Plane Crashes

From what I've seen watching videos about this, the fuel cutoff switches cannot be turned off by a computer.
Thanks, I was wondering about that a bit already. There's not really a scenario where you'd want those switches controlled by a computer. So since there's no possibility that an onboard computer caused this, it seems that we're indeed left with that harrowing Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB No. NM-18-33). This is it:
 

Attachments

I've been thinking about this all morning and there are a few things that don't quite add up for me. Not conclusive but curious and, maybe, borderline suspicious.

At this point, with all the pilot youtube analyses, video evidence and the preliminary VT-ANB report, it is beyond reasonable doubt the cause of the crash was that the fuel was cut to the engines shortly after take-off.

The EAFR (black box) data, as reported, recorded that the fuel cutoff switches for both engines transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF. These switches have a mechanical locking mechanism to prevent accidental switching, however, the lock can be disengaged (presumably by simply rotating the lock thing by 90 degrees).

These are the switches and locking mechanism in question:

fuel-switch-2.png fuel-switch-1.pngfuel-switch-3.png

Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 advises that aircraft operators check the locking mechanism. The VT-ANB report suggests that these checks were not done by Air India - they are advisory not mandatory.

Curiously, despite the fuel control switches being recovered relatively unscathed, it is not mentioned in the report whether the locking mechanism was engaged or not.

fuel-switch-4.png

If the locks were engaged, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the action was deliberate so this is a pretty important fact we are missing here.

Let's assume the locks were disengaged for now.

The VT-ANB report states that the fuel switches "transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec". If the report simply missed out the decimal point and were switched off in 0.1 sec this supports the conclusion the fuel cutoff was accidental. If it was actually 1 second (or 0.5-1.5 accounting for rounding), I would posit this makes an accidental cutoff less likely and a deliberate action more likely.

The report states "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". It isn't mentioned which pilot asked the question and which responded - though this might not be immediately obvious from the recording in fairness to the report writers. I don't think this fact leans us toward a deliberate or accidental action personally. If it was deliberate, one might not want to admit to it, especially given they would be aware their conversation was being recorded on the blackbox.

Roughly 10sec after both switches transitioned to the CUTOFF position, they both transitioned back to the RUN position. There was a 4 second difference between the Engine 1 fuel switch transition to RUN (08:08:52 UTC) and the Engine 2 fuel switch transition to RUN (08:08:54 UTC) but this is not an unexpected delay if you expect the switch locks to be engaged and you are only using one hand.

The report states that "Both fuel control switch were found in the RUN position." which aligns with the EAFR data.

If you are a pilot, you would be fully aware that turning the fuel off immediately after take-off is going to result in the plane crashing and that it would likely kill everyone on the plane given that the area beyond the end of the runway comprises of buildings rather than empty fields or something like that.

So.....it was either an accident or a murder-suicide, and if the fuel switch locks were engaged, it was almost-certainly a murder-suicide. Or, conspiratorially-speaking, there could be a third possibility: that the fuel was cutoff electronically by remote control or programming. There's nothing conclusive in the data to rule out this possibility IMO. The voice recording of the pilot questioning the other pilot why he cutoff the fuel doesn't preclude this; he could have spotted the fuel had been cutoff from the electronic readouts and assumed it must have been due to the actions of the other pilot.

It is worth noting that murder-suicides account for a small fraction of total suicides and homicides (0.2-0.3% of all suicides and roughly 1-2% of homicides according to US studies) and most of these involve intimate partners or family members. It is difficult for me to imagine that a pilot would deliberately kill all his passengers and crew in order to commit suicide. Assuming deliberate action on the part of one of the pilots, the darker alternative is that he was coerced into doing it (i.e. brainwashing, hypnosis, Manchurian-candidate style control or a straight-up "crash the plane or we kill your family" style thing).

