Air India AI171 Crash: Boeing 787 Crashes on Takeoff from Ahmedabad

[StPeterMartyr]

It would have been easier to just post the link.

https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/air-india-crash-probe-fuel-cut-3a711f39

And it was great that your search didn't even give you what you searched for...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-10/air-india-crash-report-to-offer-peek-into-plane-s-final-moments

I don't have subscriptions, searched for them and could not read anything.

 

[Famine]

I don't have subscriptions, searched for them and could not read anything.

Even without that, for the WSJ piece it's literally in the opening "free" bit:

The investigation into last month’s Air India crash is focusing on the actions of the jet’s pilots and doesn’t so far point to a problem with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, according to people familiar with U.S. officials’ early assessments.

Preliminary findings indicate that switches controlling fuel flow to the jet’s two engines were turned off, leading to an apparent loss of thrust shortly after takeoff, the people said. Pilots use the switches to start the jet’s engines, shut them down, or reset them in certain emergencies.

There's also this:

"Air India Probe Puts Early Focus on Pilots’ Actions and Plane’s Fuel Switches"

 

[StPeterMartyr]

Even without that, for the WSJ piece it's literally in the opening "free" bit:



There's also this:

"Air India Probe Puts Early Focus on Pilots’ Actions and Plane’s Fuel Switches"

This is what I see in the WSJ

 

[Famine]

This is what I see in the WSJ

Yes... just like I said...

Also the link I provided you is the whole article.

 

[StPeterMartyr]

Yes... just like I said...

Also the link I provided you is the whole article.

Your 2nd link in Italy (not kidding, obviously)

 

[Famine]

Your 2nd link in Italy (not kidding, obviously)

I thought you were in Vanuatu?

Also I guess the Italians don't like archive.ph, a very well-known archival (and paywall bypass) site.

 

[StPeterMartyr]

I thought you were in Vanuatu?

Also I guess the Italians don't like archive.ph, a very well-known archival (and paywall bypass) site.

I chose Vanuatu (Vanutau on GTP) because it has no flag. I'm boycotting the Italian flag for political reasons, added my birthplace coordinates though.

 

[StPeterMartyr]

Also I guess the Italians don't like archive.ph, a very well-known archival (and paywall bypass) site.

Oh, now it showed up. Still - and I don't mean to be annoying or impolite (why should I?) - I hardly can read the first few lines..

Anyway, if confirmed, these are disturbing news, really... (edit: new video, and AAIB Preliminary Report link and pdf added)

https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf

 

[Famine]

Air India crash: Fuel switches cut off before crash, preliminary report says - live updates

In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he "did the cut-off".

www.bbc.co.uk

"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 report says.

Then, "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."

At 08:08:52 UTC, "the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN", and four seconds after that, "the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN." It was now 08:08:56.

At 08:09:05, nine seconds later, one of the pilots transmitted "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY" to the Air Traffic Control Officers on the ground. The officers received no response, and shortly afterwards, they saw the plane crashing.

Big yikes.

 

[Danoff]

Air India crash: Fuel switches cut off before crash, preliminary report says - live updates

In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he "did the cut-off".

www.bbc.co.uk

Big yikes.

So what are we thinking, that the copilot crashed the plan on purpose?

 

[Liquid]

So what are we thinking, that the copilot crashed the plan on purpose?

Either that or spectacularly, highly improbable incompetence and he somehow did it accidentally, thinking they were something else, perhaps.

Of the two, one seems much more likely...

 

[Keef]

It would have been easier to just post the link.

https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/air-india-crash-probe-fuel-cut-3a711f39

And it was great that your search didn't even give you what you searched for...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-10/air-india-crash-report-to-offer-peek-into-plane-s-final-moments

I don't have subscriptions, searched for them and could not read anything.

Another excellent, experienced source:



I'm just now catching up on the news, I haven't even watched the video yet but he's always got a great attitude about investigations.

Edit: At 9:25 you can hear Juan complain that the FO is smacking the embedded runway lights causing a bunch of noise and vibration lol. Yeah, we get it, you're a centerline nerd. If you're that precise you can move over a couple inches!

Edit: I have no suggestions about how those cutoff switches were moved. These guys have already suggested a possibility, that Air India was using an older design that was less safe. The plane I fly has virtually the same switch design and they are a little bit annoying to use, and they also make clicking noises. The spring tension holding them down is actually quite strong so all the time when I'm shutting down engines at the end of the flight one of those things will slip out of my fingers and I'll have to yank it a second time. They're slightly difficult to use on purpose.

