Don't want to continue: Audio of Air India Dreamliner that returned to Hong Kong
Air India Flight 315 requested to stay closer to Hong Kong, citing technical reasons before deciding to return to Hong Kong International Airport.The Hong Kong-Delhi flight in question took off at around 9.30 am (IST) before circling back to the airport within 90 minutes, data from online tracker Fligthradar24 showed.The return of the Hong Kong-Delhi Air India flight marks the second such incident involving a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner jet since the crash of AI 171. On Sunday, a Chennai-bound British Airways Dreamliner returned to London over a technical issue.Tune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
5 minutes ago
- India Today
Air India crash: The many scenarios that fuel cut-off throws up
A 15-page preliminary report on the June 12 crash of an Air India Boeing 787-8 aircraft in Ahmedabad reveals that fuel supply to both engines was cut off immediately after take-off. According to the report released by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on July 11, the fuel switches transitioned from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' within one second of each other, leading to a loss of thrust. Unable to gain height, the plane crashed in the Meghani Nagar area, killing 260 are the details of the preliminary report and the possible reasons behind the loss of fuel supply to the twin-engine aircraft:June 12, 13:30 ISTAir India plane VT-ANB taxis to the runway for its journey to London Gatwick from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai International Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, with 15,600 hours of flight experience, including 8,500 hours on the Boeing 787, is the pilot monitoring (PM) during takeoff. Co-pilot Clive Kunder, 32, with 3,400 hours, including 1,100 hours on the Boeing 787, is the pilot flying (PF).The experience levels indicate a competent crew, with Sabharwal's extensive hours on the 787 underlining familiarity with the aircraft. Kunder's role as PF is typical for co-pilots gaining operational experience under a captain's Dreamliner has 10 cabin crew members and 230 passengers on 12, 13:39 PMThe aircraft takes off from the Sardar Vallabhbhai International Airport. It reaches an altitude of 625 feet and a maximum speed of 180 32 seconds after takeoff, the plane stops climbing. This happens because both engines lose thrust as the fuel control switches are flipped from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' within one second of each other, resulting in a dual-engine Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) captures one pilot asking, 'Why did you cut off?' The other responds, 'I didn't,' indicating confusion about the fuel supply in the cockpit. The report does not specify which pilot asked the question, and who engine is briefly restarted but fails to provide sufficient thrust to prevent the aircraft's deceleration and plane crashes into the hostel block of BJ Medical College in Ahmedabad's Meghani Nagar, causing multiple explosions and fires. Everyone on the flight, except one passenger, and 19 persons on the ground were killed in the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup system providing limited electrical and hydraulic power, was deployed at the time of the crash, suggesting a loss of primary power landing gear failed to retract fully, and the wing flaps and slats were in the extended position, consistent with takeoff report points to the movement of the engine fuel control switches from 'on' to 'cutoff' as the likely cause of dual-engine failure that led to the crash. It does not indicate whether this was due to intentional action, human error, or an inadvertent report does not draw definitive conclusions, as it is preliminary, but it outlines the need for further investigation into the cause of the fuel switch movement and the rapid sequence of final report is expected within 12 months from June 12, Control Switches: The fuel control switches on the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner control the fuel supply to the aircraft's two General Electric GEnx-1B engines. Each engine has a dedicated switch that toggles between "RUN" (fuel flow enabled) and "CUTOFF" (fuel flow stopped). These switches are critical for engine operation and are designed to prevent accidental activation, especially during high-workload phases like takeoff. The switches are located in the cockpit, positioned between the pilots' seats. They are mounted side by side, one for the left engine and one for the right, accessible to both Mechanism: Each switch requires a two-step action to move from RUN to CUTOFF. The pilot must pull the switch upward to unlock it before flipping it to the CUTOFF position. This prevents accidental movement from vibration or casual Causes of Fuel Cutoff1. Human Error:One pilot, either Captain Sumeet Sabharwal or First Officer Clive Kunder, inadvertently moved both fuel control switches to CUTOFF, possibly mistaking them for another control or reacting incorrectly to a perceived issue. According to some analysts, a pilot might have intended to cut fuel to one engine but mistakenly toggled both. A miscommunication or reflex action under pressure could explain the The locking mechanism and guard brackets require deliberate action, making accidental and inadvertent switch-off unlikely. However, stress or distraction could lead to a procedural lapse, such as pulling and flipping the switches in Precedents: TransAsia Airways Flight 235 (2015): A pilot shut down the wrong engine after a single-engine failure, causing a crash that killed 43. This was a clear human error under stress, not intentional. According to ICAO data for the previous decade, human errors caused 53 per cent of aviation accidents, often during critical phases like For: The CVR's dialogue indicates confusion, suggesting an unintended action by one pilot. The switches' return to RUN and one engine's brief relight suggest a pilot