Fuel Cutoff Page: 17 of 17

DaveReidUK
February 02, 2026, 23:21:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12031352

Quote:

Originally Posted by TURIN

I'll answer my own question.
According to FR24.
The aircraft took off 35 minutes late.

So we are being led to believe that a potentially critical system failure was observed during engine start, subsequently ignored, the aircraft operated it's scheduled service back to India.
Alternatively, the #1 fuel cut off switch was replaced, system checks, including an engine start, performed and certified, all in 35 minutes or less?

I smell a rat.

The aircraft pushed back at 21:19 - that's STD+14, not 35.

Subjects FlightRadar24 Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Lifer01
February 03, 2026, 00:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12031372

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

The aircraft pushed back at 21:19 - that's STD+14, not 35.

For reference, Boeing does not provide a procedure to replace the cut-off switches. If there is an issue with a fuel cut-off switch, the whole thrust control module is to be replaced, ie. the throttle levers and cut-off switches are in one module.

I believe this has been the case since before the AI accident.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Musician
February 03, 2026, 14:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12031615

The document from the tweet, in full:

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseP...6&reg=3&lang=1

Ministry of Civil Aviation

Rejoinder on News Item relating to purported malfunction of Fuel Cut Off Switch on M/s Air India Boeing B787-8 aircraft VT-ANX

Posted On: 03 FEB 2026 5:27PM by PIB Delhi
.

On 01.02.2026, Air India B787-8 aircraft VT-ANX operated flight AI 132 (London- Bangalore). During engine start in London, on two occasions crew observed that the fuel control switch did not remain positively latched in the “RUN” position when light vertical pressure was applied. On the third attempt, the switch latched correctly in “RUN” and subsequently remained stable. Before continuing with the rest of procedure, a physical verification was performed by the crew to confirm that the switch was fully and positively latched in the “RUN” position. No abnormal engine parameters, cautions, warnings, or related system messages were observed during engine start or at any time thereafter. The operating crew member was briefed on the observation, unnecessary contact with the switch was avoided, and engine indications and alerting systems were closely monitored by the crew for the remainder of the flight. The flight was completed without incident.

After landing at Bangalore, crew reported the defect in the PDR. Air India referred the matter to M/s Boeing for further guidance. Based on the M/s Boeing recommended checks to establish the serviceability of fuel control switch, M/s Air India engineering observed that:

“Both left and right switches were checked and found satisfactory, with the locking tooth/pawl fully seated and not slipping from RUN to CUTOFF. When full force was applied parallel to the base plate, the switch remained secure. However, applying external force in an incorrect direction caused the switch to move easily from RUN to CUTOFF, due to the angular base plate allowing slip when pressed improperly with finger or thumb.”

In addition, based on Boeing’s communication, the pull-to-unlock force was checked on the fuel control switch using the recommended procedure on the involved fuel cut off switch, the fuel control unit to be installed and fuel cut off switch of another aircraft. In all cases the pull-to-unlock force was found within limits. These inspections were carried out in the presence of DGCA officers.

The video currently circulating on social media was analysed in light of Boeing recommended procedures, and it was observed that the procedure demonstrated in the video being circulated is incorrect.

The airline is being advised to circulate the Boeing recommended procedure for the operation of Fuel CUT OFF switch to its crew members.

Subjects DGCA Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Parameters RUN/CUTOFF

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Ver5pen
February 03, 2026, 14:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12031660

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musician

We already have several threads on AI171 issues (at least one of them in Tech Log ), so moving this discussion to its own thread seems unproblematic.

The significance of this new finding is that it makes accidental movement more likely. We already know about the incident where a sun visor fell and moved the switch. We are learning now that the mechanism of "pull up, then move the switch" can be circumvented, and that the switch can be moved by a single application of force. It appears that the engineers were able to reproduce this behaviour, so it's no longer just that crew's word.

So while on VT-ANB both switches moved at the same time, and that is unlikely to happen by itself, it now appears possible that an external force such as a loose object or an inadvertant pilot motion could have moved both switches. At least, this requires further study to narrow down the conditions for it, and to check whether these conditions were present on the accident flight.

indeed. This is what I am taking from this

all of the noise about these switches being foolproof and above suspicion hence it could only have been deliberate action

yet many airlines have suffered inadvertent engine shutdowns because of accidental manipulation of fuel cut off switches/engine masters in

and these specific switches on the identical fleet in the same airline, it\x92s certainly a noteworthy revelation

dismissing this as professional crews trying to cover up for their colleagues or some other highly absurd slanderous accusation I would\x92ve hoped was beneath PPRUNE, but of course only Indians/foreigners are to be doubted, everyone else are professionals who only ever act with integrity. We\x92ve never seen western/American OEMs or regulators falling short on this absolutely not.

