufacturing to server uptime or data center diversity -- it's fundamentally different.
In terms of what is in the best interests of the United States -- yes, having a single point of weapons manufacture and having that be the United States would very much be in the US interests. It would allow the US to dictate, even more than we do today, how the rest of the world operates. Although we have not been a single source for weapons (Europe does make their own), our role as primary supplier would be (and has been) very profitable.
How is it that we can afford to create the advanced weapons that we do? F-35, Patriot, etc? It's because we can spread that research and development cost across other (allied) countries, because they buy our gear instead of developing their own. Reduce the market for our weapons, and you're going to reduce the quality of our weapons and increase their per-unit cost -- both things that are very much not in the interests of the United States.
This was sparked by the remark that this was all part of the "intention" of the policy. Since that intention would by definition be very contrary to US interests, both financial and strategic, it seems dubious that this was the intention.
I personally love the taste of coffee. If decaffeinated were able to achieve the same flavors, I'd be quite happy with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't taste at all the same.
I will not consume caffeine and tbh the rest of you need to slow down. Modern life runs on stimulants and caffeine is a whip at the back of the worker. I know this forum doesn’t give a damn about worker’s rights, but I do, and man I am tired of all this.
Your personal choice is fine for you. My personal choice is to enjoy a cup or two of coffee per day, because I love the way it tastes, not because I want or need the caffeine. I currently don't have regular employment, as I am attempting a career change, but my coffee consumption doesn't change when I'm on a job.
With respect, I think your worldview needs to widen out a bit. Just because there are lots of worker exploitation issues going on the world doesn't mean that everything fits in that lens. Some of us like coffee, and that doesn't mean it's because we like or accept a "whip at the back".
I'm almost 50 and hit total burnout a couple years ago trying to keep up with ever-increasing KPIs, OKRs, and the relentless churn of new frameworks and trends.
I had to quit caffeine and stimulants too because my heart was starting to have problems.
This industry didn't used to be so stressful. It feels like a Red Queen’s race now: you have to keep running faster just to stay in place.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if companies start offering modafinil next, just to keep the line going unsustainably upward. That’s where this trajectory feels headed, and it’s exhausting.
Stimulants are a problem, but I do not see stimulants as detrimental to workers' rights.
I see stimulants as a problem for healthcare though. I know people who have heart problems that are exacerbated by stimulants. But that's not a problem for everyone -- just as diabetes or heart disease are prevalent, nor a problem for everyone, and nor are they detrimental to workers' rights.
When I heard the tale of how the coffee break came to be — created so workers wouldn’t need an afternoon break — I find myself unable to separate the coffee from that fact. It was a tool used by Capitalists to keep the workers working. Now its so prevalent that no one can see the original causes.
> I find myself unable to separate the coffee from that fact
Well at least you admit it.
> Now its so prevalent that no one can see the original causes.
I know plenty of people who drink coffee without taking a break to do so. I know plenty of people who drink coffee and are more productive outside of work than people who do not drink coffee at all. I know plenty of employers who do not provide coffee breaks nor free coffee.
Moreover, if drinking coffee makes someone pleasant to be around while not-drinking coffee makes that same person un-pleasant to be around, then perhaps the productivity benefits and original causes aren't so important anymore.
Fair points. I do admit it! I expect no one to jump onboard from this community. I may be unreasonable — wouldn’t be the first time I have been accused of such, nor would it be the first time I agreed.
It is a real problem IMO. So many of us are perpetually exhausted. Unable to sleep. Jittery and fidgety. And as you say: unpleasant to be around when withdrawing!
These are the hallmarks of this addiction. To me the thing that is important NOW is getting people to see how deeply this has hurt humanity. But then, I also agreed with the premise of the Unabomber’s manifesto — while disagreeing wildly with his decisions on how to counteract what he saw.
This is a hill I am probably willing to die on.
Edited to add: I appreciate the conversation and not just a downvote, thank you
The locks/gates on the switches are definitely NOT optional. There was an SAIB about some switches that may have been installed improperly. It didn't result in an AD, which likely means the extent was limited or potentially even nil.
The switches were moved to cutoff with a one second delay between the first and second switch. That's pretty suggestive of deliberate movement. I've flown a Max9 simulator, which has the same switches. Moving one of them by accident would be impossible, let alone two of them.
I agree with not jumping to conclusions about the pilots and possible motives or circumstances, but I will bet a lot of money that the switches were just fine.
The CVR will likely have audio of the switch movement to confirm as well.
reply