Air India crash fuel switches turned off

[limetrees32]

I've not found a thread on this , although it's taken me so long to search out the knowledgeable posters
on the Washington crash that there probably is one now.
But @notimagain what do you think ?

We don't. It's just takes a very long time to write out he/she, her/him for every sentence.

So i just guessed a gender.

He/she it doesnt really matter

Not all pilots are men. But the general assumption is that being a pilot is a male profession. So for those of us who do this job, it does matter that people assume a pilot must be a man, especially when we want it to be seen as a role that women are equally as capable of doing.

Aaaaaanyway. Lots and lots of speculation going on here. The professional thing to do is not to speculate. Much of the relevant information has not yet been released. Until then, it’s all guesswork, which is gruesome.

Just to add to the bits of information already here about the fuel control switches - it would not be possible to accidentally knock them off. They are spring loaded and guarded. They are not on a part of the flight controls that are regularly used during the take off, so it would be unlikely that they were mistaken for another control switch. Pilots well, the ones I work with, do rehearse what they would do in the event of an engine failure before each departure, in order to cement the muscle memory in for emergency procedures. During engine start and shut down at the start and end of a flight, along with this mental rehearsal, would be the only times the fuel control switches would be touched. The controls in each 787 these pilots flew would be identical. The touching of each control would be almost second nature - when you are in your car you don’t think where the indicator switch is, you just know. That muscle memory is so embedded that when you get in a car where the indicator and windscreen wipers are on the opposite sides you will find yourself switching the windscreen wipers on by mistake! The same is true in a commercial aircraft - that muscle memory is strong. These switches would not be touched by mistake, unless there were many other factors at play. And as yet, we do not know what those factors could be. So, although I have plenty of experience of commercial flying (nearly but not quite as much as Notimagain 😉) I have no further guesses to make here until more information is known.

It is worth remembering that the average pilot just wants to go to work, do their job, and come home again in one piece. For the most of us, that is how our career will go. For the unfortunate few, it doesn’t end that way. Each one of us is a human being though, with family who read all the articles and speculation. It’s worth being respectful of those who are still trying to work out what the heck happened to their family members. The fingers are pointing squarely at the pilots atm, which let the aircraft and engine manufacturers off the hook for now. But these things rarely come down to the unadulterated actions of one single person just doing their job.

Of course it matters. A lot. You assumed on a mum forum that it was a man because she/he is a pilot. Maybe it is, maybe not. Just challenging you a bit, because it actually does matter.

This. I would have thought that in 2025 the default sex would not be male. Especially here.

Bringing nothing to the discussion as a whole, but I have to admit to assuming that “notimagain” is a man because I took the ‘im part of their nickname to mean he was a he - not because I assumed all pilots are men. Otherwise, I always used to use “they” for he or she but these days that doesn’t seem to work so well.

FWIW, my husband is a retired aeronautical engineer who refuses to put forward any theories about what happened, though he is very clear that those switches would not be moved by accident.

No you are completely incorrect. I am going to stand up for myself on this.

When i started writing my post, i did write he/she,

then i just found it too much to type in several different sentences, so I went back and erased one at complete random.

I didnt assume it was a man. I have no idea what gender they are.

So what are you supposed to write if you dont know what gender they are. ?

"He/she" ?

If i wrote that - then i would have got attacked for not asking what gender they were.

If i actually asked what gender they were, i would have got attacked for asking.

So you cant win

Are you referring to the US aviation regulator flagging the fuel switch issue with Boeing 737 jets in 2018 or something else? In that case the FAA reported that the switches on some Boeing 737 aircraft were installed with the locking feature disengaged (the same feature as used in 787s). Presumably making it a possibility that they could therefore be accidentally switched off. But at the time it was considered advisory not mandatory to address the issue.

I don't like the ease with which pilot error/malicious intent can so easily be jumped to. It does, after all, suit Boeing and probably the whole air industry, for that to be the case. And contrary to a PP, I don't think there has been, or ever will be, conclusions in other cases (like MH370). I think I'm correct in saying the case is still being fought by the families of the pilots in the Mull of Kintyre Chinook (also Boeing) crash of 1994, for example.

Malicious intent by the pilot of MH370 is the most likely scenario, based on the route the aircraft took prior to the transponder being disconnected. A temporary disconnection of the fuel supply to both engines could have been survived by the Air India aircraft at virtually any point of its journey, with the main exception of immediately upon becoming airborne, and for a very short time thereafter. The timing itself is suspicious.

@TheCrenchinglyMcQuaffenBrothers

Are you referring to the US aviation regulator flagging the fuel switch issue with Boeing 737 jets in 2018 or something else? In that case the FAA reported that the switches on some Boeing 737 aircraft were installed with the locking feature disengaged (the same feature as used in 787s). Presumably making it a possibility that they could therefore be accidentally switched off. But at the time it was considered advisory not mandatory to address the issue.

Yep, that"s exactly what I'm referring to, and it's covered in brief detail in the Indian AAIB interim report...

Haven’t rtft sorry, but it was 2 male pilots according to the reports I’ve seen.

Having spoken to a few pilots who I work with, they all think suicide.

But there are 100,000s of flights that have happened since German wings (the last suicide)… it’s still vanishingly rare.

My gut is telling me it wasn't suicide.

Most people don't kill a huge amount of others with them, when they want to go.

