The public sentiment surrounding the Air India plane crash investigation is predominantly negative, with a strong skepticism about the preliminary conclusions placing blame on the pilots. Comments illustrate a belief that the investigation is potentially a cover-up for systemic issues and technical failures, particularly linked to Boeing. Many commenters demand transparency, accountability, and improved safety protocols, expressing deep concern over aviation safety and the treatment of the deceased pilots. There is a notable divide in opinions, with some blaming the pilots outright while others advocate for a comprehensive understanding of the incident, including mental health considerations.

Air India

Boeing

Indian Government

Media

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

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

Greenlight0321

[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

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

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

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

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

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

| 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened to the thread about the WSJ article? Was it deleted?

TorontoPolarBear

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.

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

ZweiGuy99

The findings in preliminary report are very disturbing and as many of you have pointed out we're left we basically 2 options: **1)** deliberate or **2)** accidental movement of the fuel control switches. 

As an accidental movement seems far-fetched but not impossible, focus will be on a deliberate/intentional act of either the PM or PF. 

If we entertain the thought that it indeed was a deliberate c.q. suicidal move by one of the pilots and this was carefully planned given the timing and response 'I did not do so' *why* did he not digitally 'pulled' the circuit breaker of the flight recorders (EAFRs) before departing? 

This might have been an even better cover-up to confuse the investigators - that is - if the circuit breaker cannot be linked to a FMC unit (captain or first office). This would have 'saved' the name of whoever 'did' it.

My questions: will a sign show up on one of the CDUs that a circuit breaker is pulled when in t/o-mode? And can the digital pulling of a circuit breaker be traced back to a specific FMC?

Given that this all occurred in the possibly most fatal seconds of any commercial flight some deliberate planning was in place. But some things still seem a bit off IMHO.

AnxiousGuarantee1470

It is 100% murder suicide. It’s also telling that the question was directly “Why did you cutoff the switches”, rather than the neutral “Why did we lose fuel, What happened to the fuel switches, We lost the engines …. etc”. It is a very specific and direct question, which implies that the one asking was aware immediately that they’d been turned off. This means it happened right in front of their eyes and were shocked that’s why it took them time to run it again. The CVR audio and the intonation of the pilots voices will make it clearer if the question sounds like an accusation and whether it expresses any emotions as well as if the response was flat or sounded like someone lying.

East-Philosopher-270

The engine fuel flow control switches did move as the black box recorded the turning on of the fuel supply to engine, which is after one of the pilots noticed that the switch was in off position. If the issue was software related, the switch position wouldn't have changed. Now, think this way. The only critical time where the change in fuel switch position can jeopardise the lives of passengers is during the take off and just after achieving lift off where you are going too fast to stop the aircraft, that too with the highest fuel load. Pilots know this. Unfortunate as it is, I see human action at play here, unless proven otherwise.

FalconUsual5049

I am just so glad that absolute clowns like Captain Steeve on Youtube, and that F15 pilot on Youtube have been absolutely exposed as being complete frauds who don't have a clue about accident investigations, the scenarios under which a RAT deploys on a 787-8, and whether or not you can tell whether the flaps are set correctly by watching the video. Neither of them even realized that it is impossible to take off with them set wrong because the electronic checklist makes you confirm it three times and won't continue unless you have it right! What clowns we have on Youtube, aside from Mentour that is.

snoromRsdom

It's almost amusing to see Indians on social media not even considering murder-suicide as a probable cause (they cannot even imagine someone doing that and their comments are whataboutery) when the evidence is slapping them in the face. I say this as a fellow Indian myself.

mormegil1

I'm not sure why people still think this official AAIB report is fabricated and still want to blame some absurd mechanical/electrical error. There is no incentive for the AAIB or Government of India to lie to you.

For anyone still convinced this was some absurd mechanical or electrical failure. Ive done some research, and everything overwhelmingly points to human factors. This is based off of a comment I made earlier.

