Air India Crash – Outrageous Accusations
One of the most prominent YouTube aviation channels has released a new Air India crash video and this time they seem to be sure (at least that’s my interpretation of their video) that they know what happened to Air India 171. Apparently the fuel control switches were set to “cutoff” and with this sliver of information, this supposed pilot and YouTube aviation expert feels sure enough to blame one or both pilots for the accident. In this article I’m going to explain why the position of the fuel cut off switches indicates precisely nothing.
Fortunately, it won’t take long.
787.weebly.com is a technical site for pilots. And on this website they have a list of memory actions/memory item checklists. Checklists which pilots should know from memory so they do not need to get out the physical checklist.
And on the memory item checklist for the 787, is a section dealing with the fuel control switches.
I’ll copy and past that section here because it’s very short
Dual Eng Fail/Stall
https://about787.weebly.com/memory-items.html
1 FUEL CONTROL switches
(both) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CUTOFF, then RUN
2 RAM AIR TURBINE switch . . . . . . . Push and hold for 1 second
Dual Loss of Engines – Last Article
In short, the checklist for the 787 says to switch both fuel control switches to “Cutoff” and then “run” in the event of dual engine failure. It also says (according to the source), to deploy the ram air turbine.
In my last article I explained why loss of thrust from both engines was the most likely explanation for the crash. In this scenario, you would expect, (if the pilots followed the checklist), to see the fuel control switch in either the “Cutoff” or the “Run” position. If the flight happened to come to an end when the switch was in the cutoff position it means precisely nothing with regards to the state of mind of either of the pilots.
The only thing we can imply, with the information we have, is that the pilots were going through the checklist and trying to save the aircraft.
And the fact that the RAT was deployed is further evidence that procedure was being followed.
Unfortunately this YouTube expert has somehow come to the conclusion that one of both of the pilots were suicidal because of the position of the fuel control switch.
On The Ground
There is more information here on the use of Fuel Control switches on the 787.
I quote
Memory Item should be carried out “FUEL CONTROL switch Cut-off”. Allow the Autostart sequence to run until the ENG AUTOSTART message displays.
https://kb.skyhightex.com/knowledge-base/ground-operations/
And it continues
Note: For in-flight starts, the autostart system discontinues the start temporarily only if a EGT between the start and take-off EGT is reached, or a hung start is detected.
https://kb.skyhightex.com/knowledge-base/ground-operations/
Autostart takes corrective action if some start problems are detected, but does not abort the start.
If I am reading this correctly and if the source is accurate, the pilots may have had to wait for the “ENG AUTOSTART” message to display. Which again, would be yet another sign that the pilots were following procedure with the Fuel Control switch in “Cut-Off” position.
Contradiction
There seems to be a contradiction in the way the Autostart functions on the ground and in the air. In “https://about787.weebly.com/memory-items.html” they simply say switch moved to “Cutoff and then “Run”. It does not say if there should be a delay between changing switch position eg to wait for message or if it should be switched immediately back to “Run”. I assume no delay in-flight from this video. But SkyHighTex may say to wait until “Autostart message appears” before switching back to “Run” when on the ground. As a layman, if the autostart function works differently on the ground vs in the air, that would seem potentially confusing.
Cockpit Warning – Air India 171
Another thing that discounts the YouTube “expert’s” theory that a pilot flew the plane into the ground deliberately is the cockpit will display a message that the Fuel Control switches have been set to an unusual position.
Specifically the “Secondary Display”
I quote
Secondary Automatic Engine Indication are displayed, (when not selected for display)
https://kb.skyhightex.com/knowledge-base/boeing787engine/
- When The FUEL CONTROL Switch Is Moved To CUTOFF During Flight OR
- An Engine Fire Switch Is Pulled During Flight OR
- A Secondary Engine Parameter Is Exceeded OR
- Engine N2 Is Below Idle In-Flight OR
- A Start Selector Is In Start Position OR
- The fuel flow ENG L/R advisory is displayed.
- Note: The Secondary Engine Indication Can Not Be Cleared Until the Condition Is No Longer Present.
Again, if the source is accurate and if I am reading it correctly, a display in the cockpit will change to show that the Fuel Control switch has been moved to “Cutoff” during flight. In which case both pilots should have been aware of the situation.
