I have previously commented on the standards of NTSB preliminary reports. One month after the Air India 787 crash, a fifteen page preliminary report by Indian Aviation Accident Investigators has been issued with definitive causation…….fuel cut-off activation.
Has that been released today Aus?
Been talked about in aviation circles for a while but if course all speculation until a definite report is issued.
My initial thoughts were that the flaps were retracted instead of the landing gear but that seems to be incorrect as a loss of thrust is now to the fore
244,
Just released. Co-Pilot was conducting the take-off. Both fuel switches were moved to cut off.
Edit: These switches cannot be accidentally moved. It would appear that it was an intentional act.
I read somewhere that the Indian law requires a preliminary report to be published within one month of the accident date.
In this case, the cause was apparently easy to find.
Why this happened remains somewhat mysterious…
The European regulation states that (at least for shipping accidents) a preliminary report is due within one year if the final report is not yet complete.
The preliminary report is generally meaningless…
Because the final report also reveals responsibility, it must first be approved by those involved… which can take time…
I think my main point of contention is that the Indian Aviation Investigative Authorities were willing to share that finding in the preliminary report rather than delaying to the final report. Clearly, this is a significant safety issue which needed to be flagged ASAP. Perhaps now, safety covers will be fitted over the fuel cut off switches similar to our ME emergency shutdown switches fitted to wheelhouse consoles
Edit: These switches are fitted with a locking mechanism although some are installed with the mechanism disengaged. There was an FAA advisory directive sent out about it.
The news I read stated that the Pilot asked the Copilot why he threw those switches, and then made his Mayday call.
Blimey 
Although routinely used to shut down the engines I too was surprised to see that they did not have better guards on them.
Although it would not have prevented a deliberate act.
It also answered the question, did the pilots deliberately shut down the engines when a crash was inevitable.
But Boeing saved at least $30 by not using toggle switch guards.
3 Likes
Okay, so if these switches were easy to move inadvertently or accidentally, with the 8.3 gazillion 737s out there, why aren’t they dropping out of the sky like leaves on an autumn day? I think it’s been shown that the switches did have a protective feature, but we’ll see what kind of condition the actual suspect switches were in. Besides-- genuine aircraft grade toggle switch guards have to be at least ten times the price you quote. And those in military service are a hundred times more expensive than that. 
So who said they were? Certainly not me because I have used a lot of them on aircraft.
Look up milspec switch guards made by a company called Safran, they supply Boeing. The switchguards cost $30 to the general public. Boeing probably gets a better price.
I seen two comments by type qualified pilots on 787’s . Both say there is a spring loaded gate on the switches and they have to be lifted before being moved.
That type of switch is used in several controls, particularly those used to select alternate inputs or outputs. Pulling the lever out before changing the state requires a positive action and is for all practical purposes, impossible to accidently change the state. The spring is strong and it takes two fingers (usually thumb and joint of first finger) to pull the lever over the gate.
Last I read they said there was a loss of fuel to both engines. I haven’t read that they found the switches off. Kinda makes sense if one asks the other why he shut off the fuel and he said he didn’t. From “Ask the Pilot” who has more time than I to read thru all this:
"The preliminary crash report on Air India flight 171 is out, and what it says is startling.
It contends that at the moment of takeoff, both fuel control switches “transitioned” from the RUN to CUTOFF positions, essentially killing both engines.
One of the pilots is then heard asking the other why he did this. The second pilot responds that he did not. (Which pilot was speaking to whom is not specified.)
A few seconds later the switches transitioned back into the RUN position. The engines began spooling up again, but there was nowhere near enough time for them to produce adequate power.
In other words, it seems that one of the pilots switched off the fuel intentionally.
Or did he? Notice the investigators’ use of the word “transitioned.” The report is not fully clear as to whether the data recorder was tracking the flow of fuel independent of the switch position, or if it shows the switches themselves were, in fact, physically moved by hand. If they weren’t, it remains possible that an electronic glitch in the plane’s digital engine control system could be the culprit.
But if the switches were moved to CUTOFF manually, the billion-dollar question is why? Were they moved by accident, or nefariously? Was it an act of absurd absent-mindedness, or one of willful mass murder, a la EgyptAir, Germanwings, and (almost certainly) MH370.
As preposterous as the idea of a pilot mistakenly shutting off the engines sounds, I’ll note that it’s happened before. Consensus, however, is trending toward premise number two.
At least to me, though, the dynamics of the crash don’t really fit the suicide theory. You’re saying that the pilot’s plan was to cut both engines and let the plane glide into the ground? That seems an awfully conservative scheme. There would be a lot of unknowns in such a scenario, and no guarantee that the ensuing impact would be as disastrous as it turned out to be.
Just to the left of the impact zone was an area with no buildings and fewer obstructions. Perhaps with just a little more altitude they could’ve reached it, resulting in a crash that was partly survivable. Calculating the exact impact point ahead of time would’ve been nearly impossible.
Further, the second pilot denied shutting off the engines when queried by the first one. Why?
Rumors are circulating that the captain was going through a divorce and had been treated for depression. Whether or not this out to be true, just keep in mind that although depression sometimes turns people suicidal, only in the rarest cases does it also turn them murderous.
One thing that should pique interest is the report’s inclusion of a Boeing service bulletin issued a few years ago. The concern was fuel control switches failing to properly lock. The bulletin pertained to 737s, but the same basic switch is used on the 787 as well. Is it possible the fuel switches on Air India 171 were defective, and were moved from RUN to CUTOFF by nudge or vibration?"
It’s Boeing who knows? Hope no one gets sick.
1 Like
1 Like
Worth reading:
I’ve been involved in the analysis of similar incidents, back in the day, in systems that are no longer of interest. I advise caution until we know exactly what event is measured by the data recorder and eliminated all possible causes except switch position.
Cheers,
Earl
2 Likes
Question is who ultimately with the Air India case has the knowledge and access to the information to investigate properly? Boeing? Air India? AAIB? I am suspicious of some governmental investigators telling all they know due to regulatory capture.Not to mention the manufacturers and airline owners. I wish there was some independent international peer reviewed office to handle such things.
I agree, this one is highly suspect. Our only hope of gaining insight into “was the switch thrown or was it something else” is if someone with intimate knowledge of the system comes forward and enumerates to possible causes of the data recorder entry.
Earl
1 Like
There are some aircraft types which will only allow fuel cutoff activation when the engines are at idle.
Why are these Boeing aircraft designed in such a way as to allow fuel cutoff at full thrust?
2 Likes