We’re starting to get a better sense of what caused a Boeing 787 Dreamliner to rapidly descend over the South Pacific, injuring dozens (as flagged by reader David)…
In this post:
Cockpit mishap behind LATAM Boeing 787 incident?
On Monday, March 11, 2024, a LATAM Boeing 787 flight from Sydney to Auckland made headlines, when the aircraft suddenly rapidly descended without warning. The descent was so steep that some passengers hit the ceiling, causing widespread injuries.
Generally if a plane enters a rapid descent without warning, and it causes injuries like this, one would assume that it was a case of severe clear air turbulence. However, from the beginning, the airline was clear that this was due to a “technical problem.” While I wouldn’t put too much weight on this statement, one passenger claimed that the pilot told him that his “gauges just blanked out, I lost all of my ability to fly the plane.”
As you’d expect, a thorough investigation is being performed into the root cause of this incident, and we’re starting to get a sense of why this might have happened. The Air Current and The Wall Street Journal are reporting on the likely cause of this incident, per investigators.
The leading theory right now is that this happened while a flight attendant was delivering a meal to the pilots. The flight attendant reportedly accidentally hit a switch on the pilot’s seat, leading a motorized feature to push the pilot into the controls, and push down the plane’s nose. The switch involved here has a cover that isn’t supposed to be used while the pilot is in the seat.
Boeing is expected to issue a memo related to this cockpit seat switch issue to 787 operators in the near future.
What a wild explanation of this incident!
On the one hand, I suppose it’s reassuring that there doesn’t seem to be a bigger technical glitch with the aircraft, which could have bigger implications for the Dreamliner fleet. On the other hand, the series of events here is kind of shocking — a flight attendant delivered a pilot a meal, accidentally pushed a button, and this caused the pilot to physically bump into the control column, pushing the plane’s nose down?
If the button has a cover and isn’t supposed to be used while a pilot is in the seat, how exactly did it get pushed?
I suppose with so many Dreamliners flying for so many years, there’s eventually going to be some bizarre series of events with major consequences, though I’m very curious what the investigation determines in terms of the sequence of events here, and how this situation occurred.
Bottom line
Earlier this week, a LATAM Boeing 787 entered a brief but steep dive, injuring dozens. We knew the incident was due to some sort of “technical glitch,” rather than severe turbulence. Within a few days, we’ve now learned the likely cause of this — a flight attendant accidentally pushed a button that moved the pilot’s seat into the flight controls, putting the plane into a steep descent.
What do you make of this explanation for the LATAM 787 incident?
Let’s keep it real here… nothing but a “mile high club adventure in the cockpit” with the pilots and a loose flight attendant.
Using AdBlock since 4 years. 28 ads blocked on this page alone.
Wrong. There isn’t a magic cover or button that would cause that. There is a manual & electric means to move the seat.
Source: me w/over 8000 hrs in the 787 (us airline)
Keep sensationalizing it though. Keeps me entertained.
Also I don’t speculate. I wait for the reports but whatever gets you the clicks right? I mean I did.
Carl,
So you're saying that the guard and button don't exist or that it was not the cause?
I saw an interview on CNN with a pilot who said a guard covers the button that moves the pilot's seat. The button is located on the back of the seat and is only used for getting in and out of the seat. As you said, he seems to think there is way more to...
Carl,
So you're saying that the guard and button don't exist or that it was not the cause?
I saw an interview on CNN with a pilot who said a guard covers the button that moves the pilot's seat. The button is located on the back of the seat and is only used for getting in and out of the seat. As you said, he seems to think there is way more to this story, and there is no way the button is the issue. I'm not thrilled because I have several upcoming flights on Boeing 737 Max 8.
I don't know why Qatar its going to place such a large order on widebodies other than the A330's their fleet its pretty young.
Yeah the flight attendant was "serving a meal" to those pilots who were working very "hard" and the drop may have been caused by an unexpected jerk
You are onto something. Like you, I don't buy the official explanation of what the FA was doing in the cockpit at all. Crazy we have cameras in Ubers but not in airplane cockpits.
Something very similar happened to a RAF A330 Voyager a few years back. The captain managed to wedge a camera agaist the sidestick when moving his seat forward and dropped about 25,000 feet.
For those complaining about the ads, if you use Safari then “Reader” mode is your friend.
Or switch to Brave browser. Free Adblock built in.
Though you need to disable safari reader mode to see comments which are partly overlayed with ads…
Lucky please reduce or reorganize how you display ads. It all but impossible to read your articles on am mobile nowadays.
The ads are very intrusive and out of control.
A scene straight out of Airplane.
The media has been breathless in trying to blame Boeing for every problem that happens in aviation including in the string of United incidents. Boeing needs to be held accountable for what is Boeing's fault but other and often more likely sources need to be considered.
The great thing is that there is robust data capture on the 787 and investigators were able to determine that the seat was intentionally moved and that was,...
