PeterRS

1. Not sure if you are referring to subtitles. If so, then they would definitely not be Taiwanese. On the other hand, any local Chinese could surely add subtitles to non-subtitled vdos of which Taiwan produces many. If they were exterior shots that included the names of buildings or streets, for example, either these could have been filmed with the porn part then filmed later outside China. If they are an integral part of the movie, I cannot help. 2. Telegram is banned in China. So I am not sure where these vdos originate. 3. I am pretty certain it was Blued but I also had several other apps on my phone. So I'm sorry I canot be certain.

I tried to edit the above 58 minutes after it was posted but was not allowed to do so. The only point i wanted to add is that the report states the fuel cut-off switches were activated only 3 seconds after the plane left the ground. It is in my view extremely unlikely that pilot flying - the co-pilot - could have done that as his attention would have been fully focussed on getting the plane into the air. Not impossible, but I think very unlikely.

China is pretty much a closed market for western social media. It has its own platforms. Unlike some countries, homosexuality is not a crime (other than certain usual exceptions like minors) and there are pretty active gay communities in the major cities. Chengdu may not seem a major city but it does have a population of around 21 million and boasts nearly 20 universities. As I have written before, when I visited the apps there were absolutely buzzing with students keen to hook up with an older westerner. Although an internet check will provide differing results on population numbers, this is largely because some are based on a 2010 census and others on much more recent local data. In 2020 it is generally agreed there were 113 cities with populations of more than 1 million. Several have grown even larger since then. In 2024 the country had 18 mega cities with populations of more than 10 million. That means a lot of gay guys. Overall, the general lack of gay bars and clubs means gay guys depend a great deal on hook ups using apps and meeting up for small parties in one of their apartments. But contrary to the OP good friends in Shanghai tell me there is not a lot of Chinese-related porn circulated. And one of these friends should know as he produced China's first gay movie with full frontal nudity. Chinese government censors do take an active role in keeping Chinese porn to an absolute minimum, if only because porn is officially banned. Some Chinese access porn via VPN's which they subscribe to on visits outside China. But these are only allowed to access overseas content. It may be that some porn being circulated originates in Taiwan which has its own very active porn vdo business. But Taiwan porn is generally vanilla. Japanese porn on the other hand is a huge business with a far wider variety of subect matter, some pretty grotesque. Most is obvious from its use of pixilation which is law in Japan, although non-pixilated vdos for circulation outside the country are increasing in number.

Come on guys. I did say "perhaps!"

Speculation remains inevitable and I have spent much of yesterday thinking about the timeline and the two elements of the conversation between the pilots that are in the report which I have now read in detail. That video posted by @unicorn is again extremely useful but with respect I do not think it fully explains the ten second delay. Let's suppose, as we know it was the copilot who was flying the plane, that he activated the cut off switches. As an earlier video explained, the captain would have seen this at least out of the corner of his eye. When you think about it, although other systems have to be monitored on take-off, there is generally no panic situation. It should be relatively routine. Besides, the captain had 8,596 hours experience on the 787 whereas the much younger copilot had 1,128 hours. It would therefore be usual that the captain would have at least part of his attention focussed on the pilot flying. That is clearly what the pilot in the video above states as far as his airline is concerned. Do we have any reason to expect that AI is any different? So you are the captain. Suddenly, with all seemingly going well, out of the side of your eye you see the fuel switches being repositioned by the pilot flying. You KNOW the effect this will have on an aircraft packed with fuel and near its maximum take-off weight. Nobody needs to tell you that. That is wired into your brain. So my question would remain: why did the captain wait a full TEN seconds before asking the question "Why did you do that?" all the while himself doing absolutely nothing to correct the situation? Check on your watch. Ten seconds is actually quite a long time. GIven the depth of your knowledge and in the case of the AI captain all your very considerable flying experience on 787s, surely your first action will immediately and very quickly be to reach over to put the swtches back to normal in order to ensure the plane could continue take-off successfully? Only THEN will you ask why the copilot had cut the fuel. The pilot in the video does not agree and states ten seconds is pretty quick. In many situations I'd agree. But when you see your co-pilot taking such a deliberate action that you know could have catastrophic consequences for your aircraft, I do not agree in this instance. I believe you'd spring into action all but immediately. Granted, if it had been the captain who actived the switches, the co-pilot's full attention would have been on the take-off. He might not have been immediately aware of any of the captain's actions. But his left hand would either have been on the throttle levers or have just left them. I do not know how he could not have been aware of the captain's hand being close to his left hand. I assume that he might suddenly have become aware of engine power being reduced. But I do not know how a change in the flow of fuel to the engines will result in a change in the sound of the engines. Maybe ten seconds. On the other hand, does he not have an instrument gauge on the control panel in front of him informing him of the rate of fuel flow? That I just don't know.

