Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Re: Air India 787 recent crash. Report, Barrons article
It only says that engine fuel switches suddenly and simultaneously "transitioned" to CUTOFF, & then were "transitioned" to RUN. As these switches require deliberate actions to move due to a locking mechanism, it's a mystery how the CUTOFF happened in the first place. There is some audio that both pilots were surprised by the sudden CUTOFF.
After they were moved back to RUN, engine auto-restart cycles were initiated. One engine regained power but the other engine couldn't get restarted. By then, the flight crashed.
On another forum, a pilot with over 30 years experience flying Boeing aircraft stated that it is impossible to knock the fuel switches into the cutoff position inadvertently.
Yes, I've reviewed numerous reports from varied sources on this, and the consensus is that it's not possible to place the fuel switches into the cutoff position inadvertently.
The recovered cockpit audio indicates that one of the two pilots asked the other if he had operated those two switches, and that the other pilot denied having done so. At this point It's certainly seeming as if one of those two pilots deliberately crashed that airplane.
I’ve seen Boeing aircraft boxes from cockpit with similar switches and they are difficult to move - you have to pull out switch with force in order to move up or down. These Honeywell switches are military grade and cost about $1,500. I’ve seen boxes with bent switches and the only way that happens is if you drop the box on tarmac as you are carrying it out of plane.
There is clearly more information than has been released by India AAIB (US NTSB, UK AAIB, Boeing and GE are also participating).
1. There is almost 26 minutes of cockpit audio (even video?) from the time the flight left the gate and it crashed. Only a short paraphrasing/translation of their talk has been released (without identifying the people talking, Copilot/flying/PF or Captain/assisting/observing/PIC/PM),
"In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so."
Even if they weren't talking in English, people can make sense of their conversation whether in Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi or Marathi. Their names are available from media reports - both were based in Mumbai; Captain (Sumeet Sabharwal) was close to retiring, copilot (Clive Kunder) had lot of flying experience but none yet as PIC of this type of aircraft.
2. No information about the state of instruments or engine or fuel before the fuel CUTOFF. Was there an emergency situation building up that could trigger auto-CUTOFF? If this isn't possible, then pilots should be blamed regardless of what they were heard saying.
From what I have read, an emergency fuel CUTOFF could happen via software if there was a fuel leak or some other emergency situation that may not have been apparent to the pilots. To just state that fuel switches "transitioned" almost simultaneously (within 1 second) to CUTOFF 3 seconds after the liftoff, and then sequentially "transitioned" to "RUN" 10 & 14 seconds later, is mystifying. Mayday call was a few seconds later.
3. The ATC in India is also overloaded. But its amazing that there was no immediate pickup or response from ATC to Mayday 3x, and by the time ATC tried to get back to AI 171, everyone (including the ATC) could see that the flight had already crashed.
The mystery of Malaysia Airlines MH 370 has never been solved despite intensive international effort. Yes, an intentional water landing / crash landing has been highly speculated and may be the leading theory. Myself, I’m beginning to wonder if the plane was intercepted by aliens and transported to another galaxy?
There is however a known 2017 instance in which a Germanwings plane with 150 passengers aboard was intentionally crashed by a pilot known to be suicidal.
I agree with OJ that very likely the fuel cut-off switches were intentionally activated by a crew member. (Reuters says they were flipped one-second apart.) But such culpability has not been proven. Details released by the India authorities are unusually vague. Perhaps more will be released in the future. Do we know for certain there was not a third person in the cockpit (crew member or observer?)
Here’s a brief excerpt from Reuters:
”In the flight's final moments, one pilot was heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he cut off the fuel. "The other pilot responded that he did not do so," the report said. It did not identify which remarks were made by the flight's captain and which by the first officer, nor which pilot transmitted "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" just before the crash. ”
One possible scenario would be that the First Officer (co-pilot) was flying the takeoff (two-member crews normally alternate) and that he activated the fuel shut-offs seconds after the plane lifted off. The captain, who would in this case be handling communications and observing instruments, caught the shut-offs almost immediately, asked the co-pilot why he’d activated them and then reactivated the switches himself - unfortunately too late. Alarms would have gone off when the engines shut down if not at the point the switches were flipped. Just a guess here - and guesses are usually wrong in these cases.
