An update on the WSJ article which, "if true," constitutes a serious indictment of Indian investigators for allegedly failing to report the "complete cockpit conversations" between the Captain and the PF in the preliminary report. The complete audio was also heard directly by Jennifer Homendy, head of the NTSB, the American investigative agency that investigates transportation accidents, who reportedly confirmed the WSJ's report.

So, from the cockpit audio recordings, it seems it was immediately clear that it was the Captain who had put the switches in CUTOFF.

On 7/14/2025 at 3:01 PM, RobPol471 said:

It's important to keep in mind, as you rightly say, that many things need to be reconsidered these days.

First, the images recorded in the cockpit would be part of the "exclusive" investigation in the event of an accident.

Second, I find it ridiculous that this Association calls the presence of a cockpit webcam an "obstacle," when there are hundreds of videos showing what happens inside a cockpit... taken and published online by... pilots. And it doesn't seem to me that all those pilots are concerned... or that they think their webcam is an obstacle in the cockpit!

The fact that those pilots who record in the cockpit don’t think it’s an obstacle IS THE PROBLEM. It’s one of the biggest problems cropping up the industry world wide. 
 

There is zero need of a pilot recording anything when he/she is working a flight. 
 

I question the professionalism and the ability of the pilot to not let the fact that they are recording get in the way of them flying an airplane. 

15 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

The fact that those pilots who record in the cockpit don’t think it’s an obstacle IS THE PROBLEM. It’s one of the biggest problems cropping up the industry world wide. 
 

There is zero need of a pilot recording anything when he/she is working a flight. 
 

I question the professionalism and the ability of the pilot to not let the fact that they are recording get in the way of them flying an airplane. 

I haven't seen any cockpit videos showing any pilot distraction or lack of professionalism because the footage is captured by "fixed" webcams, not by the pilots themselves. I believe no pilot would publish a video if this professionalism were lacking. In fact, at least I believe, if a webcam were in the cockpit along with the CVR and FDR, it would increase the professionalism of the pilots, who... don't want webcams in the cockpit.

Obviously, this recording should be used "only" in the event of an accident, as is the case with the CVR and FDR.

15 minutes ago, RobPol471 said:

I haven't seen any cockpit videos showing any pilot distraction or lack of professionalism because the footage is captured by "fixed" webcams, not by the pilots themselves. I believe no pilot would publish a video if this professionalism were lacking. In fact, at least I believe, if a webcam were in the cockpit along with the CVR and FDR, it would increase the professionalism of the pilots, who... don't want webcams in the cockpit.

Obviously, this recording should be used "only" in the event of an accident, as is the case with the CVR and FDR.

Yeah, “obviously.” Unions have fought originally to make sure CVRs weren’t going to be used punitively. 
 

My argument goes way past the way something looks on video and to the heart of pilots recording themselves. The motive, most likely is to put it on YouTube or to show off said videos. That in and of itself shows that their motivation when flying the airplane may in fact be split between flying the airplane and making sure the video looks good or something else pertaining to the video. 
 

What you don’t see is the set up involved. Is that taking away time from the pre flight? Are they going to be fiddling with the video equipment immediately when they level off? 
 

In my opinion, this stuff is no different than phones in the cockpit. 
 

I understand we have different opinions. 

28 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Yeah, “obviously.” Unions have fought originally to make sure CVRs weren’t going to be used punitively. 
 

My argument goes way past the way something looks on video and to the heart of pilots recording themselves. The motive, most likely is to put it on YouTube or to show off said videos. That in and of itself shows that their motivation when flying the airplane may in fact be split between flying the airplane and making sure the video looks good or something else pertaining to the video. 
 

What you don’t see is the set up involved. Is that taking away time from the pre flight? Are they going to be fiddling with the video equipment immediately when they level off? 
 

In my opinion, this stuff is no different than phones in the cockpit. 
 

I understand we have different opinions. 