Subjects AI171 Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Flightmech
February 03, 2026, 17:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12031737

This is nothing but a timed and very poor attempt at a diversion from reality. Oh look, we found a fuel cutoff switch problem on another one of our fleet (but flew on with it anyway).

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Pilot DAR
February 03, 2026, 17:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12031742

Quote:

Oh look, we found a fuel cutoff switch problem on another one of our fleet

I read a report of a problem. I'm not sure that I actually see a report that there truly was a problem.

Preceding a "however" This was reported:

Quote:

If a "however" is written after that statement, it is either meaningless and to be ignored, or it has the effect of negating the statement. There is no "partly airworthy" for these switches. It can't be both statements. Thus, my doubt about the credibility/applicability of this whole situation in the context of the 171 crash, subject to these two statements being reconciled with each other.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches RUN/CUTOFF

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

6 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

ignorantAndroid
February 03, 2026, 22:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12031878

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer01

In this video from Stig Aviation, at 17:33, he states, "You can change the switches individually because it gives you the option in the maintenance manual."

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Magplug
February 04, 2026, 17:49:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12032357

I am not aware of a spate of pilots purposely (or even accidentally) moving both fuel switches to cut-off at rotate that would require the investment of an interlock to prevent it. In fact, the very presence of such an interlock might introduce it's owns risks.

The chances of a centre fuel tank exploding in flight killing everybody on board may now be less that one in ten million. (It happened once so designs were modified). The chances of a pilot wishing to commit suicide may also be one in ten million. If he is denied the fuel cut-off switches then there are plenty of other options. If a pilot decides to execute a half-roll and pull-through on final approach, or some other non-recoverable manouvre then there is not a lot to prevent him.... not even the bloke sat next to him. (Please don't lecture me on Airbus AOB protections - You get my point)

For all you heating engineers with pet theories on how to design bad stuff out of aeroplanes, and all you wannabe airline pilots and CRM instructors let me tell you..... When I turn up for a trip, very often the other guy/gal is a complete stranger to me. I might have heard good things about them or they might have a bit of a reputation. As a Captain I have a limited amount of time to gauge this guy/gal before I get locked in the inner sanctum and I have to vest my TOTAL trust in them. TBH I have only ever flown with one guy who I would not trust alone in the flight deck, he was hyper-religious and just plain odd. I took my concerns to the adults and learnt I was not the first Captain making the same observation. I don't know what happened to him but our paths never crossed again.

The message here is simple.... Occasionally there are those amongst us who have their demons. It is the responsibility of us all to make sure they get the help they need before they hit rock-bottom and do something stupid.... oblivious to the 350 innocent souls sat behind the door.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

10 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

TURIN
February 04, 2026, 23:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12032479

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magplug

One of the best posts I've ever read on Pprune.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Abbas Ibn Firnas
February 04, 2026, 23:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 12032492

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magplug

Iam not aware of a spate of pilots purposely (or even accidentally) moving both fuel switches to cut-off at rotatethat would require the investment of an interlock to prevent it. In fact, the very presence of such an interlock might introduce it's owns risks.
That's is though, the scenario that many on here seem to think is the most likely cause of the 'accident'

The chances of a pilot wishing to commit suicide may also be one in ten million. If he is denied the fuel cut-off switches then there are plenty of other options. If a pilot decides to execute a half-roll and pull-through on final approach, or some other non-recoverablemanouvre then there is not a lot to prevent him.... not even the bloke sat next to him. (Please don't lecture me on Airbus AOB protections - You get my point)

Yes, not a lot to prevent that, although it would be easily identified for what it was. With the incident in question, it's the insidious nature of the event, that so far, is preventing it being positively identified as an act of malice.