Other thoughts, questions and unconnected dots:
- Air India is India's national carrier - message to India?
- Anyone of import on the plane?
- The plane's last ARC physical inspection was in 22 May 2025
- The airport is named after Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the first Deputy Prime Minister of India
- Indian politicians refuted Trump's claim that he was responsible for the India-Pakistan ceasefire rgd Kashmir (~May 2025)
 
Further thought:

Given that Air India is India's national carrier and the preliminary report is authored by the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau the 2 irregularities/omissions from the report make sense.

These being:
1. Despite having recovered the relatively-unscathed fuel switches, it isn't mentioned in the report whether the switch locks were engaged or not
2. The time difference between turning off the fuel to Engine 1 and Engine 2 is cited as "01 sec" in the report (is this 1 second or 0.1 second?)

Question: what looks worse from a PR perspective? Air India 171 was a tragic accident or an Air Indian pilot deliberately killed all his passengers (and crew and a bunch of people on the ground).
 
Increasing looks like a mechanical failure leading to both engines shut down on takeoff! :-O

On Jul 12th 2025 (UTC) India's media report that the investigation is NOT focussing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure. Service Bulletins by Boeing issued in year 2018 recommending to upgrade the fuel switches to locked versions to prevent inadvertent flip of the switches, as well as the FAA/GE issued Service Bulletin FAA-2021-0273-0013 Attachment 2 relating to loss of control issue (also see above) were NOT implemented by Air India. The stated MN4 computer with faulty soldering, that might weaken and lose contact due to the thermal stress after a number of cycles, interprets data and commands fuel metering valves - with the lost contact attaching the MN4 processor to the EEC intermittent electrical contact, loss of signal processing and engine control faults can occur. The SB writes under conditions for the SB: "An LOTC (Loss Of Thrust Control) event has occurred due to an EEC MN4 microprocessor solder ball failure." According to discussions in the industry it may be possible with the number of cycles VT-ANB had already completed, the solder balls were weakened sufficiently to detach the MN4 from the EEC momentarily due to loads during the takeoff rotation leading to the loss of control of thrust and shut down of the engines.
Source
 
Increasing looks like a mechanical failure leading to both engines shut down on takeoff! :-O

Source

I disagree.

It is highly unlikely that the problem with the Electronic Engine Controls (EEC) cited in Service Bulletin FAA-2021-0273-0013 Attachment 2 had anything to do with the crash because:
  1. There are two EECs, one fitted to each engine - the probability that the EECs failed on both engines at almost precisely the same moment is statistically remote
  2. As per the preliminary VT-ANB report, the EAFR (black box) data recorded that the fuel cutoff switches themselves were transitioned to the CUTOFF position
  3. The EEC component is responsible for more than just fuel delivery - if there was an issue with an EEC, I suspect, the EAFR would have recorded a whole bunch of other errors and these would have been called out in the report
There's also mention in the media that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal (pilot monitoring on AI171) had, allegedly, suffered from poor mental health problems in the past.

Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a leading aviation safety expert in India, has revealed that 'several' Air India pilots had allegedly confirmed that the well-experienced pilot had suffered from poor mental health.
...
Captain Sabharwal is also understood to have taken bereavement leave after the death of his mother, though it is believed by Mr Ranganathan that he had been 'medically cleared' by Air India prior to the fatal crash last month.
Source

Assuming the article on avherald is an accurate representation of Indian media:

India's media report that the investigation is NOT focussing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure

I would suggest this is just an attempt to save face on the part of the Indian Government / media. "system failure" sounds much better than "Air India pilot deliberately kills everyone on the plane".
 
Source Etihad orders B787 fuel control lock checks; DGCA says it is monitoring situation - BusinessToday

Etihad orders B787 fuel control lock checks; DGCA says it is monitoring situation

With questions being raised on disengagement of fuel control lock mechanism of B787 aircraft post the Air India crash, Etihad has issued advisories to pilots and engineers.

As a precautionary step post Air India B787 crash, UAE-based Etihad Airways has advised pilot and engineering team on fuel control switch while ordering an inspection of same on its B787 fleet. The DGCA seems to be examining the issue.

