NDTV Decodes: Engines Shut, Fuel Cut Off - Inside Doomed Air India Flight
On June 12, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, departed Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at 1:39 pm, bound for London Gatwick. Within 32 seconds of takeoff, the aircraft crashed into a medical hostel near the airport, killing 241 of the 242 passengers and crew on board and 19 people on the ground.
The sole survivor was a British-Indian man seated in row 11A. This was the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787 since its commercial debut in 2011.
A probe report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) was released last night. The report points to a series of possibilities and also raises multiple questions on what transpired inside the doomed flight.
Add image caption here
The Takeoff and Aftermath
According to data extracted from the aircraft's Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR), commonly referred to as the black box, Flight 171 carried out a routine takeoff. The Dreamliner accelerated to a takeoff speed of 153 knots or roughly 283 kmph. It then reached a maximum airspeed of 180 knots or roughly 333 kmph, climbing steadily as expected. The flap setting was recorded at five degrees, and the landing gear lever remained in the 'DOWN' position, both standard takeoff procedures.
Weather conditions posed no threat, skies were clear, visibility was good, and winds were light. Yet, within seconds, the fuel control switches for Engine 1 and Engine 2 moved from the "RUN" to "CUTOFF" position, one after the other, within a one-second interval.
These switches govern the flow of fuel to the engines, and their transition to "CUTOFF" halted the supply, causing both engines to lose thrust. The black box data shows that thrust levels began to decrease from their takeoff values almost immediately, triggering a rapid de-throttling process.
The Cockpit Exchange
The cockpit voice recorder (CVR), one of two black box components, captured a brief exchange between the pilots. Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, the commander and pilot monitoring (PM), and First Officer Clive Kunder, the pilot flying (PF), were both experienced and medically fit, with no reported issues that could have compromised their flying. As the engines faltered, one pilot -- identity unconfirmed -- asked, "Why did you cut off?" The other responded, "I didn't."
This dialogue is now at the centre of the investigation.
Was it a misunderstanding, an unacknowledged action, or an external factor beyond the pilots' control? The fuel control switches on a Boeing 787 are not simple toggles.
Each switch features a guard rail. To move a switch from "RUN" (forward) to "CUTOFF" (aft), a pilot must lift and shift it downward. This design minimises the risk of accidental movement, such as a hand brushing against it during flight.
The switches for Engine 1 and Engine 2 are spaced approximately two to three inches apart, making it improbable for both to be moved simultaneously without intent. Yet, the data confirms that both transitioned to "CUTOFF" within a single second.
The Pilots' Response
As thrust diminished, the aircraft's altitude began to drop. The black box indicates that the pilots acted swiftly, moving both fuel control switches back to the "RUN" position. This action, executed approximately 10 seconds after the initial cutoff, aimed to restore fuel flow and restart the engines.
Engine 1 responded and its core speed deceleration halted, reversed, and began to recover, with thrust levels rising. Engine 2 also relit, but its core speed continued to decelerate despite repeated attempts to reintroduce fuel and accelerate recovery. The thrust levers, found near idle in the wreckage, had remained forward until impact, per the flight data recorder (FDR).
Simultaneously, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a small propeller deployed automatically in the event of dual engine failure, extended from the fuselage during takeoff. CCTV footage from the airport captured this deployment.
The RAT provides emergency power to sustain critical systems, but it cannot generate thrust. With the aircraft barely a few hundred feet above ground, the partial recovery of Engine 1 proved insufficient.
At 1:39:32 pm, Flight 171 struck the hostel, sparking a fireball that devastated the site.
The Key Focus
The AAIB's preliminary report, spanning dozens of pages, drew on data extracted from the heavily damaged black box units, one located in the forward section, the other in the rear.
These devices, designed to withstand extreme temperatures and impact, house memory chips that record flight data. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States provided specialised equipment to retrieve this data.
The investigation now centres on the fuel control switches. Three primary theories are under scrutiny:
Human Action: Did one pilot deliberately or inadvertently move the switches? The cockpit exchange suggests neither accepted responsibility.
"No pilot in their right mind would do this. The switches require intentional effort-lifting and moving them past a guard rail. It's not a light switch you flick by mistake," Captain Saurabh Bhatnagar, a former senior commander at Air India Express, told NDTV.
Mechanical Failure: Could a defect have caused the switches to move independently?
External Factors: Could fuel flow have ceased despite the switches remaining in "RUN"? The report finds no evidence of this.
The AAIB has ruled out other variables. No significant bird activity was detected, negating a bird strike theory.
The Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), a rear-mounted mini jet engine, was operational and attempted an autostart to assist engine relight, but its role was secondary to the switches' position. Crucially, the report states there is "no immediate evidence of sabotage."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Was pilot action to blame for Air India Ahmedabad crash? Here's what we know so far
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's (AAIB's) preliminary report into the Air India flight AI 171 crash in Ahmedabad on June 12 all but points to pilot action as having caused India's worst aviation disaster in four decades. The report says that the ill-fated Boeing 787-8's fuel control switches transitioned from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' position moments after lift-off, causing the aircraft to lose thrust during the critical phase of the flight. Experts suggest that it is next to impossible for these switches to have moved on their own or by accident. Union Minister of State for Civil Aviation and Cooperation Murlidhar Mohol has said that the report is not yet final, and the information is 'still under the purview of investigation'. Here's a breakdown of what might have happened, and how. Both engines 'failed' Experts have long believed that the crash was caused due to both engines 'failing' during the critical take-off phase. This conclusion is borne out of three key facts. Behind double-engine 'failure' The question then is what led to both engines losing power at the same time. Modern aircraft engines are extremely reliable, meaning a double-engine failure is not just rare but also very difficult to explain. An inexplicable action As such, these switches are put in the 'cutoff' position only while the aircraft is on the ground, or in emergency situations such as an engine fire while at a high altitude. There is no official protocol for this action during takeoff, even in case of an engine fire. The aircraft must be at a pre-determined safe altitude before such an action is taken. Moreover, it is next to impossible to accidentally move the switches to the cutoff position. Not only are there brackets — basically, raised surfaces — to prevent accident handling, since the 1950s, fuel control switches have come with a standard stop-lock mechanism: they must be pulled up to unlock before being flipped. 'It would be almost impossible to pull both switches with a single movement of one hand, and this makes accidental deployment unlikely,' a Canada-based air accidents investigator told the BBC. There also seems to have been some confusion about these switches being flipped in the cockpit. The preliminary report states: '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.' Note that both fuel control switches were found in the 'run' position in the wreckage, and the AAIB report indicates both engines were relit in-flight but could not help the aircraft recover at a low altitude. More questions than answers The preliminary report provides seemingly definitive answers for the 'what' and 'how' questions around the crash that killed 260 people (241 on board and 19 on the ground). But it does not answer the 'why' of the question: why would a pilot cut fuel off to both engines, especially at such a low altitude? Both pilots were experienced operators, with a flying experience of more than 9,500 hours on the specific aircraft. They also passed breathalyzer tests in the morning, and were deemed fit to fly. Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the US's NTSB, told the BBC: 'The finding is very disturbing — that a pilot has shut off the fuel switch within seconds of flying.' According to him, 'There's likely much more on the cockpit voice recorder than what's been shared. A lone remark like 'why did you cut off the switches' isn't enough.' The transcript of the conversation has not been released yet. The preliminary AAIB report states that the United States' Federal Aviation Authority in 2018 had flagged the potential issue with the 'disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature' in Boeing-737s, adding that this 'was not considered an unsafe condition'. As such, experts say that this is unlikely to have been a major problem. The AAIB report says that the throttle control module, which contained the fuel switches, were replaced in 2019 and 2023. Which once again brings the spotlight on pilot action. Some have speculated that the aircraft might have lost one engine, which the pilots misidentified, and ended up shutting the wrong engine. Even if this were to be the case, however, it would not explain pilots not following the standard, methodical procedure for cutting an engine off.
New Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Patriot Games
Of the many characters who have fallen through the cracks of history and have escaped academic attention, one of the most fascinating is Fateh Bahadur Sahi, an obscure king of Huseypur (presently Husepur, in Gopalganj, Bihar), who fought against the British East India Company in the late 18th century. In his new book, The Raja, the Rebel, and the Monk (Penguin), professor of history JN Sinha has tried to unravel Sahi's unusual life and rule, which even present-day inhabitants of Gopalganj are little aware of. Sahi ascended the throne of Huseypur around 1750, seven years before the Battle of Plassey. As with many other kingdoms, the British used deceit and treachery—in this case, they conspired with his cousin, Babu Basant Sahi—to usurp his throne. An indomitable spirit, Sahi fought a guerrilla war for three decades from the dense jungles of Gorakhpur, where he escaped after being dethroned. The book also focuses on his sudden disappearance after becoming a monk. The book is interesting because of the search and research the author put together to fill in the gaps about this historical character. What was Sina's starting point? Says the author: 'In the works of historian Anand Yang, I found the name of Fateh Bahadur Sahi. Although he did not acknowledge Sahi as a freedom fighter and considered him a revenue defaulter, he wrote about Sahi's neighbour and his cousin. He also attributed some sources whom I contacted for my work. In addition, I took inspiration from existing folklore. I spoke to people at present living in that region, those who were familiar with his history. As much as it was possible to verify the facts and myths surrounding him, I did that with the help of archival sources. And that is how the book was born.' Revolutionary or defaulter? Sinha also had to deal with the questions surrounding Sahi's legacy. Was he a revolutionary who fought against the British, or a mere defaulter who took up arms to avoid British taxes? Some also say he was a dacoit.
