FAA Says Boeing 787 Fuel Cutoff Switches Are Safe - Boeing General

FAA Says Boeing 787 Fuel Cutoff Switches Are Safe

Ben Schlappig — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 23:51:04 +0000

A couple of days ago, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB)released its preliminary report into the tragedy of Air India flight AI171, the Boeing 787-8 that crashed seconds after taking off from Ahmedabad, killing 260 people.

Continue reading: FAA Says Boeing 787 Fuel Cutoff Switches Are Safe

Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.

H8TE2SAITOLDUSO — Thu, 17 Jul 2025 21:47:21 +0000

I called this from Day 1. Terrorism or sabotage!

Navywings — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:39:36 +0000

So they need to be there for emergency procedures like engine fire. One of the first steps is fuel cutoff. So for an emergency how hard do you want to make it? There are already outside guards on either side to prevent bumping and the switches are stop lock (need to pull upward before moving). So they are already modified to prevent them from being turned off "easily."

Navywings — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:36:35 +0000

The FDR records physical movement of the switch. Combined with one pilot visually noting it pretty much verifies the switches were moved and relit.

Navywings — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:30:53 +0000

Occam's razor. the simplest answer is usually the correct one. The switches were manually moved to cutoff. The FDR recorded that. There was no accidental movement. That is impossible. Even if it were possible, moving TWO accidentally one second apart by pulling up on the switch and repositioning is even more impossible. There really is only one conclusion here. Pilot suicide. Ask yourself how many instances of pilot suicide are there compared to dual switched moving themselves one second apart? I think you'll find the former is more common and the latter non-existent.

Eskimo — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 10:28:08 +0000

Insurance could void on suicide or terrorism. Sully, with an exceptional airmanship, had way more time to react, and yet he couldn't even make it back to an airport. While...cough...cough... computer could have landed back at LGA.

Gesot — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 07:18:03 +0000

It’s become absolutely ridiculous — they’re treating us like lobotomized fools. The worst part is that they are tarnishing the reputation of professionals who cannot defend themselves. I can’t understand why the scenario in which the pilot monitoring performed the first step of the memory item — “Fuel control switches… CUTOFF THEN RUN” — has been completely ruled out. That is the first action a pilot is supposed to take after losing both engines. In the entire history of aviation, no one in the final seconds of their life has ever lied or pretended. How can anyone believe such a scenario?Isn’t it far more plausible that both FADECs failed? Especially considering the FAA itself issued a bulletin warning that if full FADEC resets are not performed after a certain number of hours, they could spontaneously reboot at any phase of flight? Soon they’ll probably “find” a suicide note too — just like they dragged the name of the Malaysian captain through the mud with the claim that he supposedly rehearsed the route in his home simulator. And yet, the theory goes that he wanted his family to collect insurance — but somehow kept the “evidence” on his own personal computer? Even in the case of the 787 incident, the supposed suicidal pilot allegedly said, “Let me shut down both engines during takeoff and see what happens,” and handed control to the co-pilot. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just crash the plane himself? Have we forgotten that in the Hudson incident, they initially tried to blame Sully too? Yet video footage — an irrefutable witness — shows a stable attitude, controlled flight, and the crew clearly doing their best under impossible circumstances. There was no sign of erratic inputs or panic. And let’s be honest — no one expects Boeing to be shut down. That would trigger chaos in the global economy. But let’s not insult the intelligence of professionals and the public just to protect the image of a corporation.

Watson — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 06:19:15 +0000

Even if a deliberate act by a pilot, that doesn't mean there aren't things that can be improved. Humans are always the weakest link in any system, and any good engineer knows that the system's design must mitigate that to the extent possible. For example, make the left engine fuel switch reachable only by the captain, and the right engine fuel switch reachable only by the copilot. That way a pilot cannot unilaterally cut fuel to both engines. Or lock the switches entirely for the first 2 minutes of flight time.

Watson — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 06:08:46 +0000

> But moving any of them require both pilots agree its the right one. Sounds like that wasn't the case here, as one pilot asked the other why he cut them off.

Mark — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 03:55:08 +0000

@echino No, it cant be done. If you get a major engine problem, such as an engine fire or a big bird strike causing massive vibration, it must be put to CUTOFF. But moving any of them require both pilots agree its the right one. Inhibit pilots of cutting off the fuel cant be done.