For all you heating engineers with pet theories on how to design bad stuff out of aeroplanes, and all you wannabe airline pilots and CRM instructors let me tell you..... When I turn up for a trip, very often the other guy/gal is a complete stranger to me. I might have heard good things about them or they might have a bit of a reputation. As a Captain I have a limited amount of time to gauge this guy/gal before I get locked in the inner sanctum and I have to vest my TOTAL trust in them. TBH I have only ever flown with one guy who I would not trust alone in the flight deck, he was hyper-religious and just plain odd. I took my concerns to the adults and learnt I was not the first Captain making the same observation. I don't know what happened to him but our paths never crossed again.

Captain Magplug,
use lowercase when referring to the position generally .

With reference to your tone in the first sentence of the above paragraph. Hopefully this is not a personality trait, certainly not something desirable for someone in your profession.

The message here is simple.... Occasionally there are those amongst us who have their demons. It is the responsibility of us all to make sure they get the help they need before they hit rock-bottom and do something stupid.... oblivious to the 350 innocent souls sat behind the door.

Yes, there have been occasional demonic acts in recent years, and those responsible for identifying such cases might have hoped to be more effective. Sadly, it is entirely possible it could happen again, unless something changes.

My comments in bold.

Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

DaveReidUK February 02, 2026, 23:21:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031352	Quote: Originally Posted by TURIN I'll answer my own question. According to FR24. The aircraft took off 35 minutes late. So we are being led to believe that a potentially critical system failure was observed during engine start, subsequently ignored, the aircraft operated it's scheduled service back to India. Alternatively, the #1 fuel cut off switch was replaced, system checks, including an engine start, performed and certified, all in 35 minutes or less? I smell a rat. The aircraft pushed back at 21:19 - that's STD+14, not 35. Subjects FlightRadar24 Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Lifer01 February 03, 2026, 00:36:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031372	Quote: Originally Posted by DaveReidUK The aircraft pushed back at 21:19 - that's STD+14, not 35. For reference, Boeing does not provide a procedure to replace the cut-off switches. If there is an issue with a fuel cut-off switch, the whole thrust control module is to be replaced, ie. the throttle levers and cut-off switches are in one module. I believe this has been the case since before the AI accident. Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 4 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Musician February 03, 2026, 14:02:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031615	The document from the tweet, in full: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseP...6&reg=3&lang=1 Ministry of Civil Aviation *Rejoinder on News Item relating to purported malfunction of Fuel Cut Off Switch on M/s Air India Boeing B787-8 aircraft VT-ANX* Posted On: 03 FEB 2026 5:27PM by PIB Delhi . On 01.02.2026, Air India B787-8 aircraft VT-ANX operated flight AI 132 (London- Bangalore). During engine start in London, on two occasions crew observed that the fuel control switch did not remain positively latched in the “RUN” position when light vertical pressure was applied. On the third attempt, the switch latched correctly in “RUN” and subsequently remained stable. Before continuing with the rest of procedure, a physical verification was performed by the crew to confirm that the switch was fully and positively latched in the “RUN” position. No abnormal engine parameters, cautions, warnings, or related system messages were observed during engine start or at any time thereafter. The operating crew member was briefed on the observation, unnecessary contact with the switch was avoided, and engine indications and alerting systems were closely monitored by the crew for the remainder of the flight. The flight was completed without incident. After landing at Bangalore, crew reported the defect in the PDR. Air India referred the matter to M/s Boeing for further guidance. Based on the M/s Boeing recommended checks to establish the serviceability of fuel control switch, M/s Air India engineering observed that: “Both left and right switches were checked and found satisfactory, with the locking tooth/pawl fully seated and not slipping from RUN to CUTOFF. When full force was applied parallel to the base plate, the switch remained secure. However, applying external force in an incorrect direction caused the switch to move easily from RUN to CUTOFF, due to the angular base plate allowing slip when pressed improperly with finger or thumb.” In addition, based on Boeing’s communication, the pull-to-unlock force was checked on the fuel control switch using the recommended procedure on the involved fuel cut off switch, the fuel control unit to be installed and fuel cut off switch of another aircraft. In all cases the pull-to-unlock force was found within limits. These inspections were carried out in the presence of DGCA officers. The video currently circulating on social media was analysed in light of Boeing recommended procedures, and it was observed that the procedure demonstrated in the video being circulated is incorrect. The airline is being advised to circulate the Boeing recommended procedure for the operation of Fuel CUT OFF switch to its crew members. Subjects