Public sentiment is overwhelmingly critical of the investigation into the Air India crash, with many commenters expressing deep frustration over the perceived scapegoating of the deceased pilots. Commenters advocate for a more thorough examination of possible technical failures and systemic issues, indicating a lack of trust in the investigation's integrity. There is a prevailing sentiment that accountability should extend to both Air India and Boeing, rather than hastily assigning blame to individuals who cannot defend themselves.

Air India

Boeing

Indian Government

tectoniclakes

How did that one guy make it out is just one in a trillion

09Trollhunter09

Video like this always drives me crazy.  Innocent people/Crew in one of best aircraft ever produced... this should never happen.  RIP.

TFWG2000

I always thought of aerodynamic stalls (probably what happened here) as being at a steeper angle of attack-- like plane's nose pointed more upward and plane stalls and falls. But this stall looked 'peaceful' and almost like they were just going to land again. 

A buddy of mine is a commercial pilot now, but I rode with him in a cessna practicing purposely stalling the plane. It's, climb to several thousand feet altitude, put full power on, pull the yoke into your lap, plane pitches nose-up, plane shudders/stall warning goes off, then plane drops sort of violently but regains airspeed because you practice stalls at several thousand feet altitude so you can recover. This crash was - zero altitude, and not enough power and lift, apparently. RIP to all.

MikeW226

Stupid question: what caused the fuel to ignite? Its not so easy to trigger the kerosene ignition. You can throw lighter in the bucket with kerosene and it will not ignite. That's one of the reasons its used in military over the gasoline.

Stupid question number 2: I remember reading that modern jets have very high (for airplanes) thrust-to-weight ratio. For military ones its even &gt; 1 (which means it can fly vertically like rocket). Shouldn't stall be impossible with such high power?

Reasonable_Mix7630

IWasSayingBoourner

There are a lot of problems with maintenance in India. Technician trades aren’t valued. There is a lot of corruption.

Altaccount330

Dont-rush-2xfils

Can so eone explain how the 1 survivor got out, looks like there is a fireball on impact

8ull1t

All of last week, I was wondering why they didn't dump kerosene before the crash. But this flight was a lot shorter than I had expected.

Did they find the cause already? No visible birds. I remember a Russian plane falling from the sky, as the cargo had shifted.

betterbait

Impact revealed at a distance obscured and at 14P.

Ryrynz

I’m no expert but it kinda looks like they didn’t have enough power to lift it (correct me if I’m wrong cause I’m not an expert on stalling and such)

sneakerkidlol

For that plane to have fallen so immediately after take off the pilot should have known something was wrong prior to it taking off the ground .. there’s no way it’s fine and 10-15 seconds alter everything just craps out

BDZeus32

cadilaczz

Looks Like the Same takeoff of Air Florida flight 90.

Plane-Freedom-4505

10cennt

paxilsavedme

Probably a really stupid question, but it’s decent looks so controlled and slow it seems crazy it completely exploded, I’m guessing its hit into medical campus caused that, not just smashing into the ground?

MattyDxx

Looks to me like they ran out of runway -- look at the amount of dust blown as they're rotating.  There's a positive rate of climb, then you notice the nose drop a little, as if the flaps are raised too soon. The nose then comes back up again as the pilots try to arrest the rate of descent, but by then it's all over due to insufficient airspeed.

Cultural_Hamster_362

andersleben

the investigation has only just begun. No one knows what went wrong yet. Condolences to family and friends

Desperate_Donut3981

Ambr0sion

TheDaveMatthew

Scary to think it was in the air 10 seconds before it started to descend

[deleted]

Time-Bodybuilder5271

Chances of double engine failure happening at the exact moment takeoff is impossibly low. 

Right at 30 seconds mark the plane starts to plummet. This is when planes normally start to retract their wheels. 

So it's far more likely that pilot was drunk or something and made the most stupid mistake of retracting the flaps instead of the landing wheels.

Additional-Revenue53

My guess is pilot error. The gear never even started to go up which makes me think they may have accidentally retracted flaps instead.

kurtbdudley

It really looks like the plane lost all power as it lifted off the ground.

SpiderWolve

Genuine question for any pilots or engineers or whatever: why was this so catastrophic? My (ignorant) assumption is that having just taken flight, the plane could ease back down—it doesn’t even look like the wheels are retracted. I’m Not saying I think it could land with no problems, but why couldn’t it make a
rough landing? Why did it explode like this? What happened?

