Airlines initiate locking mechanism checks in Boeing 787 aircraft fuel switches
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB)'s report into the crash, released on Saturday, said fuel control switches were found in the 'cutoff' position. The report triggered a debate over whether pilot action or mechanical failure caused the crash, which left 260 people dead. It said that there was no 'recommended action' for either Boeing, the maker of the aircraft, or GE, the engine manufacturer, at this time.
Against the backdrop of the report, Etihad Airways, one of the United Arab Emirates two flag carriers, asked its engineers to inspect the locking mechanism of the fuel control switches in the B-787 aircraft. It asked them to be careful while operating the switches.
The fuel control switch is a key cockpit component pilots use to start or stop fuel supply to an engine. It includes a locking feature that requires the pilot to lift the switch before moving it to avoid accidental operation.
In its safety circular or 'standard work package' for its engineering team, a copy of which was posted on X, the Etihad asked them to fully inspect the fuel control switch locking feature for 'proper engagement'. 'Attempt to gently move (without applying excessive force) the Left (L) fuel control switch on the P10 Control Stand from 'CUTOFF' to 'RUN' without lifting the switch,' the circular said. 'If the switch cannot be moved without lifting, the locking feature is functional. No further action is required. Proceed to the next step.'
HT has reached out to the airline for comments on the circular.
The AAIB said that the Air India plane's engine 1 and engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. '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'.
The 15-page report was published a month after the disaster. It provided the first official account of India's worst aviation accident in decades. The report cited data from the black boxes.
The crew restored fuel flow within 10 and 14 seconds, triggering automatic engine restart sequences, but the Boeing 787 had already begun its irreversible descent toward a medical college hostel in Ahmedabad.
Civil aviation minister Ram Mohan Naidu urged caution and called for waiting for the final report. The investigation into the plane crash is still on.
On Saturday, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cited the AAIB's preliminary report regarding potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature on Boeing Model 737 air planes. It said that this was based on reports that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The FAA added that although the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing air plane models, the FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing air plane models, including the Model 787.
The FAA said it will continue to share relevant information with foreign civil aviation authorities. It noted the AAIB continues to lead the accident investigation, with the FAA providing technical support.
The AAIB report referred to the FAA's Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin on December 17, 2018, warning aircraft operators of a potential issue involving the locking mechanism on engine fuel control switches in Boeing aircraft models, including the Boeing 787-8.
The SAIB said that the issue affects Boeing models, including the 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 787 series. It issued a bulletin to check whether the switch moved freely without lifting and replacing the switch if the locking mechanism was found disengaged. It did not make it mandatory for the airline operators to conduct the checks and asked them to report any failure of the locking mechanism to Boeing with relevant aircraft and part details.
The preliminary crash report said that Air India did not perform the inspections. The Indian aviation regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), has not issued any directive. Officials said the DGCA was reviewing the situation and is likely to make a decision soon.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
'Raises more questions, doesn't give answers': Global pilots' body warns against speculations over Air India crash probe
The AAIB said the fuel switches to the engines were cut off within a gap of 1 second immediately after takeoff, causing confusion in the cockpit of the plane read more The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has said AAIB's preliminary report into the Air India plane crash, by its very nature, raises many questions and does not provide answers and urged all parties to refrain from speculations. In its preliminary report on the Air India's Boeing 787-8 accident on June 12 that killed 260 people, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Saturday said the fuel switches to the engines were cut off within a gap of 1 second immediately after takeoff, caused confusion in the cockpit of the plane before crashing into a building. The AI 171 was en route from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Citing cockpit voice recording, the 15-page preliminary report, released on Saturday, said one pilot asked why the switch was cut off and the other pilot responded that he did not do so. While the initial report does not provide any conclusions, there are speculations in certain quarters that a possible pilot error could be a reason for the crash. 'Whilst this preliminary report by its very nature raises many questions, it does not provide answers, and any extrapolation of its content can only be regarded as guesswork, which is not helpful to the good conduct of the investigation,' IFALPA said in a statement on July 14. According to IFALPA, the report clearly states that no safety recommendations are being provided at this stage and stresses that the federation remains committed to supporting the efforts of the AAIB of India as they work to determine the contributing factors of the accident. IFALPA claims to have 1 lakh pilots as its members from across 100 countries. On Saturday, Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA), an IFALPA member – said the tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias towards pilot error and rejected this presumption as it insisted on a fair, fact-based inquiry. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the statement on July 14, IFALPA also highlighted that a preliminary report is merely the means of communication used for the prompt dissemination of data obtained during the early stages of the investigation and only contains factual information and an indication of the progress of the investigation. Urging all parties to refrain from speculation, allow the investigation to run its full and proper course, IFALPA said everyone should avoid drawing conclusions from preliminary information. 'The victims, including the families of the crew and passengers of Air India 171, deserve our collective professionalism while the full investigation is conducted,' it added. Two pilot bodies of Air India – Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA) representing narrow-body pilots and Indian Pilots Guild (IPG) representing wide-body pilots – have also warned against speculations based on the preliminary report. .
