cats_five
July 17, 2025, 13:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924392

Quote:

Originally Posted by krismiler

If it was a suicide attempt, wouldn't the pilot responsible wait until the aircraft had got a bit higher before operating the fuel switches and follow it up with full forward stick ? At low level the outcome wouldn't have been in any doubt. Nose down would be instinctive to someone who wanted to crash and with the arms locked in the extended position it would be very difficult for the other pilot to override him.

You are assuming they are acting rationally.

1stspotter
July 17, 2025, 13:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924400

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musician

Your argument goes like this:
1) There was a switch failure on a 737 that disabled the gate mechanism.
2) The switch on the 787 is of similar construction.
3) Therefore, it is impossible that the accident 787 had a switch issue.

Do you understand that this is not logical?

And then you go on to cajole people who look forward to the AAIB thoroughly examining the switches they have in front of them, to generate actual evidence on whether these specific switches have an issue or not.
I agree that it is unlikely that the switches have an issue, but I still want the AAIB to look, so they can state it as a fact, instead of relying on guesswork.

No that is not what I mean,
The faulty switch on same Boeing 737 aircraft is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the Boeing 787. This aircraft has a different type of switch (see partnumber). There is not a single issue ever reported. There was not a single issue found after the crash.

It is extremely clear both switches were set to CUTOFF by someone in the cockpit. At the worst possible moment just after liftoff. While there was no reason at all to touch these switches.
There was thrust, there was no engine failure, there was no agreement between both pilots to set both switches to CUTOFF. Because why would one of the pilots ask why the other set to cutoff.

AdamB28
July 17, 2025, 13:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924405

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhForSure

I have not posted on here in many years, but I feel compelled to do so now. I am a current 787 pilot and I have previously flown most Boeing types and an Airbus too. I also have an extensive background and qualifications in human factors, training and assessment. Before anybody reads any further, perhaps acquaint yourself with the notion of Occam's razor. That is, the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. I was certain that after the preliminary report was released the preposterous conspiracy theories would finally cease, but no! It's 2025 and humans can no longer help themselves. In my opinion the captain committed suicide here. Simple.

To those suggesting an electrical phantom turned the fuel control switches off without them moving: no. Ask yourselves this: what made one pilot (PF and F/O in my opinion) ask the other "why did you cut off?" Firstly, some context. The 787 fuel control switches make a VERY distinct metallic *CLICK* sound as they are operated. EVERY 787 pilot knows it and won't forget it. It is audible even at high thrust settings owing to the 787's exceptionally quiet engines and cockpit. After rotation the pilot flying is fixated on the HUD; rotating towards the TOGA reference line (~12 degrees pitch attitude) and putting the flight path vector over the flight guidance cue. One hand would be on the control column and the other on the thrust levers. Alternatively he could have had both hands on the control column. In either scenario, the pilot flying's (again, my opinion the F/O's) inboard arm would block his peripheral view (he's focused on the HUD, remember) of the center pedestal and the fuel control switches. HE WOULD NOT SEE THE PM TURN THE FUEL CONTROL SWITCHES OFF. Ipso facto. We know the F/O was PF from the report. If the F/O stopped flying the aircraft and reached down to move the FCS from cutoff to run the captain would've plainly seen the whole thing. I can't imagine "why did you cutoff?" would be his words of choice! More like "WTF ARE YOU DOING?!?" More to the point, if the PF (F/O) did stop flying and reach down to cut one engine off, the captain would have had time to either stop him flicking the second FCS off or at least quickly flick them both back to run and potentially save the day. This plainly did not happen. So it was almost certainly the PM (Capt) that moved the fuel control switches.