&gt;The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) by the FAA. The fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on  various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D which is fitted in B787-8  aircraft VT-ANB. As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. The scrutiny of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023. However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has
been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB.

Is this SAIB Bulliten relavent? Likely not, First, they’re not the same switches between the 737 and 787. They're similar in function and layout, but not identical components, that’s clearly stated in the report. Also worth noting: the entire throttle quadrant on VT-ANB was replaced in 2023. That means Boeing's been monitoring this system in production and in service for ~5 entire years. If there were a known design fault, it would’ve surfaced long ago and likely been addressed by now. And as the report says: “The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive (AD) by the FAA.” If there was any real concern over the switches themselves, there would be directives. There aren't. That tells you everything.

&gt;What about a mechanical or electrical failure? You can never rule those out! Boeing is notorious for cover-ups!

Once again, the AAIB is a highly respected independent agency, and the Government of India would have absolutely ZERO incentive to allow anything to be covered up. Especially because Indian citizens are involved and at risk.

Anyways, Yes-you can rule mechanical/electrical/design failures out, or at least reduce the likelihood to the realm of absurd. 

You're suggesting an electrical failure occurred simultaneously (but not really, within a second of the other failing) in both switches, in a way that mimics exactly what it would look like if a human had physically moved them to cutoff. That’s what would have to happen. Not one, but both switches would need to fail, not simultaneously, but a second apart-in a way that perfectly mimics how long it would take a human hand to move them to cutoff one after the other. That seems pretty unlikely to me...

Now, from the CVR/Report: “One of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.” If this were a system fault, that WOULD NOT be the conversation whatsoever. If I remember correctly, there’s no EICAS message that says “FUEL SWITCH IN CUTOFF.” So what you do get are bombarded with alerts: engine pressure loss, hydraulics, etc? None of which directly say “hey, go check your cutoff switches.” They’d be wondering why power was dropping, or why they were losing thrust, not immediately talking about the fuel cutoff switches. That reaction suggests direct awareness or suspicion of manual interaction.

Next, "As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 
08:08:52 UTC...Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN." If it were a switch fault, why did it fix itself just in time for the crew to move the switches back? Why would a dual electrical anomaly not only occur independently and in a staggered human-like pattern, but also resolve itself in perfect sequence to conveniently allow the pilots to reverse it?

That’s not how systems fail lmao 😂.

More importantly: for the pilots to even know that the cutoff switches were the problem (let alone move them to RUN again) the physical switches themselves had to be in the CUTOFF position. This literally can't be just some invisible software glitch. That means if you're claiming an electrical fault, you also have to believe the fault physically moved the switches to cutoff. Up and back, both of them, and left them there in place so that the crew, who reportedly didn’t touch them, could visually identify the problem and move them back to RUN.

That is a completely ridiculous failure mode to assume. Switches don’t just self-actuate mechanically unless there's either (1) deliberate human input or (2) a catastrophic hardware malfunction. Even then, the switches worked perfectly fine when the pilots moved them back. The only explanation that fits the sequence of events, timing, behavior, and physical position of the switches is manual movement.

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

This is the CLEAREST indication yet that this was a deliberate act, not an electrical or mechanical failure. The investigators have access to far more data than we do, CVR, EAFR, maintenance logs, everything. If there were even the slightest hint of a design flaw, electrical anomaly, or mechanical issue, they would have issued at least some form of guidance to operators or manufacturers. But they DID NOT. That means something in the data was blatantly obvious to them, so obvious that they felt confident issuing no recommended actions whatsoever. You don’t get that kind of conclusion unless the cause is clear as day and unambiguous.

Pretty much all evidence is pointing right towards human factors. It’s now about who moved them, and why.