NoConsideration3061

Set Flaps to 0...niiiiice.....let's go.   

Pilot error VERY likely.

USSSLostTexter

The engines must have quit just after they left the ground. The plane gets a few hundred feet into the air, stops climbing and starts gliding. There are so many redundant systems on the 787 and the plane is designed to get into the air and climb with only one working engine. To have both fail at the same time is almost unheard of.

cosmic_trout

What happened exactly with the airplane to go down like this ?

Academic-Note1209

97esquire

No expert but it looks like the flaps ain't deployed.

A4Papercut

Lift then no lift. Not enough air speed looks like.

phreakingjesusonacid

sacredstones

So they are saying landing gear/tyres were still outside which made the plane heavy and more drag, hence it couldn't climb.

BulletTiger

If you look closely, I think the wings were bending as if the plane had been dragging them down coz you can see the wing tips point upwards, which I don't think happens even during take off and landing

InspectionDouble1843

Looks more and more like flaps up instead of gear up. But can't the 787 climb with gear down and no flap? Maybe not at that angle and in that heat?

Fun-Sorbet-Tui

Lol love how everyone is almost sure its the flap issue and pilot error, when there's no proof of that.

Flaps in TO config on 787 are difficult to see. Plus there's crash site pictures of the wings showing the flaps and slats deployed.

I'm from India, and the FDRs have been recovered. We'll know the reason soon.

Untill then, Please have respect for the dead and keep your expert opinions to yourself, and let the actual experts do their job.

isaacMeowton

Ive read conflicting information on this topic.. can anyone confirm?
If the RAT were deployed, does that provide hydrolics for gear up opperation?  Ive seen articles that indicate that while it provides various power for critical operations, gear up isn't one of those (only gear down)?

LongjumpingShirt4708

I see no flaps, but I’m not a pilot nor any of the videos are clear. And I was under assumption you can’t take off with wrongly configured plane.

makaton

Im now wondering if it was a significant load shift that played a part.

rhetheo100

Seems like not enough power, almost as if the plane had too much weight.

Debesuotas

RAT deployed because of one of three things failed 
Engine 
Hydraulics 
Electrical

Prior_Piccolo_1192

The alternative angle did not, in fact, reveal the impact.

Alarming_Finish814

Shit, I had no idea it was that huge an explosion. That makes the one guy surviving feel like Mr Glass was looking for him.

SamyMerchi

I can’t see flaps deployed on video. Does anybody else see flaps deployed?

kurakzg

And an actual human walked away after being IN that.

c0wt0ne

These Indian pilots did the best they could. After an obvious total power failure they just set it down straight ahead the best they could. THEY DID NOT STALL the aircraft.

pjlaniboys

Curious question: can not the pilot immediately drop the fuel mid air , if he senses some kind of engine failure?

Rare-Ad6085

Griffondorluna

787 boeing. Every year something new. One flight which made me look the make before booking tickets.

De_letmetalk

I really wish this dude wouldn't keep zooming in on the video. I can do that myself, thank you very much.  Just give us the original.

Miserable-Lawyer-233

Fuel Cut off switches moved to CUTOFF one after the other with a seconds gap right after takeoff at 183 Knots. The switches were bought back to the RUN position again, one of the engines achieved re-ignition and EGT rose, while the other engine did not. It was too late at that point.

Dinara293

I can't imagine the horror of the other pilot when they noticed it and it is too late to do anything at that point.

Otherwise_Pen_7667

Additional information from the report:

  
\&gt;&gt;Fuel samples taken from the bowsers and tanks used to refuel the aircraft were tested at the DGCA’s Lab and found satisfactory.

  
\&gt;&gt;At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers.

  
\&gt;&gt;The aft EAFR was substantially damaged and could not be downloaded through conventional means. The CPM was opened to inspect the memory card. The damage was extensive.

SumitDh

Any 787 pilots that could describe what alarms/warnings show up when the fuel control switches are turned off in this stage of flight? How quickly would the memory items and checklists identify those switches as the culprit? 

On this flight it took 10 seconds to switch them back to RUN. I ask because I'm curious if those 10 were fast, and it means one pilot physically saw the other pilot move them, or if 10 seconds is what you get when you don't see the other pilot flip them in front of you.

elheber

I’m having a really hard time coming up with an explanation that isn’t a deliberate attempt to crash the plane.