I’m not sure how the expert explains this.
Would one of the pilots have not tried to put the switches back to “Run” if the other pilot was acting outside procedure? I have to assume they would, and if the experts theory is correct ie that one of the pilots deliberately flew the plane into the ground, then would there not have been some sort of scuffle in the cabin? And if there were a scuffle, how do we explain the steady movement of the plane during a scuffle?
In short, if the source is correct, either both pilots flew the plane into the ground or they were actually following procedure for the loss of two engines. Personally, I think following procedure is by far the most likely explanation.
Which Leaves Us Where?
Let me summarise all of the points I have made so far.
First
A prominent YouTube aviation expert is stating that they believe the plane was deliberately flown into the ground based on the position of the fuel control switches.
Second
The fuel control switches being in the “Cutoff” position appears to be completely in keeping with procedure, in a situation where both engines have lost power
Third
RAT is deployed which reinforces the thought that the pilots were following procedure in a situation where both engines lost power
Fourth
There is a warning in the cockpit (shown on centre screen) which informs both pilots that the fuel control switches have been switched to the cutoff position.
Fifth
There appears to be no physical altercation in the cockpit to rectify this situation
Taking all these points into consideration, I see no basis to believe the either of both pilots deliberately crashed this aeroplane. All the actions that we know about appear to be completely in keeping with procedure when facing complete loss of thrust from both engines.
RAT
Lets look at the RAT in more detail.
Specifically, under what conditions does the RAT deploy?
Aviation StackExchange has a post on just this subject here.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/98379/rat-deployment-and-stowage
- Boeing 777:Ram Air Turbine (RAT)The RAT, when deployed, provides hydraulic power only to the primary flight control components connected to the center hydraulic system. The RAT provides hydraulic and electrical power throughout the flight envelope. In flight, the RAT deploys automatically if:
The RAT can be deployed manually by pushing the RAM AIR TURBINE switch. The hot battery or APU battery bus must be powered. The RAT is deployed by a compressed spring. Once deployed, the RAT cannot be stowed in flight.(Boeing 777 FCOMv2 – 13.20.3 Hydraulics – System Description, italic emphasis mine)
- both engines are failed and center system pressure is low, or
- both AC transfer busses are unpowered, or
- all three hydraulic system pressures are low
This brings us back to my original article.
There are only two ways the RAT is deployed.
Either manually by the pilots. Or automatically due to a catastrophic failure on the aeroplane.
Whichever the reason for RAT deployment on Air India flight 171, neither jives with the behaviour of a pilot or pilots wanting to crash the plane. In my opinion.
In short, the RAT is yet another argument against pilot error/malicious intent.
The YouTube expert I believe hints that the deployment was far too quick to be done manually if a pilot had not planned it in advance. But I would counter if the pilot deployed the RAT, why would that lead the expert to believe that the pilot wanted to bring the plane down?
Air India 171 – Flight Path
As far as I am concerned and assuming the sources I am quoting are accurate, I see no reason to believe there was pilot error much less a pilot deliberately crashing the plane.
But maybe the flight path of the Air India 171 tells a different story.
Did the plane fly into a residential area to maximise causalities on the ground?
Here are pictures from two newspapers which show the flight path and the Air India crash site.
Flight Path Analysis
While the flight path from both photos vary slightly we can see that the plane flew over a residential area before it crashed and then arguably crashed into the least dense area of population in the area.
So again. No evidence of a pilot or pilots deliberately trying to kill people and actually its the opposite. If anything the plane has tried to avoid killing people on the ground as much as was possible.
Summary – Air India Crash, Fuel Control Cutoff Hypothesis
I’ve probably laboured the point but based on the evidence and sources in this article I find any accusation or implication that the Air India pilots deliberately crashed the plane to be completely and utterly baseless. There is simply no evidence that the pilots acted in a way that was counter to procedure.
And using the sources I have linked to in this article and in the previous article here, my personal opinion as a layman is the same.
To me it appears that there was a catastrophic failure on the plane that led to both engine losing thrust and that the pilots did what little they could to limit the loss of life.
This is not to say that the aviation expert is wrong. Simply that with the evidence presented by him and in this and the previous article I see no reason to imply that the actions of the pilots caused the Air India Flight 171 crash.