This comes after the release of the preliminary report of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on the Air India crash with several aviation experts questioning the disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature in B787 aircraft as flagged by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in December 2018.

Last week, the FAA and Boeing privately issued notifications that the fuel switch locks on Boeing planes are safe, according to a Reuters report. “We will defer to FAA,” Boeing said in repose to the Etihad advisory.

The DGCA is monitoring the situation but has not issued any directives as such for now, said sources. Air India did not respond to queries.

Etihad issued advisories on July 12 and July 13. The one issued to pilots urges them to “exercise caution” while operating the fuel control switches on Boeing 787 and the one to the engineering team calls for a detailed inspection.

The FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33, issued in December 2018, flagged potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature in Boeing aircraft, including the B787-8 fitted with similar part numbers.

Etihad instructed pilots to exercise caution when operating the fuel control switches or any other switches/control in their vicinity and that they should avoid the presence of any objects on the pedestal that could result in their inadvertent movement.

The directive was necessitated out of an abundance of caution as the official safety investigation affecting another Boeing 787 operator continues its course without positive conclusions at this stage, says the Etihad bulletin.

It urged the engineering team to inspect the fuel control switch locking feature for proper engagement. It outlined detailed steps for the check.

Air India has two variants of Dreamliner in its fleet—B787-8 and B787-9. The majority of Air India’s Dreamliners are the 787-8 variant (25), while it also operates seven 787-9 acquired in November from its merger with Vistara.
(emphasis mine)
 
Last edited:
There was also this:


Etihad releases a bulletin asking pilots to “exercise caution when operating the fuel control switches or any other switches/control in their vicinity”.

The airline says that that this measure is being taken "out of an abundance of caution".

A separate bulletin from Etihad mandates inspections of the fuel control locking mechanism across its Boeing 787 fleet, with a detailed guide for engineers to verify proper engagement of this feature, the publication further reported.

It has also directed pilots to avoid placing objects on the pedestal to avoid accidental movements, and ordered the crew onboard to report anything unusual.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) of South Korea is also preparing checks on the fuel control switches in Boeing planes operated by its airlines. However, there is no timeline for these examinations yet.
(emphasis mine)
 
Speculation: This crash could be the Empire of Chaos sending a warning to India (one of the BRICS). This wouldn't be a first. Refer to the April 2015 session regarding Germanwings Flight 9525. Funny how the MSM always brings up the 'suicidal pilot' causing the crash! :rolleyes:

I think you're right.

It's worth noting that in the Germanwings flight:
  1. The autopilot flew the aircraft into the ground
  2. The electronically operated cockpit door was locked
  3. There is no communication between the pilot and ATC (i.e. "I can't disengage the autopilot and it's trying the crash the plane")
So, assuming the crash was done remotely, there are a bunch of systems that can be controlled remotely (i.e. autopilot, cockpit door locks, comms).

Therefore, it seems likely that the fuel cutoff could also be controlled remotely.
 
Increasing looks like a mechanical failure leading to both engines shut down on takeoff! :-O
If this is true, then you have two very powerful companies (the manufacturer of the aircraft as well as the company who flies the plane) all wanting to shift the blame off themselves, most likely onto the pilots. In addition you also have the Government of India playing a part in this also. It would be easiest, from their perspective (the Government's) to shift the blame onto the pilots, and failing that, onto one of the other two major parties.

Then, you have people in the business of flying who have said that you can't switch the fuel switches off unless you do it manually from the flight deck, implying that it has to be done physically by one of the pilots, from the flight deck and can't be done remotely, automatically, or accidentally, and doesn't (ever?) occur via or through a fault or via some other mechanism? That may be the usual, but there could be a work around, or an unanticipated fault.

