Boeing Fuel Switches Checked, as Critic Cites a Similar Fuel Switch Cutoff in 2019 (financialexpress.com) 51
ABC News reports:
Dialogue heard on a cockpit voice recording indicates that the captain of the Air India flight that crashed in June, killing 260 people, may have turned off the fuel just after takeoff, prompting the first officer to panic, according to The Wall Street Journal, which cited sources familiar with U.S. official's early assessment... The president of the Federation of Indian Pilots condemned the Wall Street Journal report, saying, "The preliminary report nowhere states that the pilots have moved the fuel control switches, and this has been corroborated by the CVR [cockpit voice recorder] recording."
But meanwhile "India on Monday ordered its airlines to examine fuel switches on several Boeing aircraft models," reports Reuters, "while South Korea ordered a similar measure on Tuesday, as scrutiny intensified of fuel switch locks at the centre of an investigation into a deadly Air India crash." The precautionary moves by the two countries and airlines in several others came despite the planemaker and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration assuring airlines and regulators in recent days that the fuel switch locks on Boeing jets are safe... [The preliminary report] noted a 2018 advisory from the FAA, which recommended, but did not mandate, operators of several Boeing models, including the 787, to inspect the locking feature of fuel cutoff switches to ensure they could not be moved accidentally... Some airlines around the world told Reuters they had been checking relevant switches since 2018 in accordance with the FAA advisory, including Australia's Qantas Airways. Others said they had made additional or new checks since the release of the preliminary report into the Air India crash.
The web site of India's Financial Express newspaper spoke to Mary Schiavo, who was Inspector General of America's Transportation Department from 1990 to 1996 (and is also a long-time critic of the FAA). The site notes Schiavo "rejected the claims of human error that a pilot downed the Ahmedabad to London flight by cutting off the fuel supply." Schiavo exclusively told FinancialExpress.com that this is not the first time fuel switch transitioned from "Run" to "Cutoff" on its own. It happened five years ago, too. "There was an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight in 2019 in which the 787 aircraft did this itself, while the flight was on final approach. No pilot input cutting off the fuel whatsoever," Schiavo told FinancialExpress.com... "The investigation revealed the plane software made the 787 think it was on the ground and the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation System cut the fuel to the engines," she told FinancialExpress.com, before adding, "The pilots never touched the fuel cutoff..." Both engines flamed out immediately after the pilot deployed the thrust reversers for landing. The aircraft, which was also a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, was towed away from the runway by the authorities, and no injuries were reported.
UK Civil Aviation Authority, four weeks before the crash, had warned about similar fuel system issues on Boeing aircraft [on May 15, 2025]. "The FAA has issued an Airworthiness Directive addressing a potential unsafe condition affecting fuel shutoff valves installed on Boeing aircraft," the UK regulator's notice read, listing the B737, B757, B767, B777 and B787...
Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation informs FADEC [a digital computer] about whether the aircraft is on the ground or in the air, and if it believes the aircraft is on the ground, it may automatically throttle back the engines, without the pilot's input.
Reuters notes that the Air India crash preliminary report "said maintenance records showed that the throttle control module, which includes the fuel switches, was replaced in 2019 and 2023 on the plane involved in the crash."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader wired_parrot for sharing the news.
But meanwhile "India on Monday ordered its airlines to examine fuel switches on several Boeing aircraft models," reports Reuters, "while South Korea ordered a similar measure on Tuesday, as scrutiny intensified of fuel switch locks at the centre of an investigation into a deadly Air India crash." The precautionary moves by the two countries and airlines in several others came despite the planemaker and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration assuring airlines and regulators in recent days that the fuel switch locks on Boeing jets are safe... [The preliminary report] noted a 2018 advisory from the FAA, which recommended, but did not mandate, operators of several Boeing models, including the 787, to inspect the locking feature of fuel cutoff switches to ensure they could not be moved accidentally... Some airlines around the world told Reuters they had been checking relevant switches since 2018 in accordance with the FAA advisory, including Australia's Qantas Airways. Others said they had made additional or new checks since the release of the preliminary report into the Air India crash.