The fact that both switches were moved from RUN to CUTOFF within a second of each other but took four seconds to be returned to RUN illustrates how deliberate you have to be to move these switches. Why they were cutoff and how they moved so quickly, that's for the investigators.

Everything else in the initial report seems to be functioning properly, and even the pilot decision making from "Why you do that?!" "I didn't do anything!" stares at a christmas tree of warning lights, quickly tries to make sense of it, looks down and sees the switches in CUTOFF, thinks wtffffff for a split second, returns them to RUN and now they're at the mercy of time and declaring an emergency. The timeline of all that and the human factors aspects make enough sense to me. If it's found that Air India was using outdated, worn out, or otherwise unsafe switches then they've got a problem on their hands.

So what are we thinking, that the copilot crashed the plan on purpose?

Negative. First of all we don't yet know who said what in the cockpit. What we do know is the SIC/First Officer/copilot was PF, pilot flying on this flight, and the PIC/Captain was PM, pilot monitoring. That means that after advancing the thrust levers to takeoff thrust, the SIC no longer hand their hand anywhere near the throttle quadrant because they were both on the yoke. The PIC did have their right hand in that area during the takeoff roll, however after V1 the PIC removes their hand from the thrust levers since V1 is the go/no-go speed. After V1, through rotation, and during initial climbout (typically up to 400 feet) neither pilot would've had their hands anywhere near the throttle quadrant. The Blancolirio video shows a couple takeoffs and the pilot movements that happen.

I'm leaning toward accidental shutoff, either by an inadvertent movement and/or faulty safety detents on the switches.

Edit: The fact that this happened at such a critical phase of flight and one that is so orchestrated is part of what so many pilots are upset about. The news that it may have been nobody who caused this in the moment is kind of mind blowing. The entire phase of flight after V1 through initial climb is designed specifically to reduce pilot workload and decision making, allowing all the redundant systems to do their logical checks and balances instead. And they did - the RAT deployed, after the switches were returned to RUN the FADECs automatically tried to relight the engines and the left engine did relight and increase RPM. Every automatic failsafe did what it was supposed to. But it can only restart a gigantic machine so quickly.

 

[Imari]

So what are we thinking, that the copilot crashed the plan on purpose?

It wouldn't be the first time a pilot has done so, although it seems like a roundabout and potentially risky way to go about it. Accidental shutoff or mechanical fault still seems more likely.

The fact that this happened at such a critical phase of flight and one that is so orchestrated is part of what so many pilots are upset about. The news that it may have been nobody who caused this in the moment is kind of mind blowing.

If it's a fault in the switches or the switch systems, then you'd presumably expect there to be prior instances of failure at other times during flight that aren't as critical.

I can't imagine that the period of time during takeoff where switching off the fuel would result in catastrophic failure is very long compared to total time a plane spends in the air, so to have this be the first instance of failure would be spectacularly unlucky. Not impossible, but much more likely that there was prior evidence on the same/similar equipment that such a failure could happen.

 

[StPeterMartyr]

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

As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN.

I'm really a layman on this topic, but, isn't the whole timing a bit strange?

Engine 1 switch back to RUN from CUTOFF in slightly less than 10 seconds.
Engine 1 and 2 switch to CUTOFF time gap 01 sec, back to RUN time gap 04 seconds...

edit: just watched a Captain Steeve new video about the Report, nothing strange, apparently.

 

[Keef]

I'm really a layman on this topic, but, isn't the whole timing a bit strange?

Engine 1 switch back to RUN from CUTOFF in slightly less than 10 seconds.
Engine 1 and 2 switch to CUTOFF time gap 01 sec, back to RUN time gap 04 seconds...

edit: just watched a Captain Steeve new video about the Report, nothing strange, apparently.

I do find it strange because I use switches almost exactly like this on the jets I fly.

The switches may be small but somewhat difficult to use. Their retention springs are strong and it takes a good bit of grip effort with your fingers to lift them and pop them over the safety detent. It's a pretty deliberate action.

The fact that they both turned off within a second is curious to me. That doesn't seem normal. I gladly turn them both off quickly after a flight because I wanna get my ass to the hotel as quick as possible but I don't think I could beat a second for both of them. It almost seems like they were turned off by some accidental movement that hit both of them at the same time, but that would require the detents to be faulty or non-existent.

The 10 second gap seems to be the Pilot Monitoring, on this flight the Captain, realizing what happened, visually seeing the switches off and then actually turning them back on again.