Someone pulled the fuel cutoff switches in rapid succession (within a second of each other)

Pilot 1 says “Why did you pull the cut off switch?”

Pilot 2 says “I didn’t”.

Then the switches get put back and the engines start to spool back up but there wasn’t enough altitude for a recovery.

Maybe you could rationalize the lying as trying to cover a mistake and just quickly undo the fuckup, but that seems unlikely.

Jdazzle217

Text of the accident flight portion of the report for those who don't want to open the PDF:

&gt; **12. Accident Flight**

&gt; On 12th June 2025, Air India’s B787-8 aircraft bearing registration VT-ANB arrived at
Ahmedabad airport operating flight AI423 from Delhi. The aircraft touched down at 05:47 UTC
(11:17 IST) and was parked at the bay 34.

&gt; The crew of the previous flight (AI423) had made Pilot Defect Report (PDR) entry for status
message “STAB POS XDCR” in the Tech Log. The troubleshooting was carried out as per
FIM by Air India’s on duty AME, and the aircraft was released for flight at 0640 UTC.

&gt; The aircraft was scheduled to operate flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to Gatwick with ETD
07:40 UTC (13:10 IST). The flight was to be operated by the flight crew comprising an ATPL
holder PIC, a CPL holder Co-pilot along with ten cabin crew. Both pilots were based at Mumbai
and had arrived at Ahmedabad on the previous day. They had adequate rest period prior to
operating the said flight. The co-pilot was Pilot Flying (PF), and the PIC was Pilot Monitoring
(PM) for the flight.

&gt; The crew of flight AI171 arrived at the airport and underwent preflight Breath Analyzer test at
06:25 UTC and were found fit to operate the flight. The crew is seen arriving at the boarding
gate in the CCTV recording at about 07:05 UTC (12:35 IST).

&gt; There were 230 passengers on board, out of which 15 passengers were in business class
and 215 passengers were in economy class including two infants.

&gt; Fuel on board was 54,200 Kgs and as per the load and trim sheet of the flight, the Take-off
Weight was 2,13,401 Kgs (Max. allowed - 2,18,183 Kgs). The take-off weight was within
allowable limits for the given conditions. There was no ‘Dangerous Goods’ on the aircraft. 

&gt; The calculated V speeds with available conditions at Take-Off were V1 - 153 Kts, Vr - 155 Kts,
V2 -162 Kts.

&gt; The A-SMGCS replay of the flight was also carried out after the accident. The aircraft was
observed departing from the bay 34 at 07:48:38UTC. The taxi clearance was received at
07:55:15 UTC and the aircraft taxied from the bay at 07:56:08 UTC. The aircraft taxied to
Runway 23 via Taxiway R4, backtracked and lined up. The take-off clearance was issued at
08:07:33 UTC. The aircraft started rolling at 08:07:37 UTC.

&gt; As per the EAFR data, the aircraft crossed the take-off decision speed V1 and achieved 153
kts IAS at 08:08:33 UTC. The Vr speed (155 kts) was achieved as per the EAFR at 08:08:35
UTC. The aircraft air/ground sensors transitioned to air mode, consistent with liftoff at 08:08:39
UTC.

&gt; The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42
UTC and immediately thereafter, 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. The Engine N1
and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut
off.

&gt; 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.

&gt; The CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed
during the initial climb immediately after lift-off (fig. 15). No significant bird activity is observed
in the vicinity of the flight path. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport
perimeter wall.

&gt; As per the EAFR data both engines N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the
RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC.

&gt; As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to
RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC)
automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.

&gt; The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core
deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to
relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to
increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11
UTC

&gt; At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”. The
ATCO enquired about the call sign. ATCO did not get any response but observed the aircraft
crashing outside the airport boundary and activated the emergency response.
At 08:14:44 UTC, Crash Fire Tender left the airport premises for Rescue and firefighting. They
were joined by Fire and Rescue services of Local Administration.

SevenandForty

Essentially, in this scenario you are going to get a significant amount of associated EICAS alerts. The engines provide the main source of electrical power (by proxy pressurization in the 787), hydraulic pressure, etc. A dual engine failure is typically considered an “unannunciated” non-normal. You will see associated primary and secondary engine indications rolling back. It will also display an engine restart envelope. There is no “check your fuel control switches” alert because typically anytime they are touched inflight it is a verified action and the state of them should never be unknown. 