Repulsive-War-6878

I’m wondering whether the pilot that turned the switches off knew that after ~10 seconds there was no chance of recovery, so all they had to do was make sure the switches stayed off for ~10 seconds and the rest was taken care of. Someone on the other thread said that the 1st and 2nd switches were turned back on after 10 and 14 seconds, respectively. Is that a possibility?

Laande

I personally wanted Boeing to face consequences. That was my bias. But it seems pilot was the most probable cause.

nz_mish_mosh

UTC time Seconds Event  
[07:48:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=28118s&amp;pp=0gcJCTAAlc8ueATH) \-1201 depart  
[07:55:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=28515s) \-804 taxi clearance  
[07:56:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=28568s) \-751 taxied  
[08:07:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29253s) \-66 take-off clearance  
[08:07:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29257s) \-62. rolling  
[08:08:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29313s)\-6 V1 (153 kts)  
[08:08:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29315s&amp;pp=0gcJCTAAlc8ueATH)\-4 Vr (155 kts)  
[08:08:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29319s)\-0 V2 (162 kts?) Liftoff (transition to air mode)  
[08:08:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29322s)\+3 max speed (180 kts)  
[08:08:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29322s)\+3 Engine 1 to CUTOFF  
[08:08:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29323s)\+4 Engine 2 to CUTOFF (+1 second)  
[08:08:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29327s)\+8 RAT supplying power  
[08:08:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29332s) \+13. Engine 1 to RUN  
[08:08:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29334s) \+15 APU door open  
[08:08:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29336s) \+17 Engine 2 to RUN  
[08:09:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29345s) \+26 Pilot broadcast MAYDAY  
[08:09:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg&amp;t=29351s) \+32 EAFR recording stopped(crashed)

What looks like the most probable sequence. Flight captain switched off fuel engines as he was suffering from depression since his divorce and ailing father as per some reports. He was on extended medical leaves in prior years. He switched it off and told to first officer who was flying just after committing the act. "Why did you cutoff ?"  First pilot surprised says "he did not". Though the first officer who was flying did switch the engines back to RUN after 10 seconds, there was no altitude to make up for speed loss and the crash was inevitable.  As per the report the fact that engine 1 already started supplying power back to plane after being put to RUN indicates no engine failure in the plane or sabotage angle. If the engines were switched off even at a decent altitude(1000-2000m) it would have survived but the one doing the act knew this and acted accordingly. 4 sec delay(+10 and +14 seconds after switched off) between turning them back to RUN position can also indicate some struggle between both pilots. It is not unprecedented as mass murder and suicide has been the cause in atleast 6-7 major cases in the past including MH-370 which due to shoddy investigation still has so many conspiracy theorists despite one of the pilot literally practicing the detour into deep ocean the flight took on his home flight simulator for days.

Indians are highly sensitive and will never believe it. They released the report at late night deliberately. News channels will make it a national vs anti-national thing. Mainstream people are already spreading conspiracies regarding CIA sabotage and what not.  
The latest one I read is "India destroyed nuclear facilities in Pakistan also killing some US personnels. CIA being pissed about rising India took their revenge and Boeing has a kill switch in every plane which they activated".

The PR has been activated and mental health issues will continue to be ignored and given due care.  
Right will say it is anti-national to blame indian pilots, left will say big corporations are always to blame no matter what.

vc0071

In some ways, it should be a relief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the planes. 

But then again, it almost seems too easy to F up for pilots in such a catastrophic way (whether it be intentional or accidental). As a layman, it seems bizarre that such sophisticated planes can't factor for this.

irundoonayee

So it took the black box decoding for someone to figure out the pilot had a past?

vinieux

Low IQ whores like Modi can be bought for dirt cheap by Boeing execs. 

Modi has no honor or agenda, pay him and do as you please in india. 

RSS is a cancer.

insanebabydoll

you can search boeing whistleblower in google. that should clear things up

Numerous-Concern-801

The reason the second engine didn’t relight in time was because there was a gap between activation of left and right switches.

calciumpropionate

xhaka_noodles

I might've considered it as technical fault if only one switch malfunctioned but both switches being turned off within 2 seconds is straight up a deliberate action. Highly likely that it was malicious but there is a chance that it was a mistake.

