Thank you, that's a big "wow", then... 🙁
Still, even if one of the pilots went a bit mental... You'd think the audio from the cockpit would support that.. The info so far seems to be that there wasn't really much of an argument, more like simple confusion..
But then (in my very limited knowledge) there's not really much to be confused about..
There doesn't seem to be any reason for them to cut the fuel, much less any reason not to immediately turn the fuel supply back on. It may have been too late by that point..
It just doesn't make any sense.
And if something doesn't make sense that usually means we don't have all the information...
And if something doesn't make sense that usually means we don't have all the information...
There was an expert discussing this on the BBC News & pointing out that they'd only released a fragment from the voice recorder, his expectation was that the answer probably lay in what was on the full recording. They also don't seem to know which voice (and therefore dialogue) belongs to which pilot; perhaps they want to clarify this before releasing more
It was also noted that, from the point that one of the pilots identified that the fuel switches had been set to 'off' it took a full 10 seconds for the first switch to be returned to 'on' (and a further 4 seconds for the second). His estimation was that this was an extremely long period of time under the circumstances (a quicker response may have saved the plane). As with all of this it's speculative at the moment, but we don't know what may have been going on in those seconds.
I thought the ten seconds was from first engine fuel cutoff to first engine cutoff cancel (and subsequent restart)?
Still, even if one of the pilots went a bit mental... You'd think the audio from the cockpit would support that.. The info so far seems to be that there wasn't really much of an argument, more like simple confusion..
But then (in my very limited knowledge) there's not really much to be confused about..
There doesn't seem to be any reason for them to cut the fuel, much less any reason not to immediately turn the fuel supply back on. It may have been too late by that point..
It just doesn't make any sense.
And if something doesn't make sense that usually means we don't have all the information...
Some more information has appeared, but it doesn't seem to help. The switches were moved to "cut-off" approx one second* apart, which suggests human action rather than some weird electro-mechanical failure
The preliminary investigation report into the crash by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), referred to a 2018 FAA advisory, which recommended, but did not mandate, operators of several Boeing models, including the 787, to inspect the locking feature of the fuel cutoff switches to ensure it could not be moved accidentally.
The report said Air India had said it had not carried out the FAA's suggested inspections as the FAA 2018 advisory was not a mandate. But it also said maintenance records showed that the throttle control module, which includes the fuel switches, was replaced in 2019 and 2023 on the plane involved in the crash.
The report noted "all applicable airworthiness directives and alert service bulletins were complied on the aircraft as well as engines."
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/amid-air-india-probe-us-faa-boeing-notify-fuel-switch-locks-are-safe-document-2025-07-13/
*08:08:42 GMT – Aircraft reached max airspeed of 180 knots. "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." https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/inside-cockpit-how-air-indias-boeing-dreamliner-flight-ended-disaster-2025-07-11/
Regarding the requirement to cut off fuel on the event of a fire, I can’t imagine a situation where both engine’s fuel supplies need to be ‘simultaneously’ cut off. Except maybe for situations that are already catastrophic. IANAP
Read that and that is an odd one. So does pilot1 mean he saw the other chap flip the switch ?
If Pilot 1 sees the switch is flipped and doens't think he did it, it's what he'd say to pilot 2- "if I didn't do it then you must have, and you must have done it for a reason" Doesn't need him to have seen it and tbh the timing doesn't really seem to fit that?
I guess I don't understand why the fuel cutoff doesn't have an audible warning, especially when in flight.
I guess that might be one of those "we haven't had a reason to have such a warning until now" things.
Anyway, turning the engine off at that height isn't going to end well.
As was abundantly clear… 🤷🏼♂️
I guess I don't understand why the fuel cutoff doesn't have an audible warning, especially when in flight.
Because it doesn’t need one on the ground and the audio warning in flight is the abrupt silence followed by a cacophony of warnings and cautions related to other systems.
I guess that might be one of those "we haven't had a reason to have such a warning until now" things.
Sadly a lot of safety features and rules come from the hindsight after a tragedy.
Given this was a Boeing I find it remarkable the speed with which a full explanation was forthcoming.
the audio warning in flight is the abrupt silence followed by a cacophony of warnings and cautions related to other systems.
Sure but that tells you (or almost tells you) the fuel is off, it doesn't tell you the cause and that it's something you can fix instantly "the fuel is off because someone threw the switch and you can turn it back on just as easily". Or I guess more importantly, "the switch JUST TURNED OFF THIS SECOND". I don't want to start figuring out the switch is off once the engines cut out, I want to know it the instant the first switch hits the off position. And that seems true regardless of the why- if there's a good reason for it to be off I want the confirmation, if there's not I want the warning.
I am not a pilot, I am an easily distracted idiot but even a highly skilled and trained person can have a brain fart, hands learn how to work dials and such and can do even complex things very easily once it's second nature, and while the switches have a safeguard on so they can't be bumped, they're not barriered or interlocked or anything. They can't be brushed or bumped accidentally but they're wide open to be operated accidentally it seems. Speedy activation's obviously important in a crash but that's always a balance.
I would think it’d be on a memory item checklist. 10s from roll back to re-light is blooming remarkable troubleshooting otherwise. Being a Boeing, it’ll have been a pretty distracting cacophony of klaxons, bells (probably not this, afaik it’s reserved for fire) and artificial BONGs! from various systems. Seeing through all that under stress was phenomenal. I doubt the eicas threw up much more than a sickening list of failed things.
Poor sods, feels like it’s been a hideous brain fart by one of them.
Perhaps some good will come out of it. Perhaps there’ll be an idle throttle interlock introduced on the cutouts, which I think Embraer have on the 170/190. Seems like a sensible thing.
If there was anything found to be awry with the aircraft or its type, the investigation team would have instigated an immediate alert.
Poor sods, feels like it’s been a hideous brain fart by one of them.
Highly speculative of course but there's the murder/suicide option too, dressed up to look like a mistake.
It'd not be the first time by any means. It's just a lot less obvious to definitively pin it as that compared to the case where the GermanWings pilot intentionally dived the plane into the ground once he was alone in the cockpit.
