Public sentiment is overwhelmingly sympathetic towards the sole survivor of the Air India crash, highlighting immense concern for his mental health and demanding immediate support from Air India. There is widespread criticism directed at the airline for its perceived negligence and inadequate response, with many commenters expressing frustration over the investigation's transparency and accountability involving both Air India and Boeing. The community calls for justice, proper compensation for the survivor and victims' families, and an independent inquiry to address potential systemic failures.

Air India

Boeing

Indian Government

They’re saying the captain did *not* shut off the engines? Then what the fuck happened? Do they have an issue with the findings? Or do they have an issue with how it looks bad?

BigJellyfish1906

The preliminary report *was* "selective and piecemeal" but probably not for the reasons the court thinks. A more detailed and complete report would not have merely "suggested" that a pilot cut off the fuel.

Will be interested to see if domestic Indian politics and nationalism result in a cover-up in the final report. Wouldn't be the first time a country tries to deflect blame for an airplane crash.

nwdogr

What authority does the court or the PM's office have over a technical investigation? This kind of interference is how you end up with issues being glossed over and more people ending up dead.

knightofrohanlol

A3bilbaNEO

Commercial aviation worldwide needed to know ASAP if something was wrong with the 787 or its engines. The aviation authority made the right choice in quickly revealing that a big clue pointed to the fuel cutoff switch. 

GurthNada

The highest court said it was "irresponsible" for the aviation authority to suggest, through leaks to the media, that pilot error had caused the disaster.
It called on Indian prime minister Narendra Modi for the government's response before it rules on a case filed by activists demanding an independent investigation.

The court said the way the aviation body released its preliminary report in to the Boeing Dreamliner's crash was "selective and piecemeal".

The preliminary report, published by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) in July, said fuel supply to the engines was cut off just seconds after take-off.

The report also said one of the pilots was heard asking the other "why did he cut off" in a cockpit voice recording, with another pilot responding that he did not do so.

The recording doesn't clarify who said what. At the time of take-off, the co-pilot was flying the aircraft while the captain was monitoring.

But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.

In a court hearing overseeing the aviation safety group's petition, one of India's Supreme Court judges said that suggestions that the pilots deliberately shut off fuel supply were "very unfortunate and irresponsible".

The crash has left many questioning the safety of India's airspace.

JKKIDD231

vast live caption cats different jeans sophisticated reply cause kiss

 *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev/home)*

GeneratedUserHandle

Isn’t a full report due? And that takes time.

Thy_Gap_Slayer

The preliminary report is not supposed the be exhaustive. It is a "this is the current state of play and what we have learned so far" type of report.  So yes, it lacks the precision the final report will have, but that is because the final report will take a year or two to fully complete with many, many re-writes to ensure the wording is precise and factual.  The preliminary report was due 30 days after the incident and was delivered exactly at that time. 

Those complaining about the interim report have absolutely no idea what it is they are complaining about, nor how aircraft investigations are conducted.

But India is a strange place. I can well see government micromanagement getting in the way and making a total pigs ear of the investigation.

ImissTBBT

I said it months ago that the Indians were going to cover this up when they turned down help from the NTSB and was downvoted to oblivion. Yeah well clearly that’s exactly what they’re tying to do.

TrafficOnTheTwos

Sounds like the court is acting irresponsibility, what's new.

ThrowAwaAlpaca

Well it's pretty obvious I won't be trusting the official report then.  RIP to the victims and to the next of Kin I am sorry your country operates the way it does.  Reminds me of the passenger ship Ferry Sewol where the South Korean government basically lied to the families from minute one all the way until today.

1320Fastback

The Supreme court of India is filled with dimwits and people who  only care about their self interest, I can confidently say this after attending one of the top law colleges in the country.

MadjLuftwaffe

The prelim report was shocking and good.   We expected a useless, boiler-plate report, but we got actual   prelim crash cause of manual pilot fuel switch cutoff.   Like MH370, the apparent cause (blaming pilot) is unacceptable (to blame a deceased pilot) for much of the world's population.   We are seeing similar cultural behavior  in the JeJu Korea bird-strike runway crash, investigators trying to say apparent pilot error (accidental cut off of the good engine) and Korean next-of-kin outrage necessitated retraction of the report.    ICAO needs to consider cultural factors in allowing secrecy of details.  U.S. NTSB would be infinitely more transparent, but they are unique.   As far as I know. India complying with ICAO aviation rules which allows secrecy up until final report is issued year(s) later.

HDTBill

JFC…the copilot is FUCKING RECORDED saying “why did you shut off the engines”

Tinosdoggydaddy

Given all the safety issues with Boeing, I would hesitate to jump on the pilot/suicide theory. I think a lot of Indians are wary of the western media immediately jumping on to airline safety/pilot issues. When the first of the two Boeing crashes happened due to MCAS, immediately fingers were pointed at the specific airline/pilot, till the second one happened.

DeliciousOwl1

If Air India is flying this route with two pilots, then Air India also has a serious fatigue problem.