Alarming_Echo_4748

If you just want to believe the report shared, then all the arguments you've made are correct. However, there are some serious questions with the legitimacy of the reports. I don't know much about aviation and aeroplanes but it's only common sense to question some of the aspects of the report :

1) Pilots seem to not believe that any single pilot can  flip those 2 switches under a second which is what the report seems to assume.

2) It is easy to put all the blame on the pilots who are not available to present their side of the story.

3) Boeing is known to silence their criticism by any means necessary, so what stops them from coercing the authorities to release a favourable report and blame everything on the pilots who will never be able to counter the reports published. Think about it, just by blaming it on the pilot, they've exonerated Boeing, Air India,  regulatory authorities and the Govt. in one strike. 

It's not the first time authorities and govt. would sacrifice one person for the supposed greater good.

chillgoza001

Even with this angle, lets just pin the whole blame on an individual's completely independent circumstances, where widely reported terrible work hours from TATA totally didn't create any toll. Whether in that pilot's mental health, or the other pilot's speed of response. Of course it would be reaching to link that so for official docs and responsibility so it will be forgotten. Mandatory preliminary info should have gone out 1month after crash, and the info is not worth to be considered "preliminary", especially compared to other incidents, so yes there is some level of conspiracy within some parties, not necessarily involving Boeing

And no peak of misinfo is Rafale hit, first question being if yes or no where govt speaks in riddles; and second being if yes, how many.

Sweaty_Explorer_8441

Peak misinformation? You're proving the point by blaming pilots,  which, by the way, didn't happen. Perhaps you missed the memo from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), who issued SAIB No. NM-18-33 back in 2018, warning about the very real potential for fuel control switch locking features to disengage.

So before you go full keyboard warrior and accuse highly trained professionals, maybe do five minutes of actual research.

Haunting_War_

Air India Flight 171 Tragedy: A Wake-Up Call for India.

 It wasn’t pilot error. It wasn’t mechanical failure. It was a technical fault — 

and because of it, a plane fell from just 700 feet, killing nearly 300 people.

This wasn’t just a crash — it was the massacre of 300 families.

Will Boeing take responsibility?Of course not. 

For them, it’s “just another accident

” Despite knowing about serious flaws, they keep producing the same aircraft. Whistleblowers? Silenced. Safety? Ignored! This seems to be Boeing's fault. Do not be misguided by media News.

Original-Jeweler-836

The switches are independent, any talk of a failure anywhere in the chain is complete bullshit, a simultaneous electrical failure somewhere in the chain of the switches is just as astronomically unlikely as a failure of both engines at the exact same time. Also, it wouldn’t result in the physical position of the switches changing, the question “why did you (…)” also means the pilot asking the question either moved the switches himself or saw the physical position of the switches in CUTOFF or saw the other pilot actively move them to CUTOFF. Any other scenario would result in a conversation troubleshooting a dual engine failure, not an immediate jump to asking about fuel cut off switches.

TracePoland

 Your first scenario doesn’t make sense since there was nothing in the report about any part of the plane malfunctioning.

Dear-Doubt270

Suicide. Here’s what I believe happened (from the perspective of the FO who was flying. 



Picture it - your in the middle of lifting off with the plane. You are working the controls, looking out the window, looking at your instruments. You are very focused on controlling the plane. 

Almost immediately after leaving the ground you feel and/or hear the engines cut out or lose power.

For a number of seconds you are perplexed - what’s going on? The last thing you would ever expect is your copilot turned off the fuel switches. However, after a few seconds you glance down and the fuel switches are off. There are only two people in the cockpit and you didn’t do it, so you ask “why did you cut off?”

