Disturbing Air India crash report
Any findings would be disturbing because the crash itself was exceptionally disturbing. But the report raises questions of the worst sort. Simply put, either there was a catastrophic glitch (software? hardware?) that turned both engines off at a low altitude from which there would be no time to notice and recover before plummeting to the ground, or one of the pilots deliberately crashed the plane and murdered all aboard plus many on the ground.
Here’s what the preliminary report says:
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) found that fuel switches had flipped to cutoff position—a move typically done only after landing—just 50 seconds into the flight as the aircraft climbed to 625 feet. The cockpit voice recorder captured one pilot asking the other why he cut off the fuel, with his colleague replying that he hadn’t. The switches flipped a second apart, roughly the time it would take to shift one and then the other manually. …
Both fuel switches were found in the run position with indications that both engines were attempting to relight before the crash. The commanding pilot, Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, had 15,638 hours of experience, while co-pilot Clive Kunder, 32, had 3,403 hours.
I also watched several YouTube videos of pilots discussing the findings, and the lean is to the idea that this was most likely done deliberately, although there’s a lesser possibility that it was some sort of software glitch. The idea that this was a purposeful crime would be simply unbelievable, except that there is precedent. Perhaps a fuller report in the next year will tell us more, but I have a feeling we may never know for sure.
Of the 242 passengers and crew on the airplane, all but one died. In addition, there were 19 fatalities on the ground and 67 injured. RIP.
According to airline pilots and experts, the movement of the fuel control switches—critical switches that allow and cut fuel flow to the plane’s engines—have to be deliberate actions and their accidental movement is next to impossible. The switches have brackets on either side to protect them. Additionally, there is a stop lock mechanism that requires the pilots to lift the switch before moving it from either of its two positions—RUN and CUTOFF—to the other. The report did not mention whether the investigators have so far been able to ascertain if the switches were toggled by one of the pilots or not.
These switches are usually moved only when the aircraft is on ground—to start the engines before departure and to shut them down after landing. Movement of either of the switches during the flight would be required only in the event of the corresponding engine failing or suffering enough damage that would require shutting off fuel supply to it to ensure flight safety. The pilots may also switch off fuel supply and then immediately switch it on if they believe that the affected engine could be restarted safely.
I lost my PL (decided not to stay current) because of a foul-up on the fuel-selector of a C-172. Nothing worse than a hard-landing and a broken strut, thankfully. I was unfamiliar with the fuel selector on the 172 and thought a setting in between left or right tanks and “both” would simply take more fuel from one tank over the other. In essence I cut the fuel without knowing it, and ended up in a forced unpowered landing from 5000ft agl. Went through the whole emergency-procedure but A) there wasn’t enough time and B) never caught the error until I was on the ground.
It’s incredibly easy to do for an amateur, but an error like this from professionals is shocking. I could’ve continued flying, but after that I realized it probably wasn’t for me. Super easy to foul up in the air.
Highly unlikely this was an error. Those switches HAVE to be lifted up against a spring, and then down to move to the cutoff position. Just trying to push them down without lifting is impossible unless someone filed off the metal tabs and removed the springs holding them in. Someone (oldflyer, JJ?) could correct me, but I don’t think software is involved as Boeing doesn’t use a fully automated startup. From my sim use (home and a few hours in a Level C 737), if one doesn’t manually move the switches when N2 reaches about 20% then the engines will not light off. One final note for those criticizing Boeing: those switches and their positions have been used at least since the early 737s, so there’s been literally 1000s of these aircraft in service for decades and 100 of thousand of hours flight time without such an incident occurring.
I can’t imagine even a fairly new pilot mistakenly switching BOTH to off; highly unlikely even doing one.
Unwillin’ Barkis:
Fuel tank selector switches on GA aircraft are a constant source of problems. I also flew C172s. Why aircraft manufacturers of GA planes can’t make a fuel system that doesn’t require the pilot to be constantly switching tanks manually is beyond me. So many accidents from fuel starvation due to pilot not switching tanks.
I was curious about where the cut-off switches are located and what they look like.
