22 ms·
Preliminary report into Air India crash released
Report: https://aaib.gov.in/What%27s%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf https://aaib.gov.in/What%27s%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Re...
- rawgabbit 1y agoQuote: As we just reported, the report says that according to data from the flight recorder both the fuel control switches, which are normally used to switch the engines on or off when on the ground, were moved from the run to the cutoff position shortly after takeoff. This caused both engines to lose thrust. The preliminary report suggests this is pilot error.
- lazharichir 1y agoFrom my (limited) understanding you cannot really switch these off inadvertently as they require a couple of actions in order to be switched off. So it would mean one of the pilots switched these off (and they were a few seconds later switched on again but it was too late). But there was audio, too, and one pilot asked the other "why did you switch these off" and the second one said "I didn't". Was there are third one in the jump seat?
- zihotki 1y agoIt does not suggest that. It only says they were turned off and no other conclusion given.
- mallets 1y agoWell, shit. Suicidal? And this can't possibly be all the audio if the other pilot noticed the switch position, I would expect a lot more cussing and struggle. So they didn't notice the switch position? The switch was in the right position but not really? Is this a rarely used switch that one might not look at (or know where to look) during regular use? 10 seconds between OFF and ON.
- chupchap 1y agoFrom what I've read, it comes on the display as a warning
- lazide 1y agoDual engine failure on takeoff gives them about as much time to react as if the front passenger grabbed the steering wheel while on a windy mountain road and yanked them off a cliff. It only takes a few seconds to completely screw everyone, but a bit longer for the consequences to occur.
- rwmj 1y agoThe India AAIB website (https://aaib.gov.in/ https://aaib.gov.in/) is not responding ... For anyone who read the report, was there information about the age & experience of the pilots?
- mtmail 1y ago56 years old, 15638 hours (8596 on this type) and 32 years old, 3403 hours (1128 on this type). Page 11 of the PDF report.
- foldr 1y agoReport PDF here: https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Repo...
- belter 1y agoNot accessible. Have they heard about S3 ?
- foldr 1y agoIt loads for me, so I think the link will be useful for some people at least.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoIt's getting hugged by the world and they didn't use a CDN apparently.
- shoghicp 1y agomirror https://web.archive.org/web/20250711203907/https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20250711203907/https://aaib.gov....
- d_silin 1y agoReport page that matters: https://x.com/exodusorbitals/status/1943782924576309732 https://x.com/exodusorbitals/status/1943782924576309732
- decimalenough 1y ago> 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. So the fuel supply was cut off intentionally. The switches in question are also built so they cannot be triggered accidentally, they need to be unlocked first by pulling them out. > 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. And both pilots deny doing it. It's difficult to conclude anything other than murder-suicide.
- chupchap 1y agoOr a mechanical failure
- ceejayoz 1y agoBoth switches, at slightly different times? Seems pretty unlikely.
- userbinator 1y agoA rodent chewing on wires. Vibration-induced chafing. Tin whiskers causing an intermittent short. There are many possibilities, those came to mind first.
- Epa095 1y agoBut why does the pilot then comment that they are in the CUTTOF position and move it to RUN? A mechanical failure would have to also move the physical switch in the cockpit for the audio recording to make sence.
- userbinator 1y agoYou have the exact CVR audio? The report says "one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff" which I interpreted to mean one of them noticed the engines shutting down, and asked the other if he did that.
- bob1029 1y ago> 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. I know it's probably not worth the hazmat tradeoff for such a rare event, but the F-16 has an EPU powered by hydrazine that can spool up in about a second.
- ceejayoz 1y agoI suspect any civil aviation engineer who goes "let's add hydrazine!" to fix problems has a fairly short career, lol.
- lazide 1y agoYeah, now you have at least two problems.
- jeffrallen 1y agoThe prof from "chemicals I won't work with" has entered the chat...
- throwaway48476 1y agoIf you think a suicidal pilot can do a lot of damage just think what releasing a ton of hydrazine in a packed airport would do.
- ExoticPearTree 1y agoTo my knowledge, hydrazine is extremely toxic. Most likely no regulator will allow it on commercial aircraft.
- SJC_Hacker 1y agoThe only solution I can think of is emergency parachutes. Like lots of them. would also be useful for other types of in air engine/control failures. At least it worked for me on Kerbal Space Program. At least sometimes.
- apt-apt-apt-apt 1y agoEven if the plane had no power, why couldn't they have glided it down safely?
- detaro 1y agohow do you "safely" glide into a city?
- russfink 1y agoI’ll take this as an honest question. The simple answer: too much mass, no clear landing path, not enough speed or altitude to turn to find one and glide to it. In short, not enough time. Once the engines cut, that thing probably dropped like a brick.