Sorry for misreading that point. Frankly I am not a pilot and know little about actual flying. I was once a passenger on a small microlite plane in Thailand where we took off and landed from a field with some cows! But I loved that little flight. The only time my travels have been affected by a small plane was at the small airport on the Argentine side of the Igazu Falls. I was boarding an Aerolineas Argentinas 737 to Buenos Aireas domestic airport before transerring to the international airport for a LAN Chile flight to Santiago. Fortunately I had allowed lots of time for the transfer. Before boarding was complete, we were asked to deplane and wait in the small departure lounge. We had no idea why and it took about 10 minutes for one of the airline staff to explain. A small single seater aircraft had crash landed on the single runway. No flights could get in or out until the wreckage had been cleared. My ticket to Santiago was part of an 8-sector air miles ticket. So I had to make it or the computer would kill all my remaining bookings. I called the nearest air miles HQ which happened to be in Miami. If I missed the Santiago flight, the next flights I could get on would be about 3 weeks later! Had that not been possible I would have had to fork out thousands of $$. I started to panic! Needlessly as it turned out.

Not sure about memory but perhaps there is some truth that jellyfish can extend life. The Japanese eat it with lots of dishes and sometimes on its own (mixed with mustard it is delicious) - as do the Chinese with some. Recent life expectancy tables show that Hong Kong people lived longer than anyone closely followed by Japan with women in both outliving men by over 5 years. The USA comes in at #48 and an average of 79.61. Thailand at #78 and an avaerage of 76.83. African countries make up most of the last 25. https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

Sorry but the degree of danger is not quite the view of professional pilots - and the statistics agree with them. According to Tom Ferrier, a retired US Air Force Commander, from 1959 to 2016 48% of all fatal accidents have occured on final approach or landing. By contrast, during take-off and the start of the climb the figure is only 13%. This 13% takes into account the difficulties pilots often faced in the earlier days between V1 and V2 - the times when an aircraft must take off and secondly can actually take off with one engine out. Since engine power was less, there were more take-off accidents in those days. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/10/25/when-flying-is-taking-off-really-more-dangerous-than-landing/ In my flying days I have been in four aborted landings, two for other aircraft on the runway and two for weather. The last was last year when flying from Taipei to BKK. A major monsoon storm was moving over BKK and the pilot tried to land twice, each time aborting. We ended up having to fly to Chiang Mai to refuel and finally get back to BKK four hours late. On the other hand, I have only been on one aborted take-off. That was almost three decades ago on a Cathay Pacific flight from HKG to Beijing. Hurtling down the runway, we were suddenly thrust forward in our seats as the plane shuddered to a halt - thankfully missing hurtling into the sea at the end. The captain quickly came on the intercom and quite noncholantly said "My apologies ladies and gentlemen for that sudden halt. A red light suddenly lit up in the cockpit and I'd rather have it fixed on the ground than try to do so in the air!" One new China Airlines 747-400 made a botch of the landing in the early-1990s and literally ended up in HKG harbour. No one was injured but the plane was a write-off.

