242 on board. Prospects for them not looking good…
If it's suicide that really confirms the scary fact that if a pilot wants to bring a plane down they will, no matter what little insurance steps are taken to prevent it.
We'll see what the final conclusions are...
Juan goes through the actual report:
here’s a pdf of the prelim
(Not sure if already posted)
https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf
It's mass murder- suicide. If this turns out to be true it's the second one in a decade, after the Germanwings crash from 2015.
The Malaysian Airlines flight from 2014 was almost certainly murder-suicide as well.
…. MH370 supposedly at the bottom of the Indian ocean. Search for wreckage to resume in November.
For what reason would you have switches to cutoff fuel to the engines in the first place?
On the ground for switching the engines off, in the air I presume to cut fuel to the engine if there's a fire.
To me it sounds like one of the pilots was not suicidal but got distracted, or had something else on his mind, and toggled the switches just at the most critical moment. If the plane had been higher the engines would have recovered in time. He got embarrased and denied he switched them. Pilots are human and can make mistakes.
They could have had the NTSB read out the recorders the next day but they refused. Then delayed issuing the preliminary report as long as they could.
As explained above, the switches can not be accidentally moved. 'Distracted' is implausible because it's impossible.
Yes, but on that one there is also a compelling theory that is was a hijacking that wend bad.
It's the critical moment of takeoff and you really want to claim he was maybe wondering whether he left the oven on and accidentally cut off fuel to the engines then instead of admitting and doing everything possible to fix it just calmly denied it? Sounds totally implausible.
Yeah if he was in his right mind there's no way he wouldn't have been able to rectify the 'mistake' in the extremely unlikely event he had made it in the first place. I presume it only takes a seond to turn the switch back on…
They delayed and are still at it, by not specifying which pilot said what.
India denied any aircraft losses to Pakistan in operation Sindoor. Eventually after 24 days they admitted losses, but not their number. It's taken France to reveal that one of the losses was a Rafale.
The cutoff switches were put in the off position high enough to guarantee a crash but not high enough to allow for recovery - this is clearly premeditated.
They actually could be albeit, I agree with you in that this is far, far more likely a deliberate act.
In 2018 Boeing issued an SAIB relating to a fault in the locking and ratcheting mechanism on the fuel cutoff switches used on 737 & 787.
The Air India 787 uses the same module, Air India have confirmed that the module was never inspected for this fault.
I was reading up a bit on the Air India 787 engine issue in 2018 that contributed to Boeing issuing a SAIB (rather than a directive) in 2018 to check the ratcheting/locking mechanisms on 737 & 787 fuel selector switches.
It was in 2018 that the US FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), NM-18-33, on potential problems with fuel control switch locking mechanisms on Boeing aircraft.
The bulletin came after reports that these switches were installed with their locking features disengaged on some Boeing 737s.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/not-mandatory-us-regulator-flagged-fuel-switch-issues-in-2018-what-air-india-told-crash-probe-team-101752310443969.html
It appears that the crashed 787, had never been checked for the issue.
It again however, would require 2 separate switches to encounter the same failure at the same time. Versus it being as seems more likely, a deliberate action on the part of a pilot.
It also highlights the danger inherent in issuing a bulletin for a potential fault that could lead to airframe loss rather than a directive.
Where risk to life is possible, the manufacturer and the regulators must take far more effective action than just issuing a notice.
All well and good, except as noted in that article, there was never any such defect noted for the switches in question;
Notably, no defect has been reported regarding the fuel control switches on VT-ANB since 2023.
The likely reason it's not a directive would be the infinitesimal chance both switches on a given plane would have the defect and the fact the plane can fly on one engine.
It wouldn't surprise me if the activation of the switches while not on the ground and flaps extended/undercarriage down, was made impossible or very difficult in the future.
If they've never been checked for the defect? Then of course no defect would be reported. Air India confirmed they never reviewed any of their aircraft using the notified modules were ever investigated for the fault
The defect is related to the locking mechanism, not the switches themselves. This failure makes it easier to move the switches, but doesn't make them move by themselves.
How ridiculous it is that one can simply turn these switches off so easily . And that they are positioned in a very busy spot for hands. You'd think it would be safer to have those switches up and away from throttle , where you need to reach and lean somewhere above to move them on and off. It's like having a cutoff button on a gearstick of a car.
There is no way to accidentally turn these switches off
It means that where the fault exists they can be moved inadvertandly, without active unlock step by the pilot. It means that were both switches afflicted with the fault?(However unlikely) That there is a non-zero chance that the switches could be moved by being knocked, as happened with the flight that that led to the bulletin being issued.
To be clear, I dont believe that an inadvertent knock against both switches caused the fuel cut off. However, given that one of the flights in 2018 that led to the Bulletin being issued, was an Air India flight? For Air India to confirm that they undertook no checks of the switches highlighted in the Bulletins is IMHO, reckless and unnecessary risk taking on their part.
Should the engine KILL switches be right there, so prominent in front of the throttles?
Just asking, as it seems to me (not an aviator) that they should not be right there in the mix, but rather off to one side possibly with duplicate switches (for pilot & Copilot to act in tandem) should an engine need to be shut down. That way this scenario could never happen - for whatever reason, malicious or otherwise.
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/air-india-crash-2018-fuel-switch-warning/
The guard lock should be a lift-and-throw mechanism, requiring effort to uncover the switches before they can be moved. However, multiple Boeing 737 operators found that the guard lock was not properly engaged.
This meant the switch could potentially be moved without lifting the guard, presenting a risk of accidental activation and inflight engine shutdown. It should be noted that, although the risk was present, no accidental inflight shutdowns had been recorded.
They dithered for over a week but that's not the same as having the data after only a day or two and sitting on it for a month.
Thinking about it again. If I were investigating this i wouldn't just be taking media reports at face value as to who issued the mayday. Maybe they need to interview work colleagues and or relatives before confirming which voice is which on the cvr
Anyone know enough to answer this out of interest?
If there is an engine fire (or risk of one) you need to be able to quickly shut down the fuel supply.
I think the fuel supply is also disconnected when parked.
From the little I know, in the event of any engine fire. Back in the 80s the Kegworth crash was caused by the pilot cutting fuel to the working engine. Flight from Belfast as far as I can recall,
