Another Boeing bites the dust...

[Isaiah 63:1]

Pretty clearly now not an issue with the airframe or the power plant: Per WSJ:

• The Air India crash investigation is focusing on the pilots’ actions, with no immediate indication of Boeing 787 Dreamliner issues.
• Preliminary findings suggest fuel flow switches to the engines were off, causing loss of thrust shortly after takeoff.
• Investigators are trying to determine if the switches were turned off accidentally or intentionally, and if a reset was attempted.

That means it almost certainly was pilot error...

• The most likely fault is going to lie with Air India. It’s either
  • a pilot training issue (unlikely given the experience of the crew)
  • pilot error. E.g., pilot monitoring retracted flaps instead of gear once the plane had achieved positive rate, which it appears to have done; but given the experience of the pilots and how different those two levers look and feel from each other, again, that isn’t the most likely thing
  • an electrical problem to rob the plane of power, which would almost certainly be a maintenance issue, not a manufacturing issue

 

[jthomas666]

Yep, one of the pilots cut off the fuel right after takeoff.

Victims' families demand answers as report says fuel switches cut off before Air India crash

In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he "did the cut-off", the other pilot replied that he didn't.

www.bbc.com

 

[jthomas666]

Yep, one of the pilots cut off the fuel right after takeoff.

Victims' families demand answers as report says fuel switches cut off before Air India crash

In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he "did the cut-off", the other pilot replied that he didn't.

www.bbc.com

Ya gotta wonder--what controls did the guy intend to hit? Also, you'd think that controls like that would be put in an out of the way place nowhere near any controls that are frequently used in flight.

 

[crimsonaudio]

“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 report reads.

Shortly after, the switches were reversed back to where they should have been, and the engines were in the process of powering back up when the crash happened.

On the 787, the fuel cutoff switches are located between the two pilots’ seats immediately behind the planes throttle levers. They are protected on the sides by a metal bar and have a locking mechanism designed to prevent accidental cutoff.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/11/india/air-india-crash-report-intl-latam

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

Ya gotta wonder--what controls did the guy intend to hit? Also, you'd think that controls like that would be put in an out of the way place nowhere near any controls that are frequently used in flight.

I understand what you’re saying, but the fact remains that in all the time that this airplane type has been certified with that switch configuration (and at least the latest version of the 737 has the same configuration, by the way) there’s no other known case of this happening…

 

[jthomas666]

I understand what you’re saying, but the fact remains that in all the time that this airplane type has been certified with that switch configuration (and at least the latest version of the 737 has the same configuration, by the way) there’s no other known case of this happening…

Here a pic of the controls; the fuel switches are directly below the throttles:

There are guards on either side, making it very difficult to flip them accidentally.

This video states that the power system for the jet is such that if power is completely interrupted, the fuel valves will automatically snap shut.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Here a pic of the controls; the fuel switches are directly below the throttles:

There are guards on either side, making it very difficult to flip them accidentally.

And they’re locking switched which have to be pulled out to be moved. It might have been some sort of mistake but it wasn’t an accidental bump.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

So….one pilot asked the other why he cut off the fuel. The answer was a denial that he had cut off the fuel. And it’s realistically impossible to do that accidentally. And the 737 has been in heavy service for decades without this ever happening. And the plane crashed because both engines flamed out. And the best guess, at least today, as to why they flamed out is lack of fuel.

Unless and until some contradictory evidence comes to light, it sounds a lot like the pilot who denied cutting the fuel actually did it intentionally.

 

[Elefantman]

Good video discussing the preliminary report. The automobile equivalence of moving these fuel switches right after takeoff would be moving the gear selector from Drive to Park while doing 70 MPH on the interstate. There is no reason to touch these fuel switches that low to the ground.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Unless and until some contradictory evidence comes to light, it sounds a lot like the pilot who denied cutting the fuel actually did it intentionally.

Or there was another party in the cockpit.

 

[Elefantman]

Or there was another party in the cockpit.

Or the pilot who shut down the engines was trying to deflect guilt to protect his family.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

Here a pic of the controls; the fuel switches are directly below the throttles:

There are guards on either side, making it very difficult to flip them accidentally.

This video states that the power system for the jet is such that if power is completely interrupted, the fuel valves will automatically snap shut.

Great image. Thanks. It also highlights the compelling reason these switches are where they are - handling an engine fire. In that event, the containment procedure is (1) auto throttle off; (2) affected engine's thrust to idle; (3) affected engine's fuel control to Cutoff. In other words, it makes perfect sense to co-locate the fuel control switches and the throttles.

We now likely to know the technical reason this plane crashed. We don't yet know what caused that technical reason, and though I am reluctant to engage in speculation, I can only think of two explanations: (1) intentional action by one pilot or the other. No intelligence yet public indicates any likely motive for this (no known political ties by either pilot to extremist groups; no one especially important on the passenger manifest); (2) Much more likely is a (lack of) maintenance issue leading to an uncommanded movement of the fuel control switches. In 2018 an FAA bulletin alerted 787 operators that some 787s were delivered with the fuel control locking feature disengaged, and that operators should inspect and correct. Air India does not appear to have done that per India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.

