Page Links: First Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next Last Index Page
| Ver5pen
February 02, 2026, 14:19:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031107 |
Having operated this type of switch for about a half century, I am unconvinced that a properly selected switch could "move towards the cutoff position".
From post 166 of this thread: Perhaps the switch could be defective, but that is (a) easily detectable by the pilot) and (b) still not likely to result in it moving on its own, rather just not locking well in the selected position. This is a situation where readers need to apply their understanding before accepting an unsubstantiated report. If we receive an authoritative report about how this switch "moved toward cutoff" twice on its own, I will read with great interest! are we saying that crew don\x92t know how to operate these switches? The first time one could argue they didn\x92t seat it properly but the second time? I would assume all 787 (particularly air india) are VERY sensitive and deliberate with this particularly switch post 171 the plane is now grounded by the airline so something happened Subjects
AvHerald
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| TURIN
February 02, 2026, 15:04:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031129 |
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. Subjects
FlightRadar24
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Ver5pen
February 02, 2026, 15:16:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031137 |
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. and they continued on with no other dramas to their home base where the plane is now in the hands of maintenance clearly *something* happened as I don\x92t think airlines are on the habit of grounding their $300m airliners for no reason. i remember when the consensus was this issue (fuel cutoffs not seating properly) was nearly impossible yet this crew found differently. maybe we should discuss new information on the merits of that and not frame everything as x party trying to shift blame this is certainly noteworthy even if it ultimately has nothing to do with 171 Subjects
FlightRadar24
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Musician
February 02, 2026, 15:26:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031139 |
sounds like they noted twice that the cutoff hadn\x92t seated properly and eventually got it gated (done in conjunction with maintenance who knows?)
and they continued on with no other dramas to their home base where the plane is now in the hands of maintenance clearly *something* happened as I don\x92t think airlines are on the habit of grounding their $300m airliners for no reason. i remember when the consensus was this issue (fuel cutoffs not seating properly) was nearly impossible yet this crew found differently. maybe we should discuss new information on the merits of that and not frame everything as x party trying to shift blame this is certainly noteworthy even if it ultimately has nothing to do with 171 A mechanic/engineer looking at the switch could twist it back so that it locks ok, with very little effort. If so, Air India should replace these switches with the safer switch model ASAP. Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Fuel Cutoff Switches (detent)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| JustusW
February 02, 2026, 15:33:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031144 |
Also the consensus was that it was nearly impossible for the fuel cutoffs to leave the seated position. Obstruction of the detents is and always will be a distinct possibility. In this case it would have actually worked as intended, as it forced the crew to remove or fix the detent issue before being able to operate the flight normally. In fact an obstruction or damage to the switch guard detent is pretty much the only way I can imagine this working if, for example, the detent ring itself was twisted or otherwise misaligned relative to the switch motion of travel it might have been kept from actually latching into the switches own stable position explaining why it moved into the other stable position. Which again would be a safe state as it would occur before engine startup was even attempted. I doubt we will ever get an update on this one though. Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Fuel Cutoff Switches (detent)
Switch Guards
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| JustusW
February 02, 2026, 15:37:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031147 |
I don't think either of the fuel cutoff switches are on the MEL. They're probably considered safety critical given the whole "fire and death" thing they're supposed to guard against.
Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
MEL
Switch Guards
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| JustusW
February 02, 2026, 16:20:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031171 |
So much for the quality of this "Safety Matters Foundation". There is guidance. If it's broke and it's not exempt your aircraft is grounded. Considering this happened AFTER the incident discussed in this thread it almost makes me reconsider the accidental double switch movement theory... They might never have swapped the switches as per the original directive, and it might just have been common practice to mash dem buttons until they "stuck". How do you fly an Air India plane post AI171 and do that if it's not widely employed common practice? This is beginning to sound like the least insane explanation... Subjects
AI171
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Fuel Cutoff Switches (detent)
MEL
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Mb194dc
February 02, 2026, 16:24:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031175 |
Very unusual events do occur sometimes. There can't be an easily repeatable problem with 787 cut off switches. Or wee see it often given 1175 of them are in service. That doesn't mean there isn't some ultra edge case problem though...
What odds a falling sun visor will shut an engine down, but that happened in December on 737 max 8. Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| JustusW
February 02, 2026, 16:32:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031183 |
Very unusual events do occur sometimes. There can't be an easily repeatable problem with 787 cut off switches. Or wee see it often given 1175 of them are in service. That doesn't mean there isn't some ultra edge case problem though...
What odds a falling sun visor will shut an engine down, but that happened in December on 737 max 8. As per the AD they _should_ have been replaced. It _should_ have been impossible for any switches with the issue to still be used on an aircraft over a decade after the AD. But maybe Air India just decided to not follow that AD? Or maybe there is a small subset of 787's where they didn't? And what the hell did they check last year when they supposedly went over all their 787's and inspected that very set of switches?! I'm baffled and a bit speechless right now... Subjects
Air Worthiness Directives
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Fuel Cutoff Switches (detent)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Pilot DAR
February 02, 2026, 16:37:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031185 |
Let's remember that totally independent of the external pull the toggle to unlock mechanism, internally, the switch still has the original over center mechanism which will spring the switch and contact to one extreme, or the other. Irrespective of the secondary locking feature, all quality toggle switches will spring to the intended position to prevent the switch contacts from resting just or just short of contact, and possibly arching internally.