- stetrain 1y agoIt did glide briefly, the glide path took it directly into a school building. Right after takeoff at low altitude is basically the worst place for this to happen. Speed and altitude are low so gliding is going to be a short distance and happen quickly. If there had been a perfect empty long flat grass field in that location it may have been salvageable, but also right after takeoff the plane usually has a heavy fuel load which makes for a much riskier landing. Edit: This article has a map showing the glide path: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/12/air-india-flight-171-plane-crash-what-we-know-ahmedabad-gatwick https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/12/air-india-flig...
- appreciatorBus 1y agoThey only ever got a few hundred feet off the ground. Yes of course the plane glided once the engines stopped, producing thrust, just like all planes do. But just like all planes, and all gliders, gliding means trading altitude for velocity - giving up precious height every second in order to maintain flight. At that stage in the flight, they just didn’t have enough to give. If the same thing had happened at 30,000 feet, it would be a non-event. They would glide down a few thousand feet as the engines spool back up and once they return to full power, everything will be back to normal. Or if for some reason, the engines were permanently cooked, you’d have maybe 20 to 30 minutes of glide time so you’ve got a lot of time to look around and find a flat spot. But you just don’t have enough time for all that to happen When you’re a few hundred feet off the ground.
- ChrisArchitect 1y agoMore discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44536691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44536691
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- cosmicgadget 1y agoThe report says the co-pilot was flying so it's most likely the pilot cut the fuel?
- sillysaurusx 1y agoCorrect. Which means it’s the older of the two.
- janice1999 1y agoThe report does not identify which pilot said what. Attempting to extrapolate their identities is speculation.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoThe report specifically says the FO was flying. The conversation is immaterial since the person who cut the fuel could have made either statement.
- sillysaurusx 1y ago[flagged]
- suyash 1y agoIs there a possibility that they got hacked and remotely toggled ?
- sillysaurusx 1y agoSadly not. It’s a physical switch with no capability of a remote toggle. The flight data recorder clearly shows one was toggled off within a second of the other, which rules out almost every non-intentional scenario.
- acjohnson55 1y agoWhat if he mistook the switch for a different switch?
- rogerrogerr 1y agoIt's an entirely different shape, different location, and different motion from any other switch they could be looking for. Suicide is a way more likely explanation. And, it's _two_ switches.
- nine_k 1y agoIs this a switch that has a dedicated connection to the corresponding cutoff valve? Or does it go through some common digital bus that passes commands? If so, how well is this bus protected?
- appreciatorBus 1y agoAnother commentator has pointed out that the flight data recorder records two signals - one for the switch itself, and one for the actual valve movement. I take your point that we should always be suspicious of complicated, digital buses, and this is not the final report, so there’s still plenty of time to uncover weirdness. However, if the flight date reporter shows the switch being thrown, and then a few milliseconds later, shows the valve starting to close, and the same sequence happening shortly there after on the second switch and valve, I feel this would really limit the likelihood of any digital shenanigans.
- fsckboy 1y agoit makes sense to me that the pilot who said "I did not do it" actually did do it without realizing it, was supposed to be putting the landing gear up when he committed a muscle memory mistake. it happened around the time the landing gear should be up, and this explanation matches what was said in the cockpit, and the fact that the landing gear wasn't retracted. I think this idea was even floated initially by the youtube pilot/analysts I watch but dismissed as unlikely.
- codefeenix 1y agoeven though that raising the gear is a up motion and fuelcut off is a down motion?
- rogerrogerr 1y agoAnd fuel cutoff is _two_ down motions? That's the death knell for this theory, imo.
- fsckboy 1y agoi have several passwords i type all the time. sometimes i get them confused and type the wrong one to the wrong prompt. i type them by muscle memory, but i also think about them while typing and i think thoughts like "time to reach up and to the left on the keyboard for this password". I couldn't tell you the letter i'm trying to type, i just know to do that. not all my passwords are up and to the left, some are down and to the right, but when i type the wrong one into the wrong place, i type it accurately, i'm just not supposed to be typing it. "time to do that thing i've practiced, reach to the left". shuts two engines off by muscle memory.
- WalterBright 1y agoMy editor is MicroEmacs, which I've been using since the 1980s. I no longer remember what the commands are, but my fingers do. I remember once writing a cheat sheet for the commands by looking at what my fingers were doing.
- jekwoooooe 1y ago[flagged]
- celsoazevedo 1y agoReport mirror as the site seems to be down: https://celsoazevedo.com/files/2025/Preliminary_Report_VT_ANB.pdf https://celsoazevedo.com/files/2025/Preliminary_Report_VT_AN...
- comrade1234 1y agoWhy can the pilot shut off the fuel during takeoff?
- jeffbee 1y agoSuggest a system that would prevent this, but only this, without causing other risks.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bob1029 1y agoDisable the fuel system cutoff controls during the takeoff climb phase of flight. Once the aircraft loses contact with the runway, these controls shouldn't function without tripping certain thresholds (speed & altitude), or following a two-man procedure that is physically impossible to execute solo. In any other flight regime, the controls function as originally designed. The danger of a burning engine is irrelevant if you are heading into terrain.