Yes, that all makes sense. But it again assumes one pilot intent on suicide, something that has very rarely happened in the history of flight - as rare as fuel supply switches cutting off unexpectedly. Had it been the captain switching off the levers intentionally, I can understand that he could have made sure his hand stayed on the control switches thereby making reactivation by the copilot much more difficult, the more so as the copilot was still busy flying the aircraft. If the copilot - whose left hand would have been on the throttle levers and his right on the yoke - had switched them off, I suspect it ought to have taken the captain mere seconds to switch them back on without even the need to ask "Why did you do that?" Brain memory would surely have kicked in immediately. We also have no indication in the report of what the poilots may have been saying to each other both before and after the two sentences in the report. These may offer more clues. Also, the thrust levers were both found to be in the standard forward take-off position. If you are cutting the fuel, why keep the throttles in the maximum thrust position? Until we know about these and who asked the question, we'll not know the answer. Apart from German Wings, the only other crash i know to have been attributed directly to pilot suicide was an Egyptian Air 767 on October 31 1999. Ths is described in amazing detail in a long article in The Atlantic by a former professional pilot. That 767 flight had originated in Los Angeles and had stopped in JFK to refuel, change crews and pick up new passengers. For the rest of the flight, there were two crews on board. Additionally Egypt Air's Chief 767 pilot and instructor had deadheaded - picked up a lift on the flight to get back to Cairo. Twenty minutes into the flight, the two crews swapped positions. In the co-pilot's seat now was the portly 60-year old Gameel al-Batouti. Generally too old for a co-pilot but his English was poor and having joined the airline much later than younger co-pilots he was perfectly happy being in the right cockpit seat. He was married and had five children. He and his wife had a vacation home on the beach. On the flight he had in his bag some boxes of viagra to hand out back in Egypt as gifts! The flight lasted 31 minutes. By this time al-Batouti was in the co-pilot's seat. He was an old friend of the captain who called him by his nickname "Jimmy". As occurred on the German Wings flight, the captain decided to take a toilet break. The 767 was cruising at 33.000 ft and al-Batouti was alone in the cockpit. Softly al-Batouti can be heard on the CVR saying "I rely on God." The autopilot was then disengaged. Four seoonds later, al-Batouti repeated "I rely on God", a phrase he was to continue uttering during the next horrifying minutes aways in a calm tone. Almost simultaneously the throttles were pulled back to minimum idle and the horizontal stabiliser dropped to a 3-degree down position. The 767 was now starting a deadly dive. The captain had quickly made his way back into the cockpit. Three times he is heard asking "What is happening?" Probably unable to reach his seat due to the G-forces, he leant over and desperately tried to use his control to pull up the nose. The aircraft was now falling at the speed of sound. al_Batouti reached over and cut the fuel supply switches. During all this time all manner of alarms were going off including a master alarm. As a result perhaps of the captain's efforts, the aircraft gained altitude. But with no power, at 24,000 feet and with its rate of velocity, the aircraft began to break apart. It took 114 seconds for what was left of it to crash down into the Atlantic Ocean. Soon the US media had begun to get hold of the flight's final details and blamed suicide. The NTSB, aware of the cultural impact between two nations, was less direct. Cairo was furious and spent the next two years trying to find ways to absolve al-Batouti of any guilt. In New York, it was soon discovered that al-Batouti was a bit of a playboy and mild sexual molester (although never rape or inded much more than groping). Worse, in the crew's hotel during the NYC layover, there had been a major bust up with the captain who, it has been allleged, had threated al-Batouti with disciplinary action once back in Cairo. In the end, neither country agreed on what exactly had happened. But the evidence held in the USA very clearly pointed to suicide causing the deaths of 217 passengers and crew. Unlike the German Wings crash, though, there seemed to be no clear reason for al-Batouti to take such devastating action. Yet again, though, he had crashed the aircraft when it was well into its flight. And this is one reason surely for at least wondering why, if the Air India crash was indeed a suicidal action, why whichever crew member switched off the fuel supply did so just as the aircraft was taking off rather than waiting until much later into the flight. That surely leaves some room for doubt. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/11/the-crash-of-egyptair-990/302332/

I have watched several of this captain's videos and have basically agreed with almost every part of his various analyses. The one second gap between the fuel control switches being turned off is certainly an issue that needs very close investigation. If, as my earlier posts have considered, there was a major technical malfunction, the assumption would have to be that both switches turned to the off position at precisely the same time. But we should recall he states that in the history of aviation there is no procedure where immediately after "rotate" you grab both conrol switches and place them to cut off. It therefore had to be intentional. Probably beause he was not aware of it, there is a very roughly similar example of power being cut from engines (along with other wrongly activated pilot procedures) which @Keithambrose mentioned early in this thread. In June 1972, a Britsh European Airways Trident aircraft crashed soon after take off. At 16:09:10 the aircraft left the runway at London's Heathrow en route to Brussels. As the aircraft climbed, due to a severe loss of power the Trident entered a deep stall and crashed into the ground at 16:11:00. In this case the crew had overridden the standard stall warnings. There were, as noted, several reasons which caused that crash which included the state of health of the captain, failure to monitor speed, specific actions which led to early retraction of the flaps and others largely involving the crew. It can not be identical to the AI crash if only because the cockpit layouts and computerisation more than 50 years ago were vastly different. But there are certainly some rough similarites - notably a loss of engine power. The only other concern I have about the Report is that it took 12 seconds from discovery that the fuel supply had been cut off for the switches to be reactivated. Granted there will have been massive confusion in the cockpit. But one of the pilots in the vdo states that the other pilot saw out of the corner of his eye that his colleague had swtiched the fuel supply switches to off and asks whey he did that. That being the case, why - despite all the confusion - why did it take the one who made that comment a full 12 seconds to switch fuel supply to one engine back on followed two seconds later by the second fuel supply switch? If you know you have lost power because the fuel supply switches are in the wrong position, is not your primary reaction at that utterly critical stage in the flight to do everything possible to switch them back on? That in my view could surely not have taken more than 5 or 6 seconds.