This link shows them in a video:
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/air-india-crash-what-went-wrong-with-the-fuel-switch/ar-AA1IsIf5?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Initially, I imagined that they were simple toggles located way off to the side of the co-pilot’s seat. But no, they are two big levers centrally located just under the throttles, so either pilot can easily operate them. But they do have the lift, lever, and drop safety feature. I know airlines are quite concerned about needless fuel consumption, especially during all the on-the-ground operations. And there is the safety aspect of a runway mishap and a quick fuel cut-off can save lives.
I also wonder about one of the pilots asking the other as to why he cut-off the fuel. The pilot speaking can easily look down and see the position of the switch lever. That doesn’t necessarily mean he did that. Typically, the pilot flying has his vision focused on looking out the windows.
And the computer screen display is located just under the windscreens so it is a small glance downward. Maybe he looked at the screen and saw a cut-off warning.
I recall that there were at least two “confirmed” cases of Airbus planes having a major in-flight incident because of a purely software or computer hardware glitch. They were planes in the A320 – A330 class, both were off the coast of Australia, or maybe over land there too, and involved highly dangerous and erroneous manipulations of ailerons or elevator trim. It was traced to the angle-of-attack sensor readings having a numerical overflow.
So, there is precedent for that sort of thing. But physicsguy says that Boeing has NOT computerized the function of those cut-off switches.
My impression is that Boeing screwups get plenty of public coverage, but the Airbus screwup did not. At least here in the US.
Unwillin Barkis:
C-172 = Cessna 172?
TommyJay:
Yes, one of the YouTube pilots mentioned a previous crash in which everyone initially blamed pilot error but it turned out to be an unusual and catastrophic software glitch.
About 10 years back, perhaps more, there was an Air France Airbus crash over the Atlantic—Brazil to Paris, IIRC—that received a lot of coverage…mostly due to speculation about the plane’s automated, computer-run features and the resulting angle of attack during serious turbulence, I think.
And then there’s the Egypt Air (NY-to-Cairo) flight that was brought down by the copilot, to which Neo may have alluded above. That was a Boeing, though, I believe.
(More recently, of course, is that Malaysia Airlines plane that has yet to be found, at least not with any certainty as far as I know. Not sure how they’re going to get closure on that one….)
– – – – – – –
By the way, with two pilots in the cockpit, and given the relative complexity—it seems—of operating the two Off switches (as described above), would it be possible for one of the two NOT to have noticed that the other pilot had manually switched OFF the engines?
“Fuel tank selector switches on GA aircraft are a constant source of problems. I also flew C172s. Why aircraft manufacturers of GA planes can’t make a fuel system that doesn’t require the pilot to be constantly switching tanks manually is beyond me. So many accidents from fuel starvation due to pilot not switching tanks.”
As one of the victims of this design-flaw, I completely agree. Luckily, I didn’t pay for it with my life.
Several theories have come and gone. We *knew* both engines had stopped shortly after takeoff and at about the same time. The lingering question was “how???”
Not fuel contamination. Not bird strike. And now we know the fuel cutoff switches were engaged about one second apart. They tried to relight the engines and did not have enough time before the aircraft lost altitude and crashed.
Unless there is some bizarre mechanical cause or software glitch this is what we are looking at:
One of the pilots cut off fuel to the engines. Presumably on purpose. Because there’s no way someone could do that by accident.
That stinks but “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.
The new questions are (1) which pilot and (2) why???
“would it be possible for one of the two NOT to have noticed that the other pilot had manually switched OFF the engines?”
No, because the engines would immediately spool down. And certainly in that critical phase of flight, such loss of power would be seen/felt immediately.
Barry Meislin:
Another precedent is the Germanwings crash. Terrible.
Oops! Read full post before commenting.
Thanks physicsguy, but actually I was referring to the seemingly complicated physical act of flipping those two switches—performed by one of the two pilots—WITHIN the enclosed space of the cockpit, as I understood from the descriptions above…unless it wasn’t, in fact, such a complicated action to perform…
– – – – – – –
Neo, right. Thanks.
That whole thing was pretty nuts.
Where was the psychotherapist in all this? Scrupulously honoring the confidentiality clause of his profession, I assume.