- dboreham 1y agoSounds good, but I'm not sure I trust Boeing outsourced software developers to implement that absolutely correctly.
- yongjik 1y agoNow you created a fuel system cutoff control inhibition system which may malfunction in its own ways, e.g., refuse to cut off fuels from a burning engine because it thinks the plane is too low due to faulty altimeter reading.
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago> The danger of a burning engine is irrelevant if you are heading into terrain. Not quite. When you hit the ground you do not want any fuel leaks or hot surfaces as much as possible. That is why for example engines are shutdown when doing an emergency belly landing, to try abd prevent the airplane from bursting into flames.
- bigtones 1y agoEach of the fuel switches on the 787 is equipped with a locking mechanism that is supposed to prevent accidental movement, experts said. To turn the fuel supply on, the switch must be pulled outward and then moved to a “RUN” position, where it is released and settles back into a locked position. To turn the fuel supply off, the switch must be pulled outward again, moved to the “CUTOFF” position and then released again. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/world/asia/air-india-crash-report.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/world/asia/air-india-cras...
- callmeal 1y agoOr they could be inadvertently flipped if the "locking" version was not installed: (see the avherald link): >>India's media report that the investigation is NOT focussing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure. Service Bulletins by Boeing issued in year 2018 recommending to upgrade the fuel switches to locked versions to prevent inadvertent flip of the switches, as well as the FAA/GE issued Service Bulletin FAA-2021-0273-0013 Attachment 2 relating to loss of control issue (also see above) were NOT implemented by Air India.
- interestica 1y agohttps://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18-33.pdf/SIB_NM-18-33_1 https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18-33.pdf/SIB_NM-18-33_1 > Recommendations The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected airplanes incorporate the following actions at the earliest opportunity: 1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure its engagement. While the airplane is on the ground, check whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without lifting it up, the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at the earliest opportunity. 2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes and Boeing Model 737- 8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the fuel control switch with a switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved locking feature.
- labcomputer 1y ago
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- 1970-01-01 1y agoIt's safe to state these fuel cutoff switches aren't to be touched in-flight unless the word 'fire' is said beforehand. Even then, you only perform fuel cutoff for the flaming engine. If the copilot was busy with takeoff, there is exactly one other person in the entire world that could have flipped both switches. We may never know which one flipped them back.
- WalterBright 1y agoFire isn't the only instantly severe problem with engines. Another is violent shaking if, say, part of the rotating assembly came off.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoYep. Fan blade off, shroud separation, HP disc separation, compressor stall, FOD ingestion/bird strike, EGT rise, oil system issues. Very unlikely events but still possible events that need a prepared response to and capabilities to manage the aircraft. The presumption is that the crew is trained, diligent, disciplined, and concerned with survival. Without that, aircraft would need to be unmanned and flown by AI lacking in ability to handle any unforeseen events creatively.
- imoverclocked 1y agoI'm not sure you want a creative AI flying a plane anyway.
- ExoticPearTree 1y agoYou can call it Schroedinger Airlines :)) You may or may not reach your destination. Or something like that.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoJust leave the door closed at all times, and then there's no definitive problem.
- resize2996 1y ago[flagged]
- sxg 1y agoStudying how humans make errors is a fascinating field. Simply banning someone who's made a "slip" error as hypothesized wouldn't actually reduce the likelihood of this error occurring in the future. These sorts of errors are stochastic and could happen to anyone at any time. Preventing them requires a lot of thought.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoHuman factors portion of the investigation.
- xyst 1y agoA simple wrong flip of a switch killed 260 people and leaving 1 lone survivor who walked away from the plane crash nearly unscathed. Dudes is extremely lucky or the character from Unbreakable.
- stetrain 1y agoA flip of two switches, in sequence, with a locking mechanism on each switch.
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- resist_futility 1y agoIn this YouTube short you can see the pilot switching both fuel cutoff to run https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bd4Bler36Nk https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bd4Bler36Nk
- deadbabe 1y agothere's literally two other similar switches right next to those?
- resist_futility 1y agoThe switches on the lower panel that are switched, are the fuel cutoffs
- anonzzzies 1y agoBut they don't look protected or hard to switch?
- ojosilva 1y agoNo they don't, do they. That also corroborates the fact that they could be both switched to CUTOFF within a second, like the report states. That impossibility was raised by parallel threads here. In the video they are both switched on even faster than 1 sec apart, or, at least it feels like it.
- vishnugupta 1y agoThe pilot is toggling the switch on. Toggling it off presumably requires more power and is multiple actions.
- shash 1y agoYou move those switches down apparently. I don't think so.
- Anishx7 1y agoreached v1, then when airborn fuel cut off. Seems like there was a FAA report like in 2018 that recommended few airplane models (incl this one) to check the fuel valves correctly, seems like air india didn't do it. Turns out it was made by Honeywell
- sandspar 1y agoAll evidence suggests that the plane was fully functional. The switches were moved by one of the pilots.