The guy who did it, gaslighter of the century, denies it. Because a) it’s human nature to deny doing something this terrible and b) he knows there is a voice recorder capturing everything.

At this point, seconds have passed. The captain (the one not flying) just sits there. It’s already over, and he knows it. The FO starts to panic, turns on one fuel switch, works on his controls and whatnot, and turns on the other one (takes about 4-5 seconds). 

The captain does nothing. Doesn’t raise landing gear, doesn’t radio for help, doesn’t say a word.

FO does his best to keep the plane level, to gain altitude (nose up), but realizes they can’t recover and issues mayday mayday.

They crash.

Relevant_Fuel_9905

It’s really sad if the captain decided to retire THAT way…

Subject_Struggle6172

I believe the second scenario is much more plausible. The odds of the aircraft issue you mentioned in the first is highly unlikely. Nearly impossible. On top of this it would be heard on the CVR if one of the pilots cycled the switch from run to cutoff and back to run in order to fix the suggested glitch. I believe this cycling of the switch would also have been recorded. Neither of these two are mentioned in the prelim report.

Further more the issue you mentioned in the first case wouldn’t result in the cutoff one second apart. The delay is much more likely a human delay between switching the two knobs.

BrownButteryBiscuits

Tell me just one accident in commercial aviation that has been caused by a FADEC failure.

alexgduarte

Based on the information available to us all, this is 99% intentional (i.e. murder/suicide).  And you know what nobody mentions, is that this exact same outcome could happen tomorrow on an Air India or any other flight that has fuel control levers that can be flipped just after takeoff.  One possible update to the system is to prevent a fuel shutoff below a certain altitude, giving the other pilot a chance to restart the engines.

asmuckers32

How do airlines in India handle pilots who express mental health concerns or show evidence of a mental health disorder during medical check-ups and end up being diagnosed with one? Is it a career-ender? I’ve seen it mentioned that the captain had previously been on an extended medical leave. There is the unconfirmed suggestion that this had been for mental health reasons. 

I’ve also heard it reported that he was contemplating retiring soon, supposedly to take care of his elderly father. It does not appear he was ever married. Did he have any history of romantic relationships? Did he have any kind of personal support network with friends who he saw and communicated with regularly? 

In short, who was he?

fugutoxin

This was deliberately done by one of the pilots, likely the Captain. Why? The timing of it, right after rotation, the most critical phase of flight and the one time when shutting down the engines would certainly lead to a disaster . The second timing elements the 10s lag between turning them off and flipping them back on.... 10s seems a big long considering their predicament, and we don't even know who turned them on, likely the F.O.

Finally , we have Air India and the Indian investigative bureau report purposely making vague references to one pilot said... There are several mics on the the 787 for the CVR , they knew exactly who said what and when  but for some cultural or political reasons they're being vague....insurance payouts, pending lawsuits? Political fallout ?   In any case they should have said who said what, complete disclosure is what's needed in these circumstances...

Its a tragedy, there's no undoing that, at least have the dignity for full transparency for the families and then victims themselves..the deserve as much.

abrandis

Just watched an interview this morning “US aviation expert Mary Schiavo pointed out that this is not the first time such a failure has occurred on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. She cited a 2019 incident involving an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight in Japan, where the fuel switch transitioned on its own, without any pilot input, while the aircraft was on final approach.”
The plane was on final approach and was able to land without injuries to any passengers.

Sweaty_Comedian_4606

For me there's only one possibility. This is certainly a suicide and mass murderer event. There's just no way there were simultaneous system failures exactly a second part on a piece of equipment that is not ever even remotely considered to be deployed during flight and with stringent measures to even be able to enact it. 