Take-offs are my most favorite part of flying. Doesn’t get any better. But they’re also the most crucial time from an aviation safety standpoint. No time to recover if something goes wrong. Maximum dynamic load on the aircraft, engines operating at or near full capacity - and then all the incoming and outgoing air traffic.
I have no specific knowledge of the fuel cutoff circuitry involved, but I do have significant experience with electronics generally, and I have never heard of a switch with an operating lever that is operated mechanically (i.e. by hand) and that also may be operated remotely (i.e. physically move the switch lever remotely).
Consider a common type of switch: a typical circuit breaker. This type of switch may be operated by physically moving the operating lever, and that operating lever may also be moved automatically when detecting an electrical fault on the circuit. However there is no way that the circuit breaker/switch lever can be reactivated to the "ON" position by anything other than a physical intervention by a person.
There is, I believe, a type of circuit breaker which is be designed to reset itself, either automatically or by remote control. That type of circuit breaker is designed for use on electric power grid operations, and has been held responsible for numerous forest fires when improperly programmed or deployed.
On the aircraft involved we do not know if there are warning indicators indicating the FUEL CUTOFF condition, but it's highly likely that there would be. If so, perhaps the pilot who asked about the apparent fuel cutoff was not looking at the actual cutoff switches themselves, but rather at some sort of visual indicator or warning light.
If as YBB mentions above there is some sort of auto-CUTOFF other than the two physical switches, it's likely again that there would be some sort of visual indicator or warning light.
As YBB said, "to just state that fuel switches "transitioned" almost simultaneously (within 1 second) to CUTOFF 3 seconds after the liftoff, and then sequentially "transitioned" to "RUN" 10 & 14 seconds later, is mystifying."
We certainly need more clarity as to exactly what type of switches we are talking about here, and whether or not the fuel could have been switched off and then on again by some circuitry other than the two pilot-operated switches.
Thanks for that, @hank. Here's an excerpt and graphic from that source:
“In order to move the switch from one position to the other under the condition where the locking feature is engaged, it is necessary for the pilot to lift the switch up while transitioning the switch position,” says the special airworthiness bulletin of December 2018.
“If the locking feature is disengaged, the switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting the switch during transition, and the switch would be exposed to the potential of inadvertent operation.”
Such an error could result in the switch being moved to the ‘cut-off’ position, with the risk of in-flight engine shutdown, it points out. It recommends – although does not mandate – a ground inspection of the locking mechanism to “ensure its engagement”, by checking whether the switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting.
“If the switch can be moved without lifting it up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at the earliest opportunity,” the bulletin adds.
Let's take a closer look:
• “If the switch can be moved without lifting it up"... To me, the term "lifting it up" suggests that the switch lever must be pulled outwards towards the operator to permit operation of the switch. The photo shows a black "collar" on the switch lever which would aid that. It also shows what appears to be a red lamp lens which would presumably indicate that the switch is in the CUTOFF position.
• “the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at the earliest opportunity”... This seems to suggest that the locking feature is inoperative, i.e. somehow "broken", and should be replaced. In other words, "disengagement" of the locking feature is not a condition which can be turned on or off by human operation.
No information that I've seen has mentioned whether or not the locking feature of the aircraft switches was found to be operative or not, or even if the switch control panel was still undamaged enough to test for that.
Thanks @Old_Joe for the analysis. That’s how it looks to me. One source I can’t seem to pull back up mentioned the plane had been recently serviced (a day before) and ISTM it was related so some other flight controls. Let’s hope it wasn’t the same crew that fastened the door bolts on that Alaska 737.
"The Air India plane, registered as VT-ANB, had been in service since 2013 and had recently cleared routine maintenance checks. Investigators confirmed that all Airworthiness Directives were complied with, the fuel met quality standards, and there were no signs of any technical glitches in the engines or flight control systems leading up to the crash."