- smohare 1y ago[dead]
- jeswin 1y agoThe switch had to be operated deliberately, but still a UX fail on a modern aircraft if cutting off fuel to the engines does not result in an audible alert/alarm which both pilots can hear - especially at that altitude.
- testrun 1y agoIt would not make any difference. They were too low and did not have enough time to recover. They immediately switched back to on. Two captains is discussing it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0BetkXsLg).
- shawabawa3 1y agoAre you sure there wasn't an audible alarm? The switches were re-engaged within 10 seconds so isn't it possible they quickly heard a warning alarm, realised the issue and fixed it? (Of course, not quick enough in this case)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- maxbond 1y agoI just want to call out that, whatever the facts of this case, pilot heroism is way more common than pilot murder. This is off the top of my head, so don't quote me on the precise details, I'm probably misremembering some things. But a few of my favorite examples: - British Airways 5390: An incorrect repair causes the windshield of a plane to be blown out mid flight. A pilot is nearly sucked out. The head flight attendant holds onto his legs to keep him in the plane. The copilot and flight attendant think he is dead, but they keep the situation under control and land the plane. Everyone survives - including the pilot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGwHWNFdOvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGwHWNFdOvg - United 232: An engine explodes in the tail of an MD-10. Due to rotten luck and weaknesses in the design, it takes out all three of the redundant hydraulic systems, rendering the control surfaces inoperable. There's a pilot onboard as a passenger who, it just so happens, has read about similar incidents in other aircraft and trained for this scenario on his own initiative. He joins the other pilots in the cockpit and they figure out how to use the engines to establish rudimentary control. They crash just short of the runway. 112 people die, but 184 people survive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7CgWvD-x4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7CgWvD-x4 - Pinnacle 3701: Two pilots mess around with an empty plane. They take it up to it's operational ceiling. While they're goofing off, they don't realize they're losing momentum. They try to correct too late and cannot land safely. In their last moments they decide to sacrifice any chance they have to survive by not deploying their landing gear. They choose to glide for the maximum distance to avoid hitting houses, rather than maximizing how much impact is absorbed. They do hit a house but no one else is killed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCMmCekKO_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCMmCekKO_c
- notpushkin 1y agoMentour Pilot is a fantastic channel.
- maxbond 1y agoAnyone who does on-call should look into aviation disasters. Crew resource management, the aviate-navigate-communicate loop, it's all very applicable. ('WalterBright is an excellent source of commentary on applying lessons from the airline industry to software.) But I did burn out on Mentour Pilot after a while, I just had my fill of tragedy.
- efitz 1y agoIt’s interesting to see how many people are bending over backwards here to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion. If this was pilot suicide, it’s a terrible thing. If it was somehow an error (which seems very unlikely) or two defective controls (which seems even more unlikely), then it remains a tragedy. But I don’t need to do mental gymnastics to come up with implausible hypotheticals. This comment stream on HN is not a jury. We don’t have to refrain from making judgments right now about what happened. There is nothing wrong with rational people reaching a preliminary conclusion based on available evidence. Rational people should also remain open to revising their judgments/conclusions if new information becomes available. And we shouldn’t demand any specific consequences for anyone absent a trial.
- yallpendantools 1y ago[dead]
- padjo 1y agoIt’s nowhere near an obvious conclusion. A failure with the locking mechanism or muscle memory confusion are just as likely, and probably other theories I’m not thinking of. More investigation is clearly needed, which is why this is called a preliminary report.
- throwawayben 1y agoDual failure of the locking mechanism is extremely unlikely. These are not switches that are regularly used so a muscle memory issue also seems very unlikely (but is still the most likely non-suicide scenario)
- padjo 1y agoIf the switches have an unknown design flaw then it’s unknown how likely it is they’d both fail simultaneously My understanding is these switches are used routinely during the shutdown procedure or did I get that wrong?
- shawabawa3 1y ago
- imoverclocked 1y agoI have to wonder how much more time they would have had if the landing gear had been retracted early since the gear adds a lot of drag.
- sugarpimpdorsey 1y agoExcellent analysis here, those switches are stout, no one is moving them by accident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA_UZeHZwSw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA_UZeHZwSw
- callmeal 1y agoExcept when they are not: From the avherald link: >Service Bulletins by Boeing issued in year 2018 recommending to upgrade the fuel switches to locked versions to prevent inadvertent flip of the switches, as well as the FAA/GE issued Service Bulletin FAA-2021-0273-0013 Attachment 2 relating to loss of control issue (also see above) were NOT implemented by Air India.
- russdill 1y agoYou've linked to something regarding an ECU component. Nothing about fuel switches. "This Service Bulletin provides instructions to replace the EEC MN4 bridge ball grid array (BGA) microprocessor"
- fakedang 1y agoBecause that maintenance check is an optional one as stipulated by Boeing. I don't think most users of the 787 themselves carry out the check, so singling out Air India for this alone is just bad faith
- melenaboija 1y agoI'm completely ignorant about this matter, but why is it even possible to cut off fuel while taking off? Shouldn't there be a control that completely disables this? Is there actually a situation where cutting off both engines could be necessary and wouldn't lead to a catastrophe?