I’d imagine if you didn’t see the fuel control switches moved to cutoff, this would be incredibly disorienting / shocking, especially so quickly after departure. 

I fly a Boeing product, after reviewing our 787 manuals.. it looks like the immediate action item(s) are essentially the same. Which is basically “fuel control switches- cutoff then run”. Which will kick start the relight logic for the EECs. There is some auto-relight logic but I don’t think it would be effective with the fuel control switches in cut-off for obvious reasons. 

10 seconds to get these switches back on is, in my opinion, a pretty good timeline considering how jarring the whole situation was.

Edit
I’d like to add that this emergency scenario (extremely low altitude dual engine failure) is likely not trained by any airline regularly. It’s so incredibly unlikely for these types of aircraft to experience, that the time spent in the simulators is best spent elsewhere. 

Barring some really strange issues, only a few situations would realistically cause a dual engine failure and some of them are pretty obvious to the pilots. Bird or FOD ingestion, volcanic ash ingestion, fuel freezing or contamination. Most of these would likely happen at altitude which provides time to potentially get at least one engine restarted or adequately prepare for a ditching or forced landing. 

These guys didn’t have the luxury of time or altitude.

fallstreak_24

Some thoughts:

- When the pilot asked, “Why did you do it?”, I wonder what the tone was. If it was shouted or sounded surprised, it could hint at whether it was said by the pilot who actually switched off the fuel or by the other pilot. Why? Because in a highly stressful situation like this, it would be incredibly difficult to act convincingly or fake emotions.

- It’s mentioned that the fuel was switched back on 10-13 seconds after being toggled off. The question is: when exactly did the pilot (whichever one it was) ask, “Why did you do it?” If it was said immediately, why did it take so long to turn the fuel back on? If it was said after 10-13 seconds, perhaps the pilot who asked was the “good” one - who only noticed the issue late and realized the switches had been turned off.


These two details might be crucial in determining whether the “Why did you do it?” was a genuine reaction or an attempt by the responsible pilot to save face.

AtomR

[Check this video 37:28](https://youtu.be/UDBzNj8QNKw?t=2248) It clear that the switches require considerable effort to be able to move. Also, both the switches in the video were turned off within an approx time difference of 1 second.

Individual_Wing375

We went from accident to Germanwings really quick.

OptimusSublime

Full credit to the AAIB - very detailed step through the events, and an explanation as to the delay in the preliminary report, due to substantial damage to the EAFR necessitating specialist equipment to retrieve data.

The_Vat

https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf

Greenlight0321

I will say a big sigh of relief came from my team once we started to see the data roll in.  Mostly in a “it wasn’t us” kinda feeling.  It wasn’t one of our designs that would’ve contributed to this, which is always something we can hold our breath on until this comes out.

But man oh man… somehow this is worse.

Fairycharmd

Photo of the [switches](https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ai-171-fuel-switches-graphic-jo.jpeg) that are physically gated for those still thinking the aircraft was hacked. 

There has been a massive blame campaign in India over the last month, telling citizens the pilots will be blamed to cover up for Boeing (done by influencers). This misinformation has sadly spread everywhere, with many Indians attacking anyone who says anything different online. Please stick to factual reports and don't buy into or spread this misinformation.

I just pray the families get the help they need

aussiechap1

The image of the wreckage from overhead really show the enormity of such a horrific crash

tjspill3r

Do you think it was the Captain who pulled the fuel switches? Since the FO would be focused on take-off?

theOJgotSqueezed

Imagine like Germanwing without need to lock other pilot out of the cockpit. The plane was full of gas and could not possible to recover at that height.

Friday911

Honest question for pilots here:

So under the hypothesis that this was "pilot suicide" (and/or homicide), would there be any other action the suicidal pilot could/would take to *ensure* their intended outcome?  (For example, violently jerking the stick, raising the flaps, flipping key switches, etc.)

The reason I ask is because it seems odd to me that a suicidal/homicidal pilot (or co-pilot) would just flip these switches and then "wait patiently",  i.e. watch the other pilot switch them back on and try to recover.  Understood that a crash was fairly certain to happen once the initial action was taken, but the other sane pilot *might* have miraculously been able to at least mitigate the extent of the disaster and perhaps save some lives.  It seems to me that -- if the intent really was nefarious -- the person who shut off the switches would have continued to try to sabotage things right up to the end, even to the point of struggling with the other pilot.

