Thanks for the summary tdracer, that really helps. Would posters please consider the technical information in tdracer's post as everyone formulates their thoughts? Let's work forward based on factual systems information please.

The thread will reopen when substantive information (an authoritative report, I hope, becomes available for discussion....

Pilot DAR

If I recall correctly, the Mayday call was wording to the effect "thrust not achieved". That sounds like a phrase which could be expected from a pilot who had just frantically tried to restart an engine, and realized that it was not a success, and there would not be an opportunity for another attempt. The pilot aviated, (forget navigation), then communicated - over a period of 13 seconds.

Nothing in the report suggests that the engines began to run down before the fuel was selected to cutoff. The report states a sequence of events for power loss which begins with the switches being moved to cutoff. The maximum airspeed was immediately before the switches were moved, so there had not been a power rundown prior to that:

From a PPRuNe perspective, good discussion here is desirable, as it is from a pilot perspective too. Nonsense or needlessly accusatory discussion, though it is discussion here, is not so good for pilots, and other well informed readers.

Some members want this thread locked, which is a choice we moderators can make, other members want discussion, which, if good, is desirable for everyone. We moderators prefer to not lock threads, we like to moderate, not terminate!

So, could we all agree that knowing that both condition switches were selected to cutoff by a pilot, we do not have information as to which pilot? What interest are we serving anyone by speculating which pilot here and now? Perhaps later, a full report adds to this knowledge, but possibly never.

I see four groups of readers here: Pilots of two crew airplanes, who are now instinctively more alert to what they are doing, and what their co crew is doing; Single crew pilots, who know that they are their own guardian against mistakes anyway; Designers, who are now thinking about improving designs to minimize the effects of pilot error; And, politely, everyone else.

Pilots of two crew airplanes, you know what you have to do. Is slighting two members of our community helpful right now? In my opinion, I don't see how...

Single pilots, you're on your own. Designers, yeah, we're thinking....

Everyone else, the professional pilots forum is accepting your participation, please be respectful with what you post - you're posting it about pilots who recently passed away with high trauma. Is what you're about to post something helpful? Do you really want to say it? Will the pilot group be better because you did?

We moderators don't want to lock the thread. And, we don't want to allow our core group of professional pilots to become profoundly aggravated by pages of low value posts. Please make our moderator jobs easier for us!

Thanks, Pilot DAR

Yup Capn, that was posted while I wrote, I just removed it for exactly your observation.

This thread may yet get locked if we keep seeing speculation like that!

Okay, we're going to take a breath here for a little while, it's getting way too speculation laden, and fact barren. Think about what you might like to post for later, which will contribute - not just speculate . Is what you're going to post really, really new, and previously not thought of?

In the mean time, take the time to read and search back, has your question/speculation already been asked an answered?

Pilot DAR

Let’s remember that this was a somber event, and some respect is appreciated. When I see Youtube videos with bold yellow “Batman” text angled across, and a person with a perplexed expression on their face, I hardly think that the somber nature of this event is being respected – so please consider, before linking them.

For those here who are not pilots, welcome, and please remember that this is a pilot’s forum, we welcome you as participants, and would like your respect for our profession. For those with other aviation skills, that wisdom is also appreciated here. Please post based upon fact, rather than wild speculation, or things found after Batman text!

Some established basics (all previously stated here with authority) going forward as we discuss:

The engine “run/cutoff” switches have a well designed locking mechanism, visible in the photo in the report as being in place to “run”. Grip by a hand is required to lift them over a lock, before they can be repositioned. One hand cannot lift and reselect both switches at the same time. Those switches energize the fuel valves to either [open/closed] position. In the absence of any electrical power supplied to them, the fuel valves remain as last positioned.

It is not impossible that one switch could be snagged by something (strap on a flight bag) and moved. But both switches, with a one second interval between the movements? Unlikely in the extreme! Snagging/bumping unintended switch motion does not require further discussion, without new authoritative evidence.

The report states that the switches were each moved one second apart from the other, from “run” to “cutoff” then returned to the “run” position seconds later. None of those motions of both switches in both directions were likely made by anything other than a hand motion from a pilot.

If you would like to cite something, please assure that it is authoritative (again, things beginning with Batman text may be a poor start!). Links to authoritative reports, SOP’s, Flight Manuals, official service information are welcomed, as long as permission to link and reproduce is being respected.

Let’s make the continuation of this thread something to be proud of?

Thanks for your consideration,

Pilot DAR
One of your moderators.

