I have done a ton of inspections and operations of controls in aircraft.

Only found one gated switch that was "bad", and a few that I wrote up and had replaced because they were "marginal" (not bad, but a little loose or worn to the point I didn't like them, so out of an abundance of caution and taxpayers dollars of the tax paying owners...).

I also saw several switches that were "damaged" to the point of lost "locking" from being kicked when aircrew or maintenance people climbing in and out of cockpit/flight deck with tight access

(C-21 Learjet being the main one)

But the switched were pretty damned robust and required a decent bit of "uplift" maintained to lift and during the movement of the switch".

If you had any grease/oil or hydraulic fluid on your hands, you almost could not maintain the grip on the switch.

(so always a habit to clean hands before touching the ladder) unless it was an urgent/emergency)

I doubt it was "confusion" or "mix up" of flap or gear, as the flap handle is very unique in location, feel and operation, and the gear handle is always forward on the front panel on almost every (USAF) aircraft I have dealt with (and I have dealt with 2 dozen various design series aircraft) in various maintenance and specifically flight control and landing gear systems component removal/installation/rigging/inspection/testing.

I think it was deliberate, but "why" remains to be determined.

Clearing fault/resetting the engine fuel control system might be a procedure, but I cannot believe it would be something that would be done in critical phase, rather due to an inflight (controlled segment) where cycling one, then the other engine fuel control to clear/reset fuel control system and the time between each engine/action, in order to recover each engine in a safe manner. (but I would need to read the tech data before I would accept such a procedure exists for this type)


All speculation.
At this point, I believe one turned off the switches (pilot monitoring) and the pilot flying asked, "did you turn them off" while reaching to the switches as he asked, realized they were off and reset them.

As we have read/heard of the nearly 2 dozen reports of crewmembers doing this stuff before.
Egypt Air
The Germanwings
Flt 370
Alaska Flight (deadhead guy)
Japan Air
and a bunch more.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:



1) The fuel cutoff happened on its own, the manual switches weren't touched, and the responding pilot was honestly saying he didn't cut off. This would require that the data recorder cannot determine the actual manual switch position and is relying on other parts of the system.

The probability of both switches failing within a second of each other would be astronomical. Unless there is some common denominator between the two, I think we can mostly discount that scenario.

I'm not yet discounting this as a mechanical issue. I like the cascading failure idea to explain the 1 second delay between the switch shut offs. I too would like to know if the FDR senses actual switch movement or the shutoff valve directly. Big difference.

Switching back to the human factor...as to why the switches were immediately returned to the RUN position, a possible scenario might be 1. pilot moves both switches to CUTOFF (whether intentional or unintentional) 2. Other pilot asks why he did that 3. first pilot has Oh Crap moment and quickly returns switches to the RUN position, denying he did such a thing.

Hmm...mechanical vs. human interaction. This is sounding more like the 320 thing.

Not sure how this figures in exactly, if this article is true. Known issues with the fuel shutoff switches' safeties disengaging. But failure of the mechanical safety feature does not necessarily mean the switch changes position. Just easier to move it inadvertently.

A Known Risk Ignored?

"What’s deeply concerning is that this wasn’t an unforeseen defect. Back in December 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB No. NM-18-33). It warned that certain fuel control switches — including those installed on Boeing 787 aircraft — had been reported to disengage from their locking mechanism. The issue, while not deemed hazardous enough for a mandatory directive, was flagged for operator awareness and voluntary inspection."

Republic

quote:

All speculation.
At this point, I believe one turned off the switches (pilot monitoring) and the pilot flying asked, "did you turn them off" while reaching to the switches as he asked, realized they were off and reset them.

Turned off 1 second apart.
Turned back on 10 seconds later... but it was already too late.
The big question is: Was it error or sabotage? Accidental or intentional?
We may never know.

I can’t think of much besides intentional, just not seeing it.

The F/O was reportedly flying, getting married in 2 months. The captain had some stress in his life, death or serious illness.