Four seconds to physically turn them on and visually confirm on their EICAS messages that the "cutoff" message (whatever verbiage Boeing uses on their message list) has disappeared sounds totally reasonable to me.

So the only weird part is how the hell they managed to turn off in such quick succession.

For what it's worth, I have flown with a couple pilots who use both hands to turn them both off at the same time, but that becomes an awkward full-body motion that isn't easy to do from an operating seating position. The pilots who did it first scooted their seat all the way back and leaned forward to grab both switches as they prepared to stand up. Even in my Challengers with a relatively small cockpit we have about 2 feet of fore-and-aft movement in the seats.

 

[TheCracker]

Are there any systems on the plane that can automatically change the position of the switches - or can they only be moved by human intervention?

 

[StPeterMartyr]

I do find it strange because I use switches almost exactly like this on the jets I fly.

The switches may be small but somewhat difficult to use. Their retention springs are strong and it takes a good bit of grip effort with your fingers to lift them and pop them over the safety detent. It's a pretty deliberate action.

The fact that they both turned off within a second is curious to me. That doesn't seem normal. I gladly turn them both off quickly after a flight because I wanna get my ass to the hotel as quick as possible but I don't think I could beat a second for both of them. It almost seems like they were turned off by some accidental movement that hit both of them at the same time, but that would require the detents to be faulty or non-existent.

The 10 second gap seems to be the Pilot Monitoring, on this flight the Captain, realizing what happened, visually seeing the switches off and then actually turning them back on again.

Four seconds to physically turn them on and visually confirm on their EICAS messages that the "cutoff" message (whatever verbiage Boeing uses on their message list) has disappeared sounds totally reasonable to me.

So the only weird part is how the hell they managed to turn off in such quick succession.

For what it's worth, I have flown with a couple pilots who use both hands to turn them both off at the same time, but that becomes an awkward full-body motion that isn't easy to do from an operating seating position. The pilots who did it first scooted their seat all the way back and leaned forward to grab both switches as they prepared to stand up. Even in my Challengers with a relatively small cockpit we have about 2 feet of fore-and-aft movement in the seats.

I found another video by an ex airline captain that better explains my doubts about the timeline - I don't know what to think of his Preliminary Report cover up theory though (I copied and pasted the URL at current time 3.45)

 

[Keef]

I found another video by an ex airline captain that better explains my doubts about the timeline - I don't know what to think of his Preliminary Report cover up theory though (I copied and pasted the URL at current time 3.45)

I think your doubts - and his - are completely unfounded. For your doubts to hold water, they need to have more of a basis than what thousands of professionals around the world have come up with so far. You're not a professional in any of these fields, but you've found one with an idea that you want to believe and you're running with it. Be careful. Everything is speculation at this point and even we professionals may have different opinions but immediately leaning toward conspiracy/cover-up is a dangerous plague throughout society right now. Don't forget that the American NTSB is directly involved in this investigation due to the airframe and engines being of American origin. Claiming some sort of cover-up implies that the NTSB is involved with the cover-up and I find that pretty ridiculous.

Are there any systems on the plane that can automatically change the position of the switches - or can they only be moved by human intervention?

They're purely mechanical. That said, they command the action of the FADEC computers and the relationship between what the computer logic does, what the data recorder records, and what the cockpit switches are commanding have all been points of speculation since day 1. The investigation will have to dig deep to decide whether or not all logic was followed properly.

 

[Danoff]

Everything on aircraft is redundant. The idea that these switches failed, both of them, at the same time, with no redundant systems (or failed redundant systems) to protect against switch failure, is very difficult to understand.

That starting point begs the consideration of accidental or intentional, and, simultaneous? setting of the switches to the off position by the pilot or copilot (or the cat that was messing around in the cockpit <- that's a joke, please nobody start a conspiracy theory about a cat).

 

[StPeterMartyr]

You're not a professional in any of these fields, but you've found one with an idea that you want to believe and you're running with it

I don't think so, the only things that strike me are those 10 seconds delay, how come you notice the switches off and don't put them back on right away? No, you first ask "why did you do it?" like a mum to her kid after some mischief... It makes no sense waiting so long and discussing in such a dramatic situation - unless you're in shock, which is possible. Maybe the two pilots were having a fight? I have no idea. And yes I agree that in the video he jumped to hasty and "sensational" conclusions probably to get more views (perhaps I wasn't clear enough - my English is what it is.. - in saying that his cover up theory didn't convince me at all).

edit
New "Ask the Captain" video by Captain Steeve a couple of hours ago:

Question:
Is there anything a co-pilot can realistically do in the split seconds if the other pilot suddenly makes a catastrophic input?

