And robovacs don't need to keep their motor running since they're not airborne so why the odd comparison? Obviously they both should react differently to intake blockage, my point was that even consumer devices have such detection features.

I do, if it's still on the ground when it happens.

I get your point, but no you don’t on an aircraft like this.

If you are on a takeoff roll with a heavily fueled and armed aircraft and it detects an ingestion it has no idea if running until it blows up will save lives or not. The pilot needs to make that call.

There are significant failures here, but without being on the scene or seeing the write up I can’t say what they are beyond the failure of both the ground crew and the pilot.

This is speaking as a 21 year Naval Aviation Senior Enlisted who has spent plenty of time on the flight deck.

I dont think the commenter above actually meant "shut down when not all is ideal". But having the aircraft scream at pilot that the airflow is unusual, possibly even suggest that it looks like as if the cover was on, and letting pilot decide whether to ignore this warning or act upon it....

Yea, I think the hard stop of my vacuum is fitting for its purpose: at worst my floor wont get vacuumed if its false error. But the aircraft lacking elevated and more concretely descriptive warnings about such crucial part of its powerplant is just wrong.

The cover was left on. You don't believe there's a moment between the plane being turned off and still and the plane moving too fast to stop where the computer should've said "what the fuck?" like, say, half a second after turning the engine on?