If the barrel of the locking portion of the toggle can be turned, the switch is very broken, and will not function properly at all, unless manually realigned so as to lock properly. A pin aligns the toggle barrel to the inner stem. A rotated switch barrel (which would have to have a broken pin) would not sit properly in either intended position, and would be entirely evident to the pilots. And the chance of both switches failing in this way at the same time are astronomical.

If there were a fault with the locking feature of one of the toggle barrels, this would now be evidence on the initial report, as those parts can be seen to have survived in the photo in the report.

Thanks for the pictorial Mrshed!

Yes, it is an unavoidable discussion topic now, based on the information in the report. (That's my post being quoted).

So, how about we professional pilots, and forum members of the Professional Pilots Rumour Network adopt an attitude of compassion. There's no way this is good, let's still try to not make it more bad than it already is. Two of our colleagues died. It seems evident that at least one was really heroic in the totally unexpected circumstances, let's have a favourable thought for him!

Having thrust restored does not instantly put the airplane "back in business" for stabilized flight if it's already well behind the power curve, pointed up..

This statement has lots of merit.

Correct. And we're going to actively avoid getting near that theme in posts here. For reasons we can generally understand, the circumstances of this sad event have migrated away from being primarily aviation (the report does not suggest a defect with the airplane, and at least one pilot was obviously doing their very best). The report leads us into massive speculation territory, and outside the specialties of nearly all of us. None of us want to have PPRuNe become a source of information (correct, or otherwise) which may be used against a fellow pilot.

During a relaxing 36 hours away from the internet, away with Mrs. DAR, I reflected. I'm wondering to myself what this thread can continue to do [good] for we pilots, which it has not already done? It is now a repository of some good, and some less than good information. Are we contributing more to good outcomes for our industry by speculating, which theories may never be able to be validated?

Should we be closing this thread until something substantively new and authoritative can be added to the discussion? If keeping it open, what is served?

P.S.: After some very useful discussions, both with learned members of our group here, and some wise advisors outside this forum, I will take responsibility for now formally requesting of our members that future posts about this accident, or other [possible] intentional pilot act aviation crashes, not use the words: "suicide" nor "murder" at all - none, not at all, don't type the word.

A person may be described as "taking their own life" if that is a known intentional fact. For this event, the engines shutdown is not known to be a deliberate act. The two words now not to be used do have legal implications, and we're not going there. This is a pilot forum, not a legal forum. The accusation that a pilot intentionally shut down the two engines is not provable - it could have been a cockpit error. We may never know. It's time to stop talking this way.

I (and the other mods) are not going to go backward to sanitize what has gone before in these threads, it's just too much work, and trying to erase words is not really going to help. On the other hand, going forward, we're not going to perpetuate these words and theme.

If you have a genuine disagreement with me on this, I suppose I have to accept your PM on the topic. So far, I have replied every PM, out of courtesy. But I'd rather not explain again in a PM, what I have just explained here - 'cause that's all I've got. There's a line, we all know where it is, we're going to stay on the professional pilot peer side of it here - right?

So, as I have requested that these terms no longer be used, and I cannot imagine anything truly new to be discussed, I'm going to turn in, with the hope that posters might make the very bare minimum of meaningful posts, if any at all. No more questions about how the switches work, and speculated failure modes ('cause they've all been discussed far too much), no more medical speculation ('cause we have no facts, and this was a peer), and so on - you get the idea.... This, is moderation.

When a final report is released, we'll probably have more to discuss.

In the hours to come we mods will have given this all more thought, the thread may close - unless it does not have to.... please....

Pilot DAR,
One of your moderating team

This article has been referred to the moderation team by one of our members:

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/...163850.article

Its headline is:

and this aligns with where we are now - not much new to discuss. When new information for discussion becomes available, we'll open the thread back up...

Pilot DAR

As suggested to the moderator team, two other articles of the same theme:

https://www.dw.com/en/air-india-cras...ure/a-73333117

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/...re-2025-07-18/

Thanks to the poster who let us know.

We'll leave the thread open for a little while, to discuss these articles, or link other authoritative information. Please let's avoid the hamsterwheel...

A report of the FAA Administrator saying that the fuel cutoff switches were not defective:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/faa-ai...rash-1.7593295

Those who watch the Channel 4 documentary on the Air India crash might like to tell those of us for whom it is not available what they think about the show. We'll leave the thread open for a time for this, let's discuss what the show has to say, though not reopen all of the old discussions....