Answer:
Well, the other pilot did 10 seconds after the fuel control switches were placed to cutoff. I'm assuming the other pilot placed them back to run. That's a lot of presence of mind to work through denial, what happened, what controlling your airplane and then reaching and doing something that you wouldn't normally do. 10 seconds is pretty quick. It wasn't quick enough, but it was amazing on the part of that other pilot.

Well, I guess everyone can draw their own conclusions. Mine is

 

[Imari]

That starting point begs the consideration of accidental or intentional, and, simultaneous? setting of the switches to the off position by the pilot or copilot (or the cat that was messing around in the cockpit <- that's a joke, please nobody start a conspiracy theory about a cat).

Indian Aircraft downed by pussy - is DEI to blame?

 

[Keef]

I don't think so, the only things that strike me are those 10 seconds delay, how come you notice the switches off and don't put them back on right away? No, you first ask "why did you do it?" like a mum to her kid after some mischief... It makes no sense waiting so long and discussing in such a dramatic situation - unless you're in shock, which is possible. Maybe the two pilots were having a fight? I have no idea. And yes I agree that in the video he jumped to hasty and "sensational" conclusions probably to get more views (perhaps I wasn't clear enough - my English is what it is.. - in saying that his cover up theory didn't convince me at all).

edit
New "Ask the Captain" video by Captain Steeve a couple of hours ago:

Question:
Is there anything a co-pilot can realistically do in the split seconds if the other pilot suddenly makes a catastrophic input?

Answer:
Well, the other pilot did 10 seconds after the fuel control switches were placed to cutoff. I'm assuming the other pilot placed them back to run. That's a lot of presence of mind to work through denial, what happened, what controlling your airplane and then reaching and doing something that you wouldn't normally do. 10 seconds is pretty quick. It wasn't quick enough, but it was amazing on the part of that other pilot.

Well, I guess everyone can draw their own conclusions. Mine is View attachment 1464858

As I expanded before in my own words, I agree with Captain Steeeve on the basic human factors aspect of this. The other pilot video completely ignores the psychological aspect of the time delay, assuming pilots are robots and simply make the most logical decision.

But what happened was not logical at all. It doesn’t make any sense for those switches to be turned off at that moment, in any rational context. So a pilot’s initial reaction would likely be of disbelief. They would have to consciously ignore the fact that this doesn’t make any sense and then decide how to make it make sense and then do that action. The only thing that makes sense is for those switches to be on, so that’s what the pilot did.

The very first thing that happens when the plane’s wheels lift of the ground is the pilot monitoring says “positive rate” when they see a positive rate of climb, and then the pilot flying says “gear up”. This happens within 5 seconds of liftoff. That never happened. That procedure is almost instinctual so the fact that it never happened helps illustrate how absolutely confused and shocked the pilots were that those switches were off.

 

[StPeterMartyr]

how come you notice the switches off and don't put them back on right away? No, you first ask "why did you do it?" like a mum to her kid after some mischief... It makes no sense waiting so long and discussing in such a dramatic situation

Not if it were to emerge that it was a suicide, and the pilot asking "why did you cutoff" was the same who turned the switches off (no assumption, no conspiracy theory, just a possibility to take into account).

 

[Dan_Tes]

Personally I think it’s impressive that either pilot noticed they were ‘off’. I don’t think many Boeing pilots would be looking at the fuel control switched at that moment in time; as previously stated from liftoff there are very specific things we are looking for and even major warning messages can be missed for a few seconds while you are preoccupied with flying/monitoring the flight path at that moment;

Just for reference, in my airline and other airlines i have flown for the takeoff procedure is identical. At rotation the pilot flying is concentrating on pitching the aircraft at the correct rate and to the correct pitch angle. The pilot monitoring is watching for failures and monitoring the flight path, when the radio altimeter calls 20ft with the aircraft climbing they call ‘positive rate/climb’ and the pilot flying calls for gear up, the pilot monitoring selects the gear ‘up’. There is no provision for looking at or moving fuel control switches even with a major engine problem until at least a few hundred feet and even then there are a few actions that are completed (with confirmation from both pilots) before the fuel control switches are moved.

The fact the gear was not selected up either is telling. I hate to say it but the simplest explanation is often the correct one and after a flap selection mistake was ruled out unfortunately this very much looks like it was deliberate. If you were going to hypothetically pick a moment to switch both fuel control switches to cut off to cause a catastrophic and unsurvivable crash the exact moment they were moved to cut off was it. Same with the speed at which they were moved, one second is exactly the gap you’d expect if somebody were moving them with haste.