- Yokolos 1y agoEngine fire requires you to cut fuel to the affected engine.
- melenaboija 1y agoIs cutting off fuel while taking off a better solution than letting them burn?
- cjbprime 1y agoSometimes? If you have enough altitude to trade for speed then after the cutoff you could glide to a hypothetical miraculously-placed runway right in front of you, vs. having fire quickly consume the entire plane if you don't cutoff..
- labcomputer 1y agoIt is if you don’t want the wing spar to fail!
- cco 1y agoPretty sure nearly all runbooks have you first move the thrust lever to idle before cutting off fuel. That suggests you shouldn't be able to cut fuel independently of the throttle.
- xlbuttplug2 1y agoI'm assuming fuel being cut off is salvageable if not in the middle of a densely populated city, especially if above a plain or water. So it could be the favorable option in case of an engine fire. Also, such complexity would introduce additional points of failure - as a sister comment mentions, a faulty altimeter (or whatever sensor) could prevent you from cutting off fuel when you need to.
- gethly 1y agoIt's simple - just don't fly Boeing - ever.
- timeon 1y agoYou know what? I'm just not going to fly - ever.
- bravesoul2 1y agoYour choice but safer to fly than drive the same journey. Commercial airliners anyway.
- anton-c 1y agoYes I acknowledge this. But I also retain control to the very last moment. I don't have to bank on the driver of my vehicle not being suicidal. If I feel another driver is dangerous, I can just stop. This obviously doesnt prevent all accidents but I've never been in a serious one. That being said ive flown plenty of times. My fear comes from lacking any control and just finding out mid-flight were going down through no fault of my own. I wouldn't want to know, but then again air France 447 is terrifying too.
- lambdaone 1y agoYou still have to rely on other drivers not being actually suicidal. Just to give one terrifying example scenario: you will pass hundreds, if not thousands of other drivers driving in the opposite direction in the course of a long journey. Any motorist driving in the opposing lane has the ability to engage other drivers in a head-on collision at any time by making a relatively trivial maneuver. Given human reaction times, and the very high closing velocity of such a collision, you ability to avoid this would seem to be non-existent. You certainly couldn't "just stop" to prevent it.
- anton-c 1y agoThis is all true. It doesn't really apply to my personal driving situation where I can't recall the last time I personally was on a road with a speed limit above 40. I drive less than half the days a week. Thats part of maintaining control for me. I can't set plane schedules. I can drive when there's less drivers and on slow roads. Also, there are numerous situations you're leaving out where just stopping(or just slowing down) does solve the safety issue. Far more than a suicidal driver choosing me as their target.
- m101 1y agoWhat makes me more inclined to suicide is that this might have been the perfect time to do this so that even a small interruption in fuel would be catastrophic.
- chii 1y agoIf this is the case, you have to then think about why this pilot would want suicide but also murder all aboard the plane. It's a bit irrational if they wanted to just suicide - you can easily just cut your own throat, hang yourself, or jump off a tall building.
- azan_ 1y agoPeople do irrational things, especially if they are mentally unwell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
- bestouff 1y agoThere are already 5 other cases of pilot suicide with a full plane.
- franktankbank 1y agoLook at financial motive. Some insurance payout stipulation or pension obligation to his family may have been boosted by death on the job.
- xboxnolifes 1y agoIt's a mistake to try to rationalize suicide. People frequently make irrational decisions.
- seydor 1y agoSo what's the status of full self driving airplanes (aka autopilot , or maybe autodriver to avoid the bad connotations)
- yard2010 1y agoIt's a philosophical matter: even when we have self-driving cars boats and aeroplane a human should always make the final decision.
- Miner49er 1y agoIs it really desirable though? Sure, it might eliminate human error, but it also probably eliminate pilots saving planes. I don't think an autopilot would have put US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson.
- richardatlarge 1y agoI find these comments very illustrative when taken together- they nicely show how different explanations sound spot on until you read the next one. Inexplicable is one of the great words in the English language
- nottorp 1y agoAlmost 400 comments and no avherald link for reference? https://avherald.com/h?article=528f27ec https://avherald.com/h?article=528f27ec
- potamic 1y ago> On Jul 12th 2025 (UTC) India's media report that the investigation is NOT focussing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure. Service Bulletins by Boeing issued in year 2018 recommending to upgrade the fuel switches to locked versions to prevent inadvertent flip of the switches, as well as the FAA/GE issued Service Bulletin FAA-2021-0273-0013 Attachment 2 relating to loss of control issue (also see above) were NOT implemented by Air India. The stated MN4 computer with faulty soldering, that might weaken and lose contact due to the thermal stress after a number of cycles, interprets data and commands fuel metering valves - with the lost contact attaching the MN4 processor to the EEC intermittent electrical contact, loss of signal processing and engine control faults can occur. The SB writes under conditions for the SB: "An LOTC (Loss Of Thrust Control) event has occurred due to an EEC MN4 microprocessor solder ball failure." According to discussions in the industry it may be possible with the number of cycles VT-ANB had already completed, the solder balls were weakened sufficiently to detach the MN4 from the EEC momentarily due to loads during the takeoff rotation leading to the loss of control of thrust and shut down of the engines. Still quite early in the investigation, and so many things to consider. I don't know why online communities have been so quick to gravitate towards the murder/suicide theory. I thought aviation enthusiasts of all people would want to keep an open mind until every other possibility is ruled out, however minuscule it might seem.
