Dreamliner Down in India

[GyvAir]

It looks like you are correct, GyvAir. Though the 787 doesn't seem to have those switches there.


246246.jpeg

I was actually just referring to the fuel cutoff switchs, their being gated and having the metal guards either side of them. I didn't find a photo clear enough to read what the PBAs ahead of them are.

On second read of the ASN report I see they actaully state "but instead he pulled two fuel cutoff knobs". Knobs = switches?

[Dry Guy]

Yes, we call the knobs "fuel control switches". I believe the metal side guards were in place since the prototype 767. The guards they added later I believe are the plastic covers over the EEC switches that used to be below the fuel control switches like in the photo above.

[GyvAir]

Given that it was the fuel cutoff knobs that were inadvertently moved, I assumed any new guards would be for them, not the EEC PBAs. (Talking about the 767 ASN report)

[Eric Janson]

Given that it was the fuel cutoff knobs that were inadvertently moved, I assumed any new guards would be for them, not the EEC PBAs. (Talking about the 767 ASN report)

The EEC switches were moved to the overhead panel on later 767s - I assume because of this incident.

On the 787 these switches are also on the overhead panel.

Normally these switches will be found on aircraft with engines that use EPR as the primary means of setting thrust. Turning them off allows another parameter to be used for setting thrust (normally N1).

Rolls Royce calls this alternate mode 'N1 mode'. I've used these switches multiple times in the past to restore EPR mode (after engine start on the ground - A340-500).

[GyvAir]

Thanks for that explanation. I was quite curious as to why one would switch to
"manual control".

[Jean-Pierre]

If the computer fail or not operating correctly.

[GyvAir]

Yes, we call the knobs "fuel control switches". I believe the metal side guards were in place since the prototype 767. The guards they added later I believe are the plastic covers over the EEC switches that used to be below the fuel control switches like in the photo above.

I believe you are correct about the metal side guards. Below are exerpts from the two ADs issued to deal with this issue. It appears that the fuel control switch guards installed on in the first AD were then removed once the EEC switches were relocated away from beside the cutoff switches.

FAA AD T87-13-51
This AD requires the installation of a guard device between the two engine fuel control switches to preclude inadvertent simultaneous shutdown of both engines. This action is prompted by a recent incident that occurred when the flight crew inadvertently shut off the fuel control switches to each engine while intending to operate the electronic engine control (EEC) switches.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 1, 1987, the FAA issued telegraphic AD T87-13-51, applicable to Boeing Model 767 series airplanes and Model 757 series airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce RB211 series engines, which requires the installation of a guard device between the two engine fuel control switches to inhibit simultaneous activation of the fuel control switches. This action was prompted by an incident that occurred on June 30, 1987, where a Boeing Model 767, on climb out, had a cockpit message indicating a failure of the electronic engine control (EEC) on one engine. The flight manual procedure for such a failure message is to retard both thrust levers to a mid-position and place both EEC switches to the "OFF" position. In following this procedure, the crew inadvertently shut off the fuel control switches to both engines instead of the EEC switches, which are located in the same vicinity on the control panel. The airplane was at approximately 1,600 feet at the time of the shutdown and engine restart was initiated immediately. Both engines were recovered at approximately 500 feet altitude.

FAA AD 88-07-02
To minimize the potential for inadvertent engine shutdown when using the electronic engine control (EEC) or engine limiter control (ELC) switches, accomplish the following:
A . Relocate the electronic engine control switches or engine limiter control switches, as applicable, from the control stand to the overhead panel in a manner approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Northwest Mountain Region.
B. The fuel control switch guard installation made in compliance with AD T87-13-51, Amendment 39-5718, may be removed following accomplishment of paragraph A., above.

AD T87-13-51 can be read here: Page 11 of this pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/s ... 052174.pdf
AD 88-07-02 is available through the normal search engine: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/ADFRAWD/doctypeDetails

[rigpiggy]

Capt. steeve had a yt vid detailing previous maintenance where Air India removed the complete pedestal to fix something. they Re/Re the whole pedestal and fix it at depot level. so the Service Bulletin would have been complied with

[GyvAir]

It wasn't even a service bulletin. It was a special airworthiness information bulletin.
Basically saying that it might be a good idea to operate the switches to verify they operate and lock in position like the thousand other locking switches any airline pilot or AME would have actuated on a daily basis.
I don't believe there was a single Boeing out there operating in 2025 with a mismanufactured or malfunctioning fuel cutoff switch lock as described in the bulletin. They would have been snagged a hundred times over by competent pilots or maintenance personnel, bulletin or no bulletin.
All the guard and lock discussion is moot anyway as there is zero doubt about them having been moved by deliberate, coordinated hand action. Interesting to know the background though and to see if this incident will drive any further design change.

