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.
The preliminary report simply shares the facts as they’re known, and doesn’t draw any conclusions. That being said, the United States’ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has just released a memo about the Boeing 787 fuel control switches, which is pretty telling…
In this post:
FAA suggests fuel control switches were moved manually
As a reminder, the investigation into the crash of AI171 is centered around the aircraft’s fuel control switches. Investigators know that these were moved from the “RUN” to “CUTOFF” position just moments after takeoff, one second apart.
Ordinarily, these switches are only moved on the ground when starting or stopping engines, or in the air during an emergency. However, you’d never use them just seconds after takeoff, when there are no signs of engine issues, since there’s no chance to recover at such a low altitude.
In the cockpit voice recorder, one of the pilots was “heard asking the other why did he cutoff,” and “the other pilot responded that he did not do so.”
So anyway, one big question has been whether a human actually manually moved these switches, or whether there was some horrible technical or mechanical failure that somehow caused the switches to move positions.
While the AAIB has been leading the investigation, the FAA has been providing technical support, so is always aware of the details of the investigation. When there was talk of something involving the fuel control switches, some people pointed out a December 2018 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), regarding potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature on Boeing 737s, based on reports that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged.
However, that doesn’t appear to be the case here. Per the document:
Although the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models, the FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing airplane models, including the Boeing 787.
In other words, the FAA seems confident that the fuel control switches as such are safe. I don’t think that’s terribly surprising, though it really only leaves one other explanation…
Why did a human move the fuel control switches?
With the FAA essentially confirming that there’s nothing wrong with the Boeing 787’s fuel control switches, that makes it pretty clear that investigators believe this accident happened because a human moved the switches. The question is, why would a human move the switches to “CUTOFF,” when that was guaranteed to send the plane straight into the ground?
It’s hard to envision a scenario where this was done accidentally, especially just a few seconds after takeoff, during the most critical phase of the flight. I would imagine the information that hasn’t been released yet is probably pretty telling.
As of now, the only thing we know about the conversation between the two pilots is how “in the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff,” and “the other pilot responded that he did not do so.” I think the next interesting details will be:
- What was the conversation before and after that happened?
- Was it the captain or first officer asking that question?
With the first officer being the pilot flying and the captain being the pilot monitoring, the captain would’ve been the one more likely in a position to move these switches without it being super obvious (since the pilot flying is using both hands, initially for the yoke and thrust, and then just for the yoke). That assumes there was no one else in the flight deck (and there’s no mention of anyone else in the flight deck in the preliminary report).
It’s hard to imagine any situation in which this could happen by accident, especially if the (much more experienced) captain was the one who moved the switches…
Bottom line
The FAA has released a memo reassuring airline operators that there are no issues with the Boeing 787 fuel control switches, since those switches are the center of the investigation into Air India’s 787-8 crash. I don’t think this is terribly surprising, but it’s also a good clue that the investigation is likely centered around the human factors here, rather than some horrible design flaw that could impact other flights.
What do you make of this FAA memo, and its implications?
I called this from Day 1. Terrorism or sabotage!
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
@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.
> 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.
Isn't the most telling remark from the interim report that (among other experts) they will be taking advice from an "aviation psychologist"? A loose switch doesn't need a psychologist but a pilot's actions / state of mind does
Shouldn't Boeing have made it physically impossible to move both switches to cutoff at this stage of flight? I am not an expert or anything, but it looks like an obvious safeguard that should have been done? Or at least implemented as a response to this crash?
the default assumption is that you have skilled people that know what they are doing w/ ALL functions in a large commercial airplane.
You can't eliminate every possible means by which someone that wants to do harm or even make a rookie mistake and still leave them as a pilot.
The engine failure procedure calls for moving the switch to cutoff to keep fuel from flowing.
The Wall Street Journal says Air India's CEO is trying to get employees not to draw conclusions which are not supported by known facts.
Why is none of the reporting on this topic stating the conclusion here, that in all likelihood one of the pilots (likely the captain) intentionally murdered 200+ people? This fact should not be buried--it should cause outrage and prompt conversations about automated piloting and mechanisms to prevent insane pilots from killing people.
We need more evidence than this to prove that. We shouldn't try to Hollywood this thing and cause unrest, because that's no good for anyone.
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...
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.