I guess we'll find out more in the final report, but in the meantime, I'm just puzzled by what seems like an apparent "lack of follow through" on the part of the offending pilot (notwithstanding the fact that he did apparently still achieve his goal(s), assuming our hypothesis is correct).

shockema

&gt;If you can have your hand on the throttle for both engines then you can certainly bump both switches.

You must have an arm with a very different range of motion (and dimensions) than mine, because having your hand on the thrust levers of a Boeing twin doesn’t put you in a position to knock the start switches at all. Maybe from the jump seat, but not from either of the operating crew seats. 

So now we’re saying the accident aircraft had not one but two failed locking mechanisms *and* the near-but-not-quite-simultaneous inadvertent bumping of two switches that are located in a part of the pedestal where it’d be damn near impossible to inadvertently bump it during a part of the flight where there’s nothing at all to do but select the gear up - geographically nowhere near the start switches - seems have a probability on par with a thing that’s happened quite a few times, actually.

flightist

The most telling part of the preliminary report is the cockpit voice recording where one pilot says, “Why did you cutoff?” and the other replies, “I didn’t.” That does not sound like guesswork. It suggests the pilot actually saw the fuel switches being moved, most likely by the other pilot. The co-pilot was flying the aircraft, so the captain would have been monitoring and had easier access to the switches. Both fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF within one second of each other just after take-off, which is incredibly unlikely to happen by accident. These are separate switches that normally require a clear, physical action to move. The fact that the pilot identified the cause immediately, rather than reacting with general confusion, makes it seem even more likely that he saw the captain move the switches or reached for them. Whatever the reason, it points to a human action being involved, not a mechanical failure. Whether it was deliberate or a catastrophic mistake is still unclear, but the evidence so far seems to point to the captain.

eldwaro

Reddithelpme001

This is the most plausible theory I've seen for this to be an actual 
pilot mistake and not a deliberate act.

&gt;I don’t know if the FDR measures the switch position or the electrical signal. The latter is probably more likely, although there has been much discussion around potential scenarios involving accidental switch movement as well as possible causes of electrical glitches. Let’s assume that the switches were actually moved, and ignoring the “bad faith” scenario, we need a situation that encompasses the switches being moved to Cutoff by one pilot, this action being queried by the other pilot and denied by the pilot who moved the switches.

&gt;For consideration, here is a possible scenario that hasn’t been mentioned yet and encompasses the frailty of human performance. The report mentions that the flight crew on the immediately prior flight had written up a "STAB POS XDCR" status message, and that troubleshooting was carried out. I wonder if the scenario could be that the accident crew received a Stabiliser EICAS message on or around take-off and the Capt (who was PM) decided to action the first checklist item immediately from memory, by intending to move the Stab switches to Cutoff but moving the fuel switches instead. As in all modern Boeings, the Stabiliser Cutoff switches are immediately next to the Fuel Cutoff switches and operate in the same sense (i.e. down for Cutoff). They are guarded and never normally moved but, with an intent to move the stab switches, “muscle memory” (cerebellum activation if you prefer) may have taken the Captain’s hand to the Fuel switches, which are operated on every flight. The FO (who is PF) is manually flying at this stage sees and queries it. The Capt denies it, as he doesn’t realise what he has done (confirmation bias perhaps). After a few seconds, the terrible mistake is realised, and the fuel switches are moved back to run, but sadly too late and the Capt makes a Mayday call.

&gt;Perhaps a bit of a stretch but not as much of a stretch as many of the other scenarios in this thread. I think it is a real possibility. Sadly, the only other explanation that I can see is the deliberate “bad faith” scenario, which we would all hope is incorrect.

Found on a pilot forum [here](https://www.pprune.org/11920122-post189.html).

I think a deliberate murder-suicide by one of the pilots is still most likely, but I thought this was interesting nonetheless.

BlessShaiHulud

Switch order question - when starting up the plane on a normal day, is it always engine 1 then engine 2. Or would a pilot hit the switch closest to them? 