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Career as a pilot: 5 crucial cockpit lessons every aspirant learns in training
Pilot Focused in Modern Cockpit (AI Image) When most students dream of becoming a pilot, they imagine soaring through skies, wearing crisp uniforms, and commanding the cockpit like a movie hero. But as the recent Air India crash has grimly reminded us, aviation is less about glamour and more about grit. In the tightly enclosed space of a cockpit, every switch, every second—and every silence—can mean life or death. The preliminary findings from the Air India AI‑171 crash show something chilling: both engines were cut off manually, seconds after takeoff, and the cockpit voice recorder captured confusion, not command. One pilot asked, 'Why did you cut off the fuel supply?' The other replied, 'I didn't.' No one took responsibility. Both engines shut down. 260 lives were lost. The disaster has forced the industry to revisit one unsettling truth: Flying is not just about skills; it's about psychology, procedures, and high-pressure thinking. Here's what every pilot trainee is taught—lessons that the world rarely sees, but actually shape and surprise every aspiring pilot. Flying the plane is just 10% of the job What students believe: You're in command, flying hands-on all the time. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 수천시간을 투자해서 만든 이미지영어 40분 특강 스티븐영어 지금 시작하기 Undo What they learn: The autopilot is your co-pilot—and sometimes, your boss. From the very first simulator sessions, students realise flying is less about 'stick and rudder' and more about systems management. Modern aircraft are designed to be flown through layers of automation. The pilot's true role is to monitor, anticipate, and intervene intelligently—not to constantly maneuver the aircraft like a video game. Pre-flight planning, weather checks, alternate routing, fuel load optimisation, and traffic management are just as critical as actual take-offs and landings. A large chunk of training involves understanding avionics, FMCs (Flight Management Computers), and multi-layered system checks. Reality check: A pilot isn't paid to fly. They're paid to step in when systems fail. The cockpit is designed for the brain, not the hands What students believe: Flying is a physical task. What they learn: It's a cognitive marathon. Pilots are trained in situational awareness—which means constantly knowing what's happening, what's about to happen, and what might go wrong next. You're taught to "stay ahead of the aircraft," mentally projecting the next 3–5 minutes at all times. Every button has a reason. Every silence has a protocol. Trainees are drilled to monitor six instruments at once while interpreting radio instructions and adjusting fuel mixes or flaps in real time. Key lesson: Aviation punishes reaction time and rewards anticipation. You communicate more than you navigate What students believe: Communication is just announcing positions to ATC. What they learn: Precision in language saves lives. Flight training dedicates serious time to teaching radio discipline—concise phraseology, non-negotiable callouts, and structured responses. It's not just formality. A minor miscommunication at 30,000 feet can trigger mid-air confusion or miscoordination with air traffic control. Students practice standard ICAO phraseology and learn the exact tone, pace, and timing of cockpit communications. Any hesitation, or talking over a radio channel, is considered a major procedural error. Fun fact: Pilots are marked down more harshly for talking too much than too little. Emergencies are simulated until they become boring What students believe: Emergencies are rare and terrifying. What they learn: They're routine—if you're trained right. Engine flameout, rapid cabin depressurisation, gear malfunction, fire warning mid-flight—these aren't Hollywood plot points in aviation. They're daily simulator drills. Trainees are taught to treat every emergency not as a crisis, but as a checklist execution. One of the first phrases drilled in is: 'Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.' Pilots learn to suppress emotion and switch into protocol mode. Lesson for life: In aviation, panic is not part of the workflow. Procedure is. Captain's seat comes with psychological weight What students believe: Seniority equals skill. What they learn: Leadership, not hierarchy, runs the cockpit. Multi-crew cockpit training introduces a concept called CRM (Crew Resource Management). It's about how to command, listen, question, and even disagree—without ego. Pilots must manage human dynamics: Dealing with a co-pilot's mistake, absorbing a ground controller's delay, or making decisions when there's dissent on the flight deck. Even tone of voice and posture matter during crew briefings. Captains are trained to listen actively, and First Officers are encouraged to challenge decisions that don't align with procedure. Bottom line: The cockpit doesn't run on hierarchy. It runs on mutual accountability. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