Anyone who's kind of even in the ballpark that this is in any way shape or form not a deliberate act as very much in denial or very susceptible to blatant misinformation and is no capacity to do any self-research or draw their own conclusions.

azulur

It’s scenario 2 without doubt; the switches were manually turned off then back on 10 seconds later.  But I am not ready to jump on the “it was certainly suicide.” Runaway train because the plane continued flying for almost half a minute after the switches were reset with an engine almost producing enough thrust to keep them flying at impact and no mention of a struggle to turn them off again.  There are a lot of things a suicidal pilot could have done (flaps, rudder or yoke) that would have sent the plane into the ground within a second or 2.  Had a suicidal pilot screamed “BIRDS!” And yanked the rudder or yoke hard enough to send the plane into a fatal dive, it would have gone down as a loss of control avoiding a bird strike, even if there were no feathers in the engines.

CollegeStation17155

If it was scenario 1, it would be clear from the preliminary report. The investigators already know the answers to these questions. If the switch was missing the guard that they've been talking about, it would be visible in the wreckage, and it would be in the report. The cockpit microphones will have picked up the sound of the switches being moved, removing all doubt - but again, the investigators won't tell us. Likewise, if there was an engine problem before the fuel switch was moved to CUTOFF, it would be in the report. Someone in the cockpit moved the switches by hand - the remaining questions are who, and why. As for the "who", the investigators already know, but won't tell us. As for the "why", we will likely never know for sure.   
  
The only reasonable assumption left is that one of the pilots did it by mistake.

chillebekk

I think it is most likely that one of the pilots did it deliberately.

Similar happened before, ten years ago:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings\_Flight\_9525](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525)

Why I think that:

* We have the flight recorder data and we have the footage of the departure from outside
* If the flight recorder data reported is correct, it would 1:1 cause what we see on the footage from outside
* Those switches can't be switched to "cut off" accidently like a light switch at home
* Those switches can't be controlled by the computer, only manually

It's sad. :(

Edit:

And when you think about that from the other side around: when we assume for a moment that one of the pilots did that deliberately to crash the plane (may it be planed or just out of the blue) what "better" moment could it be than to cut off fuel to the engines in just that moment? So that the other pilot has no chance to do anything about it to save the aircraft?

Garak_2025

While I'm not an expert, I wonder if this crash could stem from a conflict between the pilots. There have been cases in aviation where personal issues escalate to dangerous situations, like the infamous incident involving pilots locking each other out of the cockpit where I believe they were fighting over a girl. It's possible that one pilot might have intentionally shut off the fuel switches to frame the other, aiming to recover then shift blame for Some reason. However, we should await the official investigation to get a clearer picture of what truly happened.

Snoo50468

You are not accurately quoting the timing from the report in your post. This whole post feels like an attempt to sow misinformation to arm chair enthusiasts who haven’t read the report.

Hefty-Inevitable-660

The first "possibility isn't - it doesn't line up with the timing of when the switches were moved VS when the words were said in the cockpit, and you'd have to find some plausible and rather disturbing and never seen before bug for the FADEC to be able to cut the fuel to the engines like that for no reason (and to do them 1 second apart, not simultaneously as computers are wont to do).


If it's error and not pilot action, the error is a pilot error in activating the cut off switches while imagining himself to be doing something else, for example if they had muscle memory of raise gear switches in those positions from another aircraft. This seems unlikely but not impossible without further research. 


At the moment the deliberate act by pilot is something I would say is what happened on the balance of probability from known evidence but not yet beyond reasonable doubt without more information. 

Zhirrzh

#2 and this was likely deliberate. The FDR monitors (and recorded) numerous inputs including inputs from the ECL switches. These are separate from the FADEC signals, which are also recorded. If scenario #1 occurred then the FDR data would reflect this is what occurred. The FDR data does not  All other observations are consistent with the FDR data and the portion of the CVR transcript in the report.

