Any chance the switched were moved in a suicide.  It would not be the first time

21 minutes ago, paulyg123 said:

Any chance the switched were moved in a suicide.  It would not be the first time

That’s of course possible, at which point it becomes a criminal investigation and as such details can be withheld from the public.

I can think of a more effective technique if that was the intention. But I won’t mention it here.

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by jon b

Indeed, the AAIB preliminary report says the flight recorders show both fuel control switches being switched to cutoff three seconds after liftoff, one after the other, a second apart.  Then one pilot (not identified) asks why the other guy switched them off, and he replies that he did not.  The #1 fuel control switch was returned to "run" ten seconds after being shut off; the #2 fuel control switch four seconds after that, initiating an auto-start sequence on each engine.  When they ran out of Schlitz, the #1 engine had already started to spool back up and the #2 engine had relit but was not yet accelerating due to the excessive RPM decay.

I really can't conceive of a set of circumstances explaining this other than an deliberate act, given how the switch positions changed separately and sequentially, seconds apart.

Here's the accident sequence excerpted from the AAIB prelim report:

 

12. Accident Flight
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.
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.
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.

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).
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.
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.

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

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.

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.
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.

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.
RAT in extended position

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.
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

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.

 

It's a shame for the passengers and crew that one man caused this. I think the Indian government is bringing in a Germanwings A320 crash investigator since this incident is similar.

Darryl

I recall that there was an incident in Europe years ago involving an Airbus plane where the pilot or copilot locked the other one out of the cockpit and then proceeded to fly the plane into the ground.

It's not unheard of that some sick person decides to commit suicide and take a bunch of other people with him.

I can't believe this Air India incident was an accident, but there is a tiny chance that it could have been caused by the effects of some drug one of the pilots had taken, perhaps without his knowledge, which might explain this illogical action.

Dave

Edited July 12, 2025Jul 12 by dave2013

11 minutes ago, SP2472 said:

It's a shame for the passengers and crew that one man caused this. I think the Indian government is bringing in a Germanwings A320 crash investigator since this incident is similar.

Darryl

 

In the report it said:

Quote

Experienced Pilots, Engineers, Aviation Medicine Specialist, Aviation Psychologist, and Flight Recorder Specialists have been taken on board as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to assist in the Investigation in the area of their expertise.

So yes they are taking this very seriously, these experts have been brought in from USA representing the nation of manufacture, United Kingdom, Canada and Portugal representing victims of the accident to assist the Indian investigation, Not sure about German specialists but I wouldn't be surprised as they do have background into this as well.

 

Aviation is a pressure cooker industry, I dreamed of flyng growing up as many of us on here, I went to flight school from 1995 to 1997, biggest thing I learned from flight school was I was dreaming of being a pilot back in the golden age in the 60s and 70s era, the way the industry was changing in the 90s I learned not to go into commercial from my private licence, because the industry was going to ruin my dream of flying, better to keep it fun as a hobby instead.

I remember one of our flight instructors used to say, "you grow up dreaming of flying, only to learn you become a caged bird" 

 

7 hours ago, tdflightsim said:

I surprised the fuel switches don't have toggle switch safety covers or guards???

 

7 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

They don’t need guards as the switch has to be lifted before it can change mode. It’s a system that has worked perfectly well for many years.

I'd like to know what did the Brazilian engineers think: if you look carefully, the Embraer 145 and 170/190 have the engine switches guarded. AFAIK, these planes are the only ones that have such a thing.

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by Luis Hernandez

11 minutes ago, Luis Hernandez said:

I'd like to know what did the Brazilian engineers think: if you look carefully, the Embraer 145 and 170/190 have the engine switches guarded. AFAIK, these planes are the only ones that have such a thing.

dont think if the switches were guarded would have made any difference at all in this case

After I posted above that fuel cutoff switches had to be pulled and then moved, and not just simply flipped, @Fielder posted right after a link to an article where the following is written, and if proved to be the case can then be considered a serious flaw in the fuel cutoff switches design used in 737s in 2019 and according to the article also in Air India's 787 😕 

Still, it would be very unplausible to inadvertently move each of the switches, not both at the same time... I believe. 

Were the two pilots alone in the cockpit?

The crash has raised renewed scrutiny over the design and placement of the critical fuel cutoff switches. 

The report noted that in 2019, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) warning that some Boeing 737 fuel switches had been installed with their locking features disengaged. However, the issue was not considered hazardous enough to require mandatory repairs or actions under federal aviation rules.

The same switch design was used in Air India's doomed aircraft, but Air India did not perform inspections as the alert was advisory. 

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by jcomm

8 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Aviation is a pressure cooker industry, I dreamed of flyng growing up as many of us on here, I went to flight school from 1995 to 1997, biggest thing I learned from flight school was I was dreaming of being a pilot back in the golden age in the 60s and 70s era, the way the industry was changing in the 90s I learned not to go into commercial from my private licence, because the industry was going to ruin my dream of flying, better to keep it fun as a hobby instead.

I remember one of our flight instructors used to say, "you grow up dreaming of flying, only to learn you become a caged bird" 

This is exactly right, believe me you made the right decision.

I’ve seen the industry change tremendously and pilots, engineers and crew pushed to the absolute limits.

Regulatory Flight time limitation schemes are now  used by airlines as targets rather than limits to squeeze the absolute maximum amount of work and productivity.

 

13 hours ago, paulyg123 said:

Any chance the switched were moved in a suicide.  It would not be the first time

I fear that is a distinct possibility.

Quote

"However, the report does not identify the cause - whether it was crew error, mechanical malfunction, or electronic failure."

Quote from a Sky News report. Are all of these potential options, or do they know for certain that the fuel switches were manually set to CUT OFF?

This is the interesting question Chris, but the timing ,about a second apart is consistent with a manual action.

There's a YT video by an experience dreamliner pilot who says he thinks it unlikely that a pilot or copilot could move those switches so quickly, only 1 second between the two switches moving. 

 

He seems to be saying that he thinks both pilots were astonished the switches had been moved, that neither had done it.