The web site of India's Financial Express newspaper spoke to Mary Schiavo, who was Inspector General of America's Transportation Department from 1990 to 1996 (and is also a long-time critic of the FAA). The site notes Schiavo "rejected the claims of human error that a pilot downed the Ahmedabad to London flight by cutting off the fuel supply." Schiavo exclusively told FinancialExpress.com that this is not the first time fuel switch transitioned from "Run" to "Cutoff" on its own. It happened five years ago, too. "There was an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight in 2019 in which the 787 aircraft did this itself, while the flight was on final approach. No pilot input cutting off the fuel whatsoever," Schiavo told FinancialExpress.com... "The investigation revealed the plane software made the 787 think it was on the ground and the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation System cut the fuel to the engines," she told FinancialExpress.com, before adding, "The pilots never touched the fuel cutoff..." Both engines flamed out immediately after the pilot deployed the thrust reversers for landing. The aircraft, which was also a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, was towed away from the runway by the authorities, and no injuries were reported.
UK Civil Aviation Authority, four weeks before the crash, had warned about similar fuel system issues on Boeing aircraft [on May 15, 2025]. "The FAA has issued an Airworthiness Directive addressing a potential unsafe condition affecting fuel shutoff valves installed on Boeing aircraft," the UK regulator's notice read, listing the B737, B757, B767, B777 and B787...
Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation informs FADEC [a digital computer] about whether the aircraft is on the ground or in the air, and if it believes the aircraft is on the ground, it may automatically throttle back the engines, without the pilot's input.
Reuters notes that the Air India crash preliminary report "said maintenance records showed that the throttle control module, which includes the fuel switches, was replaced in 2019 and 2023 on the plane involved in the crash."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader wired_parrot for sharing the news.
WSJ source? (Score:5, Informative)
While the WSJ declares that the captain turned off the fuel, the preliminary report does not indicate that. The WSJ article is behind a paywall so I am unable to determine where they got this information. The preliminary report stated that the data recorder logged the fuel switches went from RUN to CUTOFF and back again 6 seconds later. There are 4 possibilities:
If the fuel switches had been replaced with ones that did not have the advisory condition, the third one is least likely as it takes a two step motion to move the switches.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope this sort of accidents help restart conversations about video capture https://simpleflying.com/could... [simpleflying.com]
Re: WSJ source? (Score:2)
Add to that if a human do something wrong on a video you can't in a case like this know why.
At the time the temperature in the area was very high - 37 degrees C. Probably higher in cockpit since air conditioning isn't working. In that condition it's easy to make totally weird decisions. Human error caused by environmental factors would be my idea at this time.
Re: (Score:3)
Video capture is a double edged sword. On the one hand it would certainly help with accident investigations in some instances. On the other it may make pilots act differently if they know they are being filmed, and that's not always a good thing.
There are also concerns about the video leaking out. Audio recordings from black boxes leak sometimes, which is often traumatic for the people involved, such as the families of people who died. It's also bad for pilots because of the above mentioned behavioural chan
Re:WSJ source? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WSJ source? (Score:4, Insightful)
The preliminary report makes it pretty clear that while how they got to CUTOFF is unknown, their manual movement back to RUN was well established, and several second delay between each immediately after the pilot asking the copilot why he had shut the fuel off.
So really, your possibilities are 2, 3, and 4.
2 seems impossible, but who knows.
Re: (Score:2)
1 is highly unlikely.
The preliminary report makes it pretty clear that while how they got to CUTOFF is unknown, their manual movement back to RUN was well established, and several second delay between each immediately after the pilot asking the copilot why he had shut the fuel off.
So really, your possibilities are 2, 3, and 4.
