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 ?

Yes, I guess it is hard for the parents to believe that their son would do that.

@notimagain do you think this air india flight was intentional or an accident.

Or there is not enough evidence?

What do you think about the pilot saying "why did you press thosw switches" and the other guy saying "i didn't"

I'm going to give that one a swerve, though being a picky so and so what I would point out is that we don't know exactly what words were used on the flight deck:

On that matter the Indian AAIB interim report simply states (below is verbatim from the report)

"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".

I was just reading a news article where it said that fuel switches are protectrd carefully by metal brackets.

I looked at the photo of the fuel switches. It has the absolute tiniest metal brackets to the side of them.

For such a vital switch, they look like they could use more protection. In my opinion

There's a metal protective bracket either side but the important factor is that (unlike, say a light switch) you have to pull the switch out a noticeable distance to get it clear of what's sometimes known as the gate, only then can you rotate the switch down.

I'll stand by my previous comment that having flown an aircraft with these switches for over a decade I never sensed they were vulnerable to being accidently turned off, and I never heard of that actually happening in the company I worked for.

Now yes you could I suppose make the switches much harder to shift, maybe lock them physically, but you would then be potentially be completely rubber ducked if you had to shut down an engine quickly, in the event of say, an engine fire, a birdstrike causing severe engine vibration or a passenger evacuation....

There's a danger that a knee jerk response to maybe an imagined problem could lead to very real dangers and even loss of life.....

Now if it's proven that the switches actually definitely magically both moved by themselves then there will be an engineering fix, until then they are best left "as is".

Thanks for the post.

That is interesting.

One news report said the fuel switch was only off very briefly, literally like 5-10 seconds, so could it being set wrong happen because of toggling the switch in panic to test if that switch was why the lift was failing?

I don't know if the accident report documents that the airplane flight lift was fine until the switch got set wrongly (however long for).

Couldnt there be a back up fuel safety sensor in place.

So the sensor could check if the aeroplane is above a certain altitude, and if it is, then the fuel switch absolutely must be switched on.

If the switch gets turned off by accident at altitude, the sensor could override it immediately.

Like with a lot of aviation disasters, new safety measures only get implemented after a disaster occurs.

The pilot on here said that the fuel switch needs to be turned off if there is a fire in the engine. The sensor could check temperature in the engine aswell.

We have such advanced technology these days. These switches could definitely be improved.

There were two of them that were switched off within seconds of each other. They apparently automatically go back on again and the pilot asked why the co pilot had switched them off, do ifvthey had been testing something surely they would have discussed it.

There is a report released too showing that there were problems with the fuel switches on some 747s.

It said that the locking mechanism was not working properly.

So the switch should be pulled out and then turned, but some ofbthe switches were sliding up and down without being pulled out.

They don't automatically go back to Run (on).

Did you ever have anything go slightly wrong when you were a pilot @notimagain

Another poster with family members in aviation who initially suspected foul play. I’ve seen several posts saying the same but I was attacked when I said I’d heard through my Pilot son of many very experienced Pilots and Flight Engineers he knows who all suspected it as a deliberate act from the get go and ruled out other theories.

I don't understand your thinking behind the temperature sensor or altitude sensor for that matter..

There are (rare) instances where you might need to shut an engine down by putting the switch to cutoff in the cruise at high altitude...if you can't shut the engine down you might introduce further problems.

There are (rare) instances where you need to shut an engine down even though it's temperature is not elevated e.g. severe vibration.

What you are suggesting is actually engineering increased risks into flying.

Well it was just a suggestion, but I will stand back to your better knowledge of the topic.

@notimagain what do you think of the report, where it said there have been problems with some of the fuel levers on 747s. That the locking mechanism was not working correctly.

For reasons unknown the dwitches got set to cutoff (off) roughly a couple of seconds after the aircraft lifted off.

Aircraft performance (which is what I guess you mean by lift) began to suffer/degrade straight away i.e. speed began to decay, rate of climb reduced and eventually became a rate of descent.

The switches got placed back to run (on) after about 10-12 seconds or so but it was too late to get the engines restarted and producing useful power.

It was 737s, haven't seen the actual report but know the service bulletin contained advisory information, it didn't contain mandatory actions.

I commented upthread on the switches on later Boeings, certainly the 777, no change from that opinion...

A lot of solutions to problems that don’t exist being suggested here. The fuel switches don’t need more protection. They are adequately protected already. The idea that you could not cut the fuel off until a sensor permits it is ludicrous - there are situations where it is essential to be able to cut the fuel flow to an engine. Fire, severe damage, even separation (where the engine has somehow found itself no longer attached to the aircraft wing.) in all those circumstances the aircraft manufacturer requires that pilots follow a memorised list of actions, which all include cutting the fuel to the damaged engine off to prevent fire or further damage. But mainly fire. By preventing pilots from moving this switch you risk further consequences with the inability to starve a fire of fuel. The extra measures and sensors you suggest are again fraught with risk - aircraft sensors are notoriously fickle and sensitive things, and can under react and over react.

I think "ludicrous" is a bit of a harsh word.

Why not just say "that wouldn't work".

Obviously i am not a pilot, but I was thinking of my own workplace.

We have some very vital and important switches.

If one is knocked off by accident, a back up sensor system immediately switches it back on.

I wasnt questioning him. (sic)

Was a clue.

Yes I remember reading about this as well .

Yes I read an article about that as well

No parent wants to believe that their child killed hundreds of people.

a suicide where someone takes their own life is tragic, and as a parent I’d be sad that there was nothing I could have done.

a suicide where someone murders a couple of hundred people unforgivable. No parent wants to have to admit that their child is a mass murderer.

The stress and fatigue also meaning that accuracy of muscle memory and automaticity can be reduced leading to things like switching off 2 switches you wouldn’t normally touch during take off and not necessarily realising you’ve done it.

Lots of arguments that might support suicide might actually also support action slip,