It was obvious when this accident happened that this was an unusual accident and the lack of information compared to other accidents provided "fuel" to the speculation that ensued.
The report -released in the middle of the night at the international deadline for a preliminary report - confirmed what a number of people believed which was that the engines were starved for fuel.
The accident report may never be able to find the person...
It was obvious when this accident happened that this was an unusual accident and the lack of information compared to other accidents provided "fuel" to the speculation that ensued.
The report -released in the middle of the night at the international deadline for a preliminary report - confirmed what a number of people believed which was that the engines were starved for fuel.
The accident report may never be able to find the person that moved them intent but unlike other murder by aircraft/suicide scenarios, the evidence is overwhelming that a human moved the switches.
It is precisely that a human moved the switches that make this case highly problematic for AI given that a final report might not be released for over a year or more.
Findings have already drawn exactly what occured very clearly and unfortunately. The thing is not being able to tell which one did it intentionally. Pretty damning that psychoanalysis evaluations of any kind do not take place for pilots at any level. That along with lives lost is a travesty.
The armchair Serious Incident and Accident investigators continue to thump their stubby fingers against the keyboards. Give it up you-know-nothings, your ramblings only add clicks to the website total.
Says a guy who takes SkyTrax ratings seriously
Says a Brit who doesn't know London airports.
…. and now to Eskimo …. bro, how did I know that some other numpty would show their ignorance by attempting to call me out about the location of Southend-On-Sea airport. Take a tour of Mr Google’s Earth to determine that SEN is not located anywhere near London.
Is Fort Lauderdale airport in Miami? No, I didn’t think so bro …. :-)
As the world takes SkyTrax seriously, surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a “Bear of very little brains” like you Mason bro, should acknowledge the facts, yes?
After all CNT, you know that well respected U.S. travel publication, is equally in step with SkyTrax too. Only an ignorant numpty would disagree, yes?
This Skibidi Ohio Rizz.
how did I know that some other numpty would show their ignorance by attempting to call me out about the location of Southend-On-Sea airport is not London?
Just like airport in Chiba, in Incheon, in Dulles Virginia, Mississauga, Guarulhos?
Get it?
But the best for last, Gatwick is in West Sussex!!!!!!!! Major fail for a Brit!!!!!!!
Tim Dunn this BA alter ego of yours is a fool, get a new identity.
Not surprising, considering FAA's historic lapses in the Boeing certification during the 737 MAX episode. So i'm not sure if this changes anything in terms of what really happened. Only thing missing was a follow up "Thank you" from Boeing.
Indian nationalists are the most ridiculous people. Grasping at straws, more concerned that Boeing catch the blame than acknowledging the truth and hopefully preventing the same issue from occurring in the future. Contrary to your aim, you actually end up making your country look worse.
What I said about FAA as it relates to MAX is fact based. Your claims around "the truth" when no one knows that yet is speculative. So yeah, I don't think frothing at the mouth with stereotypical claims changes anything.
Think about this for a moment, how can the PF have his hands on the switches when both of his hands are on the control yoke especially in that particular phase of the flight?!
pretty clearly intentional sabotage, or suicidal mental illness. When someone asks, "did you just turn off our engines" and the person replies "I didn't do that", they're clearly aware of and thinking of the answer already.
@Eric Schmidt
When someone asks Eric Schmidt,
Did you cheat on your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend?
You're clearly aware of and thinking of the answer already.
How about an article on the crash in London?
CORRECTION …. Anon, please be advised that there was No “Crash in London”.
There was however a fatal crash at Southend Airport yesterday. The airport is about 50 miles outside London.
CORRECTION …. Anon, please be advised that there was A “Crash in London”.
London Southend Airport (hint: has London in its name), is part of the London metro area airports.
VICTORY .... A dyslexia Brit Pilot just got slayed. Or this delulu is a pilot seems sus.
Eskimo, you are such a numpty and you know it too.
Geographically, Southend-On-Sea is in the county of Essex, NOT metropolitan London.
Several outlying minor airports which are located within striking distance of London are designated London to fool the colonialists like you who know no better.
How do they know the fuel switches were moved? How is the monitoring signal collected for the data boxes? Where is the monitoring signal taken from? Does the monitoring signal actually prove that the switches were physically moved or is it a change in the voltage fed to the fuel pump that has been sensed? There seems to be a great amount of speculation and very little actual detail being provided. The available preliminary report...