2 seems impossible, but who knows.
And it sounds to me like Mary Schiavo's position is based on a 1 happening
Re: (Score:3)
It's based on (2) happening, not (1).
I read speculation on this after the report came out, and supposedly the potential issue is that it's easy to put the fuel cut-off switches in a position that isn't locked. As a result, engine vibration or something like that can cause the switches to slide back into the cut-off position.
Not a pilot, commenting on speculation, so take that for what little it's worth. The thing to me is that even if it's the case Boeing's original switch had that flaw, the fact the switch
Re: (Score:3)
It's based on 1.
The TCMAS disables fuel to the engines without the switches.
Mary Schiavo seems like a conspiracy nut.
Re: (Score:2)
I read speculation on this after the report came out, and supposedly the potential issue is that it's easy to put the fuel cut-off switches in a position that isn't locked. As a result, engine vibration or something like that can cause the switches to slide back into the cut-off position.
Very unlikely. These type switches have been used on aircraft, both military and civilian, for decades. They are used when accidental change of position would be dangerous. The switch has to be pulled away from the console, moved to the new position, then released. The likelihood of them being balanced on the tip of the locking hump is almost zero. Plus, contact is not made until the switch is past the detent. Here is a side view of the this type of locking switch.
Locking toggle switch [genpilot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So I did some Googling because as the last paragraph hinted, there was a recall about this - ie switches were replaced (in 2018.) This is apparently what the people I heard talking about the issue were referring to (as an aside I find it surprising that you think all planes have the same switch, rather than a significant number of Boeings having a specific Boeing design for twin engine planes, etc)
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob... [europa.eu]
As I said though, I'd have assumed this plane would have had its fuel cutoff s
Re: (Score:2)
Given the catastrophic results of accidentally cutting fuel to both engines, you would think that they would put them somewhere more out of the way, and protect them with more than just finger latches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The preliminary report makes it pretty clear that while how they got to CUTOFF is unknown, their manual movement back to RUN was well established.
I did not read anywhere that "manual movement . . . was established". What the preliminary report said on page 15: "As per the EAFR (flight data recorder), the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC." No part of that indicated it was done manually.
Re: (Score:2)
How many more words would you like them to use to describe things that are implicitly true?
They didn't note that a meteor didn't hit the motors either.
Fucking hell.
Re: (Score:1)
not necessarily...
1. could have been electrical issue- electrical short or system flipped a bit and the system was set to off... unlikely.. but nothing in tech is ever 100%... the crew could have cycled the controls and dropped them into the ON position
2. On it's own... the original controls were defective and needed to be swapped out because they did this very thing... everyone assumes that the controls were replaced correctly, and no one f'd up... i.e. replacing with same part (you take it out.. .confuse
Re: (Score:3)
1. could have been electrical issue- electrical short or system flipped a bit and the system was set to off... unlikely.. but nothing in tech is ever 100%... the crew could have cycled the controls and dropped them into the ON position
No. The switches were physically moved from CUT OFF to RUN after the Captain asked about why they were cut off, which they had been physically moved to before he asked.
In short, no 1 is not possible.
2. On it's own... the original controls were defective and needed to be swapped out because they did this very thing... everyone assumes that the controls were replaced correctly, and no one f'd up... i.e. replacing with same part (you take it out.. .confuse which one is the new and old... put old back in)... defective replacement unit... or a fuck up in inventory and defective unit was replaced with another defective unit.
Ok, now you're just making shit up.
Get the fuck out of here.
Re: (Score:2)
My money is on yet another massive, murderous engineering disaster from Boeing, plus yet another massive coverup. It's not not this would be the first time. Fly Boeing if you are tired of life.
It's not a trick (Score:3)
It's a Boeing.
That's just false (Score:5, Informative)
There was an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight in 2019 in which the 787 aircraft did this itself, while the flight was on final approach.