In any event, from a forensic standpoint, this investigation is likely to get more, not less, interesting as time goes by...

 

[AlexanderFan]

Great image. Thanks. It also highlights the compelling reason these switches are where they are - handling an engine fire. In that event, the containment procedure is (1) auto throttle off; (2) affected engine's thrust to idle; (3) affected engine's fuel control to Cutoff. In other words, it makes perfect sense to co-locate the fuel control switches and the throttles.

We now likely to know the technical reason this plane crashed. We don't yet know what caused that technical reason, and though I am reluctant to engage in speculation, I can only think of two explanations: (1) intentional action by one pilot or the other. No intelligence yet public indicates any likely motive for this (no known political ties by either pilot to extremist groups; no one especially important on the passenger manifest); (2) Much more likely is a (lack of) maintenance issue leading to an uncommanded movement of the fuel control switches. In 2018 an FAA bulletin alerted 787 operators that some 787s were delivered with the fuel control locking feature disengaged, and that operators should inspect and correct. Air India does not appear to have done that per India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.

In any event, from a forensic standpoint, this investigation is likely to get more, not less, interesting as time goes by...

Interesting about the lock being able to be disengaged. You’d think that wouldn’t be an option.

Can you think of a scenario where it would need to be disengaged? Or was that just a “feature” of the switch used?

 

[jthomas666]

Interesting about the lock being able to be disengaged. You’d think that wouldn’t be an option.

Can you think of a scenario where it would need to be disengaged? Or was that just a “feature” of the switch used?

The lock is there to prevent you from accidentally cutting the fuel. If you really NEED to cut fuel, you have to disengage the lock. Think of it as an aviation version of a childproof cap.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

Interesting about the lock being able to be disengaged. You’d think that wouldn’t be an option.

Can you think of a scenario where it would need to be disengaged? Or was that just a “feature” of the switch used?

As I understand it, it wasn’t an option to be disengaged but that some 787s were delivered with the locking feature disengaged. Simple MX (maintenance) check would detect and correct the issue per the FAA bulletin.

As for the scenario, no. Cutoff inflight? Yes. But disable a safety feature that was part of the instrumentation that certified the aircraft type? No…

 

[4Q Basket Case]

This thread is a great example of why TideFans has the best posters on the inter-webs.

Knowledgeable on a variety of topics, and willing to share their expertise.

I’ve known Isaiah 63:1 for more years than either of us would like to admit…..since well before TF was a gleam in BamaNation’s eye.

He knows what he’s talking about.

 

[AlexanderFan]

The lock is there to prevent you from accidentally cutting the fuel. If you really NEED to cut fuel, you have to disengage the lock. Think of it as an aviation version of a childproof cap.

wondering why you would want switches with that feature, but you could disable the locking. Why not just have to pull the switch out to move it?

Locomotive engine cutouts had a small wire you had to snap (not difficult), then pull the toggle out to move, and the switch would spring back in tight to lock into whatever position it was set to (in/out). There was no way to disengage the pull to move feature that kept the switch from being moved inadvertently.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

 

[Elefantman]

According to the Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 issued by the FAA, the only non standard fuel cut off switches were discovered on 737's. The 787 switch is similar but it's a different part number. The FAA recommended 787 operators to inspect their fleets as well.

The Boeing Company (Boeing) received reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel
control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged.

In the FAA's opinion, this was not an unsafe condition.

Based on an assessment utilizing the limited data currently available at this time, the airworthiness
concern is not an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) action under Title
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 39. The FAA will continue to monitor this
issue.

Inspection procedures for checking proper operation of the switch was quite simple.

Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure its engagement. While the
airplane is on the ground, check whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the
two positions without lifting up the switch

According to the preliminary report:

As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory

Who knows why Air India didn't take one minute to check these switches. Or maybe they did, found nothing wrong and didn't record the inspection. Even if the locking feature on these switches were not functioning properly, the odds of both switches inadvertently moving to "cutoff" within one second of each other is very very remote.

These fuel switches are not guarded because they are used in normal operation of starting the engines and shutting them down at the gate after completion of the flight. As you can see in the photo below, the two STAB switches to the left of the fuel switches are guarded. These switches remove electrical power to the horizontal stabilizer. One for each redundant system. The only time a pilot would use these switches is when dealing with a stabilizer malfunction and the checklist directs them to cut power in attempt to correct the problem.


As Isaiah 63:1 said, this investigation will get a lot more interesting.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

According to the Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 issued by the FAA, the only non standard fuel cut off switches were discovered on 737's. The 787 switch is similar but it's a different part number. The FAA recommended 787 operators to inspect their fleets as well.

I missed that nuance. Thanks...

Who knows why Air India didn't take one minute to check these switches. Or maybe they did, found nothing wrong and didn't record the inspection...

I know nothing about Indian regulatory requirements (my industry experience is solely US domestic) but in the US every MX task is logged irrespective of whether a problem was found. If any non-US carrier were not so meticulous I'd be surprised if FAA would certify them for US operations...