DGCA Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Parameters RUN/CUTOFF Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Ver5pen February 03, 2026, 14:52:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031660	Quote: Originally Posted by Musician We already have several threads on AI171 issues (at least one of them in Tech Log ), so moving this discussion to its own thread seems unproblematic. The significance of this new finding is that it makes accidental movement more likely. We already know about the incident where a sun visor fell and moved the switch. We are learning now that the mechanism of "pull up, then move the switch" can be circumvented, and that the switch can be moved by a single application of force. It appears that the engineers were able to reproduce this behaviour, so it's no longer just that crew's word. So while on VT-ANB both switches moved at the same time, and that is unlikely to happen by itself, it now appears possible that an external force such as a loose object or an inadvertant pilot motion could have moved both switches. At least, this requires further study to narrow down the conditions for it, and to check whether these conditions were present on the accident flight. indeed. This is what I am taking from this all of the noise about these switches being foolproof and above suspicion hence it could only have been deliberate action yet many airlines have suffered inadvertent engine shutdowns because of accidental manipulation of fuel cut off switches/engine masters in and these specific switches on the identical fleet in the same airline, it\x92s certainly a noteworthy revelation dismissing this as professional crews trying to cover up for their colleagues or some other highly absurd slanderous accusation I would\x92ve hoped was beneath PPRUNE, but of course only Indians/foreigners are to be doubted, everyone else are professionals who only ever act with integrity. We\x92ve never seen western/American OEMs or regulators falling short on this absolutely not. Subjects AI171 Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 4 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Flightmech February 03, 2026, 17:39:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031737	This is nothing but a timed and very poor attempt at a diversion from reality. Oh look, we found a fuel cutoff switch problem on another one of our fleet (but flew on with it anyway). Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Pilot DAR February 03, 2026, 17:57:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031742	Quote: Oh look, we found a fuel cutoff switch problem on another one of our fleet I read a report of a problem. I'm not sure that I actually see a report that there truly was a problem. Preceding a "however" This was reported: Quote: “Both left and right switches were checked and found satisfactory, with the locking tooth/pawl fully seated and not slipping from RUN to CUTOFF. When full force was applied parallel to the base plate, the switch remained secure. If a "however" is written after that statement, it is either meaningless and to be ignored, or it has the effect of negating the statement. There is no "partly airworthy" for these switches. It can't be both statements. Thus, my doubt about the credibility/applicability of this whole situation in the context of the 171 crash, subject to these two statements being reconciled with each other. Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches RUN/CUTOFF Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 6 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
ignorantAndroid February 03, 2026, 22:12:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031878	Quote: Originally Posted by Lifer01 For reference, Boeing does not provide a procedure to replace the cut-off switches. If there is an issue with a fuel cut-off switch, the whole thrust control module is to be replaced, ie. the throttle levers and cut-off switches are in one module. I believe this has been the case since before the AI accident. In this video from Stig Aviation, at 17:33, he states, "You can change the switches individually because it gives you the option in the maintenance manual." You Tube Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 3 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Magplug February 04, 2026, 17:49:00 GMT permalink Post: 12032357	I am not aware of a spate of pilots purposely (or even accidentally) moving both fuel switches to cut-off at rotate that would require the investment of an interlock to prevent it. In fact, the very presence of such an interlock might introduce it's owns risks. The chances of a centre fuel tank exploding in flight killing everybody on board may now be less that one in ten million. (It happened once so designs were modified). The chances of a pilot wishing to commit suicide may also be one in ten million. If he is denied the fuel cut-off switches then there are plenty of other options. If a pilot decides to execute a half-roll and pull-through on final approach, or some other non-recoverable manouvre then there is not a lot to prevent him.... not even the bloke sat next to him. (Please don't lecture me on Airbus AOB protections - You get my point) For all you heating engineers with pet theories on how to design bad stuff out of aeroplanes, and all you wannabe airline pilots and CRM instructors let me tell you..... When I turn up for a trip, very often the other guy/gal is a complete stranger to me. I might have heard good things about them or they might have a bit of a reputation. As a Captain I have a limited amount of time to gauge this guy/gal before I get locked in the inner sanctum and I have to vest my TOTAL trust in them. TBH I have only ever flown with one guy who I would not trust alone in the flight deck, he was hyper-religious and just plain odd. I took my concerns to the adults and learnt I was not the first Captain making the same observation. I don't know what happened to him but our paths never crossed again. The message here is simple.... Occasionally there are those amongst us who have their demons. It is the responsibility of us all to make sure they get the help they need before they hit rock-bottom and do something stupid.... oblivious to the 350 innocent souls sat behind the door. Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 10 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