- bestouff 1y agoKneejerk patriotic reaction ?
- VBprogrammer 1y agoMy concern would be that the investigation in this case is more likely to be biased towards a system failure. Disgracing a major flag carrier is something very few regulars have the independence and courage to get away with.
- UltraSane 1y agoVideo would definitively show whether either pilot moved these switches or if some other mechanism caused the movement. The aviation industry has consistently resisted cockpit video recording despite decades of available technology. The pilot unions argue privacy concerns, but cases like this demonstrate the value it would have. Current audio captured the pilots' denials, but without visual confirmation we may never be able to definitively determine who turned the engines off.
- upcoming-sesame 1y agoIs this really the reason they object video recording in the cockpit ? If so I agree it's not a good enough reason.
- ksajh 1y agoIts more about concerns about Airlines using video to micro-manage pilots. I too would hate it if my manager was watching my every move while working so I can empathize.
- upcoming-sesame 1y agothat could be easily solved though. is the data in the black box being analyzed after each flight by the employer ?
- yard2010 1y agoPlease provide sources for your claims.
- UltraSane 1y agoWhich claim? It is self-evident that video footage would show if a pilot turned the engines off intentionally or accidentally. The pilot's union opposes cockpit video recording for silly reasons. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2024-05-01/cockpit-video-recorder-mandates-remain-elusive https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2024-0...
- Domainzsite 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- omnee 1y agoThis report is outlining the known facts of the flight at present. The main one being the movement of the fuel switches to the off position did occur a few seconds after take-off, almost certainly by one of the pilots. And this was the primary cause of the crash. However, blame has not been apportioned and the reason for why is not known. blancolrio puts its well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA_UZeHZwSw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA_UZeHZwSw
- testemailfordg2 1y agoThree things:- 1) Pilot clearly said I didn't do it. 2) Report talks about the second switch being turned off in a second. 3) Known advisory on switches getting flipped. If you see these three together, it becomes easy to deduce that based on point 2, switch was not human induced as the actions required take more than a second. Next the third point, advisory was for this exact scenario which played out, though rare but still it shouldn't have been just an advisory, but more than that.
- AnonMO 1y agoThe advisory was for the lock being disengaged meaning you would still need to manually move it. it wasn't for being moved by factors such as vibrations also If it was from vibration how would a crash impact not move them back to cut off?
- ajross 1y ago> the actions required take more than a second Not sure where this is asserted? These aren't complicated mechanisms, it's just a pull lock, right? Pilots flip the switches twice on every flight at startup/shutdown, it's a routine action.
- bonoboTP 1y ago> as the actions required take more than a second Where do you get this from? You have to pull up the switch with two fingers and move it to the other position and put it back in. This doesn't seem to take more than a second if deliberate. To me, it points to a Germanwings-style sabotage. And the "I didn't do it" seems to be a lie. Not very confident in it, just the likeliest to me. Though one can ask why not just push the nose down instead. Maybe he thought that's too easy for the other pilot to counteract. The fuel switches are more out-of-mind and more startling to change.
- rainsford 1y ago> And the "I didn't do it" seems to be a lie. As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if one of the pilots did deliberately move the switches, it's not clear from the reporting so far if that's the same pilot who responded to the question. In other words, it's possible one pilot flipped the switches and then asked the other pilot why he cut off the fuel to misdirect and create more confusion. Edit: Of course this is all speculation, we don't know if the switches were moved deliberately and if so which pilot did so and which pilot was which in the exchange. More investigation is clearly needed.
- perihelions 1y agoI recall something similar to this happened in the USA in 2023. An off-duty pilot in the cockpit tried to pull that fuel shut-off handle (edit: I'm informed it's a different fuel shut-off mechanism), but was overpowered by the other two: > "Both pilots then saw Emerson grab on to the red fire handles, also known as the “T-handles,” which are used to extinguish engine fires and shut off all fuel to the engines, potentially turning the plane into a glider, the pilots told federal investigators." > "“If the T-handle is fully deployed, a valve in the wing closes to shut off fuel to the engine. In this case, the quick reaction of our crew to reset the T-handles ensured engine power was not lost,” Alaska Airlines said in a statement." > "One pilot struggled with Emerson for about 25 or 30 seconds before the off-duty pilot “quickly settled down,” according to the complaint." https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-24/off-duty-pilot-may-have-been-on-mushrooms-when-he-tried-to-shut-off-engines https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-24/off-duty...