It follows if a pilot had to physically switch the switches, then I would ask... if you can 'hack' a plane, can you 'hack' a pilot? I think the answer would be 'yes' most definitely if you factored in 4th density. :-(

Lastly, but no more stangely, is the passenger who.... walked away! Yes, he disembarked from a plane crash. Just walked away.
 
From the Financial Times yesterday, source: Client Challenge

‘Murky’ Air India crash report deepens uncertainty for owner Tata​

Preliminary findings spark debate over actions of pilots ahead of loss of Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that killed 260 people

A report into last month’s fatal Air India crash that sparked furious debate over the actions of the doomed aircraft’s pilots has left the airline and its owner Tata Group facing mounting questions over what went wrong.
The preliminary report released by India’s Air Accident Investigation Bureau at the weekend said cockpit switches that control the flow of fuel to the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner’s engines were turned to the “cut-off” position shortly after take-off.
The report said: “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”
The findings have prompted international speculation that the crash was caused by pilot error or a deliberate decision to bring down the aircraft — as well as vociferous defences of the flight crew by Indian pilots’ unions.
Aviation experts said a lack of detail in the preliminary report was deepening the damaging uncertainty created by the crash for Air India and its owner Tata Group, which has staked its reputation on revamping the former state-run carrier.

An Air India Boeing 787 in flight


Indian conglomerate Tata Group has been working to transform Air India since buying the debt-laden flag carrier in 2022 © Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Unlike preliminary reports on crashes involving Boeing aircraft in other countries, the Indian account did not identify the pilots speaking or directly quote their conversation with each other.
“The report is very murky and very inexact,” said Bjorn Fehrm, an aerospace engineer and analyst at aviation consultancy Leeham News and Analysis. “It’s not good for the airline.”
In a memo to staff on Monday, Air India chief executive Campbell Wilson said the report “provided both greater clarity and opened additional questions” that had “triggered a new round of speculation in the media”.
“I urge everyone to avoid drawing premature conclusions as the investigation is far from over,” Wilson wrote in the memo, a copy of which was seen by the Financial Times.
Indian pilot unions criticised what they called a lack of transparency in the investigative process and leaks of preliminary report findings ahead of its release.

A military official inspects the Air India crash site at BJ Medical College hostel in Ahmedabad, India, on June 13 2025


The Boeing Dreamliner 787-8 fell on a medical college shortly after take-off © Raju Shinde/Hindustan Times via Getty Images


“The tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias towards pilot error,” said the Airline Pilots’ Association of India, adding that it rejected this “categorically”. The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association said it was “deeply disturbed” about “reckless and unfounded insinuation of pilot suicide” by some media and members of the public.
Indian commentators have also rushed to defend the flight crew, who were among the 260 people killed in what was India’s deadliest aviation disaster in almost three decades.
“Very well-designed campaign to pin it on the pilots,” Shiv Aroor, a news presenter on broadcaster NDTV, wrote in a social media post on Saturday. “Extremely well played. Far bigger mountains have been moved to save the status quo.”
In his memo to Air India staff, Wilson noted that the preliminary report said both captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who had more than 11,500 hours of flying experience, and first officer Clive Kunder, with more than 3,400 hours, had passed breathalyser tests and presented no medical issues.
It also “found no mechanical or maintenance issues with the aircraft or engines, and that all mandatory maintenance tasks had been completed”, Wilson wrote.

Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu, centre, at a civil aviation ministry news conference with other officials in New Delhi, India on June 14 2025


India’s civil aviation minister Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu, centre, has told reporters they should ‘not jump into any conclusions’ about the crash  © Hindustan Times/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

But some observers have suggested the preliminary report raises questions for Boeing.
Sarah Stewart, partner at UK law firm Stewarts, which is advising families with relatives who died in the crash, said on Saturday that its reading of the report was the pilots “were not aware that the fuel had been cut off”.
“The factual information raises a troubling spectre that this accident may have been caused by uncommanded fuel cut-off, suggesting a possible failure in the Boeing systems,” Stewart said in a statement.
In 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration warned of potential disengagement of the locking feature on the fuel switches on some Boeing aircraft, based on reports from 737 operators.
The FAA did not deem this an “unsafe condition” that would require a mandatory inspection, and Air India did not carry out one. In a notice issued after the Indian preliminary crash report, the US agency told international counterparts the Boeing fuel control switches did not pose a safety issue.