ViperSocks

Another **BBC: British Bullshit Corporation's** article 🙄

theagentK1

I’m pretty sure that Passenger jets these days have monitoring systems that automatically transmit data of the aircraft’s critical operating systems ( electrics, hydraulics, engines etc) in real time to ground based engineering centres. So wouldn’t the engineers on the ground have had instant telemetry on anything amiss with the engines.? Eg fuel starvation?

Substantial_Print750

Blaming the biggest aviation corporation (Boeing) is not a new thing... For example, there have already been episodes about both Boeing 737 MAX crashes (Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 302), which were caused by MCAS issues.

sealightflower

Air India flight 855 would be doable as blaming Boeing for when they really drop the ball is not new

A444SQ

I just want to say that Behind Closed Doors (DC-10 cargo door issue episode) went deep into the legal proceedings such as the Applegate Memo, the gentlemen’s agreement to avoid an Airworthiness Directive from being issued, the door blowout in 1970 and affirming that the Turkish Airlines crash was due to criminal negligence.

The Philippine Airlines 434 episode goes deep into the apprehension of Ramzi Yousef. So to say that the show can’t get political or accost like Boeing is false. Sure, the Air Ontario 1363 episode didn’t need to explain why the investigation was being conducted by a Commission of Inquiry rather than by the CASB (was being disbanded after the Arrow Air debacle), but the LAPA episode certainly should have mentioned more to better explain the Why. It could be that the final report is pretty lacking in that and the producers would have to go through a long process to obtain permission from the Argentine judicial system and other organizations to mention some things.

Titan-828

I thought it strange they never touched upon Air India 855 in the Season 11 episode ‘Bad Attitude’ about Korean Cargo 8509. 

It was very similar circumstances yet it was never mentioned.

AngryBaconGod

Politics and legal matters never has and never will stop an ACI ep from being made (with the exception of one Chinese case). Air India 855 will not be made for a much simpler reason, there's no report.

Bobarius_bobex

&gt; ut truth is that LOT and their poor maintenance was behind those disasters, first of all period of use before inspection of Il-62's engines was pretty low, about 5000 hours, but in times of communism and poverty LOT was cuttin corners as much as they could, some engines were flying even to almost 9000 hours before sending engine to Inspection and repair in Samara

Source? All the sources I’ve found claim that in both cases, the engines were within their service period. The first crash was caused by a manufacturing defect, and the Soviets eventually agreed with this finding despite their initial disagreement. The second crash was caused by a faulty part supplied by the Soviets.

MichalDobak

I’ve flown on IL62’s, nice plane for the passenger, quiet inside and huge legroom.

Horror-Raisin-877

I think blaming Boeing for AI 855 is just jumping on the contemporary "Boeing BAAADD!" bandwagon.  When there are *three* AI's on the aircraft, it seems inexcusable that professional airline pilots can't coordinate and communicate to identify the actual aircraft status and sort things out.

CoastRegular

Although there is final report of the LOT 5055 Admiral Cloudberg said in his article that the flight 007 the final report was not made or not published. And the report of flight 5055 is short and vague, and he said it was from other sources. So unless they do as on the flights 236 of Air Transat when it left and the Egyptair 804 that the final reports had not left before the emission of the episode or can do like that of the TAROM 371 that although it had report were based to 100% in so far that they omitted many more details in addition to the accelerator problem and the captain’s heart attack.

Designer-Complex-551

Nice_Excitement_7249

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?

[deleted]

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Experts are saying bird strike hits at key engine areas near 625 ft in air causing mayday signal and crash

Easy-Past2953

In 4th picture we can see plates filled with lunch on table, felling sad for everyone who lost their life, nobody knew that it might be the last lunch they were having. om shanti

ManagementHuman8776

Data-CHOR-365

TenseAgi

Boeing, this company should be hashtaged more. They have a known case of disregarding safety procedures to avoid loss and make profits.

I-wish-to-be-phoenix

You don’t accidentally turn off both fuel lines on an airplane. It’s not done at the push of a button, and it’s never both accomplished in succession in one whole second

mywifiisbadtho

If you've seen videos of the fuel cutoff, you can't simply flick the switch.  You have to pull the switch out and then turn it off.  Is it possible a pilot/co-pilot made a mistake?  Possible.  Is it possible one of the pilots did it on purpose?  Also possible.

Pokerhobo

Planes are very well designed, I highly doubt a very gentle flick of a button turned off not one but both fuel lines.

gothiclg

People assume intent because shutting off fuel mid-air is rare and hard to do by accident, especially to both engines. It’s a serious, deliberate action in most cases. But you’re right, we shouldn’t rush to judgment without all the facts

The switches have to be twisted and pulled up and out to be actuated.

outlier74

Full Official 30 day report link below have a read

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-update-preliminary-report-into-air-india-flight-ai171

ConsistentBag3612

Wasn’t it a catastrophic electrical failure? the RAT deployed to try and generate electricity but it only works when your thousands of meters in the air. Pretty sure an electrical failure would shut the whole system down, and that includes the fuel.

Ghostof369

The investigation into the tragic crash of Air India Flight 171, which killed over 250 people, has sparked controversy and claims of bias. The Supreme Court of India is reviewing petitions requesting an independent inquiry due to concerns over the investigation's impartiality.

Air India Crash Investigation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want