Dreamliner Down in India

[itsgrosswhatinet]

It's still possible that's what really happened. The FO called for gear up and the Captain selected the fuel switches to cutoff instead, as he has done hundreds of times when pulling into the gate. Muscle memory. I always take pause when selecting any switch in an airliner to allow myself to consciously think about what I'm about to do. There's no rush to do anything. A similar thing happened with a BT-67 that crashed in Fort Hope, ON. The PM selected the fuel levers to cutoff shortly after takeoff instead of bringing the prop levers back.

[7ECA]

From AvHerald:

On Jul 12th 2025 (UTC) India's media report that the investigation is NOT focussing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure. Service Bulletins by Boeing issued in year 2018 recommending to upgrade the fuel switches to locked versions to prevent inadvertent flip of the switches, as well as the FAA/GE issued Service Bulletin FAA-2021-0273-0013 Attachment 2 relating to loss of control issue (also see above) were NOT implemented by Air India. The stated MN4 computer with faulty soldering, that might weaken and lose contact due to the thermal stress after a number of cycles, interprets data and commands fuel metering valves - with the lost contact attaching the MN4 processor to the EEC intermittent electrical contact, loss of signal processing and engine control faults can occur. The SB writes under conditions for the SB: "An LOTC (Loss Of Thrust Control) event has occurred due to an EEC MN4 microprocessor solder ball failure." According to discussions in the industry it may be possible with the number of cycles VT-ANB had already completed, the solder balls were weakened sufficiently to detach the MN4 from the EEC momentarily due to loads during the takeoff rotation leading to the loss of control of thrust and shut down of the engines.

Sounds like a CYA moment to me, or rather saving face. Not unlike the "aviation expert" that was all over the news in the aftermath of this preliminary report being released claiming that the report had "exonerated the pilots".

[boeingboy]

It's still possible that's what really happened. The FO called for gear up and the Captain selected the fuel switches to cutoff instead, as he has done hundreds of times when pulling into the gate. Muscle memory. I always take pause when selecting any switch in an airliner to allow myself to consciously think about what I'm about to do. There's no rush to do anything. A similar thing happened with a BT-67 that crashed in Fort Hope, ON. The PM selected the fuel levers to cutoff shortly after takeoff instead of bringing the prop levers back.

I would put that probability as equal to you being struck by lightning 100 times in your life. The difference between not only the placement but movement of the two is so wildly different than grabbing the wrong lever that is similar in shape and right next to each other

[Dias]

I would put that probability as equal to you being struck by lightning 100 times in your life. The difference between not only the placement but movement of the two is so wildly different than grabbing the wrong lever that is similar in shape and right next to each other

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/eti ... 386797.cms

[digits_]

I would put that probability as equal to you being struck by lightning 100 times in your life. The difference between not only the placement but movement of the two is so wildly different than grabbing the wrong lever that is similar in shape and right next to each other

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/eti ... 386797.cms

Oh please. Absolutely ridiculous to think this is a factor in the accident and completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[itsgrosswhatinet]

The report is vague when it doesn’t need to be. They absolutely could have listed the timestamps of who said what (and I mean exact quotes, which are not provided here). If they have time to loosely report what was said, they could also list out the information properly and in detail. They have chosen not to.

[cdnavater]

I would put that probability as equal to you being struck by lightning 100 times in your life. The difference between not only the placement but movement of the two is so wildly different than grabbing the wrong lever that is similar in shape and right next to each other

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/eti ... 386797.cms

Idiot! To be clear I’m referring to ****!

[digits_]

The report is vague when it doesn’t need to be. They absolutely could have listed the timestamps of who said what (and I mean exact quotes, which are not provided here). If they have time to loosely report what was said, they could also list out the information properly and in detail. They have chosen not to.

Not in such a short timeframe. The only thing that's factual and could easily be reproduced are the actual recordings. You're likely hitting privacy laws there. The transcribing and likely translation is prone to interpretation and (hopefully) will need to be reviewed by all parties involved.

As a pilot or a concerned passenger, the report did a good job to alleviate concerns about 787s falling from the sky due to unknown reasons. From a CRM viewpoint it might be interesting to find out if it was a mistake or an intentional act. Or it could still be a freak accident that bumped those switches. But in the end, the final result now will only affect a small group of people. There's no need to give the general public more information before being absolutely certain.

