Why the Fuel-Switch Story Does Not Explain the Ai171 Crash
Posted18 days agoActive18 days ago
frontline.thehindu.comNewsstory
informativeneutral
Debate
40/100
Aviation SafetyBoeing 787Aircraft Investigation
Key topics
Aviation Safety
Boeing 787
Aircraft Investigation
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
N/A
Peak period
1
0-1h
Avg / period
1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 20, 2025 at 5:29 PM EST
18 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 20, 2025 at 5:29 PM EST
0s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
1 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 20, 2025 at 11:11 PM EST
18 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 46340250Type: storyLast synced: 12/20/2025, 10:30:15 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Causing a large commercial airliner to crash by remotely cutting off fuel to engines would be quite a feat. Would exploit be most manageable at departure? Location is almost fixed. Plane control is most vulnerable immediately at take-off. What, if any, vital control domains are transitioned outboard vs onboard at takeoff? Etc...
The point of the article is to exonerate the pilots and expose a broader issue of honesty and transparency from Boeing and regulators that is covering up a systematic defect in Boeing aircraft design. The shared electrical bus renders other redundancies ineffective. The fact that the RAT has deployed uncommanded 37 times recently means another electrical failure at takeoff is a matter of time.
When you ask 5 five times, it's never an individual. That's a big part of safety culture. Otherwise people cover their rears.