July 09, 2025, 22:25:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11918671
July 8 (Reuters) - A preliminary report into the deadly crash of an Air India jetliner in June is expected to be released by Friday, three sources with knowledge of the matter said, with one adding
the probe had narrowed its focus to the movement of the plane's fuel control switches.
But this is starting to devolve into a hamster wheel again.
Last edited by Chernobyl; 10th July 2025 at 04:32 .
July 11, 2025, 20:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919763
Preliminary Air India crash report published
Last edited by Saab Dastard; 11th July 2025 at 21:40 . Reason: Fixed link
July 11, 2025, 20:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919765
From the Report:
The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.
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.
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.
July 11, 2025, 20:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919771
- fuel cut offs were found in the RUN position
- on take off roll both engines lost power as the fuel cut offs went from RUN to cutoff
- CVR recorded one pilot asking why they had gone to CUTOFF
- within 10 seconds the fuel cutoff was moved back to RUN
-RAT was deployed, APU had begun auto start
- 32 seconds after Vr the MAYDAY was called
This should also dispel a lot of the comments about AAIB-India, Indian culture in general and general competence. For a preliminary report this is far more thorough and extensive than what would normally be expected and they\x92ve kept Boeing, GE, FAA and investigators from US, UK, Canada and Portugal in the loop from the start
They have also clarified why it took so long to do the EAFR download- because of the extensive damage they had to source specialist equipment from the NTSB that only arrived on the 23rd of June (they downloaded on the 24th) so all that talk of a \x91coverup\x92 is pretty embarrassing now
of course the big question is why/how those switches were commanded into cutoff in the first place the exact sequence at Vr is the most critical, there hasn\x92t been much scrutiny at all that I can see in the Indian/international media of the personal
background of the flight deck crew which has happened in other suspected pilot initiated disasters in the past, I guess this is an avenue investigators will have been doing themselves
- on take off roll both engines lost power as the fuel cut offs went from RUN to cutoff
- CVR recorded one pilot asking why they had gone to CUTOFF
- within 10 seconds the fuel cutoff was moved back to RUN
-RAT was deployed, APU had begun auto start
- 32 seconds after Vr the MAYDAY was called
This should also dispel a lot of the comments about AAIB-India, Indian culture in general and general competence. For a preliminary report this is far more thorough and extensive than what would normally be expected and they\x92ve kept Boeing, GE, FAA and investigators from US, UK, Canada and Portugal in the loop from the start
They have also clarified why it took so long to do the EAFR download- because of the extensive damage they had to source specialist equipment from the NTSB that only arrived on the 23rd of June (they downloaded on the 24th) so all that talk of a \x91coverup\x92 is pretty embarrassing now
of course the big question is why/how those switches were commanded into cutoff in the first place the exact sequence at Vr is the most critical, there hasn\x92t been much scrutiny at all that I can see in the Indian/international media of the personal
background of the flight deck crew which has happened in other suspected pilot initiated disasters in the past, I guess this is an avenue investigators will have been doing themselves
July 11, 2025, 20:40:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919772
The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42
UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned
from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1
and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut
off.
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.
The CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed
during the initial climb immediately after lift-off (fig. 15). No significant bird activity is observed
in the vicinity of the flight path. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport
perimeter wall.
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. 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.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
As per the EAFR data both engines N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the
RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC.
RAT in extended position
15
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. 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.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”.
UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned
from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1
and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut
off.
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.
The CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed
during the initial climb immediately after lift-off (fig. 15). No significant bird activity is observed
in the vicinity of the flight path. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport
perimeter wall.
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. 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.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
As per the EAFR data both engines N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the
RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC.
RAT in extended position
15
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. 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.
The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC
At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”.
08:08:42 Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position.
One of the pilots asks the other why did he cutoff.
The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
08:08:52 Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN
08:08:56 Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN
Who (or what?) operated the cutoff switches?
Last edited by Engineless; 11th July 2025 at 20:53 .
July 11, 2025, 21:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919815
"The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec."
Does anyone know what the sampling frequency of the data is? If we get one readout per second, then it's possible that a one second difference could only be a millisecond difference in real life, which doesn't necessarily rule out an accidental bump.
If there truly was a second of difference, there aren't many other options than an intentional act. Not necessarily with the purpose of crashing the plane though (confusion, hallucination, distraction, ..)
July 11, 2025, 21:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919817
I remember the SAIB. I assessed it as “recommended” to all our customers and all agreed. I then raised work orders to check all fuel cut-off switches for the missing locking bar conditions. None were found defective. The preliminary report says the switches were found in the Run position. There is no mention of whether the locking mechanism is correctly in place. We need to wait for the full report for that, as this matter is still under investigation.