The media has been breathless in trying to blame Boeing for every problem that happens in aviation including in the string of United incidents. Boeing needs to be held accountable for what is Boeing's fault but other and often more likely sources need to be considered.
The great thing is that there is robust data capture on the 787 and investigators were able to determine that the seat was intentionally moved and that was, so far as they can tell, the likely reason for the aircraft upset.
There still is not an explanation for the supposed "blanking" of the instruments - or if that will be debunked as false. Investigators are saying that is not the primary focus.
Everyone that was in that cockpit at the time know what happened. The real issue is that Latam tried to make it look like it was something other than a human-induced problem.
Boeing has problems but glad to hear the cause of this incident isn't leading, so far, to being one of them.
Tim Boeing has done itself no favors to where fair or not they are going to get blamed for every problem until they fix their issues.
the vast majority of airline incidents = esp. for mature aircraft - are airline-controlled.
Boeing has problems which right now includes MAX production but they do not include the 787 seat. The 787 had abundant engineering and manufacturing issues early in the life of the program which caused groundings and delays that were compounded by moving production to S. Carolina. Those issues have largely been resolved other than compounding delays.
Airlines that are...
the vast majority of airline incidents = esp. for mature aircraft - are airline-controlled.
Boeing has problems which right now includes MAX production but they do not include the 787 seat. The 787 had abundant engineering and manufacturing issues early in the life of the program which caused groundings and delays that were compounded by moving production to S. Carolina. Those issues have largely been resolved other than compounding delays.
Airlines that are heavily vested in uncertified Boeing models without an Airbus backup including Southwest, United and Ryanair are paying the biggest price right now. There is a long list of airlines for the 777X but nearly all have the flexibility to hold onto existing aircraft and having Airbus aircraft on order.
The 787 pilot seat characteristics are known and there is more than a sufficient data trail to figure out what went wrong.
Latam could have easily stopped the Boeing witchhunt that went on for a week after this accident but they dumped the A350 for the 787 so Boeing should just suck it up, right?
I'm a bit irritated by these sentences in the article:
"The switch involved here has a cover that isn’t supposed to be used while the pilot is in the seat."
vs
"If the button has a cover and isn’t supposed to be used while a pilot is in the seat, how exactly did it get pushed?"
Is the cover not supposed to be used while the pilot is seated (first version, which...
I'm a bit irritated by these sentences in the article:
"The switch involved here has a cover that isn’t supposed to be used while the pilot is in the seat."
vs
"If the button has a cover and isn’t supposed to be used while a pilot is in the seat, how exactly did it get pushed?"
Is the cover not supposed to be used while the pilot is seated (first version, which would explain why the switch could easily be hit by someone), or is the cover supposed to be used and the switch not supposed to be used while the pilot is seated (second version)?
My guess and hope would be the second version and that they didn't put the cover on it although they should've. Otherwise it might be a more serious design issue.
At the same time, the official story about a technical problem is weird as well. I understand that airlines (and probably pilots as well) often tell wrong stories at first to reassure passengers of the safety of their airplanes. In this case however, a technical problem would be much more worrying for me as a passenger since I have to expect it to happen again anytime. So as soon as the real cause is known, I would the airline expect to release a statement like "don't worry, no technical issue, it was a mishap of our crew; additional training will assure this never happens again."
Take a look at this - it really shows it pretty clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRF1YTVJ1Q4
Lucky was dead on - accurate! They seem to think that the switch was loose under the cover - so that pressing on the cover impacted the switch - and moved the seat (thus moving the surprised the crew member into the yoke).
Maybe I'm missing something. I'd think that a "dive" wouldn't result in passengers on the ceiling. A "drop" OTOH could do that.
But indeed a drop isn't something that would result from a technical issue, that's more from turbulance.
You'd be surprised at how sensitive the flight instruments can be. Shoving into the yoke and giving it a firm push can cause a crazy fast drop when you're cruising full speed at 41,000 feet. Ask any private pilot to "show you what the controls do" when they have a little time in flight. The ease with which pretty much any aircraft can rapidly drop or ascend is pretty amazing.
I suggest you add the blancolirio video, as it does a great job explaining this.
Do you have a link? I was not able to find it.
Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRF1YTVJ1Q4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRF1YTVJ1Q4
The switch at the back of the seat is designed to be used by a flight attendant to bring the seat aft in the event of a pilot incapacitation. But as you say, it has a cover on it, and the seat would move pretty slowly!
I can barely read anything on your site anymore on my phone because of the annoying incessant mobile ads that are near impossible to close without triggering spam pop ups. Sigh. I guess this was a good story, but I’ll never know because I’m now driven away elsewhere.
Lucky, these new mobile ads you added are terrible. Really hard to click out of.
+1. Terrible form factor. Just noise.
When I first saw this story I wondered if it wasn’t an operational or pilot issue of some kind. I mean, after some initial battery issues, the dream liner is a pretty reliable craft. I’m sure Boeing is sighing, a bit of relief.