How do they know the fuel switches were moved? How is the monitoring signal collected for the data boxes? Where is the monitoring signal taken from? Does the monitoring signal actually prove that the switches were physically moved or is it a change in the voltage fed to the fuel pump that has been sensed? There seems to be a great amount of speculation and very little actual detail being provided. The available preliminary report tell us nothing of substance as to how the fuel starvation was actually caused, other than fuel starvation caused the shutdown of both engines.
@ Vic -- Admittedly there are a lot more questions than answers, but the preliminary report seems crystal clear that the actual switches moved, stating "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."
If investigators weren't sure if the switches were actually a factor here, presumably they would've just stated at what time fuel starvation happened, etc. The...
@ Vic -- Admittedly there are a lot more questions than answers, but the preliminary report seems crystal clear that the actual switches moved, stating "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."
If investigators weren't sure if the switches were actually a factor here, presumably they would've just stated at what time fuel starvation happened, etc. The language being used here is presumably deliberate.
What do you mean there are a lot more questions than answers? As you said, the report makes clear that the switches were moved which starved the engines of fuel and brought down the plane. The only questions left are whether this was intentional or incompetence.
The black box would record the position of and changes in any switch. Thats how they create a timeline of everything that happened, absent video from the cockpit. At the same time, the fuel flow rate would also be recorded to decrease as the valve closes. That double verifies to the investigators that what the cockpit commanded, actually happened.
An accident where this was very relevant was the BA83 (coincidentally also the first hull-loss...
The black box would record the position of and changes in any switch. Thats how they create a timeline of everything that happened, absent video from the cockpit. At the same time, the fuel flow rate would also be recorded to decrease as the valve closes. That double verifies to the investigators that what the cockpit commanded, actually happened.
An accident where this was very relevant was the BA83 (coincidentally also the first hull-loss of 777). This flight luckily had 0 fatalities, but moisture in the fuel lines clogged the system and when the cockpit demanded more thrust, fuel flow sensors showed no increase in flow, thus helping the investigators narrow in on the true cause of the accident.
There was even an actual recording of a pilot asking the other person why it was switched off....it's not a speculation honey
The FDR records physical movement of the switch. Combined with one pilot visually noting it pretty much verifies the switches were moved and relit.
Could they modified in order to avoid being turned off so easily ?
@ McCaron -- It seems highly unlikely that they were moved by accident, given the process. Are you suggesting that in terms of concerns over a pilot doing so intentionally?
Not necessarily specific to this investigation, but I do think pilot mental health needs to be an increasing area of focus, given the record of major commercial accidents we've seen in the past 15 years or so.
Also to add to Ben, psychological evaluation of pilot is very imperfect, leading to many people who are not mentally competent being up in the air on a daily basis. In Europe, evaluation is only done once a year during medicals and it is very small part of it, basically some general questions about yourself and if you or your family member had suicidal thoughts or occurrences. Most pilots lie even if they had or...
Also to add to Ben, psychological evaluation of pilot is very imperfect, leading to many people who are not mentally competent being up in the air on a daily basis. In Europe, evaluation is only done once a year during medicals and it is very small part of it, basically some general questions about yourself and if you or your family member had suicidal thoughts or occurrences. Most pilots lie even if they had or have episodes of depression or stress in their private life because very likely if you tell the truth, it will lead to your medical license being revoked and the airline putting you on leave. It is weird but that is how it tends to be. So generally it ends up being voluntary actions if a pilot wants to report about any episode of psychological conditions they are going through or their colleagues are going through and many times it does not happen
it is wrong if the pilot is not willing to operate due to his mental condition/s
he would not have reported to flight duty
it is easy to accuse pilot profession
even indian pilots association is strongly objecting to the wrong conclusion of investigating board about pilot no insane person will do that kind of job. they have to find real truth behind this mystery. some body has sabotaged airindia. i strongly...
it is wrong if the pilot is not willing to operate due to his mental condition/s
he would not have reported to flight duty
it is easy to accuse pilot profession
even indian pilots association is strongly objecting to the wrong conclusion of investigating board about pilot no insane person will do that kind of job. they have to find real truth behind this mystery. some body has sabotaged airindia. i strongly suspect that some employees of ground handling company who were rejoicing with drinks and eating and dancing after the crash, must have been responsible for the tragedy
Is this a joke?
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."