The investigation revealed the plane software made the 787 think it was on the ground and the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation System cut the fuel to the engines
The plane was not "on final approach." It was in fact on the ground.
What happened was that the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation System shut down the engines after reverse thrust was selected quickly after touchdown. That is a serious issue but did not happen when the plane was in the air.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
So your claim is, in that case the plane and passengers dodged a Boeing bullet. I don't see how that gives anyone reason to relax.
Re: That's just false (Score:5, Insightful)
No, my claim is that what Schaivo said is false. And that for that matter, what happened to that ANA flight only happened because they were on the ground.
If there is a fault with the 787's Air/Ground Sensing System that would be another issue, but there's no evidence of that yet.
Re: (Score:1)
When a plane first engages its thrust reverses it is still flying. So you are full of crap, please stop.
Re: That's just false (Score:2)
Oh good just what we need (Score:5, Insightful)
A nice big wall of text with nothing but unsubstantiated speculation and barely loosely related anecdotes which may or may not have anything to do with the crash in question, all the while fuelled by tabloid quality reporting and that which isn't is locked behind a paywall.
The world would have been better off had this not been posted. A lot of people will leave this site today dumber for having read this.
Re: (Score:1)
A nice big wall of text with nothing but unsubstantiated speculation
You wish. What sort of heathen would wish such a thing under these circumstances? Identifying the role of the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation System is not "nothing", far from it. Boeing employee by any chance?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not identifying anything. If there's a problem with the TCMAS that is related to the incident in question then we will read about it in the final report.
Otherwise it's not a wish, it is literally the dictionary definition of the term pure speculation. We didn't just discover the root cause by tabloid journalism interviewing people who recall other incidents from the past. If you think we did, try turn yourself off and on again, and preferably start anew at grade 1.
Re: (Score:2)
You have such a big mouth and it is so often open unnecessary, braying.
Re: Oh good just what we need (Score:2)
Sid you just say ignorance is bliss if you're Boeing?
Re: (Score:2)
No I did not. I said incorrect information is more dangerous than no information. There's an investigation underway. Cool your tits, and wait for it to conclude. Even the NTSB said yesterday that speculation in an ongoing investigation is actually harmful. But sure gotta get your daily dose of tabloid journalism I guess.
Shame on the WSJ for the clickbait headline! (Score:2)
Or is that just Slashdot? Anyway, the critical word is "similar" as in NOT similar at all if you look at the description. The key question would be whether or not the data they have now can distinguish between a fuel cut off caused by moving the switches and a fuel cut off triggered by "safety" software somewhere else in the plane.
I'm increasingly tilting against the pilot. Human beings are complicated and sometimes get into suicidal mind states. I'm reminded of "suicide by cop" and countermeasures, but wha
Re: (Score:3)
It is also important that they have identified a computer control system that could possibly have malfunctioned. It's not like this would be the first time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that's huge news to me! That software is even capable of flipping those fuel switches, is massive.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this some kind of play on Poe's Law?
There is no robot hand in the cockpit grabbing at the switches.
Actually this story is now reminding me of a time when I flew to an airport I didn't know and wasn't careful enough about my fuel... Maybe I should be telling more anecdotes about what a bad pilot I was? I have a funny story about landing backwards one time. After I was down the tower called me to ask if I had any particular reason for doing it... (And no, that is not how I lost my ticket.)
Re:Shame on the WSJ for the clickbait headline! (Score:4, Interesting)
The switches are mechanical with electrical contacts that sense their position; there's no way for software to change their physical position. The speculation is around whether some electrical or software fault may have made the system behave as if the switches had been moved to the cut-off position, e.g., wiring shorting out or disconnecting. This seems unlikely for multiple reasons. One pilot asking the other why they were off suggests that the switches could be seen to be in the cut-off position. Also, the software saw them cut-off 1 second apart, as if someone moved them one at a time, whereas an electrical or software issue would be more likely to affect both switches at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Please do less spouting and more reading of the fucking article. "The investigation revealed the plane software made the 787 think it was on the ground and the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation System cut the fuel to the engines." Clear implication that software is able to cut of the fuel. Whether it has to physically move the switches or not is immaterial. (Probably does not physically move the switches, and the operator would have to manually cycle the switches to override the software cutoff. Let'
Vibe coding will fix this! (Score:2)
Just call in doge.