However, India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation on Monday advised all the country’s airlines operating affected Boeing airliners to complete the inspection recommended by the FAA “no later than” July 21. “Strict adherence to the timeline is essential to ensure continued airworthiness and safety of operations,” the DGCA said.
Asked about the move, Boeing said it deferred to the DGCA. The US aircraft manufacturer, which has said it will “continue to support the investigation and our customers”, declined to comment further.
Argument about the preliminary findings has further complicated Tata’s efforts to reassure passengers and press ahead with its overhaul of the tarnished flag carrier, which it bought from the government in 2022 as a debt-laden brand famous for poor service and ageing aircraft.
Mark Martin, chief executive of aviation advisory firm Martin Consulting, said the disaster was likely to hit Air India with third party liabilities and legal and compensation costs, as well as a loss of long-haul passengers because of “credibility” fears.

A police officer listens to his mobile phone outside the post mortem room of a hospital in Ahmedabad, India, on June 13 2025


The crash killed all but one of the 242 people aboard the airliner and 19 on the ground © Elke Scholiers/Getty Images


But the carrier remains in demand given that India’s skies are ruled by a near duopoly and passenger numbers have doubled over the past decade. Air India holds 27 per cent of the domestic market, trailing behind its main rival IndiGo’s 64 per cent.
After the crash, Air India said it was reducing international services on wide body aircraft by 15 per cent to carry out enhanced inspections. Many of its flights remain heavily or fully booked, according to travel agents, because of the drop in supply during a busy season.
“We have a severe aircraft shortage in India — we don’t have the luxury of four or five airlines,” Martin said. “Right after the crash I had to travel a lot. I had to go over to Vienna, I had to go over to Ahmedabad. I flew Air India and all those flights were packed.”

Tata and Air India, which is privately held and does not release regular earnings updates, declined to comment on how the crash had impacted the airline’s business. On Saturday, Air India said it would “continue to fully co-operate with the AAIB and other authorities as their investigation progresses”.
Aviation industry experts believe the full crash probe could take as long as a year. GVG Yugandhar, head of the Indian investigation bureau, told the FT his team was “busy in investigation work” and directed questions to India’s civilian aviation ministry, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
For now, the preliminary findings were allowing “wild interpretation by every man and his dog”, Martin said.
 
As an airline pilot for 31 years now I still find this inconceivable that this accident happened. You could argue that the switches had the interlocking mechanism disabled, (it really is nothing more than a raised notch that must be lifted over to move the switches.)

That being said, normal procedure would have NEITHER pilot’s hands near the throttle quadrant and subsequently the fuel cutoff switches after V1, takeoff decision speed, which happens well before the aircraft rotates for flight. The pilots set the power (or the autothrottles do and it is verified,) and then the Captain maintains his hand on the thrust levers until just prior to V1 in the event an abort is necessary. When V1 is reached and called out, the Captain removes his hands THEN and no one should have their hands anywhere near these.

I’ve not read who was flying this leg and we usually take turns flying the leg but I suspect that will come out in a later report and may be Germaine to the accident.
 
I'm increasingly leaning towards the TCMA (Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation) as the culprit. And it has happened before to an ANA flight back in 2019.


And Mary Schiavo (who served as Inspector General of the United States Department of Transportation) seems to think so too in an interview with the Sunday Guardian.
 
Last edited:
The fault for the Air India crash is now coming back to the senior pilot in the cockpit. Apparently officials believe that his depression was a factor and that he may have switched the fuel switches off intentionally. I find it hard to believe someone would kill over 200 people just to end their own life.

 
Last edited:

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom