A flamethrower negates this... Like instantly.

Which reminds me, almost never should you write a serious response to what at first appears as a genuinely clueless AC.

I wonder what are the comparable figures for manpower? It's not like only drones are dying...

It's like trademarking Osama Bin Laden's Bagel Store.

Oh jeez, that guy. It figures.

That's what said, Nimbyism applies to any kind of development, energy generation or other.

Whereas with, say, nuclear, there are a significant number of people who just don't think it should be done anywhere, whether or not it's within 100 miles of them. Same with oil. Same with coal.

I can't think of any protests against solar in general. Although I'm sure there must have been some conflict about developing particular sites, same as if they were going to build apartments or anything else.

I imagine that is why they were supposed to have that locking mechanism. Someone else mentioned that Airbuses have an additional safety mechanism that the switches cannot be moved to OFF until the throttle is set to 0. That might be a suggestion for future redesign.

1) Fuel switches do not look like the landing gear switch on this plane. Fuel switch: black knobs. Landing gear: grey disc. They are not located even in the same place. Fuel switch, under throttle. Landing gear: Between the two pilot displays. I am not sure why you even hint they "look like" each other. 2) The landing gear switch would be in the down position until the pilot moves them UP to retract them after takeoff. To start the engines, the fuel switches must be moved to RUN (UP). Even if somehow a pilot confused the two during takeoff and wanted to retract the gear but instead reached for the fuel switch, he would try to move the fuel switch UP. It would already be UP. If the pilot meant to turn the fuel on, he would not needed to do that as the engine should have already been started.

Again you do not seem to understand the point. "Cutoff" is very specific jargon for a Boeing. For these specific controls switches. If the display does not mention "CUTOFF" why would the pilot use that term? He wouldn't.

Again not everyone uses American English phrasing in an airplane environment. As international pilots, they would use airplane terminology like "turn off", "disable", "power down", "trim", etc.

Think for a second about the situation. You are a pilot in a Boeing 787. You've lost engine power. You can hear it. You can feel it. But according to you, you would NEVER look 70 degrees from primary attention to check the throttle or fuel supply switches even for a moment to determine why you have no power.

Er what? The advisory were for these exact switches. It even listed the part numbers that could be affected. Without the locking feature, these switches could be easy to flip accidentally by a pilot. Also the plane was 12 years old with 11 years of service. Without the locking feature (after all those years of service), how much vibration would flip the switches? That's the relevance.

The switches were not installed with the "wrong type". The switches may been incorrectly installed that disabled the safety feature. That is a different matter.

The problem with the safety mechanism was not it was missing but it was "disengaged" when installed. It might be harder to determine if the damaged switches could show that.

And you assuming is wasn't a mistake at all. That is also a very big assumption

The final report would delve into probabilities of failure. Remember that the plane was not new. It was 12 years old with 11 years of service and over 41,000 hours. Also the report mentions the possibility the switches were installed incorrectly.

There are two positions for that switch. RUN or CUTOFF. As far as I know the switch must be in RUN position to start the engines. CUTOFF as far as I know is not used for any other control. So what else could have happened other than the pilot noticing these specific switches were flipped. It is possible that the computer registered the switch positions incorrectly. We will have to wait for the final report if that is possible.

No your point is that we should not listen to others on this forum. But you. What makes your opinion more valid than others? Nothing from my viewpoint. All are equally worthless (even mine) when it comes to aviation safety. Now some opinions are worthless because they are based entirely on assumptions and misinformation but that is a different matter.

The interface is there for a reason. How would a pilot turn off fuel supply to an engine when it is on fire? Also the solution should be somewhat quick as fire tends to spread fast. Please enlighten us with your solution.

The point you seem to miss is this interface may have been installed incorrectly and if it was installed correctly, there may not be a need for redesign.