Whereas initially a lot of people were feeling concerned, I think it has now turned more into curiousity. While I would also love to know all the details, I do respect their objective reporting with the limited but pertinent information. I wouldn't want anyone fuelling an accident investigation with misinterpreted official information if I ever were involved in one.

[pdw]

These GEnx 687-8 engines have an automatic relight feature; if they were doused somehow (a flameout), that auto-sequence starts off by first cutting fuel for ventilation and then re-introducing it again for the re-ignition process.

Yikes — at first glance didn’t see it — it looks like with that system a restart can get underway even before the pilots fully realize it ?

[Old fella]

These GEnx 687-8 engines have an automatic relight feature; if they were doused somehow (a flameout), that auto-sequence starts off by first cutting fuel for ventilation and then re-introducing it again for the re-ignition process.

Yikes — at first glance didn’t see it — it looks like with that system a restart can get underway even before the pilots fully realize it ?

Well thank f*ck you are here pwd, the knowledgeable and experienced pilots endorsed on the B787 at AC and WJ wouldn’t have thought of that.

[pdw]

Why hadn’t anyone piped up then yet that the fuel CUTOFF “transitioning” can simply be automatic restart stemming from a potential dual failure (splash out/flameout) possibility ? The EEC would sense that in a blink of an eye.

Edit: There is always caution to remove water from fuel, at all stages of the fuelling cycle … source - truck - airport/aircraft

Edit 2
What could be “missing” here is that any moisture in fuel mixes in & burns up, no big deal. But now think about if some moisture was ever affecting thrust even only slightly negatively at a precise time (ie while pulling up/arriving into/at this type of dry-air inversion/llws transition where lots more thrust demand was immediate) this could be it. Would an EEC respond to that kind of abrupt thrust deficiency .. ..how would pilots respond if caught by surprise ?

[cdnavater]

Why hadn’t anyone piped up then yet that the fuel CUTOFF “transitioning” can simply be automatic restart stemming from a potential dual failure (splash out/flameout) possibility ? The EEC would sense that in a blink of an eye.

Because, the report said the cutoff switches were turned off, that is what interrupted the fuel flow, not your water theory!

[BTD]

I’m not 100% sure what you are saying, but the engine won’t auto relight if the fuel cutoffs are in the off position. As pointed out in the preliminary report, the engine core speed had decayed and even after they were put back to run, the relight would take time. They didn’t have the airspeed. I’m not sure of the architecture for an engine restart on standby power only (the apu hadn’t started yet) on the 87 engine. However at least one of the engines looked like it had a more or less successful start, but couldn’t get up to speed in time.

I am not rated in the 787, but looking at the QRH, it states it could take up to 2 and a half mins to reach a stable idle after the fuel is selected back on.

With the switches in cutoff, none of that happens.

[pdw]

If the core got abruptly colder/slower the EEC would sense relight in order and automation then cuts fuel for the ventilation process preceding ignition/RUN. Sounds to me like no pilot switching is therefore required for that; being the same circuit the FDR would then have to be capturing this as the switching of that same fuel valve opening and closing.

With that, it is totally possible though, IMO, that the pic (panick moment) gives them each a quick flick in the middle of it there (after “did you/I I didn’t”) to confirm indeed they are on — after the ‘thrust deficiency’ (the mayday coming into existence) had already begun.

[BTD]

If the core got abruptly colder/slower the EEC would sense relight in order and automation then cuts fuel for the ventilation process preceding ignition/RUN. Sounds to me like no pilot switching is therefore required for that; being the same circuit the FDR would then have to be capturing this as the switching of that same fuel valve opening and closing.

With that, it is totally possible though, IMO, that the pic (panick moment) gives them each a quick flick in the middle of it there (after “did you/I I didn’t”) to confirm indeed they are on — after the ‘thrust deficiency’ (the mayday coming into existence) had already begun.

It will not try to relight if the switches are in cutoff. It assumes the pilot is intentionally shutting it down.

[pdw]

Right BTD .. but you may be under an impression that the FDR records only what the switches themselves are doing. It would have to be the current that is going through those wires to move the fuel valves from either source (automation or those master switches).

I can’t imagine how else it would work. If this valve circuit (in this case one right after the other) is cut off because automation has done so, that can only be registering in the same way as if the main switch goes off.