- wkat4242 1y agoThat's not the same one, that's the big red FIRE ones on the overhead panel. They're not reversible and are under a plastic cover. As far as I know these ones are. They're also used to just switch them off at the end of a flight which can of course be reversed. But I guess in this case there wasn't enough time. They only had 30 seconds.
- wkat4242 1y agoWhy didn't they turn them back on then? Or does it take too long to spin up again even if they are still spooling down? This is one of the worst possible moments for this to happen of course. Low speed, low altitude, lots of drag...
- shash 1y agoThey did, about 10 seconds later (which is both incredibly short and an eternity). But the engines almost immediately start losing thrust and it takes them much more time to restart. At the end of the flight, FDR records that one engine was gaining thrust, and the other was attempting to spin up, but it was too late and they didn't have enough glide time for both to gain enough thrust to climb.
- wkat4242 1y agoYeah 30 seconds is not much. This is really the worst phase of flight for this to happen. 30 seconds later and the plane would have had much more altitude and energy
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dd_xplore 1y agoMost importantly it's extremely problematic that BBC is pushing the pilot error angle subtly! This is a preliminary report! No news organization should spread opinion pieces based on this. Somehow it feels like Boeing paid BBC to shift the narrative. We should all wait for the final report. Pilot error or Machine fault, either way it's a huge tragedy.
- bonoboTP 1y agoWhere did you see that? You say subtle. What does that mean? It's a fact that there are no recommendations to manufacturers or airlines yet. If they had found anything seriously suspicious they would already issue recommendations as soon as possible, not just in the final report, not even just at the prelim report, but as fast as possible. Grounding planes, forcing maintenance etc. That has not happened. It's easy to fall in the other direction and jump on the Boeing hate bandwagon. It's become a trendy thing online.
- CPLX 1y agoThe report contains significant evidence that one of the pilots switched off the engines. It doesn’t rule out other options, and it doesn’t explain why they might have done that or if it was inadvertent but it’s still new information, and presenting new important information is what the news is for.
- dr_ 1y agoThe NYTimes states that there was an advisory on the switches but that the FAA had not deemed them unsafe. It also states that on this plane the switches were changed in 2023.
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y agoAssuming this is a murder-suicide and not a mistake or malfunction somehow, it's very damning of the FAA's policy to revoke the pilot's licenses of anyone seeking treatment for mental health issues. This was in India and thus not FAA jurisdiction, but it still would be a case where an untreated mental health issue lead to hundreds of deaths. By making pilots choose between their careers & medical treatment (since they can't continue as pilots if they seek treatment) the FAA encourages hiding mental illness by pilots. The Pilot Mental Health Campaign[1] has been advocating for legislation to change, HR 2591 the "Mental Health in Aviation Act of 2025"[2] has just been approved by committee for a general vote. I certainly hope it passes, and that other nations with dangerous policies prohibiting pilots from seeking treatment change as well. [1] https://www.pmhc.org/ https://www.pmhc.org/ [2] https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr2591/BILLS-119hr2591ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr2591/BILLS-119hr2591ih....
- breadwinner 1y agoWouldn't it be better to provide such pilots alternate career paths? That way they can still make a living and the traveling public is not placed under unnecessary risk.
- dewarrn1 1y agoA “dead airspace”, perhaps?
- hollerith 1y agoNo, it is not damning evidence or strong evidence either way. It would be strong evidence only if treatment significantly reduces the probability of a pilot's committing suicide.
- tethys 1y ago> if treatment significantly reduces the probability of a pilot's committing suicide Psychotherapy significantly reduces the risk of suicide. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6389707/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6389707/
- jeswin 1y agoHere's another point of view: https://x.com/BDUTT/status/1944012769323626682 https://x.com/BDUTT/status/1944012769323626682 The four Indian pilots on her show are clearly not convinced that the pilots are to blame. As they mention, it's important to know what else was spoken in the cockpit. Quite possible that there's more, and that might have implicated the pilots. However, if that's not the case, this is a very poorly worded report.
- ankit219 1y agoThis is BBC, they have a history of being uncharitable when it comes to reporting on their erstwhile colonies. Jumping to a conclusion about pilot's fault when the recorded dialogues show both had no idea who cut it off (leaving ground for a possibility of some malfunction) is irresponsible, especially when the report could have been worded better without needing to reach a definitive conclusion. Both pilots have a long history of flying, a lot of experience, so while there is a chance one of them did it unknowingly, it's a small one in my opinion. Because it's not just a small switch, but a multi step procedure. The reporting on such a sensitive issue has been shocking to say the very least,
- oncallthrow 1y agoWhere in the BBC coverage are the pilots blamed? Sounds like you might have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and indeed it sounds like you are the one who is biased towards a particular conclusion (namely that the Indian pilots bear no blame).