So what would make the PF ask the PM "why did you cut off?" if he couldn't see it happen? You would never assume with a loss of thrust that the switches had been turned off. Never. It's not a procedure. It's not a thing. Bird strike? Sure. Fuel Contam? Maybe. But the point is, in the heat of battle at 150 odd feet, you'd never jump to the conclusion that the fuel control switches were off. Never. So what triggered the PF asking the PM why he cutoff? Because he HEARD the fuel control switches move from run to cutoff, that is why. He heard those distinctive *CLICK* sounds (and yes, you can easily flick them both in less than a second FWIW) followed by the engines immediately rolling back. He would then have looked down at the switches and noticed they were in cutoff. The point to be made here is that the switches were moved by the captain. They made their distinct sound. There were no phantoms. They cannot move on their own. They didn't simultaneously fail. This drew the PF's attention away from flying and triggered the question "why did you cutoff"?

Inadvertent selection of the wrong switches? No. The PM was a training captain with thousands of hours experience on the jet. I asked one of our most experienced examiners how many times he'd seen that done. The answer was "zero". Even the stab switches next to them. They're red, guarded and are of a completely different shape and operation. Gear or flap? Come on. I think we're starting to stretch things a bit now. EVEN IF it was inadvertent switching. The INSTANT you'd made that error, you'd go "oh whoops", and flick them back to run. I know startle... I teach it. This is different. You don't flick the fuel control switches off, hear the engines roll back and sit there wondering what happened for 10 seconds AFTER THE F/O JUST ASKED YOU IF YOU CUTOFF! You did something that had an instant effect on the flight. The report indicates that "why did you cutoff" was asked just after both engines rolled back. But it took another 10 seconds to flick the FCS' back to run. If it was inadvertent, the instant the other pilot called out your error you'd correct it. The report makes it clear that there was 10 seconds between that happening. 10 seconds is a LIFETIME in that situation. The training captain knew what he was doing. He only switched the FCS' back to run once he knew it was moot.

So, why did he respond that he didn't move the switches? As per other input from people on here, when people are suicidal they often want to throw authorities off their trail. Or maybe he wanted to confuse the F/O so he didn't flick them back to run himself, or to just buy himself more time while the F/O tried to wrap his head around things? Maybe he didn't want the F/O to die knowing it was a suicide mission. Maybe we'll find out more in the final report or police investigation if things proceed that way. Maybe we'll never know.

I acknowledge that this is my opinion and of course there could be things we don't yet know about, but I must say I'm surprised that some of the theories on this professional pilot forum are no more coherent or logical than those being sprouted on social media.

52 pages and finally we get to the money shot.

For those asking why not wait a bit longer before throwing the switches and hard nose down, why bother? Roll them back here, cause a startle that is JUST long enough and then let gravity and the FADEC start a race. No resistance needed.

Musician
July 17, 2025, 13:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924410

The issue of intent

Assumed: a pilot moved both fuel switches to CUTOFF, and that caused the accident.

Argument against intent:
1. The CVR, taken at face value, reveals that neither pilot was aware he had moved the switch himself
2. On a G650 simulator, CUTOFF after 10 seconds (then RUN after 10 more seconds) was barely recoverable. ( See upthread. ) This suggests the "unrecoverability" window on the 787 was quite short, making a suicide plan risky.
3. Similar accidents were survivable (someone said upthread).
4. Typically, pilot suicides start with the pilot alone in the cockpit at cruise altitude.
5. "Shut down both engines" is an action that often occurs after a flight, and could thus be learned as "muscle memory", and be subject to an action slip.
6. The airline stated that the captain's medical records were found "unremarkable".

Argument for intent:
1. It's the simplest explanation.
2. "I can't believe any pilot would do this unintentionally, and neither should you."
3. Pilot took 10 seconds to correct his "mistake"
4. Uncorroborated reporting has it that the captain did not sound panicked on the CVR.

Did I miss any points?

To be clear, given the facts in the preliminary report, I could not decide this question today.
Whatever happened in Ahmedabad is not affected by the outcome of our discussion.
I hope that the AAIB and the public prosecutor will gather as much evidence as possible, and then the question can hopefully be resolved from facts.

Last edited by Musician; 17th July 2025 at 14:02 . Reason: link added

AirScotia
July 17, 2025, 13:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924417

Quote:

Originally Posted by krismiler

This has been discussed.. If suicide, this is the only part of flight where the FDR will not identify which pilot is responsible. This may matter to the person for life insurance / reputation reasons.

