By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A preliminary report on the Air India flight AI171 crash, which claimed 260 lives, indicates that the fuel supply to the engines was cut off shortly after takeoff. The report, released by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, stated that the fuel cutoff switches in the cockpit were moved to the “cutoff” position within a second of each other. The investigation further noted that the pilots had conflicting accounts regarding who initiated the cutoff. The report found that the plane then lost altitude and crashed into a residential area, yet, Boeing and engine maker GE were not deemed responsible.
Read the original article here
Engine fuel switches cut off before Air India crash that killed 260, preliminary report finds, and this is where we find ourselves, staring at the grim reality of the Air India Ahmedabad plane crash. The preliminary report suggests a chilling sequence of events, the kind that chills you to the bone. The aircraft, having reached its maximum recorded airspeed, had its engine fuel cutoff switches moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” positions, one right after the other. A mere one-second gap between these decisive actions.
This is a stark departure from the normal operational flow of an aircraft, and the reaction from the cockpit paints a picture of confusion, if not outright shock. One pilot questioned the other, asking why the fuel had been cut off. The response – a denial, a claim of innocence. This creates a disquieting contrast, and the suspicion grows. We’re talking about the literal switches in the cockpit, not a valve malfunction or a system error. The act itself, based on the design of the system, requires deliberate action, which raises profound questions. The idea of this being a mistake is difficult to accept; it’s a serious situation.
The implications of this are staggering. This is a massive murder investigation, possibly even an act of domestic terrorism. The aviation industry is already contemplating changes to prevent a repeat of this tragedy. The ease with which the engines could be killed at this crucial stage of flight is alarming.
A key question here: why would the control system not be designed to override or ignore any fuel cutoff input during a critical flight stage? Is there a scenario in which the engines need to be cut off mid-air? And if there is, it should require more than just flipping two switches. Perhaps a fail-safe mechanism to display a warning message, without shutting down the engine would be a good design.
In a standard emergency scenario, such as an engine fire, there are established procedures, including a procedure for validating the input and a recovery process to keep the plane airborne. This suggests that there is a lack of procedural robustness in these situations. What happened to the electrical issues and the air conditioning failures that were previously reported?
Turning off the fuel supply during takeoff should be heavily guarded. The fact that this action could have been performed so easily is unacceptable. If designing a plane, one would naturally consider a system that provides an enormous flashing alarm to signal that the fuel switch has been moved to the off position. The anguish of the family members of the victims, knowing this wasn’t inevitable, but a deliberate act, is unimaginable.
However, what if the engines flamed out first, and the fuel switch was a panicked attempt to get them running again? This is a valid thought, but the timing and sequence of events need to be examined. The fact that the switches are located close to the radio button is also of interest to some.
The 787 aircraft has auto-shutdown capabilities for fuel valves triggered by critical safety events. An engine fire would trigger a cascade of actions: shutting off the fuel, hydraulic and pneumatic supply, arming the fire extinguishing system, and isolating electrical power to the engine. Fuel leak detection also triggers automatic responses. These are valid points to consider.
Turning back to the manual switches, the manner in which they must be operated suggests that this was intentional. You have to pull the switch out to move it past a detent and then move the switch. This is designed to prevent accidental movement. It requires deliberate action.
Any conclusion other than an intentional act becomes difficult to accept. The thought process of those who contemplate suicide is often complex. In many cases, a sense of empathy towards others is evident. To commit mass murder-suicide requires a profound lack of empathy or, perhaps, a psychotic break. This isn’t to excuse it, it’s simply the reality of the psychology.