"The scrutiny of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023. However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB."
Plane was manufactured in 2013.
Throttle control module is the one that houses Honeywell fuel switches. They come with models with and without locking feature. The model specified was with the locking feature.
Whether checked by Air India after FAA SAIB in 2018, it would seem throttle control module replacements in 2019 and 2023 would have taken care of the fuel switch issue.
Mary Schivao (Secy DOT, 1990-96) had speculated about Boeing software TCMA & FADEC even BEFORE the AAIB report came out. The AAIB report does mention auto-restarts by FADEC, but is silent about TCMA. From pg 15:
"When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction."
Note that FADEC operates WITHOUT pilot input/control, and so does TCMA that could cause an emergency fuel cutoff (actually, a system shutoff).
Re TCMA: Following is an description of the Boeing "TCMA" system as generated by the DuckDuckGo AI "search Assistant". It seems pretty decent.
The Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) is a system in Boeing aircraft that detects and corrects thrust control malfunctions, primarily by monitoring engine performance and automatically shutting down an engine if necessary. It works in conjunction with the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) to manage engine thrust based on whether the aircraft is on the ground or in the air. The Financial Express eplaneai.com Overview of TCMA
The Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) is a critical system in Boeing aircraft, particularly the 787 Dreamliner. It is designed to detect and manage thrust control malfunctions in the engines.
Functionality: • Engine Monitoring: TCMA continuously monitors engine performance through the Electronic Engine Control (EEC) system. • Automatic Shutdown: If a malfunction is detected, TCMA can command an engine shutdown, but this typically occurs only when the aircraft is on the ground and the thrust lever is at idle. • Redundant Systems: The TCMA operates with redundant processing subsystems to ensure reliability.
Recent Incidents: Air India Flight AI 171- • Crash Details: On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI 171, a Boeing 787, crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, resulting in significant casualties. • Possible TCMA Failure: Investigators are examining whether a TCMA failure contributed to the dual engine failure that led to the crash. The TCMA may have incorrectly sensed the aircraft's status, causing it to throttle back the engines unexpectedly.
Historical Context: • Previous Issues: There have been past incidents involving TCMA malfunctions, including a 2019 case with All Nippon Airways, where a similar issue was identified as a software design flaw.
Implications: • The investigation into the AI 171 crash is ongoing, with a focus on the TCMA and its interaction with the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system. If software faults are confirmed, it could lead to significant regulatory scrutiny and changes in safety protocols for the Boeing 787 fleet.
The investigation into the AI 171 crash is ongoing, with a focus on the TCMA and its interaction with the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system. If software faults are confirmed, it could lead to significant regulatory scrutiny and changes in safety protocols for the Boeing 787 fleet. ORK. Taking AA on a 1-stop next week: HNL-DFW-BDL. The l-o-n-g first leg is nonstop on a B787, over 7 hours. Software faults is not a thing that maintenance crews can fix, right? And of course, US airlines, like every other airline, outsource maintenance, often to companies in LatAm. AA has had a historical big presence in LatAm. Has that not been a cause of suspicion re: quality of maintenance work in the past? Are those ground crews properly trained? Who was it that was supposed to reinsert the door-plug bolts on that Alaska jet?
Someone suggested to separate the left and right fuel cutoff switches by a few inches and to put spring-loaded boxes on top of them.
This is the response from an experienced pilot:
The addition of a plastic guard over the fuel cutoff switches would not have prevented this accident.
1.) The fuel cutoff switches cannot be accidentally "bumped" to the cutoff position. It takes a positive and intentional action by a pilot to lift a robust spring-loaded knob up and out of its "gated" run position and then move the switch backwards. Besides, both of the 787 switches are already guarded by metal "bump guards."
2.) The past and current location of fuel cutoff switches serves a critical safety design. Each cutoff switch is located directly behind its corresponding thrust lever. In the event of a fire, fuel/oil leak, or severe engine damage requiring the engine to be shut down, selecting the correct switch during stressful situations is critical, explaining why all modern aircraft are designed to help eliminate errors.