My guess is that the other pilot (whichever pilot it was) noticed the unnatural hand movement of the other pilot towards the fuel control switches and that’s why they were moved back to run. If so it’s absolutely tragic that that person did everything right but it wasn’t enough.

The fact that the gear was not selected up and the flight path was completely controlled until impact suggests that if it was deliberate it was the pilot monitoring who would be responsible.

 

[StPeterMartyr]

From the Wall Street Journal:

New details in the probe of last month’s Air India crash are shifting the focus to the senior pilot in the cockpit.
A black-box recording of dialogue between the flight’s two pilots indicates it was the captain who turned off switches that controlled fuel flowing to the plane’s two engines, according to people familiar with U.S. officials’ early assessment of evidence uncovered in the crash investigation.
The first officer who was flying the Boeing 787 Dreamliner asked the more-experienced captain why he moved the switches to the “cutoff” position after it climbed off the runway, these people said. The first officer expressed surprise and then panicked, these people said, while the captain seemed to remain calm.

https://archive.is/QdGIU

 

[TheCracker]

As more and more evidence is pointing towards it being a suicide attempt by the captain, it's odd that the fuel cutoff was done when it was done. At that height and speed its no guarantee that the subsequent impact would be absolutely unsurvivable - which is what you'd want if you were trying to take your own life - especially if you were planing on taking hundreds of other lives with you too.

Without changing the plane's pitch it was always going to belly flop, slightly tail-first. Fuel tanks were bound to rupture and cause a massive fireball - which is bad news for anyone sat alongside or aft of the wings, but anyone seated infront, especially in the cockpit, would have an outside chance of surviving, depending on what it landed on and how the plane broke up.

I can only guess that the switches were switched at that moment knowing that when/if the 1st officer noticed and intervened, switching them back to reignite the engines, that there would be no time to gain enough thrust to pull up enough and avoid catastrophe. Had he done it any later there would be a good chance of the inevitable intervention being successful.

 

[Danoff]

Had he done it any later there would be a good chance of the inevitable intervention being successful.

I think you're pointing out something fairly pertinent here. The engines shut off exactly during the time window in which it was unrecoverable. There is a period before where it is recoverable, and a long period after where it is recoverable, but that specific moment for the switches to be shut off isn't. Could be coincidence. But that fact pattern is not inconsistent with suicide so far.

 

[Keef]

As more and more evidence is pointing towards it being a suicide attempt by the captain, it's odd that the fuel cutoff was done when it was done. At that height and speed its no guarantee that the subsequent impact would be absolutely unsurvivable - which is what you'd want if you were trying to take your own life - especially if you were planing on taking hundreds of other lives with you too.

Without changing the plane's pitch it was always going to belly flop, slightly tail-first. Fuel tanks were bound to rupture and cause a massive fireball - which is bad news for anyone sat alongside or aft of the wings, but anyone seated infront, especially in the cockpit, would have an outside chance of surviving, depending on what it landed on and how the plane broke up.

I can only guess that the switches were switched at that moment knowing that when/if the 1st officer noticed and intervened, switching them back to reignite the engines, that there would be no time to gain enough thrust to pull up enough and avoid catastrophe. Had he done it any later there would be a good chance of the inevitable intervention being successful.

I would argue the complete opposite.

All of these jets have an “dual engine failure” procedure which is typically very simple. In my plane it consists of turning off the autopilot and then establishing 185kias. At sea level that’s about 220mph. The goal is to glide as far as possible, extending the time you have to relight engines and search for a suitable landing area. Airspeed and altitude are life. If you have enough of both you can perform a normal, perfectly safe landing.

This airplane had neither adequate speed nor altitude to assure a safe landing on any smooth surface. The airplane still had drag from takeoff flaps and gear so their minimum speed was like 160kias, over 180mph. Their altitude doomed them to landing on buildings. If this would’ve happened at this altitude on landing the plane would’ve been heading toward the runway safety area, a smooth flat area with no obstructions, but it was heading away from that.

This is the absolute worst possible phase of flight for this to happen. Impacting structures at a speed above normal landing speed was 100% guaranteed. Recall that Sully had about 3,000 feet of altitude to maneuver, well above all obstacles in the area and enough time and visibility to consider several options. Not only did Air India not have time to consider options, they barely had time to figure out what happened.

Any other phase of flight would’ve offered more options.