India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
Was Air India crash mechanical, accidental or…? FAQs answered
The preliminary report of the ongoing investigation into the June 12 crash of the London-bound Air India Flight AI171, soon after take-off from Ahmedabad, has raised various worrying questions, most critically around fuel cut-off to the engines of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane and whether this fatal development occurred from a mechanical malfunction or some other cause. INDIA TODAY breaks down the report for answers:Q. What caused both engines of the plane to fail mid-take-off?advertisementA. Three seconds after being airborne, both engine fuel-cut-off switches abruptly moved from 'RUN' to 'CUT-OFF', starving the engines of fuel. Crucially, the pilots denied touching the switches, as per cockpit voice recorder data, and the plane's wreckage showed the switches physically back in 'RUN' some observers, this points strongly to a catastrophic failure of the small latches meant to lock those switches in place—a specific risk flagged in an advisory by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) back in 2018. But to some others, it suggests human error. Q. Why wasn't the risk flagged by the FAA over six years ago fixed on the Air India plane that crashed?A. That critical FAA warning was only an advisory, not a mandatory directive. Air India had the throttle-control module of this plane replaced twice (2019 and 2023), but maintenance logs show that no inspections for the faulty latch mechanism were performed either time. However, the advisory was that in some 737 (not 787) aircraft, it had been found that those switches were installed with faulty locking. The 787 series of aircraft was also mentioned in the FAA advisory because its switches were similar. From images of the wreckage, it would seem that was not the case with Flight AI171. Then again, deeper material analysis is underway to conclude either way.Q. What was so crucial about the FAA advisory?A. To quote a portion of it: 'The Boeing Company (Boeing) received reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel-control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged The fuel control switch has a locking feature to prevent inadvertent operation that could result in unintended switch movement between the fuel supply and fuel cut-off positions. In order to move the switch from one position to the other under the condition where the locking feature is engaged, it is necessary for the pilot to lift the switch up while transitioning the switch the locking feature is disengaged, the switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting the switch during transition, and the switch would be exposed to the potential of inadvertent operation. Inadvertent operation of the switch could result in an unintended consequence, such as an in-flight engine shutdown.'The advisory also says that based on the limited data at that time, it was considered not to turn it into a mandatory check for airline operators. Now, India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has asked all airlines that have aircraft mentioned in that advisory to carry out an inspection and furnish a report of the findings by July Could the highly experienced pilots have accidentally shut off the fuel supply?A. Both the pilots' credentials and flying experience, as well as common sense strongly suggest otherwise. The two pilots were highly experienced on this specific plane. The cockpit voice recorder data has one of them expressing shock when the plane lost upward thrust and questioning the fuel switch cut-off, while the other denies doing the physical thrust levers were found jammed full forward (take-off position), supporting flight data showing maximum power was commanded until impact. The switches themselves were found in 'RUN' mode after the crash. This combination makes a simple pilot error of bumping the switches incredibly unlikely.Q. Why do modern aircraft, especially the Dreamliner, allow cut off of fuel supply manually when the aircraft is airborne? Isn't there failsafe tech to prevent such a thing?A. Experts cite a variety of reasons. For example, the pilot might need to switch off fuel to one or both engines during landing, based on the dynamic landing environment. The engine does not need full power during taxiing. So, the fuel is cut off then as well. Then there is the scenario of an engine catching fire. In such a case, the pilot might have to cut off fuel supply to that engine to save the aircraft. So the existence of the switches and the behaviour of the aircraft are not in switches are designed in a way that makes the act of turning them a deliberate, 2-3 second job. Moreover, metal guards are installed on either side of the switches to prevent accidental bumping. Some experts have also talked about failure/malfunction of a chip (microprocessor) linked to the GE engine of the Air India plane. But the report does not talk about such a thing.Q. If not a mechanical malfunction or something accidental, what other reason could be attributed to the switches turning off?A. In that case, only one possibility remains—human error. Some global aviation experts seem to be veering towards this theory. Captain Steve Scheibner, a commercial pilot and leading aviation expert with a wide following on YouTube, is of the view that the only way the switches could be off is if someone manually switched them off, and not by accident. He also points out that India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau has onboarded, among others, an 'aviation psychologist'—perhaps to assess the mental health and stress levels of the Flight AI171 pilots during switches are designed in a way that it takes three fingers and a bit of force to turn them. Thus, it's being argued that it's unusual for them to change position because of cockpit vibration or turbulence. The aviation community is also often quoting the infamous Germanwings Flight 9525 crash of 2015.Q. What happened in the Germanwings crash? Are there similarities to the Air India tragedy?A. On March 24, 2015, Germanwings Flight 9525, from Barcelona to Dsseldorf, had crashed into the French Alps, killing all 150 people on board. Investigations revealed that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz intentionally caused the the captain left the cockpit, Lubitz locked him out and then deliberately set the autopilot to descend rapidly into the mountains. Despite efforts by the captain to regain entry and calls from air traffic control, Lubitz maintained control and drove the plane into the ground. It was later discovered that Lubitz had a history of severe depression and had concealed his mental health issues from his is no direct similarity of the Germanwings tragedy to the Flight AI171 crash. However, investigators and experts are drawing parallels in terms of exploring all possibilities, including pilot intent or mental state. The Airline Pilots Association of India has rejected insinuations of suicide or human error and termed such theories as biased. Their argument is also that the pilots are being made to take the fall because they are not around to defend themselves. In any case, a deeper analysis is underway, with a definite outcome of the investigation at least months to India Today Magazine- EndsTrending Reel
Deccan Herald
6 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
Air India Ahmedabad crash: AAIB report reveals a new mystery
Did one of the pilots on the Boeing 787 flip the switches from "run" to "cut-off"? If so, why? Was there some other factor behind this deadly slip-up?