Despite the logical design, there have been several instances of pilots shutting down the wrong engine during stressful events, although I am not aware of any US carrier doing so.
In the event of an in-flight engine fire (oil leak, fuel leak, etc.), requiring an engine shutdown, US airlines typically have the pilot flying (PF) call for the engine shutdown checklist, which is run by the pilot not flying (PNF).
Both pilots identify the engine to be shut down, both verify which thrust lever is to be pulled back, and then the PNF puts his finger on the appropriate fuel shutoff valve and waits for a confirmation of a visual OK from the PF.
In my 40 years of flying, instructing, and evaluating pilots of Boeing aircraft and simulators, I have never seen a pilot attempt to operate the fuel shutoff switch in "flight" without an "OK" from another pilot.
Thanks for that, @Observant1. An aspect that I'm finding a bit disturbing is the seeming conflation of the physical RUN/CUTOFF switches and the TCMA system. I would surely think that the "black box" flight recorder would know the difference between the two, so the obvious question is "exactly how were the engines sequenced from RUNNING to CUTOFF and then back to RUNNING?"
Yeah. Interesting. I’ve never heard of a driver switching off the ignition while cruising down the highway, either on purpose or inadvertently. And I rather doubt my Toyota would comply with such a command were I to so attempt.
@hank- Well, not drivers switching off the ignition, but some serious problems with the ignition switch shutting itself off, with some results similar to Air India. I'll bet that you remember this:
On February 6, 2014, General Motors (GM) recalled about 800,000 of its small cars due to faulty ignition switches, which could shut off the engine while the vehicle was in motion, thereby preventing the airbags from inflating.[1] The company continued to recall more of its cars over the next several months, resulting in nearly 30 million cars being recalled worldwide[2] and compensation being paid for 124 deaths. The fault had been known to GM for at least a decade prior to the recall being declared.[3] GM faced significant criticism and several lawsuits from the public and consumers for failing to issue a recall sooner in spite of their knowledge of the design flaw. As part of a deferred prosecution agreement, GM agreed to forfeit $900 million to the United States.[4]
Was ready to post the recall. If these clowns want to save a dollar on critical piece of hardware, what else are they going to compromise on? Thinner paint?
If TCMA cut off fuel, then putting switch from off to on wouldn’t turn engine back on, but in this case one engine did get a little power in that 15 seconds.
I stumbled upon an interesting discussion regarding the AI 171 crash on an Indian website. Of course, a firm conclusion can not be made until additional information is available.
Before the roundtable commenced, the host asked several provocative questions: Are U.S. interests influencing India's 'independent' AI 171 crash probe? Was the report shared with the FAA or Boeing before it was released in India? How did the WSJ gain access to AAIB probe details many hours before the report was released?
"Earlier on NDTV, Captain Mohan Ranganathan, one of India's leading aviation experts and an ex-instructor of Boeing 737, made a stunning claim that the crash of AI 171 may have been the result of deliberate human action because the fuel switches can only be moved 'manually'. However, former pilots and aviation experts have strongly opposed this view."
"'Even if they (AAIB) don't want to publish the RT transcript at this stage, it is difficult to digest that only two sentences were spoken in the cockpit. If you look at the picture, which was published in the report, the aircraft is barely 50 to 80 feet or maybe 100 feet above the ground, and the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) is already deployed. It means that something happened right at the time of rotation, when the aircraft is just starting, and the engines have failed,' he said."
"Captain Rai highlighted an important part of the report - The words used by AAIB to describe 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF'. He said they have used the word 'transition', adding, 'In these modern aeroplanes, you don't need to cut off the fuel control switch. Everything is transmitted electronically. So, even if the fuel switch is in the run position, it can go into the cutoff position without moving the fuel control switch. The fuel can just shut off. If there is something wrong with the software, it commands the fuel shutoff valve to close. With the fuel control switch still in run position, the engines can shut down.'"