TURIN February 04, 2026, 23:03:00 GMT permalink Post: 12032479	Quote: Originally Posted by Magplug I am not aware of a spate of pilots purposely (or even accidentally) moving both fuel switches to cut-off at rotate that would require the investment of an interlock to prevent it. In fact, the very presence of such an interlock might introduce it's owns risks. The chances of a centre fuel tank exploding in flight killing everybody on board may now be less that one in ten million. (It happened once so designs were modified). The chances of a pilot wishing to commit suicide may also be one in ten million. If he is denied the fuel cut-off switches then there are plenty of other options. If a pilot decides to execute a half-roll and pull-through on final approach, or some other non-recoverable manouvre then there is not a lot to prevent him.... not even the bloke sat next to him. (Please don't lecture me on Airbus AOB protections - You get my point) For all you heating engineers with pet theories on how to design bad stuff out of aeroplanes, and all you wannabe airline pilots and CRM instructors let me tell you..... When I turn up for a trip, very often the other guy/gal is a complete stranger to me. I might have heard good things about them or they might have a bit of a reputation. As a Captain I have a limited amount of time to gauge this guy/gal before I get locked in the inner sanctum and I have to vest my TOTAL trust in them. TBH I have only ever flown with one guy who I would not trust alone in the flight deck, he was hyper-religious and just plain odd. I took my concerns to the adults and learnt I was not the first Captain making the same observation. I don't know what happened to him but our paths never crossed again. The message here is simple.... Occasionally there are those amongst us who have their demons. It is the responsibility of us all to make sure they get the help they need before they hit rock-bottom and do something stupid.... oblivious to the 350 innocent souls sat behind the door. One of the best posts I've ever read on Pprune. Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 2 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
Abbas Ibn Firnas February 04, 2026, 23:23:00 GMT permalink Post: 12032492	Quote: Originally Posted by Magplug Iam not aware of a spate of pilots purposely (or even accidentally) moving both fuel switches to cut-off at rotatethat would require the investment of an interlock to prevent it. In fact, the very presence of such an interlock might introduce it's owns risks. That's is though, the scenario that many on here seem to think is the most likely cause of the 'accident' The chances of a pilot wishing to commit suicide may also be one in ten million. If he is denied the fuel cut-off switches then there are plenty of other options. If a pilot decides to execute a half-roll and pull-through on final approach, or some other non-recoverablemanouvre then there is not a lot to prevent him.... not even the bloke sat next to him. (Please don't lecture me on Airbus AOB protections - You get my point) Yes, not a lot to prevent that, although it would be easily identified for what it was. With the incident in question, it's the insidious nature of the event, that so far, is preventing it being positively identified as an act of malice. For all you heating engineers with pet theories on how to design bad stuff out of aeroplanes, and all you wannabe airline pilots and CRM instructors let me tell you..... When I turn up for a trip, very often the other guy/gal is a complete stranger to me. I might have heard good things about them or they might have a bit of a reputation. As a Captain I have a limited amount of time to gauge this guy/gal before I get locked in the inner sanctum and I have to vest my TOTAL trust in them. TBH I have only ever flown with one guy who I would not trust alone in the flight deck, he was hyper-religious and just plain odd. I took my concerns to the adults and learnt I was not the first Captain making the same observation. I don't know what happened to him but our paths never crossed again. Captain Magplug, use lowercase when referring to the position generally . With reference to your tone in the first sentence of the above paragraph. Hopefully this is not a personality trait, certainly not something desirable for someone in your profession. The message here is simple.... Occasionally there are those amongst us who have their demons. It is the responsibility of us all to make sure they get the help they need before they hit rock-bottom and do something stupid.... oblivious to the 350 innocent souls sat behind the door. Yes, there have been occasional demonic acts in recent years, and those responsible for identifying such cases might have hoped to be more effective. Sadly, it is entirely possible it could happen again, unless something changes. My comments in bold. Subjects Fuel (All) Fuel Cutoff Fuel Cutoff Switches Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts about: "Fuel Cutoff" [Posts: 330 Page: 17 of 17]¶