I agree that it may have been a physical health issue causing momentary confusion. Or it may be related to medication. But I think it's hard to dispute that human fingers moved the switches.

ciderman
July 17, 2025, 14:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924442

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhForSure

I got a lot of stick a week or so back for saying that we were \x93dancing round the elephant in the room\x94 The above quote is rational and thoughtful and will, I am sure be acknowledged as the most likely scenario in the months to come. As an aside, on the 146/RJ that I flew, you had to retard the power levers to flight idle before pushing down on a lever to shut the engine down. Seems a better system.

Thruster763
July 17, 2025, 15:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924454

Quote:

Originally Posted by krismiler

IF going for a dive why would you cut the fuel / engines?
The timing was such that the engines didn't have time to restart and develop thrust before impact. If switched later they would have done when the switches were re-set to run. We are highly unlikely to ever know if the timing considered this.

Triskelle
July 17, 2025, 15:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924458

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolihokistix

What happened to the fuel-control switches on doomed Air India flight 171? | Aviation News | Al Jazeera

A fairly neutral, balanced and readable article touching lightly on and summarizing almost all of the issues presently being raised.
(Not a long read.)

An interesting quotation from this: "She highlighted a similar incident during which one of the engines suddenly shut down midflight on an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 during its final approach to Osaka, Japan, in 2019.

Investigators later found that the aircraft\x92s software had mistakenly interpreted the plane as being on the ground, triggering the thrust control malfunction accommodation system, which automatically moved the fuel switch from \x93run\x94 to \x93cutoff\x94 without any action from the pilots."

Is it also interesting that this incident occurred at the time of ground-to-air transition?

za9ra22
July 17, 2025, 15:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924460

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimtx

Why would AAIB include that red herring in the prelim when they had the switches in their possession and included pics of them in the report? I have to admit that I took a bite of that herring and still have a nagging issue with myself not being able to see a dog on the lower part of the left switch. But I'm more inclined to think badly of the AAIB for including the herring.

Not sure why you would think the paragraph in the preliminary report was a red herring - it's a statement of historical context directly relating to the fuel control switches which the investigation had found in the FDR record as having 'transitioned' to OFF before 'transitioning' ack to ON.

To not detail the background would have been to omit a clearly pertinent fact which would have left others questioning the authority of the report for not covering it. The report itself then clearly states: "At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers." to ensure it is known that no defects were found at the time of the report being issued.

I suspect it is written as it is because at this point, there is no evidence the investigation can provide as to how the switches 'transitioned', let alone why.

andihce
July 17, 2025, 15:37:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924473

Quote:

Originally Posted by 17PA

If it is suicide, which certainly seems to be most people's opinion, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that there are a lot more "certain" ways to do it, this crash was potentially survivable, he would have known the aircraft would come down at a relatively low speed and rate of descent. Plus other factors like the FO potentially intervening or relighting the engines in time. If you've made the decision to commit suicide, don't you choose a way that has less doubt? It just seems like a really odd way to bring down an aircraft.

I find that significant too, but consider (*assuming* the captain was responsible for deliberately turning the FCS's to CUTOFF)

* that the captain knew the terrain in front of the runway offered no "safe" spot to set the aircraft down
* that he knew there was a high fuel load
* that all he had to do was guard the FCS's (already set to CUTOFF) with his hand, which would make it very difficult for the FO to intervene while desperately trying to fly the aircraft as best he could under the circumstances
* that without autopilot in this phase of flight the FO had to continue to fly the aircraft
* that at this very low altitude, there would be no option like a turn back to the reciprocal runway
* that engine cutoff at this time would be almost certainly be unrecoverable with even a short delay before the FCS's were set back to RUN
(add your thought here)

and this choice, perverse (insane) as it is, makes more sense.

I want to add one separate thought: the authors of the Preliminary Report had to know that people reading it, reading what it actually said, and inevitably reading between the lines, would likely focus on deliberate action by the captain as a highly probable cause.