Captain Mohan is only person in India that has publicly said that pilot is likely responsible. I saw a segment on NDTV with Captain Mohan vs four pilots who were debating him and claiming it couldn’t be pilot action. I couldn’t watch.
In Asian culture you can’t say anything bad about people in their culture. I think for a Chinese airline accident that was due to pilot “error”, govt said they wouldn’t release final report to the public.
Comments
https://aaib.gov.in/What's New Assets/Preliminary Report VT-ANB.pdf
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/3e6e572bb0cd57e7/8d66090a-full.pdf
It only says that engine fuel switches suddenly and simultaneously "transitioned" to CUTOFF, & then were "transitioned" to RUN. As these switches require deliberate actions to move due to a locking mechanism, it's a mystery how the CUTOFF happened in the first place. There is some audio that both pilots were surprised by the sudden CUTOFF.
After they were moved back to RUN, engine auto-restart cycles were initiated. One engine regained power but the other engine couldn't get restarted. By then, the flight crashed.
stated that it is impossible to knock the fuel switches into the cutoff position inadvertently.
The recovered cockpit audio indicates that one of the two pilots asked the other if he had operated those two switches, and that the other pilot denied having done so. At this point It's certainly seeming as if one of those two pilots deliberately crashed that airplane.
OMHG. Another Malaysia Air-like instance????
The main chart is down on the page, and I suggest that you click on the "Flight Type" column to group the commercial aircraft types together.
1. There is almost 26 minutes of cockpit audio (even video?) from the time the flight left the gate and it crashed. Only a short paraphrasing/translation of their talk has been released (without identifying the people talking, Copilot/flying/PF or Captain/assisting/observing/PIC/PM),
"In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so."
Even if they weren't talking in English, people can make sense of their conversation whether in Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi or Marathi. Their names are available from media reports - both were based in Mumbai; Captain (Sumeet Sabharwal) was close to retiring, copilot (Clive Kunder) had lot of flying experience but none yet as PIC of this type of aircraft.
2. No information about the state of instruments or engine or fuel before the fuel CUTOFF. Was there an emergency situation building up that could trigger auto-CUTOFF? If this isn't possible, then pilots should be blamed regardless of what they were heard saying.
From what I have read, an emergency fuel CUTOFF could happen via software if there was a fuel leak or some other emergency situation that may not have been apparent to the pilots. To just state that fuel switches "transitioned" almost simultaneously (within 1 second) to CUTOFF 3 seconds after the liftoff, and then sequentially "transitioned" to "RUN" 10 & 14 seconds later, is mystifying. Mayday call was a few seconds later.
3. The ATC in India is also overloaded. But its amazing that there was no immediate pickup or response from ATC to Mayday 3x, and by the time ATC tried to get back to AI 171, everyone (including the ATC) could see that the flight had already crashed.
Anyway, there are lot of questions.
The mystery of Malaysia Airlines MH 370 has never been solved despite intensive international effort. Yes, an intentional water landing / crash landing has been highly speculated and may be the leading theory. Myself, I’m beginning to wonder if the plane was intercepted by aliens and transported to another galaxy?
There is however a known 2017 instance in which a Germanwings plane with 150 passengers aboard was intentionally crashed by a pilot known to be suicidal.
I agree with OJ that very likely the fuel cut-off switches were intentionally activated by a crew member. (Reuters says they were flipped one-second apart.) But such culpability has not been proven. Details released by the India authorities are unusually vague. Perhaps more will be released in the future. Do we know for certain there was not a third person in the cockpit (crew member or observer?)
Here’s a brief excerpt from Reuters:
”In the flight's final moments, one pilot was heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he cut off the fuel. "The other pilot responded that he did not do so," the report said. It did not identify which remarks were made by the flight's captain and which by the first officer, nor which pilot transmitted "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" just before the crash. ”
One possible scenario would be that the First Officer (co-pilot) was flying the takeoff (two-member crews normally alternate) and that he activated the fuel shut-offs seconds after the plane lifted off. The captain, who would in this case be handling communications and observing instruments, caught the shut-offs almost immediately, asked the co-pilot why he’d activated them and then reactivated the switches himself - unfortunately too late. Alarms would have gone off when the engines shut down if not at the point the switches were flipped. Just a guess here - and guesses are usually wrong in these cases.