Assuming it was a different person who switched them back on than who switched them off. You’d think it would be 1 off, 2 off them 2 on 1 on. Depending on which side the person is sitting on. But it went 1 off 2 off 1 on 2 on. If there was a physical confrontation you’d think the orders would be different. Bad pilot would switch off the closest switch, good pilot would switch on the closest switch.

wolf_of_walmart84

| Time       | Event                                              |
|------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| 08:08:33   | V1 reached (153 kts)                               |
| 08:08:35   | Vr (rotation) (155 kts)                            |
| 08:08:39   | Liftoff (~155–180 kts)                             |
| 08:08:42   | Max speed reached (180 kts)                        |
| 08:08:43   | Engine 1 fuel cut off (N1)                         |
| 08:08:44   | Engine 2 fuel cut off (N2)                         |
| 08:08:47   | RAT deployed / Engines at minimum idle            |
| 08:08:44–52| Pilot A asks Pilot B why they cut off fuel         |
| 08:08:52   | Engine 1 fuel set back to RUN                      |
| 08:08:54   | APU inlet opened                                   |
| 08:08:56   | Engine 2 fuel set back to RUN                      |
| 08:09:05   | Mayday call transmitted                            |
| 08:09:11   | Aircraft crash                                     |

32 second flight (crash - liftoff)

Not____007

From what I have read, assuming the switches were set to cutoff deliberately, it would have more likely been the pilot monitoring, rather than the pilot flying. Am I correct in assuming the investigators would already know which pilot was assigned which responsibility for the take-off phase?

AnonymousMuffin37

Genuine doubt: pilot A asked "why did he cut off" and not "did you cut off". The "why" makes me think it was intentional or one pilot did it unknowingly. Either pilot A saw pilot B move the switches and hence asked why or pilot A did it himself and tried to frame pilot B. 

If the pilots didn't move the switches, their first question (i would assume) would be - did either of them move it, not "why". 

Not an aviation expert, this is just what came to my mind

Fueledbycawffee

For those who are wondering how fast these switches can be turned from Run to Cut Off, refer to this video from 37:27 [https://youtu.be/UDBzNj8QNKw?si=dWQOOa1fVwev\_yOJ&amp;t=2247](https://youtu.be/UDBzNj8QNKw?si=dWQOOa1fVwev_yOJ&amp;t=2247) . Shows you how quickly it can be done and how hard it can be for the PF to see what the PM is doing.

tattikadibba

So is it too early to jump to the conclusion and call it a sabotage attempt?

Or there's more to it now?

AgentRacro

ericchen

Well so the pilot who asked “why did you cut off” may have seen the other pilot cut off the fuel and was baffled? He may have been processing that information and also trying to save the plane? I mean the whole thing only lasted another 20 seconds or so…

am3141

Unfortunately, logic would seem to suggest the pilot monitoring has done this intentionally and responded to the pilot flying in a way that would make it seem like malfunction.

Pilot flying has two hands on the yoke during takeoff as the captain would have their hand on the thrust levers in case of aborted takeoff. With the captain holding the thrust lever it would be immediately apparent that the FO was doing something he shouldn’t as he’d have to reach for the switches behind the captains arm, immediately after rotation.

It also explains why as soon as it was noticed that the switches were at cut off it took several seconds before they were switched on again. The pilot monitoring would have been able to do that straight away but they haven’t. I believe that points to the FO setting the fuel switches to run when he was able to do so or noticing that the captain was not going to do so.

The one thing I don’t understand is how it’s not been possible to determine which pilot asked why the other turned the fuel switches to cut-off when there will be dialogue from both as they taxi’d to the runway.

If it was intentional I can’t imagine how things must have been to drive someone to this level of desperation, and all of the impacted families….just tragic.

Icy_Arachnid9149

in the 1980s a biman bangladesh 707 had lost all 4 engines on take-off, miraculously the pilots were able to return back to the airport and conduct a crash landing, the aircraft was completely destroyed by the fire but all 80 people on board walked out alive, but the next day the flight engineer (the one monitoring the engines) took his own life, unfortunately the investigation was never properly conducted so how all 4 engines failed after take off and why the f/e took his own life the next day is unknown

while the air india crash is not confirmed to be a deliberate act by one of the pilots(and a few rare hypothetical scenarios can also explain), it is eerily similar to this incident

p3nt4gon

I am an aviation professional and one thing I can say without a doubt is that aviation medicine has completely ignored mental health for far too long. It's always been the burning fuse under the rug.

harahochi

It is inconceivable to expect that, if this was an electrical fault causing the switch circuit to close, it would ever happen subsequently like this has, and at the worst possible moment in flight.

Unfortunately, one of the people in the flight deck sabotaged this flight or really screwed up.