I was sent a link to this feed, having worked in Aerosystems industry for 30 years I thought say the following. A lot of the speculation about what happened to Air India 171 on this stream is in my opinion based on the misinterpretation of facts, firstly the language used in accident investigation reporting is designed not to be open to interpretation- it is specifically singular. Secondly it relates to both the minutiae of individual components within working parts as well as the overall performance of the aircraft both in and out of controlled flight.
Engine cutoff switches are fuel commands which operate in two modes — “CUTOFF” stops the fuel supply to the engine & “RUN” allows fuel to flow to the engine. A fuel starved engine does not just stop working, it rolls back. In a rollback the engines [FSP] fan shaft speed decreases, while the [TGT] turbine gas temperature increases resulting in a loss of thrust. EAFR data for Air India 171 shows that the N2 values in both engines passed below the minimum idle speed, that is the lowest engine speed that the aircraft can operate at without suffering an aerodynamic stall [which is when there is insufficient air flowing over the top of the wings to generate lift]
When fuel flow is stopped and restarted inflight the [FADEC] full authority dual engine control system automatically manages a thrust recovery sequence: re-ignition, fuel flow rate introduction to recover the level of thrust required for the flight phase as determined by the preflight settings. The EAFR data showed that Engine 1’s core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to full recovery. Engine 2’s FADEC sequence completed the re-ignition but could not arrest core speed deceleration even at maximum fuel flow rate.
The key points to consider are as follows: Air India 171 was photographed shortly after rotation with the [RAT] Ram Air Turbine deployed, the RAT is a turbine that generates electrical power for critical systems in emergencies such as loss of engine power or a total electrical failure. The flight controls inspected at the crash site - the flap handle assembly was found to be firmly seated in the 5-degree flap position, that is a normal take-off flap setting. Engine Control Quadrant was found to have both thrust levers were near the aft (idle) position. The reverser levers were in the “stowed” position and both fuel control switches were found in the “RUN” position. The EAFR data revealed that the thrust levers remained in the forward take-off thrust position until the impact with terrain. And that the fuel control switches had been moved from RUN to CUTOFF to RUN.
Everything is about Air India 171 from the pre-flight settings, the V1 calculation for rotation, the trim & power settings for the climb were normal, The fact the RAT was deployed confirms the EAFR data that regarding the fuel setting switches and after they were moved the aircraft was not at a sufficient height to enough time for the thrust recovery sequence to restore the aircraft to controlled flight. The co-pilot was flying the plane, if for some reason he wanted to crash the aircraft maliciously it doesn’t make sense to me to try and cause a catastrophic crash in a way that you know there is a redundant system that will automatically attempt to stop that from happening. There are much simpler and quicker unpreventable ways to do that such as a full rudder hard over control input. For me the definitive answer that people are looking for is this: Where the switches physically moved in the cockpit or is there | was there an environmental or design problem that caused the switches to malfunction and cycle between operational settings.

But there are still other theories which have not been discounted, such as the possibility of an electrical short circuit throwing the switches?

To throw in my civilian 2p... If the switches were moved manually rather than by electronic failure of some sort, it looks to me that it was the elder pilot who moved them. Reason being it was the younger pilot in control of the aircraft, the elder one monitoring, so his monitoring would surely have immediately spotted the move whether 'action slip' or deliberate and stepped in to correct it, especially with all his years of experience. The experience also being relevant to the 'why did you move the switch' question - the elder one would not have asked it of the younger one; the younger one would possibly have asked the elder one in deference to his experience. Right?

No most people don’t, but it’s not without precedent. Germanwings flight 9525 as has already been mentioned.

The switches have a manual locking mechanism on them, which needs to moved out of place before the switch can be flicked. So an electrical short circuit wouldn’t be able to throw the switch. The only explanation is a pilot flicking the switch, either in error or
with malicious intent.

Thank you.
So, as a lay person, I simply can’t understand how something that has been put in as an important safeguard - when found to not be fail-safe - can be simply glossed over as advisory not mandatory in terms of being addressed. That seems insane. Was there no push back or comment in the industry at the time?

its not the first time a pilot has committed suicide and taken the passengers with them.

there was the German wings flight, also the Indonesian flight in the 90’s where the pilot slammed the plane into the ground.

it might be rare, but doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened.

My brother has flown the aircraft in the crash, hundreds of times, my DH is also a pilot, and both think it’s suicide. It’s an industry full of a lot of stress, the contracts are only getting worse, they’re getting more fatigued… and if you go to a dr and say you’re depressed you get grounded, so people don’t go.

Or maybe it was a momentary mental health breakdown, where someone loses grip of reality.

I can't find it now, but I'm sure I saw a post saying the captain's good friend died a few weeks before the incident. The captain had never married. Just a data point right now.

I'd need to look at the whole story behind the switches and what happened that triggered the bulletin to really comment completely fully..however....

What I would say is the equivalent on the 777 ( I think the 787 uses the same switches) are really quite substantial pieces of hardware and as I recall it have a very positive "gate' or notch that you need to pull the switch knob out of before you can actually rotate the switch lever itself down to the cutoff position...I never perceived a design weakness.

I can't envisage the switch simply being knocked to cutoff, and I certainly can't envisage both being knocked accidently to off, be interested to hear further comment/opinion from the likes of @backinthebox on that..

There's also the issue that the switches do have to be capable of being deliberately moved relatively easily because quite a few engine related procedures (e.g. fir engine fires,.some failures) demand the switch is put to cutoff fairly promptly...so you'd have to be very careful about introducing a modification that means the switch that needs lengthy manipulating or unlocking.

As for thoughts about electronics problems moving the switches - no...there's no avenue for an electrical signal to back drive the switches.

I was just reading about the German wings flight

The pilot's parents said that they didn't believe that he crashed the plane.

The father of the Germanwing's pilot in particular has been resistant to the idea but I'm afraid what happened there is very clear from all the data/evidence.