Take-offs are my most favorite part of flying. Doesn’t get any better. But they’re also the most crucial time from an aviation safety standpoint. No time to recover if something goes wrong. Maximum dynamic load on the aircraft, engines operating at or near full capacity - and then all the incoming and outgoing air traffic.
Consider a common type of switch: a typical circuit breaker. This type of switch may be operated by physically moving the operating lever, and that operating lever may also be moved automatically when detecting an electrical fault on the circuit. However there is no way that the circuit breaker/switch lever can be reactivated to the "ON" position by anything other than a physical intervention by a person.
There is, I believe, a type of circuit breaker which is be designed to reset itself, either automatically or by remote control. That type of circuit breaker is designed for use on electric power grid operations, and has been held responsible for numerous forest fires when improperly programmed or deployed.
On the aircraft involved we do not know if there are warning indicators indicating the FUEL CUTOFF condition, but it's highly likely that there would be. If so, perhaps the pilot who asked about the apparent fuel cutoff was not looking at the actual cutoff switches themselves, but rather at some sort of visual indicator or warning light.
If as YBB mentions above there is some sort of auto-CUTOFF other than the two physical switches, it's likely again that there would be some sort of visual indicator or warning light.
As YBB said, "to just state that fuel switches "transitioned" almost simultaneously (within 1 second) to CUTOFF 3 seconds after the liftoff, and then sequentially "transitioned" to "RUN" 10 & 14 seconds later, is mystifying."
We certainly need more clarity as to exactly what type of switches we are talking about here, and whether or not the fuel could have been switched off and then on again by some circuitry other than the two pilot-operated switches.
Also - Bloomberg reports that the First Officer was flying the plane.
Let's take a closer look:
• “If the switch can be moved without lifting it up"...
To me, the term "lifting it up" suggests that the switch lever must be pulled outwards towards the
operator to permit operation of the switch. The photo shows a black "collar" on the switch lever
which would aid that. It also shows what appears to be a red lamp lens which would presumably
indicate that the switch is in the CUTOFF position.
• “the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at the earliest opportunity”...
This seems to suggest that the locking feature is inoperative, i.e. somehow "broken", and should
be replaced. In other words, "disengagement" of the locking feature is not a condition which can
be turned on or off by human operation.
No information that I've seen has mentioned whether or not the locking feature of the aircraft switches was found to be operative or not, or even if the switch control panel was still undamaged enough to test for that.
"The scrutiny of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023. However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB."
Plane was manufactured in 2013.
Throttle control module is the one that houses Honeywell fuel switches. They come with models with and without locking feature. The model specified was with the locking feature.
Whether checked by Air India after FAA SAIB in 2018, it would seem throttle control module replacements in 2019 and 2023 would have taken care of the fuel switch issue.
Mary Schivao (Secy DOT, 1990-96) had speculated about Boeing software TCMA & FADEC even BEFORE the AAIB report came out. The AAIB report does mention auto-restarts by FADEC, but is silent about TCMA. From pg 15:
"When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction."
Note that FADEC operates WITHOUT pilot input/control, and so does TCMA that could cause an emergency fuel cutoff (actually, a system shutoff).
Hallucination!
ORK. Taking AA on a 1-stop next week: HNL-DFW-BDL. The l-o-n-g first leg is nonstop on a B787, over 7 hours. Software faults is not a thing that maintenance crews can fix, right? And of course, US airlines, like every other airline, outsource maintenance, often to companies in LatAm. AA has had a historical big presence in LatAm. Has that not been a cause of suspicion re: quality of maintenance work in the past? Are those ground crews properly trained? Who was it that was supposed to reinsert the door-plug bolts on that Alaska jet?
and to put spring-loaded boxes on top of them.