Equivalent-Ad5748

I personally believe that the switches were shut off by the pilots, but accidental or intentional remains to be seen

bunny-rain

Scenario 2. The PM was said to be having mental problems for which he was previously treated. There was a similar incident with EgyptAir off the coast of New England in 1999. The copilot was heard on the CVR saying “Tawkalt Ala Allah” as he plunged the plane into the ocean

sugaree53

I think the switches where in the run position but not in the detent. Then on rotation they fell back. The timing lines up with v speeds and also the verbal confusion we heard.

doyouevenfly

Of the two, the second is more likely I think.

nelsonwehaveaproblem

I am not convinced that FADEC failure for two engines simultaneously is practically possible. Given they are completely different systems for each of the engine.

Currently I am convinced that this was manual intervention by the pilots, albeit I am more concerned of the possibility of a fatal design flaw that the Boeing may know, but to cover up their mistakes putting it out to the fuel cutoff switch because virtually this story doesn't have any counter and is easy to argue.

LankyAspect9594

Why not release the entire CVR recording in the preliminary report? The snippets they included almost seemed cherry-picked to draw attention to the pilots. Wouldn’t a specific sound be picked up by the CVR if the fuel cutoff switches were manipulated by the pilots?

AltruisticNight8866

The fast switching makes the action intentional.

Here's my take : stab cutout switches are right next to the fuel cutoff switches,  and preliminary report mentions that previous flight has STAB POS CCDR warnings, which were raised on this leg too right after take off.

Ockam's razor would lead to a crew mistake : cutting off engine while expecting to be resetting Stab, one crew singlehandly reaching the wrong switches under take off workload conditions, without confirming his action to the other cm.

Edit : see those switches in manual https://fr.scribd.com/document/682164411/787-Flight-Controls-CBT

See switch cutout layout with 2 protectjons, just like engine cutoff. They are litterally right next to the fuel seitches, and correspond to the latest War ing raised. 

Intentional action on the wrong switch would make much more sense than suicide

klonk2905

Man if this is the case that the pilot committed suicide and killed other people on board , then how was he so caring and liked by his neighbour ? I mean in one news outlet it was written that he told his old aged father that he will retire soon and stay at home more.  How can a person so nice and caring think about killing all people at once . Damn this is scary and sad . Also , his mother died too back in 2022 . 

kakelynlin

Not likely an accidental shutdown. More probably intent.

We are speculating of course.

Let the investigation run its course.

No-Establishment8457

Also, why did it take 4 seconds from selecting RUN on eng 1 to eng 2? Selectors are next to eachother. It’s an awful long time, it’s too deliberate imo.

mbenzn

The plane's in the air and the systems are not smart enough to override a manual shutoff?  'Not very comforting to hear for air travelers.

wxguy77

I’m not sure I believe this could be the case but is the only scenario that makes sense that isn’t murder/suicide: 

- Both pilots have hands on throttles until V1 
- At V1 one pilot moves hand off and behind the throttle in a ‘guard’ position, hovering behind the throttle over the cut out switches (compared to going hands on lap (PM), both on yoke (PF)) 
- These switches were afoul of the SAIB, unchecked and were installed without gates (highly unlikely!! These switches would have been in the jet since build in 2013 or when the throttles were swapped in 2023, after the SAIB was issued so how could they be missed at that point) 
-  After V1 they roll over a few bumps and the side of the hand hit the switches successively, that don’t resist the action due to missing gates 

As they say you eliminate the impossible and you’re left with the possible, no matter how improbable. 

Either way, things are bad, murder/suicide in a new creative way is wild. A missing set of gates on switches bringing down a wide body jet is equally wild.

VulpesVulpe5

It’s either Boeing covering up something with their airplanes or one of the pilots pulled the switches. No other way to view it.

deepstaterising

Namaskaram /u/UnknownGunman17, Thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). We would really appreciate it if you could mention the source as a reply to this comment! If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message.  Thank you.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Investigations into a recent Air India plane crash reveal critical insights regarding the pilot's actions and potential technical failures, leading to concerns about air travel safety.

Air India Plane Crash Investigation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want