There was mention of scheduling employees canned, assigned a pilot not fit?

Regardless of banter, I’m thinking the plane wasn’t destined to crash. I think crew actions played a 90% role.

quote:

It warned that certain fuel control switches — including those installed on Boeing 787 aircraft — had been reported to disengage from their locking mechanism

This is false. The reports the FAA received were from 737s.

^Wasn't it the same switch design?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
<snip>
Turned off 1 second apart.
Turned back on 10 seconds later... but it was already too late.
The big question is: Was it error or sabotage? Accidental or intentional?
We may never know.

One thing I know – I’ll never board an Air India plane.

And I suspect that’ll be true for a LOT of people henceforth.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:...
This is false. The reports the FAA received were from 737s.

It lists the 787 type/series as well as several others.

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob...3.pdf/SIB_NM-18-33_1

Was there a moslem in the cockpit?

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Not sure how this figures in exactly, if this article is true. Known issues with the fuel shutoff switches' safeties disengaging. But failure of the mechanical safety feature does not necessarily mean the switch changes position. Just easier to move it inadvertently.

A Known Risk Ignored?

"What’s deeply concerning is that this wasn’t an unforeseen defect. Back in December 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB No. NM-18-33). It warned that certain fuel control switches — including those installed on Boeing 787 aircraft — had been reported to disengage from their locking mechanism. The issue, while not deemed hazardous enough for a mandatory directive, was flagged for operator awareness and voluntary inspection."

Republic

It is still false. The FAA did not receive reports of inadvertent movement of the switches on the 787. The reports were for the 737. The 787 uses a different part (with different part number) but of similar design.

What's more, on this particular 11.5 year old 787 with almost 8,000 flights, the thrust/switch panel had been replaced twice for non switch related issues (last in 2023).

Just like a few weeks ago with the shoot down of Indian Rafale and other jets, the Indian media is insufferable.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: saigonsmuggler,

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
<snip>
Turned off 1 second apart.
Turned back on 10 seconds later... but it was already too late.
The big question is: Was it error or sabotage? Accidental or intentional?
We may never know.

One thing I know – I’ll never board an Air India plane.

And I suspect that’ll be true for a LOT of people henceforth.

I flew "Vistara" between Delhi and Pune in January 2023. It merged with Air India in 2024. Was not impressed, but on previous trips the local flights were on "Jet Airways" which went out of business.

Unless you are in India and need local flights, there isn't any reason to fly Air India.

When it comes to intercontinental flights I always fly a US carrier, often they code share to a foreign airline - such as Air China codesharing on United. But I make sure it's a U.S. plane with a U.S. crew.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

It lists the 787 type/series as well as several others.

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob...3.pdf/SIB_NM-18-33_1

It does, but the 737s’ were the only ones the FAA received reports about and the only ones the FAA suggested replacing with an updated part. I read that SAIB as we have a number of reports of faultily installed switches in the 737. Replace this part number with this part number. Out of an abundance of caution, the following aircraft have switches manufactured by the same company under different part number; check those as well.

What I called out as false:

“It warned that certain fuel control switches — including those installed on Boeing 787 aircraft — had been reported to disengage from their locking mechanism”

is in fact false. The FAIB does not say that. It doesn’t say there were any 787 switches reported, nor does it say that any switches were reported to disengage from there locking mechanism. It says the switches were installed with the locking feature disengage, again only the 737. It says Boeing says the switches in the other aircraft are similar.

I understand the point.

That the switches are in the Airworthiness Information Bulletin, but the way the article reports gives the impression that 787 had been reported as malfunctioning, when they had not.

I failed to read it that way, and stand corrected.

I think the serious depression(reportedly) with the captain was a larger contributor than any switch fault, just saying.

I read the captain was retiring soon to take care of his elderly father.

The captain was also separated from his woman, heading towards divorce.

So why was he depressed?