July 11, 2025, 21:24:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919826
What the hell happened in the cockpit?
08:08:42 Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position.
One of the pilots asks the other why did he cutoff.
The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
08:08:52 Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN
08:08:56 Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN
Who (or what?) operated the cutoff switches?
08:08:42 Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position.
One of the pilots asks the other why did he cutoff.
The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
08:08:52 Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN
08:08:56 Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN
Who (or what?) operated the cutoff switches?
Does the FDR actually have some input of the physical position of the switches or is it just measuring the output signal voltage
which might be changed by a momentary short from liquid or swarf.
Both signals go to cutoff within 1 second but then one recovers four seconds after the other.
Surely a pilot discovering a turned off switch would have both back on in less than four seconds.
July 11, 2025, 21:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919851
Again, you can not conclude that from the report.
Different inputs are sampled at different rates. Some very basic info here: https://scaledanalytics.com/2023/04/...uses-767-data/
It's highly likely switch positions are only sampled at 1Hz, and not at 100 Hz. For engine parameters you'll likely want a higher sample rate, as the whole engine could go from perfectly fine to exploded in less than a second.
If you had something like:
08:08:42.96 UTC: cut off switch 1
08:08:43.01 UTC: cut off switch 2
It would likely be recorded as:
08:08:42 UTC: cut off switch 1
08:08:43 UTC: cut off switch 2
Leading you to believe there was one second between these 2 actions, whereas it was actually only 50ms.
Different inputs are sampled at different rates. Some very basic info here: https://scaledanalytics.com/2023/04/...uses-767-data/
It's highly likely switch positions are only sampled at 1Hz, and not at 100 Hz. For engine parameters you'll likely want a higher sample rate, as the whole engine could go from perfectly fine to exploded in less than a second.
If you had something like:
08:08:42.96 UTC: cut off switch 1
08:08:43.01 UTC: cut off switch 2
It would likely be recorded as:
08:08:42 UTC: cut off switch 1
08:08:43 UTC: cut off switch 2
Leading you to believe there was one second between these 2 actions, whereas it was actually only 50ms.
July 11, 2025, 21:48:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919853
July 11, 2025, 21:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919854
Agreed, it's most unfortunate that that the preliminary report hasn’t closed off speculation, it's simply created opportunity for more.
It confirms that both fuel cutoff switches were moved to OFF at Vr, within a one second interval which is as extreme and inexplicable as it gets. Then it gives us a CVR quote that’s so neutered, "Why did you cut off?” / “I didn’t”, that it raises more questions than it answers. If the goal was to reassure or clarify, it’s had the opposite effect.
It confirms that both fuel cutoff switches were moved to OFF at Vr, within a one second interval which is as extreme and inexplicable as it gets. Then it gives us a CVR quote that’s so neutered, "Why did you cut off?” / “I didn’t”, that it raises more questions than it answers. If the goal was to reassure or clarify, it’s had the opposite effect.
July 11, 2025, 22:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919868
Agreed, it's most unfortunate that that the preliminary report hasn\x92t closed off speculation, it's simply created opportunity for more.
It confirms that both fuel cutoff switches were moved to OFF at Vr, within a one second interval which is as extreme and inexplicable as it gets. Then it gives us a CVR quote that\x92s so neutered, "Why did you cut off?\x94 / \x93I didn\x92t\x94, that it raises more questions than it answers. If the goal was to reassure or clarify, it\x92s had the opposite effect.
It confirms that both fuel cutoff switches were moved to OFF at Vr, within a one second interval which is as extreme and inexplicable as it gets. Then it gives us a CVR quote that\x92s so neutered, "Why did you cut off?\x94 / \x93I didn\x92t\x94, that it raises more questions than it answers. If the goal was to reassure or clarify, it\x92s had the opposite effect.
As to the report not closing off speculation, that isn't it's purpose. It is there to report the facts as they are found. It must also be said that speculation is not in any place but the eye of the beholder.
July 11, 2025, 22:07:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919882
One item in the report is the position of the LG Lever - Down.
Given the lack of a full transcript, and in trying to defend the crewmembers intentions , Is it possible that at the point of "Positive Rate - Gear Up" - PM Brain farted, and performed a different muscle memory action? Thus they would deny moving the Switches - and take a few seconds to compute what they just did?
Given the lack of a full transcript, and in trying to defend the crewmembers intentions , Is it possible that at the point of "Positive Rate - Gear Up" - PM Brain farted, and performed a different muscle memory action? Thus they would deny moving the Switches - and take a few seconds to compute what they just did?