Don't you think, that if there was any mitigating factual information available to them, that they would have included it?

Secondly, regarding recently "leaked" information, if it indeed comes from the investigating team, is certainly a breach of protocol, but since the Preliminary Report would seem to clearly exonerate Boeing and GE, and point to pilot error at the very least, what would be the motivation for a leak at this point?

I would guess it might come from frustration that the Preliminary Report has failed to state facts that make almost inevitable a conclusion as to probable cause (for instance, who in the cockpit said what and when, and what else was said that we weren't told about). Possibly it also reflects concern that the investigation has not focused more on factors relevant to that conclusion.

Last edited by andihce; 17th July 2025 at 16:11 . Reason: Additional thoughts

1stspotter
July 17, 2025, 15:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924475

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triskelle

An interesting quotation from this: "She highlighted a similar incident during which one of the engines suddenly shut down midflight on an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 during its final approach to Osaka, Japan, in 2019.

Investigators later found that the aircraft’s software had mistakenly interpreted the plane as being on the ground, triggering the thrust control malfunction accommodation system, which automatically moved the fuel switch from “run” to “cutoff” without any action from the pilots."

Is it also interesting that this incident occurred at the time of ground-to-air transition?

Mary Schiavo told a lot of utter nonsense on this crash. Someone should write an article about this lady.
The incident she refers to involved the uncommanded shutdown of both engines ***** after landing ****. So not during the approach.
https://avherald.com/h?article=4c2fe53a

The fuel control switches of Air India 171 transitioned seconds after liftoff from RUN to CUTOFF.
There is not a single source which states the fuel control switches of the ANA B787 moved to CUTOFF. It is simply impossible that software moves these switches.

Hedge36
July 17, 2025, 15:51:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924481

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triskelle

" which automatically moved the fuel switch from 'run' to 'cutoff' without any action from the pilots."

This makes it sound as if TCMA has physical control of the switches.

Sigh.

ekpilot
July 17, 2025, 15:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924483

Two main camps

There seem to be two major camps at this stage. The crash was:

1) An intentional act of mass murder/suicide.

2) A mass casualty event caused by a mental health issue, another medical condition or an action slip/brain fart. At any rate, a non-desired outcome from the offending cockpit member's point of view.

Why some of my colleagues would so ferociously be advocating for option #1, I will never understand. Do you believe that the more condemning your language is the more credibility you will achieve with your peers if proven right in the end? I just don't get it. Maybe it's just a case of always being used to getting instant gratification in all aspects of life.
Give it some time. We have heard from very knowledgeable contributors to this thread how an investigation is conducted, maybe show some compassion with the deceased crew, passengers and people on the ground, and give it a rest for a minute?

The flight profile certainly does not indicate any sort of struggle in the flight deck post initial fuel switch "transition" as the wings level/center line tracking would suggest a maximum effort to keep the a/c in the air. That could easily be interpreted as a joint effort to rectify the issue or it could mean that the fuel cut-off switcher was severely incapacitated from that point on, leaving the other member to do his best to fly the Boeing solo.
Either way, a very strange way to commit a premeditated mass murder.

Again, I will not discount #1 but I am still very much "hoping" for #2.

Last edited by ekpilot; 17th July 2025 at 19:28 . Reason: Spelling and omission

1stspotter
July 17, 2025, 16:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924501

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

I think you'll find no shortage of articles written about Ms Schiavo over the course of her illustrious career. The industry needs more like her.

Can you explain me Dave why the industry needs more like her?

She told utter nonsense.

This is the person who said the stuff quoted below. I hope you agree with me the ANA B787 uncommanded dual engine shutdown in 2019 *** after landing *** had nothing to do with a ' similar fuel cut-off malfunction during final approach".
There is also no Boeing software issue in the case of AI171. The ANA B787

ASN wrote: A Boeing 787-8 of All Nippon Airways operating ANA/NH985 from Tokyo/Haneda to Osaka/Itami stuck on runway 32L while landing at Itami due to sudden shut-down of both engines after Thrust Reverser actuation.