South_Coconut_8983

Since the 737 fuel switches advisory keeps being brought up, I want to point this out:

If the investigators thought there was even a remote possibility that this accident could have occurred to due to the cutoff switches not locking, they would not be recommending "no action" for 787 operators.

nwdogr

I just watched several videos of a Boeing 787 startup. In those videos, the switches were operated and made a very clear, distinctive sound. I'm sure the microphones inside the cockpit can pick up even the slightest noises. If the switches were deliberately operated, I'm confident the CVR would have recorded it.

The cruise ship I work on as a Deck Officer has eight microphones on the bridge, all integrated into our VDR/BVR system. Every sound comes through in crystal clear quality. Even the operation of individual switches and buttons is clearly audible.

Ok-Professional-32

Some people really can’t comprehend the fact that a pilot could intentionally down a plane if they wanted to. The conspiracy theories I’m reading in certain subs is wild, as if pilots can do no wrong

FutureHoo

that piece of conversation is quite confusing

one of them asks the other why he did it, the other one says he didn’t

i am unable to understand the intent

assuming (seemingly more likely) either one of them switched it deliberately

if the one asking the question switched it, did he then deliberately question the other to mislead the investigation? (what a fucked up state of mind)

if the other pilot did it and denied upon being asked, once again was it to mislead the investigation? (maybe because it was easier to deny than explain himself)

bizarre

regarded-cfd-trader

Not sure why are so many Indians so eager to defend pilots even with overwhelming evidence pointing out what happened. Just because one diabolical pilot did what he did doesn’t mean that the whole country is somehow “bad” or that people should avoid pilots from particular country. Let’s face reality. Nationality doesn’t matter.

Myselfmeime

Ok so the TL; DR is there is never a legitimate reason to touch the fuel switches in that part of the flight.

Either murder/suicide, or massive brain fart.

Can anyone think of ANOTHER switch he was supposed to turn on or off in that flight phase?

lingeringneutrophil

I've seen a lot of people asking if the switches could have electrically failed in a way to initiate a fuel cutoff without the switches being physically moved. I found this comment on a pilot forum explaining why that would be a near impossibility.

&gt;Far more than double pole - I think it's 4-8 ish. See the number of wires in the above picture. A previous post in one of the earlier thread indicated that it was essentially one pole per function - HPSOV, LPSOV, FADEC signal, generator etc. I'm not sure which one the EAFR reads. If it was a single contact failure, you would expect to see disagreement between the various systems controlled by the switch. I think that's very unlikely given both 'failed' in the same way near simultaneously and 'recovered' when switched.

&gt;For reference, it's pretty common for industrial emergency stop buttons to have 2-3 poles: redundant poles for the actual fault switching (legislative requirement above certain hazard levels), plus an additional pole for monitoring.

As an Indian, I was really curious to see how our news channels are covering this—and honestly, it’s pretty shocking.


- They don’t seem to even consider the possibility of pilot suicide. I’m not saying it’s 100% that, but the facts in the AAIB report look pretty damning.

- Instead, they’re accusing international media of “white washing” because they are trying to pin everything on the pilots. 

- Some are even calling for GE and Boeing to take full responsibility.


It’s sad to see how badly things are being twisted. Feels like the reporters haven’t even read the actual report.

interestingindeeed

Reading the EAFR PDF for the 787, it does seem to suggest there is an image feed/video feed of the actual instrument and switch panels. If that is the case, it seems there would be an eventual path to see who’s fingers moved to the panel to move the switches to “cutoff”, right? If there is a visual streamed image of the flight deck instruments, you’d think a hand or fingers would be captured as well, right?

”The Image Recorder growth function is used to record visual images of the flight deck instruments, flight deck, the aircraft structures, and engines as required. The Image Recorder function is capable of receiving a digital 10/100 Mbit Ethernet data stream of cockpit images and stores this data in the Crash Protected Memory in a separate partition. Even though the image recording duration will be governed by regulations, the EAFR Crash Protected Memory capacity has the storage capacity for two hours of image data recording per EUROCAE ED-112 requirements. Data in the Image Recording Crash Protected Memory partition can only be downloaded when the EAFR is off the aircraft.”

https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/enhanced-aircraft-flight-recorder-3254F.pdf

KeithMinard

The investigation into a recent deadly Air India crash raises questions about aviation safety and pilot actions, capturing the attention of the public and regulatory authorities.

Air India Crash Investigation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want