What did John Barnett know? (Score:4, Interesting)
This again brings my thoughts to what whistleblower John Barnett [wikipedia.org] had said.
He had worked as a quality control engineer on the 787 plant, where he had claimed that defective parts that were supposed to be recycled had gone missing -- with the fear that they had been taken and installed into air planes. ... which the police somehow determined to have been suicide.
Another claim was that he had seen clusters of metal shavings in the electrical wiring.
He had urged his bosses to take action, but instead he got transferred. He retired early because of job-related stress, and started blowing the whistle.
And then he died from a gun shot wound on the day of a deposition in the whistleblower case
This makes me wondering, of course ...
I have a long-haul flight booked on a 787 coming up in two months. I'd like to get some definitive answers.
Not worried one bit (Score:2)
I have a long-haul flight booked on a 787 coming up in two months. I'd like to get some definitive answers.
Me too...in three. And I'm not worried one bit. Do you know why?
Because there's over a thousand of them being used by airlines every year, and hundreds flying above your head as you read this. And there's not a single report of any of them having engines that flame out.
Furthermore, I've not seen any reports today of anyone dying in a commercial airplane crash. Meanwhile, about 3,260 people die ever [who.int]
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me wondering, of course ...
I have a long-haul flight booked on a 787 coming up in two months.
This making you wonder is simply a demonstration of human being's completely irrational response to information about rare events they can't quantify. Even if you took *exclusively* Boeing incidents, limited it to the MBA management poor QA/QC days of just the past decade or so, and then multiplied those crash figures across the entire industry by passenger numbers / flight hours,.... flying on your 787 in the coming month will still be orders of magnitude safer than your trip to the airport.
If you're conce
Re: (Score:2)
Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (Score:2)
"Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation". We'll be hearing a lot about that over the next months. Right up there with "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System".
Air/Ground logic is not fuel cutoff switch (Score:4, Insightful)
The air/ground logic (to decide if the aircraft is in the air or on the ground) is not the same as the fuel cutoff switches. The position of the cutoff switches is recorded on the EAFR (data recorder). You can tell the difference between the two situations, even if they can both cause an immediate engine rollback.
This article is a pile of speculation, based on statements from someone who has a particular axe to grind against aviation regulators.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes this last part seems to be "reporting" from the Financial Express, which is little more than a tabloid rag ... in India. Barely above the Daily Mail in terms of credibility and factual reporting. This information is actively damaging and undermines the work regulators do by stoking the idea that the investigation is being rigged. Honestly I'm disappointed Slashdot ran this rubbish.
A&P explains 787 Fues System (Score:2)
American Airlines A&P discussing 787 systems and specially the controversial topic of the fuel switches.
https://youtu.be/-ur234kwnhk?s... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Very informative, thanks. I know that pretty much every turbine engine, industrial or aircraft, has a fuel cutoff before the FADEC and a dump valve after the FADEC so that one can instantly cut fuel flow to the burners.
What exactly did the black box record? (Score:2)
The big question is, "What exactly did the black box record?"
Was it the physical position of the switches?
Or the electronic status of the fuel run-cutoff state?
I haven't heard a definitive answer. Mostly, I'm seeing the question begged, assuming the physical positions of the switches was what was recorded.
Obviously the copilot saw the switches thrown (Score:1)
These switches require affirmative operation (Score:2)
So the most likely reason they both changed state, one and then the other is because one of the pilots did it. Maybe they did it accidentally - some kind of brain fart, or maybe they did