Ms Schiavo said:

"As fresh scrutiny surrounds Boeing after the Air India AI 171 crash, aviation expert Mary Schiavo reveals that a similar fuel cut-off malfunction plagued a Japanese Boeing 787 in 2019 \x97 with pilots never touching the controls. Investigators now face mounting questions on why warnings were missed and why Boeing\x92s software may still pose a global threat."

and
Mary Schiavo revealed that a near-identical incident occurred in 2019 on a Boeing 787 operated by ANA during its final approach to Osaka. \x93The investigation revealed the plane software made the 787 think it was on the ground, and the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) system cut the fuel to the engines,\x94 she said.
On that occasion, both engines shut down simultaneously, but the crew landed safely. The Japanese aviation authority and Boeing traced the incident to a software fault, not human error. ANA\x92s Dreamliner, carrying 118 people, had to be towed off the runway.

1stspotter
July 17, 2025, 16:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924504

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musician

It serves an example for "at first, everyone thought a pilot did it, but then it turned out they didn't".
It's not offered as an explanation.

Nonsense. See the headline. Schiavo compares the situation with another B787 with the Air India case. Both are totally different.
Schiavo blames Boeing software.

\x91Pilots Didn\x92t Touch It\x92: Air India Crash Mirrors 2019 Dreamliner Fuel Cut-Off , Expert Says Boeing Software To Blame

BrogulT
July 17, 2025, 16:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924505

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustusW

A suicidal person perceives their behavior as rational. Hence they take great care to make sure their plan works.

IDK whether you've addressed this earlier, but I'd point out that people with suicidal thoughts are often indecisive . This can manifest itself in many ways--going up on a bridge but not jumping, crossing the centerline but then going back. Or, perhaps setting the FCS to cutoff and then changing his mind. I'm not saying that's what happened, of course. And (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe you've dismissed the notion of hiding the suicide and making it appear to be an accident, murder, someone elses fault, etc. I think that notion might be more common than you would think (after all if they are successful you wouldn't know...) and probably reflects a significantly different sort of mental issue. A depressed narcissist? IDK.

syseng68k
July 17, 2025, 16:35:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924516

Musician:

The lack of technical rigour and curiosity in this thread is disappointing. Long diatribes about switches, as if they were the only thing in the chain that could have cut off the fuel. Rumours and News, fine, but would expect a higher level of hard analysis here, especially considering the limited information presented in the initial report.

It may indeed be that the tragedy was intentional, but there is no hard evidence to show that at this stage. While there are pointers suggesting that in the report, that is how if has been written, intentionally. Here, the crew are blameless until proven at fault, beyond reasonable doubt. Call that naive if you will, but science is about gathering and following the evidence, not jumping to conclusions.

nolimitholdem
July 17, 2025, 17:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924523

Air India finds \x91no issues\x92 with fuel switches on other Boeings after crash

Air India finds \x91no issues\x92 with fuel switches on other Boeings after crash (The Guardian)

"WHAT A SURPRISE!!",

said no one, ever.*

* (Except a few PPRune experts.)

jimtx
July 17, 2025, 17:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924525

Quote:

Originally Posted by za9ra22

Why "There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB." instead of: The mishap switches have been checked and have no defects. Their locking feature is operational.

They have the switches.

za9ra22
July 17, 2025, 17:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924530

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimtx

It appears they can't please anyone. To include a piece of pertinent data is to throw a red herring, and to not include it is to combust pprune in cover-up conspiracies.

They are telling you that the crash aircraft had no reported issues with the fuel control switches (since 2023, which was I think when the unit was replaced), and subsequently also confirmed that there were no defects to report.

I would say it suggests they have concerns relating to the accident which are not yet fully investigated, so don't want to include a factual statement which may not be fact. It is a preliminary report after all. It's job is lay out the sequence of material facts.

Posts about: "Fuel Cutoff Switches" [Posts: 802 Pages: 41]