I would think it would be the PM that would be required to action the PF calls such as 'positive rate- gear up' as the PF would have left hand on throttles and right hand on the controller?
What happened in the next 10 seconds is literally everything here.
The report does not assign ownership to any of the recorded voice or any of the actions.
Noting Saabs following post and keeping the wording of the prelim report in mind, I have re-worded this post.
Last edited by unmanned_droid; 11th July 2025 at 22:19 .
July 11, 2025, 22:09:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919886
Seconds count:
Time was spent with the verbal exchange, and then perhaps each pilot expected the other to put the switch back?
Anyway, the preliminary report also establishes that the aircraft had only 3-4 seconds of powered flight. (Would the gear lever be operated that early?) Everyone who saw that from the CCTV video, pat yourselves on the back.
Mayday call, dual engine failure, RAT deployment all confirmed.
TCMA was a red herring, the aircraft was firmly in air mode as the accident unfolded, and the thrust levers were at takeoff thrust the whole time.
As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. 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. The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight.
Engine 1's core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery.
Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11 UTC.
That was with 10 seconds delay vs. 13 seconds for engine 2.
Time was spent with the verbal exchange, and then perhaps each pilot expected the other to put the switch back?
Anyway, the preliminary report also establishes that the aircraft had only 3-4 seconds of powered flight. (Would the gear lever be operated that early?) Everyone who saw that from the CCTV video, pat yourselves on the back.
Mayday call, dual engine failure, RAT deployment all confirmed.
TCMA was a red herring, the aircraft was firmly in air mode as the accident unfolded, and the thrust levers were at takeoff thrust the whole time.
July 11, 2025, 22:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919894
From the report, there is no indicated time stamp identifying the point when one pilot asked the other "why did you cut off"
This could explain the the assumption that it took ten seconds to reverse the switch positions.
Cut off could have been noticed at any point later than 08:08:42 but before 08:08:52.
This could explain the the assumption that it took ten seconds to reverse the switch positions.
Cut off could have been noticed at any point later than 08:08:42 but before 08:08:52.
July 11, 2025, 22:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919901
Agreed, it's most unfortunate that that the preliminary report hasn\x92t closed off speculation, it's simply created opportunity for more.
It confirms that both fuel cutoff switches were moved to OFF at Vr, within a one second interval which is as extreme and inexplicable as it gets. Then it gives us a CVR quote that\x92s so neutered, "Why did you cut off?\x94 / \x93I didn\x92t\x94, that it raises more questions than it answers. If the goal was to reassure or clarify, it\x92s had the opposite effect.
It confirms that both fuel cutoff switches were moved to OFF at Vr, within a one second interval which is as extreme and inexplicable as it gets. Then it gives us a CVR quote that\x92s so neutered, "Why did you cut off?\x94 / \x93I didn\x92t\x94, that it raises more questions than it answers. If the goal was to reassure or clarify, it\x92s had the opposite effect.
Action slip
SAIB NM-18-33
Intentional.
July 11, 2025, 22:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919912
The phrasing
“Why did you cut off?”
doesn’t suggest surprise at an EICAS message, it implies direct observation or perception of manual action. This quote from the preliminary report reads exactly like what it appears to be; one pilot reacting to a control input he didn’t expect for which there was no plausible explanation .
July 11, 2025, 22:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919922
The phrasing
\x93Why did you cut off?\x94
doesn\x92t suggest surprise at an EICAS message, it implies direct observation or perception of manual action. This quote from the preliminary report reads exactly like what it appears to be; one pilot reacting to a control input he didn\x92t expect for which there was no plausible explanation .
The report simply says:
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.
The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
July 11, 2025, 22:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919941
The phrasing
\x93Why did you cut off?\x94
doesn\x92t suggest surprise at an EICAS message, it implies direct observation or perception of manual action. This quote from the preliminary report reads exactly like what it appears to be; one pilot reacting to a control input he didn\x92t expect for which there was no plausible explanation .
There are many plausible explanations, not just the one or two you might choose to see in this scenario.
July 11, 2025, 23:01:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11919961
I don't see people arguing that a pilot didn't move the switches. I see people offering various alternative possibilities. I do see posters, and mods, insisting that we not suggest deliberate operation of the switches with evil intent without evidence and I think that's an excellent idea.
Also: The preliminary report does not include any specific language for the question and answer about moving the engine control switches . Please, let's stop the imaginary quoting and responses to it.
Also: The preliminary report does not include any specific language for the question and answer about moving the engine control switches . Please, let's stop the imaginary quoting and responses to it.