This is the response from an experienced pilot:
The addition of a plastic guard over the fuel cutoff switches would not have prevented this accident.
1.) The fuel cutoff switches cannot be accidentally "bumped" to the cutoff position. It takes a positive and intentional action by a pilot to lift a robust spring-loaded knob up and out of its "gated" run position and then move the switch backwards. Besides, both of the 787 switches are already guarded by metal "bump guards."
2.) The past and current location of fuel cutoff switches serves a critical safety design. Each cutoff switch is located directly behind its corresponding thrust lever. In the event of a fire, fuel/oil leak, or severe engine damage requiring the engine to be shut down, selecting the correct switch during stressful situations is critical, explaining why all modern aircraft are designed to help eliminate errors.
Despite the logical design, there have been several instances of pilots shutting down the wrong engine during stressful events, although I am not aware of any US carrier doing so.
In the event of an in-flight engine fire (oil leak, fuel leak, etc.), requiring an engine shutdown, US airlines typically have the pilot flying (PF) call for the engine shutdown checklist, which is run by the pilot not flying (PNF).
Both pilots identify the engine to be shut down, both verify which thrust lever is to be pulled back, and then the PNF puts his finger on the appropriate fuel shutoff valve and waits for a confirmation of a visual OK from the PF.
In my 40 years of flying, instructing, and evaluating pilots of Boeing aircraft and simulators, I have never seen a pilot attempt to operate the fuel shutoff switch in "flight" without an "OK" from another pilot.
From Wikipedia-
Was ready to post the recall.
If these clowns want to save a dollar on critical piece of hardware, what else are they going to compromise on? Thinner paint?
If TCMA cut off fuel, then putting switch from off to on wouldn’t turn engine back on, but in this case one engine did get a little power in that 15 seconds.
https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/air-india-chief-says-preliminary-crash-report-raises-fresh-questions-cdce3ec0?mod=hp_lead_pos6
******************
"Indian authorities confirmed that fuel-control switches on an Air India flight that crashed in June had been turned off shortly after takeoff, but said they had been turned back on before impact."
https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/air-india-crash-report-confirms-fuel-cutoff-before-accident-2c0b1c3e?mod=WTRN_pos1
“...But they just didn’t have enough time or altitude to recover.”
Of course, a firm conclusion can not be made until additional information is available.
Before the roundtable commenced, the host asked several provocative questions:
Are U.S. interests influencing India's 'independent' AI 171 crash probe?
Was the report shared with the FAA or Boeing before it was released in India?
How did the WSJ gain access to AAIB probe details many hours before the report was released?
"Earlier on NDTV, Captain Mohan Ranganathan, one of India's leading aviation experts and an ex-instructor of Boeing 737, made a stunning claim that the crash of AI 171 may have been the result of deliberate human action because the fuel switches can only be moved 'manually'. However, former pilots and aviation experts have strongly opposed this view."
"'Even if they (AAIB) don't want to publish the RT transcript at this stage, it is difficult to digest that only two sentences were spoken in the cockpit. If you look at the picture, which was published in the report, the aircraft is barely 50 to 80 feet or maybe 100 feet above the ground, and the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) is already deployed. It means that something happened right at the time of rotation, when the aircraft is just starting, and the engines have failed,' he said."
"Captain Rai highlighted an important part of the report - The words used by AAIB to describe 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF'. He said they have used the word 'transition', adding, 'In these modern aeroplanes, you don't need to cut off the fuel control switch. Everything is transmitted electronically. So, even if the fuel switch is in the run position, it can go into the cutoff position without moving the fuel control switch. The fuel can just shut off. If there is something wrong with the software, it commands the fuel shutoff valve to close. With the fuel control switch still in run position, the engines can shut down.'"
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/deliberate-or-mechanical-flaw-pilots-vs-pilot-over-air-india-crash-report-8875552
In Asian culture you can’t say anything bad about people in their culture. I think for a Chinese airline accident that was due to pilot “error”, govt said they wouldn’t release final report to the public.