[planenuts]

If the core got abruptly colder/slower the EEC would sense relight in order and automation then cuts fuel for the ventilation process preceding ignition/RUN. Sounds to me like no pilot switching is therefore required for that; being the same circuit the FDR would then have to be capturing this as the switching of that same fuel valve opening and closing.

With that, it is totally possible though, IMO, that the pic (panick moment) gives them each a quick flick in the middle of it there (after “did you/I I didn’t”) to confirm indeed they are on — after the ‘thrust deficiency’ (the mayday coming into existence) had already begun.

You sure have a lot of weird theories.....but it doesn't work like that. (ventilation process???? jeezz) The fuel valve is actuated from the switch - there are no computers or software in between....and the position of both the fuel valve and the switch are monitored and recorded by the FDR

[Tbayer2021]

If the core got abruptly colder/slower the EEC would sense relight in order and automation then cuts fuel for the ventilation process preceding ignition/RUN. Sounds to me like no pilot switching is therefore required for that; being the same circuit the FDR would then have to be capturing this as the switching of that same fuel valve opening and closing.

With that, it is totally possible though, IMO, that the pic (panick moment) gives them each a quick flick in the middle of it there (after “did you/I I didn’t”) to confirm indeed they are on — after the ‘thrust deficiency’ (the mayday coming into existence) had already begun.

You sure have a lot of weird theories.....

We call it mental illness these days.

[BTD]

Right BTD .. but you may be under an impression that the FDR records only what the switches themselves are doing. It would have to be the current that is going through those wires to move the fuel valves from either source (automation or those master switches).

I can’t imagine how else it would work. If this valve circuit (in this case one right after the other) is cut off because automation has done so, that can only be registering in the same way as if the main switch goes off.

You’ve got a nasty case of argument from ignorance fallacy.

So by your reasoning the FDR can’t tell what position any switch is in, only the result down stream based on the current in the circuit? No. That isn’t how it works. Servos must really blow your mind.

[itsgrosswhatinet]

Why do people keep replying to him? If you stop giving them attention they go away.

[pdw]

The preliminary did not mention a crime (@BTD and others).

ventilation process?

The automatic relight sequence must also include shutting it OFF for a second (that same fuel shutoff valve circuit) , no?

[pdw]

So by your reasoning the FDR can’t tell what position any switch is in, only the result down stream based on the current in the circuit? No. That isn’t how it works.

I was wrong then. Thought it was obvious when the circuit comes alive the FDR captures it as RUN and also when it is CUTOFF, whether the automatic disconnect or overridden with the master switches. I can see now why volks are migrating in unison to murder/suicide based solely on that.

[BTD]

So by your reasoning the FDR can’t tell what position any switch is in, only the result down stream based on the current in the circuit? No. That isn’t how it works.

I was wrong then. Thought it was obvious when the circuit comes alive the FDR captures it as RUN and also when it is CUTOFF, whether the automatic disconnect or overridden with the master switches. I can see now why volks are migrating in unison to murder/suicide based solely on that.

The FDR not only senses the system. It also can tell the discreet position of each switch. According to the preliminary report. Both switches were physically turned off. That is a fact. This is also backed up by the CVR recording. However, we do not know why. And I have made no mention of that. It would necessarily be a deliberate act. However, that does not mean it was intentional. We need more information.

[planenuts]

So by your reasoning the FDR can’t tell what position any switch is in, only the result down stream based on the current in the circuit? No. That isn’t how it works.

I was wrong then. Thought it was obvious when the circuit comes alive the FDR captures it as RUN and also when it is CUTOFF, whether the automatic disconnect or overridden with the master switches. I can see now why volks are migrating in unison to murder/suicide based solely on that.

There is no automatic or override...the switch is hard wired to the valves. No computers or software involved. The switch position and valve positions are read direct by the fdr, and the switch must me manually actuated. It's pretty simple actually.

[Eric Janson]

The Cockpit Voice Recorder will have picked up the sounds of the fuel switches being moved to "Cut off" and later back to "Run". Backed up by info from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR).

It doesn't specifically state this in the report but my guess is this is why the report contains the info about the fuel switches being moved.

On my aircraft an inflight engine start at low speed requires starter assist to bring the engine RPM up to flight idle. My guess (we don't ever do this) is that without starter assist the engine will not reach flight idle - a hung start will be the most likely outcome.

I'm not familiar with the 787 - but I understand the starter is electric.

Not sure what is available on the 787 with only the RAT providing electrical power - on my aircraft not very much.