Yes, if defective, the pull part of the toggle can rotate, and then the motion of the toggle will be abnormal. This would be entirely detectable in the moment by a pilot familiar with the operation of the switch. I see one of three situations here: The switch would operate properly, and the report is not accurate, the switch was operable, but the locking part of the toggle was not moving correctly (so the switch was defective), ans someone was satisfied that once positioned to run, it would remain there safely (suitably qualified mechanic, I hope, or the switch was entirely defective, so the flight could not depart until the switch was replaced. All three of these conditions are very easy for the pilots to understand. One does not require maintenance activity. All of that said, I see this as peripheral at best to the Air India 171 crash. The preliminary report tells of both fuel cut off switches being found in the run position, and states that they were both moved from run to cutoff after takeoff within a second or so of each other, and then back to run. Nothing authoritative I have read so far from the Air India 171 crash suggests that either one of the fuel cutoff switches were defective. Indeed, the events of the accident suggest that when operated, they functioned exactly as intended! Their being found in the run position removes doubt that they (the locking feature) were operating properly. I think that the report of today, if credible, is unrelated to the 171 crash in causal information. Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Preliminary Report
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| JustusW
February 02, 2026, 16:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031195 |
The preliminary report tells of both fuel cut off switches being found in the run position, and states that they were both moved from run to cutoff after takeoff within a second or so of each other, and then back to run. Nothing authoritative I have read so far from the Air India 171 crash suggests that either one of the fuel cutoff switches were defective. Indeed, the events of the accident suggest that when operated, they functioned exactly as intended! Their being found in the run position removes doubt that they (the locking feature) were operating properly. I think that the report of today, if credible, is unrelated to the 171 crash in causal information.
> The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. [...] Both fuel control switch were found in the \x93RUN\x94 position. So correction first: It wasn't an Airworthiness Directive, it was just an SAIB, but also the above is the only information provided by the preliminary report. Notably they did not comment in any way on the state of the guard/detent. I'd not dismiss this event so out of hand. After the 171 crash every single pilot flying for Air India surely has heard that those switches are blamed, right? For any of them to be willing to faff around with those seems alarming and, for me at least, points to possible normalization of deviance. It may be practice for them to not treat these switches as a potential flight safety issue. Subjects
FAA
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Fuel Cutoff Switches (detent)
Preliminary Report
SAIB NM-18-33
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Musician
February 02, 2026, 18:15:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031256 |
Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| buzzer90
February 02, 2026, 18:35:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031263 |
Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Ver5pen
February 02, 2026, 18:44:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031266 |
the same fleet operated by the same airline I still think intentional action is the most obvious explanation but that will never be 100% concrete without definitive evidence (a note or previous suicidal ideation) air India was hardly known to be a beacon of maintenance standards prior to their takeover by TATA and like a super carrier the ship takes a long time to turn around, their legacy fleet that they inherited was known to be particularly troubled. Google air india and spares and you\x92ll see they had a huge % of their fleet grounded for lack of support prior to TATA taking them over \x91Until pressed down slightly\x92 Thisraises my eyebrow at least. So they appear functional until externally interfered with? I imagine 787 drivers and certainly AI crew today manipulate the fuel cutoffs when doing engine start ever since 171, I certainly do on the Bus ever since this incident to make sure it\x92s seated properly. hence it was picked up this time but was it before? So a hand behind the TL or placing their hand back on or any other thing in that area that places pressure on those switches at the wrong moment. Wasn\x92t there an Atlas 767 that we speculate was lost because of an oversized watch (combined with sheer incompetence)? again, I reiterate the most likely explanation is pilot suicide but can we rule out everything else? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that goes both ways. Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| TURIN
February 02, 2026, 18:53:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031268 |
Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
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 |
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. Subjects
FlightRadar24
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff
Fuel Cutoff Switches
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 |
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
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| Lonewolf_50
February 03, 2026, 01:26:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031379 |
Now there is a separate avherald-article for this incident:
https://avherald.com/h?article=5342238e&opt=0 The foundation stated when asked why the aircraft departed nonetheless: "The issue is, there is no guidance." ... unbelievable Or, as Lifer01 points out, replace the next higher assembly (the module). Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 3rd February 2026 at 15:24 . Subjects
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| nikplane
February 03, 2026, 05:03:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031405 |
B787 Remember the past check:India's DGCA - Jul 14th 2025.
-
B787 Remember the past check: India 's DGCA - Jul 14th 2025. On Jul 14th 2025: India's DGCA instructed airlines to check the fuel control switches (Run-Cutoff) on the B787 and B737 aircraft as used by Air India Group, Indigo and Spicejet for possible disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature according to the SAIB released by the FAA on Dec 17th 2018 . The checks have to be completed by Jul 21 2025 . Last edited by nikplane; 3rd February 2026 at 05:48 . Subjects
DGCA
FAA
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| DTA
February 03, 2026, 11:36:00 GMT permalink Post: 12031533 |
The BBC have this story now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e5zwndddyo
Air India has grounded a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner jet after one of its pilots reported a possible defect in the aircraft's fuel control switch.
The airline said in a statement on Monday that it had informed India's aviation regulator about the issue and that it was getting the pilot's concerns checked on a "priority basis". "We are in contact with Air India and are supporting their review of this matter," a Boeing spokesperson said in response to an email. On Tuesday, Reuters news agency reported, external that Air India had begun re-checking the fuel switches on its Boeing Dreamliner aircraft following the incident flagged by the pilot. Subjects
BBC
Fuel (All)
Fuel Cutoff Switches
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
Page Links: First Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next Last Index Page