realized the mistake and attempted Against: The switch safeguards make accidental movement unlikely. The preliminary report does not mention any cockpit emergency (eg, engine fire warning or failure) that could typically prompt inadvertent switching off under stress.2. Mechanical or Electrical MalfunctionScenario: A mechanical or electrical fault caused the fuel control switches to move to CUTOFF or disrupted fuel flow, independent of pilot action, possibly due to a design flaw, wiring issue, or software glitch in the 787's fly-by-wire system. A fault in the wiring or software could theoretically move the switches or mimic a CUTOFF Bulletin: According to reports, a 2018 FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin highlighted a potential issue with the Boeing fuel switch locking mechanism disengaging unexpectedly, though it was advisory, not mandatory. Air India did not implement the recommended For: The CVR's 'I didn't' response could indicate a pilot's surprise at a system malfunction, not their own action. The rapid switch movement (one second apart) could reflect an electrical surge or Against: The switch safeguards (lock and guards) and robust design make spontaneous movement highly unlikely. The precise timing (one second apart) just after take-off, when thrust is needed most, aligns more with manual operation than a random fault, which might affect both switches simultaneously or erratically. But, post-crash inspections of Air India's 33 Dreamliners and the absence of Boeing/GE advisories suggest no systemic issue.3. Intentional Pilot SabotageScenario: One pilot deliberately moved both fuel control switches to 'cutoff' with the intent to crash the aircraft, potentially as an act of suicide or murder-suicide, possibly driven by psychological distress or personal motives. The CVR's dialogue suggests one pilot was unaware of the action, consistent with a deliberate act by the Profiles: Sabharwal was a veteran instructor nearing retirement with no known issues. Kunder (32, 3,400 hours) was a qualified co-pilot with a clean record. Both passed breathalyzer tests and had no reported mental health Precedents: Germanwings Flight 9525 (2015): Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked out the captain and crashed the plane by setting the autopilot to descend, killing 150. Motive: concealed depression and suicidal Flight 990 (1999): Co-pilot Gameel al-Batouti likely crashed the plane by disengaging the autopilot and diving, killing 217. Motive unclear, possibly personal For: The switch safeguards require deliberate action, as noted by experts like John Nance (BBC, July 2025) and Captain Steve in his Youtube podcast. Both argue that the one-second-apart movement matches manual Evidence: The confusion and denial in the CVR suggest a unilateral act. The low altitude and rapid sequence (32 seconds to crash) make recovery from intentional sabotage logistically Against: No known motive or mental health issues for either pilot, unlike the Germanwings or EgyptAir cases. Sabharwal's retirement plans and Kunder's clean record suggest return of switches to RUN and one engine's brief relight suggest a recovery attempt, inconsistent with suicidal intent.4. External Sabotage (Ground-Based Tampering)advertisementScenario: An external actor, such as ground crew or a malicious party, tampered with the fuel system to cause the switches to move or mimic a CUTOFF state, possibly through physical alteration or software AAIB, Gujarat Police, and anti-terror squads are reviewing ground handling operations, seizing staff phones, and analyzing CCTV footage from SVPI Airport for tampering evidence. No signs of tampering have been Against: The switches are in the secure cockpit, accessible only to authorized personnel pre-flight. Tampering would require bypassing security and pre-flight checks, which both pilots completed without noting CVR's real-time confusion suggests the issue occurred during flight, not pre-set by ground July 11, 2025, preliminary report on Air India Flight 171 confirms that the crash resulted from a dual-engine shutdown caused by both fuel control switches moving to CUTOFF, with pilot confusion recorded on the CVR. The Western media seems eager to promote the sabotage theory, hinting at mental health issues with one of the pilots. But no definitive evidence confirms intentional action by the pilots or ground possibilities, including mechanical failure, especially in view of the FAA report, or human error, are also being explored. The AAIB's final report, expected by June 2026, will provide further clarity.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Time of India
11 minutes ago
- Time of India
Conclusive that accident happened because both engines lost power: Aviation expert Ehsan Khalid on AAIB preliminary report
Aviation expert Ehsan Khalid stated on Saturday that the preliminary findings of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) indicate that the Air India crash in Ahmedabad occurred due to a loss of power in both engines. Speaking to ANI, Khalid emphasised that any claims suggesting the pilots deliberately shut down the engines three seconds after takeoff are completely incorrect. He explained that the switch in question is a physical one and cannot be activated accidentally, nor can it move due to any failure or malfunction. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Average Cost To Rent A Private Jet May Surprise You (View Prices) Private Jet I Search Ads Learn More Undo "When it collided, the switch position was in the run position. The AAIB report to me is only conclusive in saying that the accident happened because both engines lost power. Any kind of suggestion that pilots killed the engines 3 seconds after takeoff is totally incorrect. It is not possible that the switches can move from one place to another on their own," the aviation expert said. "The AAIB preliminary report has clarified a few speculations, which are out the window now. There was no sabotage, there was no fuel contamination, there was no flap misconfiguration, there was no problem with the aircraft maintenance, the Aircraft was producing full power, it achieved the right speed, and it got airborne, and the first three seconds of its flight were absolutely normal," Khalid added. Live Events He noted that the physical switch cannot move inadvertently because of any failure or malfunction. "Now this is conclusively proven by the AAIB report. In the timestamp of 0842, which is three seconds after takeoff, the AAIB report states that the power and the engine fuel switch move transitions from the run to cutoff within one second. That means within one second, this switch moved its position. There is no automatic movement of the switch. The switch is a physical switch and it cannot move inadvertently or because of any failure or because of any malfunction," he added. He stated that the conversation between the two pilots of Air India Flight 171, which crashed in Ahemadabad killing 260 people, including 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 people on the ground, mentioned in the reports revealed that both the pilots were aware that the aircraft Engine power had been lost, and the pilots also were aware that they did not do any action to cause this. "What is conclusive is that at that particular instance, the aircraft stopped producing power. It was producing 100 per cent power or thrust, and thereafter it started to reduce power, at which the AAIB says the pilot asked the other pilot, Why did you cut off the switch? Pilot said, I didn't do it. That means pilots were aware that the aircraft Engine power had been lost, and pilots also were aware that they did not do any action to cause this. From thereafter, for the next 10 to 14 seconds, the engines were not producing power and the aircraft eventually lost lift and speed and then it continued to descend," he further added. India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released the preliminary report into the tragic crash of Air India flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 aircraft, which crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on June 12. The report outlines a harrowing sequence of events that unfolded within 90 seconds of takeoff, as both engines of the aircraft shut down unexpectedly during the initial climb, leading to a catastrophic loss of thrust and rapid descent. Flight AI171 was a scheduled service from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, carrying 230 passengers and crew. The crash represents one of the deadliest aviation accidents in India in recent history. Flight data recovered from the aircraft's Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) revealed that the fuel cutoff switches for both engines were inadvertently moved from RUN to CUTOFF, one after the other within a 1-second interval, at an altitude just moments after liftoff. One pilot was heard asking the other, "Why did you cut off?" to which the response was, "I did not." This uncommanded shutdown triggered the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), and the aircraft began losing altitude almost immediately, unable to sustain powered flight. According to the AAIB, the pilots re-engaged the fuel switches in an attempt to relight both engines. Engine 1 showed signs of recovering thrust, but Engine 2 failed to stabilise. The aircraft, which had briefly reached a speed of 180 knots, was already descending and failed to regain altitude. The final distress call -- a "MAYDAY" -- was transmitted at 08:09 UTC, just seconds before the aircraft crashed into residential buildings outside the airport perimeter.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13 minutes ago
- First Post
What happened with Air India plane in Ahmedabad? Crash probe report answers few questions, raises more
AAIB's preliminary report on Air India plane crash has turned out to be the tip of the iceberg. While it answers a few questions, it raises many, leaving people wanting to know more read more While the preliminary Air India plane crash report mentioned that the fuel cutoff to both engines led to the crash of Boeing Dreamliner 787-8, it has opened a can of other unanswered questions. The 15-page report covers the 98 seconds from the plane's takeoff to its devastating crash in Ahmedabad, which ultimately killed over 260 people. The findings released by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) found that switches in the cockpit that controlled fuel moved to a 'cutoff' position, leading to the fatal crash. 'The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots IAS [indicated airspeed] 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 1 second," the report said. 'The engines N1 and N2 began to decrease from their takeoff values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Hence, the engine fuel cut-off was determined as the technical cause of the crash. However, there is more to the story. Transitioning the switches from 'Run' to 'Cut-off' is not an easy task. The audio retrieved from the aircraft's black box also raised more questions about what was happening inside the cockpit at the time of the crash. Along with this, AAIB's conclusion of 'not recommending' any actions to Boeing and GE at this stage of the investigation raises speculations on the responsibility of both companies. Here's a look at some of the key questions Air India report remained unanswered: The unanswered questions How did the switches transition from 'Run' to 'Cutoff' One of the key aspects of the report was the transition of the engine fuel switch from 'Run' to 'Cutoff'. The switches transitioned one after another with a time gap of just 1 second. As a result, the Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off. However, it is not an easy task to transition the switch to the off position due to the aircraft's design. On the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the two fuel cutoff switches sit between the pilots' seats, right behind the throttle levers. These switches are flanked by a metal bar and have a lock to prevent them from accidentally transitioning. Hence, the switches are 'designed to be moved intentionally,' to avoid such accidents. While speaking to CNN, aviation safety expert, David Soucie, said: 'Throughout the years, those switches have been improved to make sure that they cannot be accidentally moved and that they're not automatic. They don't move themselves in any manner." As per the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder, the E1 fuel cut-off switch was transitioned back to 'Run', and the same was done to the E2 cut-off switch. This resulted in a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction. Engine 1 started the core recovery, but Engine 2 could not arrest the core speed after fuel re-introduction. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While the report detailed the transition of the switches, it doesn't mention who or how these switches were transitioned from Run to Cut-off in the first place. The cockpit audio recording makes things more complicated. Was it a pilot error or another form of negligence? Who said what? As per the AAIB report, the cockpit voice recording captures one of the pilots asking the other, 'Why did he cut off?'. The other pilot responded that 'he did not do so'. Now the two pilots inside the cockpit were Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, who had a total flying experience of 15,638 hours, and Clive Kunder, 32, who had 3,403 hours of total experience. Hence, both pilots had solid flying experience. So, if the pilot did not transition the switches, then who did it? Was it a malfunction of some sort? Not only this, the report also did not mention who said what in the recording, leaving the matter unanswered. The 2018 warning Now there is another side to the story. The report noted that the FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on December 17, 2018. The bulletin was regarding the 'potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature.' The SAIB was issued after the operators of Boeing Model 737 stated that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. However, the concern at that time was not considered unsafe, which would have warranted an airworthiness directive (AD) by the FAA. The AAIB stated that Air India told the investigators that the suggested inspections were not carried out since the SAIB was advisory and not a mandatory directive. While the scrutiny of the maintenance records revealed that the throttle control model was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switches. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The report maintained that there has been no defect reported about the fuel control switch since 2023. So, how did it transition, if the pilots claimed they did not do it and if there was no defect reported? Why did the engine not recover In the report, it was mentioned that the Air India pilots attempted to restart the engine after the fuel was cut off. When the engine fuel was shut off, the Ram Air Turbine - a small propeller-like device - was deployed automatically to provide emergency hydraulic power. The CCTV footage assessed by the authorities also showed the RAT being deployed. The pilots tried to restart the engine. N1 or engine 1 was partially recovered, but engine 2 failed to recover before impact. The aircraft was airborne for only 32 seconds - crashed 0.9 NM from the runway into a hostel of a medical college. While the thrust levers were found at idle, the black box shows that takeoff thrust was still engaged, suggesting a disconnect/failure. The second engine was mentioned not to arrest the reintroduction of fuel, which still raises questions on whether the engine had some issues. However, it is important to note that AAIB's 15-page report is just the tip of the iceberg, and further investigation would give clarity on this. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Why was no action recommended for Boeing or GE? After the report, the AAIB noted that at this stage of the investigation, there are no recommended actions for B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers, meaning Boeing and GE. But is the accountability of both companies being ditched? There are still questions about how the switches of the Boeing aircraft transitioned when both pilots claimed that they didn't do it. Why did the second engine not respond to the fuel reintroduction like the first one did? Shouldn't Boeing and GE be answerable to these questions? In the past, multiple whistleblowers raised concerns about the Boeing aircraft. The American planes have also been involved in several aviation accidents recently. Hence, both the engine makers and the manufacturers of the 787 can't get off the hook. There is still a long way to go. Drawing conclusions from the preliminary report is something which is not advisable by the AAIB itself. The Indian authorities maintained that the 'document has been prepared based on the preliminary facts and evidence collected during the investigation. The information is preliminary and subject to change.' The authorities stated that as per Annexe 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Rule 3 of Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents), 2017, the sole objective of the report was to reveal what went down and not appropriating blame and liabilities on any of the parties. Similarly, MoS Civil Aviation Murlidhar Mohol said, 'The AAIB has brought out a preliminary report. This is not the final report. Until the final report comes out, we should not arrive at any conclusion. AAIB is an autonomous authority, and the ministry does not interfere in their work.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to India's aviation rules, a preliminary report had to be released within 30 days of the incident. However, it could be months before investigators release a full and detailed report into the causes of the crash. Until then, the aforementioned questions might remain unanswered.