- ankit219 1y agoi see the confusion. Initially the title of the video on BBC youtube channel was: > BREAKING Air India crash: Pilot cut off fuel to engines - no fault with plane | BBC and then they changed it to: > Fuel switches cut off before Air India crash, preliminary report says | BBC News You can decide. I had noticed it then. It was also noticed by many others as the story started getting traction and there are many x accounts (and probably elsehwere too) which would corroborate the same.
- whatever1 1y agoThese airplanes reject a lot of the pilot inputs if they don’t align with the expectations. Any idea why the system even allows the cut engine fuel input at that time of flight? Sounds to me that it should be just ignored. Even if both engines were on fire while climbing that early, what could cutting fuel offer?
- arctics 1y agoThrottle control module (TCM) was replaced twice in the past 2019 and 2023 which is not very usual. Now pure speculation, both pilots have long record of flying, you have to literally pull up and move each fuel control switches to cut off. Either one of the pilots did this intentionally or control unit was faulty. Considering past history and pilot experience, my bet is on faulty controls but we will never know.
- bgnn 1y agoThey can be tested if there's a mechanical failure ifthe switches survived the crash.
- wdb 1y agoWondering if it is save to fly with Air India at the moment
- yason 1y agoIt is known that the switches cannot effectively be flipped by accident. It is known that the switches were set to "cut-off" because they were then later restored to "run", so it was not an electrical fault (i.e. switches pointing to run but reporting cut-off). Pilot dialogue and engine telemetry confirms the cause of power loss was fuel cut-off. The question I can't help but think is how did the pilot realize it was the cut-off switches? I'm sure there's a warning message for them somewhere but in the few seconds of time when you're losing thrust right after rotate, and you're bombarded by a lot of warnings and errors on the screen and in the speakers: how likely are you to notice the fuel cut-off switches have been flipped? Those switches are something you never, ever think about during operation because you're trained to only operate them when starting up and parking (and yes, in an emergency where you need to shut down the engine quick). How long would it take for an average pilot to realize it's not one of the dozens of memory items pointing to more likely scenarios causing loss of thrust, ones that they've been training to check in case of an imminent emergency? And why didn't the first pilot who was recorded to notice the fuel cut-off didn't immediately flip the switches to "run" position first instead of asking the other pilot about it?
- hackrmn 1y agoGiven what you're vaguely implying -- that the switches would be nowhere near the first thing a pilot would normally think of in the kind of situation -- what are the odds the pilot asking on record "did you flip the fuel cut-off switch?" is the one who actually flipped the switches and was simply trying to fool the would-be investigation (even knowing they all are about to perish)?
- hexage1814 1y ago> what are the odds the pilot asking on record "did you flip the fuel cut-off switch?" is the one who actually flipped the switches and was simply trying to fool the would-be investigation (even knowing they all are about to perish)? This is such a diabolical mind-game that it never occurred to me. Like, they would all die, why would he want to incriminate someone else? But yet, people are weird and crazy. And maybe he didn't go down as a killer and decided to incriminate the other pilot? Anyway, it is totally possible to have happen. Sadly there are no cameras the cockpit, and a camera in the cockpit would really have help to find who did what.
- BurningFrog 1y agoAs an amateur UI designer I'm really surprised the plane allows a crash to be initiated without as much as an "Are you sure?" check. This is a completely computer run plane, and it surely has enough information to know this is a disastrous thing to do.
- stravant 1y agoThere's literally hundreds of such settings. When you get into the combinations there's such a multitude of scenarios that you certainly can't have dedicated code for everything. I suppose you could have it attempt to run a full forward-looking flight simulation to predict but part of the reason for there being so many controls is to deal with situations where the plane isn't acting like it should be, situations which would invalidate the simulation.
- throwaway48476 1y agoUI designers have to make it work for the lowest common denominator. Pilot training weeds out the LCD and trains for any gaps in knowledge.
- jadams84 1y agoSo for all the bad rep $BA gets, it was just pure incompetence by unqualified pilots? Best to not fly Indian-based airlines
- moomoo11 1y agoAnother reason to automate humans away.
- Agyemang 1y agoYes
- SURA 1y agoIn the 787, each engine has an independent control oil circuit switch. This switch needs to be pulled out, moved, and then pressed to take effect; I feel that this is difficult to complete in about a second.
- sub7 1y agoSo many garbage takes here - this report wants to imply pilot error and without all the data/audio that remains a remote possibility but the truth is it is far more likely that this plane experienced a total electric failure following liftoff and the onboard computer entered some form a failsafe mode which set the fuel valves to a default closed state. The pilots were likely immediately trying to relight the engines which is the correct reponse but sadly they didn't have the altitude to see the process through. My guess is the truth here (i.e. Boeing equipment malfunction) or at least the framing of it is being used as a chip in trade deal negotiations which are active and ongoing.