The preliminary report on the Air India flight 171 crash reveals that both engine fuel control switches were deliberately shut off shortly after takeoff. Experts are baffled, noting the switches require intentional action and standard procedures dictate shutting down only a failed engine.
crash confirmed that both
engine fuel control switches were moved to the cut-off position shortly after take-off, but it left the key question as to why this happened unanswered, said experts.“I’m very surprised and disheartened to learn about the movement of the fuel control switches,” said Capt. John Cox, veteran pilot and safety analyst. “There is more investigative work to do, a lot more, but I think that we know what happened. Now the focus becomes why.”
As per standard protocol, the
Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s preliminary report did not offer any analysis or conclusions, which will figure in the final report.
According to the cockpit voice recorder, one pilot asked why did the other shut off the fuel control switches. The other replied that he didn’t. The report did not clarify which pilot said what.
Cox said that the switches are designed to prevent accidental activation. “You have to deliberately lift them and move them. It wouldn’t be something that could vibrate out of position. That is by design,” he said. “There’s a lot of evidence pointing to these switches being moved by a person.”
“In all my 55 years in aviation, I can think of only one other case I’m aware of where something like that happened,” he added, referring to a 1987
Delta Air Lines 767 incident. The crew accidentally moved both switches but managed to restart the engines and land safely.
David Soucie, former Federal Aviation Administration safety inspector and author of ‘Why Planes Crash’, called the
Air India crash “highly irregular and without precedent”. He said that pilots are trained to identify the failed engine and shut down only that one using a checklist.
“In this case, both cut-offs were pulled in rapid succession, with no verbal coordination or checklist discipline, which raises serious concerns,” he said. “From a procedural standpoint, the only justification for such action would be if both engines had already failed or were on fire. That was clearly not the case.”
Soucie said he was initially inclined to believe the action wasn’t intentional. “But the timing and manner of the shutdown are not consistent with standard pilot training. Either the pilot didn’t understand what the switches do, or the action was made without deliberate cognitive intent. Both are deeply troubling,” he said.
Capt. Amit Singh, founder of the Safety Matters Foundation, pointed to a potential discrepancy in the timeline. “The report says the fuel switches were moved at 08:08:42 UTC, but also notes the RAT (Ram Air Turbine, used as a backup power source during emergencies) deployed immediately after take-off. That suggests the engines may have stopped producing thrust just before lift-off. So did the switches move after the thrust was lost?” he asked.
Singh also raised broader technical concerns: “Can both switches move without intent? Was there a mechanical failure in the throttle quadrant? Was the 2018 advisory about a design flaw ignored? And why did the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) not activate?”
Aviation safety expert David Learmount said the gear lever—normally the only control pilots touch after take-off—is located away from the fuel switches. “There was no reason to touch them,” he said. “It’s hard to believe trained pilots could make such an error—but maybe. We don’t know, and we may never know.”
He also wondered whether the act might have been “deliberate”.
Cox added another surprising detail. “The left engine restarted, even though they weren’t at relight speed. That says a lot about the design of the GE GEnx engine. I was astounded—and pleasantly surprised—that it relit,” he said.
Until the final report is released, the most critical question, according to experts, remains—why were the switches moved?