My first post where I talked about installing a webcam in the cockpit was "exclusively" referring to installing a webcam in the cockpit to implement CVR and FDR in the event of an accident, then the issue shifted to another post similar to yours, on the videos published by pilots and the professionalism that would be lacking but if we stick to what I said the first time, what should be discussed is "exclusively" the presence or otherwise of this webcam which, being "fixed and "autonomous" in the cockpit, must be considered on a par with the CVR and FDR and therefore only in the event of an accident, of which the pilots are perfectly aware of the existence but are not distracted nor should they deal with it.

This might be interesting.

From 14:56

 

 

The Indian EXPRESS publishes an article in reference to the WSJ news that it was the Captain who placed the switches in Cutoff and title:

"AAIB slams some foreign media reports for 'irresponsible', unverified claims on AI 171 crash probe. 
The AAIB DG also said that the AAIB will also publish updates of technical and public interest “as and when required”."

https://indianexpress.com/article/business/aviation/aaib-global-media-irresponsible-reporting-selective-unverified-claims-air-india-crash-10133012/?ref=hometop_hp

The plane reportedly had thousands of flights, it was 11 yrs old.  It seems to me that the mechanical stops on the fuel switches could become terribly worn if not replaced and maintained?  Just thinking out loud.

Edited July 17, 2025Jul 17 by tdflightsim

As far as I am aware, the entire throttle assembly unit had been replaced twice during the lifetime of the aircraft, with the most recent replacement being in 2023.

4 hours ago, tdflightsim said:

The plane reportedly had thousands of flights, it was 11 yrs old.  It seems to me that the mechanical stops on the fuel switches could become terribly worn if not replaced and maintained?  Just thinking out loud.

maybe but doesn't explain why the captain switched the cutoff fuel to off for

On 7/14/2025 at 2:18 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

II believe it’s impossible for those switches to be moved by anything other than a human.

Oh, oh!  I knew it!

50 minutes ago, charliearon said:

Oh, oh!  I knew it!

The dreaded feral cabin kitty.  Should have known.

@jon b, as a professional pilot I was wondering if you could give us an insight into how airlines check the mental state of both applicants and those employed.

Checks for competence in the simulator are well known but I was wondering if they’re allowed access to medical records through official channels of course.

Your experience is only for British employers of course. The situation in India is unknown as is knowing if they’re short of pilots or have no vacancies.

Given we’ve had two incidents involving crew’s mental state (GermanWings 2015 and probably this one) I was wondering if airlines are tightening up on this area.

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

how airlines check the mental state of both applicants and those employed

Ray,

In 2022, EASA conducted a study (MESAFE - Mental Health for Aviation Safety) specifically in response to the GermanWings accident.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/mesafe_-_d-1.1_-_report_on_the_review_of_diagnostic_measures.pdf

The report covers what AME's are responsible to assess in periodic medicals as well as the challenges they face with making challenging assessments based on a pilot's own self admissions during the medical review.

Other avenues for diagnosis are of course peer assessments (that may or may not get officially reported).

Just this week, where I live (YVR), a former commercial pilot "hijacked" a Cessna from Victoria Airport and hazardously circled the YVR airport allegedly claiming protest to global warming. Fortunately, he landed safely but not before shutting down the YVR airport to commercial transport and causing a response/preliminary reaction from NORAD. The details are still sketchy on whether his license was current (unlikely) and that he may have been a returning student pilot renting the Cessna...regardless, the onus is on an AME to diagnose any potential mental illness.

It seems like everything else in life/business is about "playing the odds"...given the amount of commercial flights across the globe annually, multiplied by the number of pilots, there are always going to be a few (sadly) "nutters" getting through the cracks...if that is what is determined for this Air India 171 accident.

 

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Given we’ve had two incidents involving crew’s mental state (GermanWings 2015 and probably this one) I was wondering if airlines are tightening up on this area.

I agree that mental health evaluations for pilots is a good idea, and maybe they could catch potentially dangerous signs thereby triggering a suspension of the pilot's license.

We've had this same discussion relating to firearm ownership in the USA, where so-called "red flag" statutes could be used to take away someone's firearms if they are deemed to be a danger.

I just question the reliability and accuracy of these mental evaluations.  Are they good enough to be used as grounds for revoking someone's pilot's license? 

Dave