Looking at the photo in my earlier post, it is clear that the fuel cut off switches are very close to the engine throttles. As we know each fuel cut off switch requires two separate actions -a pull out locking device and then a move down. We know from the USFAA SAIB notice in 2018 that some 737s had been delivered with the locking device disengaged. The advisory note provided to airlines was simply that: note it and take action. But it was not mandatory. The switch designs on the 787 are identical to those on the 737 and it is not known if the locking device was in fact operational on the doomed 787. If not, then even accidentally brushing the switches with simple hand movements would be enough to activate the cut off. To me that seems simple. But it fails to take into account that there is no record of such accidental touches had happened on take-off before. It also assumes the cut off switch was in fact disengaged. Additionally, when taking off, for full power the thrust levers are pushed forwards, not backwards. Accidentally touching the fuel supply switches would be extremely unlikely. But then there is concern that the aircraft was fitted with a computerised autothrottle device. To my understanding, this means pilots input the desired flight parameters including engine thrust. The computer then ensures that thrust management provides optimal engine thrust under varying flight conditions. Thus at take-off, the computer effectively takes control ensuring that the pilot flying does not require his hands on the thrust levers shortly after the aircraft leaves the ground. What a hand does thereafter is up to the pilot flying. It is known that this autothrottle computer programme caused issues with the 787 fleet on October 23 2024 when the FAA issued a mandatory Airworthiness Directive for all 787s. This gave airlines 6 months to correct safety concerns related to "erroneous autothrottle behaviour". The Directive continues - "The directive was prompted by incidents where the autothrottle system exhibited erroneous behavior during critical flight phases such as balked landings, with the system failing to properly adjust thrust levels. Additionally, the low range radio altimeter (LRRA) has shown potential for erroneous readings, which can lead to inadequate airspeed protections. These issues could result in unsafe conditions, including runway overruns or controlled flight into terrain." We have no idea if Air India had acted on the Directive. Even so, we also do not know if such an action would automatically push the autothrottle switches downwards. There is also the fact that on the flight from Delhi to Ahmadabad this 787 was beset by several internal electrical problems. Passengers sat on the ground with the doors shut for more than 15 minutes with no air conditioning despite intense heat. The in-flight entertaiment system did not work. Passenger lighting and the crew call buttons did not work. As the passenger who took the video said "Nothing is working!" Often on the ground, the a/c will be supplied by an external power unit. But that is disconnected around five minutes prior to push-back when the engines are started. Even then, as this aircraft was taxiing the on board a/c was still not working. Was there perhaps a greater electrical problem that came to affect the aircraft on the second leg of the flight to London. More speculation. https://www.aviacionline.com/faa-issues-airworthiness-directive-for-boeing-787-dreamliners-due-to-autothrottle-and-radio-altimeter-issues

There was a time not all that long ago when I wached CNN virtually every mornng. It was a routine for many, many years until I decided to ban all tv news programmes. The number of times I now go even to the BBC news site is perhaps just a couple of times each month. But I do read on line news. This morning i was saddened to learn of the death of David Gergen, the political analyst who was a frequent fixture on CNN. A one-time advisor to four Presidents, I liked his cool analytical skills and his unflappability! Compared to so many biased so-called experts, I believed what he said and enjoyed listening to him. RIP David Gergen.

OMG! I had forgotten about that movie. I watched it several times, always hoping that Christopher Atkins would finally strip totally naked!

I supose I should not be surprised that the glacier has been retreating. More than 3 decades ago I read in an on-board airline magazine sbout Glacier Bay in Alaska off Juneau. I determined to see it. So on my next trip to New York I stopped off in Seattle for a week's trip up the Inside Passage on a small boat. We saw several glaciers in various fjords and then the well-known Mendenhall Glacier just outside Juneau, but Glacier Bay was the highlight. Only two floating vessels were then allowed in for each 24 hours - one of the large cruise ships and the little boat I was on. We entered the Bay at midniight. I remember waking up and hearing loud occasional cracking noises. The boat had parked just off the amazing Marjorie Glacier and the cracks were the sound of it moving. Since its discovery 2 centuries earlier, the massive block of ice that covered the entrance to the Bay had retreated around 65 miles with then 17 separate tidewater glaciers coming down as far as the sea. It was clear a larger number had once reached the sea but were now ending up further in the mountains. It was a fascinating day, seeing not only the glaciers but also a wide variety of sea life including orcas, humpback whales, puffins and a host of others. I have tried without success to check how many tidewater glaciers now remain. I believe it has been reduced to 10 but others may have a more accurate figure.

Sounds like this might be related in some way to the Foodland 7-Michelin Star establishment - although i have never tried their frogs legs! 🤣 🤣