Except that something’s wrong with that kind of conscientiousness in this case…
To be sure, the airline officials should have followed up on their own….
Who knows? Maybe they did but were rebuffed…
First thought was glitch. After reading comments, intentional seems more probable.
Also seems if intentional, the culprit might have left a manifesto or something blaming someone or something for “making him do it” in order to draw attention to his particular grievance.
Yes but to do that in ascent phase (i dont know whats worse) if its descent
Barry,
Then yes. The pilot flying would have their attention forward, and with the HUD in the 787, focused on the HUD and the outside. That person would probably not see the other move the switches, but would immediately see/feel the effect.
Miguel,
Altitude equals life and time. Losing both engines at 35,000ft is a much different case than at 600.
I don’t think people can jump on Boeing for this one–just saying. This was the first crash of a 787.
In truth, I did not read all of the above, so this may be redundant. There was an airworthiness notice many years back–737 related–about the locking feature being disabled. I don’t know why it would be. Reports are that AI did not take action on that notice.
In discussion with a friend, another retired Captain, I speculated whether there might have been a third person on the flight deck, an authorized –or unauthorized–jump seat rider. I don’t know the jump seat configuration in the 787, so don’t know if the switches would be accessible.There has been no indication that there was–or that there wasn’t. Discussion highlights the lack of C/P video on this plane; but the CVR would pick up any third voice. I speculate because of the exchange between the crew.
On thing is almost certain; those two switches did not simultaneously and spontaneously flip to cutoff. If the F/O, who had a modest, but reasonable, total flight time (787 experience?)were flying, then the Captain was manipulating switches; and the F/O had his hands full, unless he had engaged the auto pilot very soon after lift off. Almost inconceivable that the Captain would make such a mistake. But again, 787/Boeing experience?
Someone reset the switches and at least one engine had apparently started to spool up. There must have been discussion, unreported, about that.
So far, more questions than answers. Hopefully, answers will emerge.
Yes, the fuel cutoff switches are levers that require lifting above a decent and moving out into the slot where they can be moved down to the cutoff position. Intentionally designee that way to avert accidentally moving them to the cutoff position.
Those switches/levers are used during start and shutdown of the engines on the ground. They’re also used during airborne emergency engine shutdowns to ensure that the fuel is not going into an engine that’s in fire.
The pilot not flying must have moved them to cutoff position. The pilot who asked why they were in the cutoff position must have quickly moved them back to the start position. But it was too late.
Both pilots had adequate experience, so inexperience can probably be ruled out.
When I saw the video of the airplane, I opined that it looked like the aircraft had suddenly lost lift due to either a stall or a loss of thrust. I thought that if it was a loss of thrust, it would be due to both engines failing simultaneously – a very unusual occurrence. Wel, not when you’ve cut the fuel to both engines.
The next phase of the investigation has to be into the personal life and beliefs of the pilots.
William Langewiesche is a pilot (not of airliners) who’s written very interesting articles for The Atlantic. Here’s the one he did on the Egyptair crash caused by pilot suicide: https://archive.ph/dNAw8
While I’m at it, here’s Langewiesche on Malaysia flight 370: https://archive.ph/qMRAt
Those links to the two articles should get you around The Atlantic’s paywall.
I read his article on the Malaysia flight. The article was repellent.
The video implied that the pilot flying wouldn’t have asked why the other pilot cut off the fuel unless he saw him do it. He would have been in “what is happening” mode and not “why did you do that” mode.
Didn’t read Langewiesche’s article on the Malaysian disappearance but yes, his article on the Egyptair murder-suicide catastrophe is a gem. Masterful.
(Makes one ache for the days when The Atlantic was, well, The Atlantic….)
A pilot commits suicide with his aircraft full of passengers because….somebody threatened his family?
There was some talk about certain passengers on Egypt Air 990 who might have been in a position Epstein found himself in, although for different reasons.
With regard to my foregoing, should have asked if the copilot’s muttered statement counts as a prayer in Islam. Might it be equivalent to a Christian saying something like, “God will forgive me.”? And repeating over and over it because it might not seem likely.
Apparently, there were some heavies in the Egyptian military on that flight.
Guess the guy thought he might get some brownie points….