Bulletin: https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18-33.pdf

[Dias]

Which profession do you guys think will end first, the end of commercial truck driving because of dangerous truck drivers, or the end of airline piloting because of dangerous pilots?

[cncpc]

Which profession do you guys think will end first, the end of commercial truck driving because of dangerous truck drivers, or the end of airline piloting because of dangerous pilots?

There's not a whole lot of dangerous pilots.

[BigQ]

Except for the ones who want to kill themselves in a spectacular fashion

[pdw]

Which profession do you guys think will end first, the end of commercial truck driving because of dangerous truck drivers, or the end of airline piloting because of dangerous pilots?

There's not a whole lot of dangerous pilots.

There are final reports for those. Wonder what those lists would look like for trucking.

[cncpc]

Except for the ones who want to kill themselves in a spectacular fashion

Well, as I said, there isn't a whole lot of them.

[TCAS II]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmex7912nro

The court said it was "irresponsible" for the aviation authority to suggest, through leaks to the media, that pilot error had caused the disaster.

But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.

But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.

The families of four passengers who died on the plane filed a lawsuit in the US against planemaker Boeing and aircraft parts maker Honeywell, accusing the companies of negligence.

The lawsuit accused the companies of doing "nothing" despite being aware of the risks of the aircraft's design.

[confusedalot]

the last thing i would want to entertain is a suicidal pilot. the last thing india wants is the news of a suicidal pilot. so it's all about politics, blame boeing in this case.

pretty sure they are combing though their staff in the back room so this does not happen again.

[Inverted2]

the last thing i would want to entertain is a suicidal pilot. the last thing india wants is the news of a suicidal pilot. so it's all about politics, blame boeing in this case.

pretty sure they are combing though their staff in the back room so this does not happen again.

Reminds me of the 737 crash in China a few years ago. There was a video of it going straight down. Suicide was a probable cause there too. Usually the stories get washed pretty quickly where suicide is involved. If those switches were intentionally turned off just after takeoff it’s a suicide mission.

[TCAS II]

the last thing i would want to entertain is a suicidal pilot. the last thing india wants is the news of a suicidal pilot. so it's all about politics, blame boeing in this case.

pretty sure they are combing though their staff in the back room so this does not happen again.

Reminds me of the 737 crash in China a few years ago. There was a video of it going straight down. Suicide was a probable cause there too. Usually the stories get washed pretty quickly where suicide is involved. If those switches were intentionally turned off just after takeoff it’s a suicide mission.

Suicide…? or mass murder when you take the lives of 200+ people.

[Inverted2]

the last thing i would want to entertain is a suicidal pilot. the last thing india wants is the news of a suicidal pilot. so it's all about politics, blame boeing in this case.

pretty sure they are combing though their staff in the back room so this does not happen again.

Reminds me of the 737 crash in China a few years ago. There was a video of it going straight down. Suicide was a probable cause there too. Usually the stories get washed pretty quickly where suicide is involved. If those switches were intentionally turned off just after takeoff it’s a suicide mission.

Suicide…? or mass murder when you take the lives of 200+ people.

I don’t think they care if there’s 0 or 300 people behind them when they reach that point.

[Eric Janson]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmex7912nro

The court said it was "irresponsible" for the aviation authority to suggest, through leaks to the media, that pilot error had caused the disaster.

But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.

But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.

The families of four passengers who died on the plane filed a lawsuit in the US against planemaker Boeing and aircraft parts maker Honeywell, accusing the companies of negligence.

The lawsuit accused the companies of doing "nothing" despite being aware of the risks of the aircraft's design.

Whenever articles like this appear it's important to find out who the people/organisations quoted are. These people will sometimes have an agenda or other motivations which are conveniently not mentioned.

In this case the Safety Matters Foundation looks like something run by by one man. Located in - India.

The sequence of events leading to this crash are perfectly clear.

The only question is why someone moved both fuel control switches to "CUT OFF"

[pdw]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmex7912nro

The court said it was "irresponsible" for the aviation authority to suggest, through leaks to the media, that pilot error had caused the disaster.

But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.

But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.

The families of four passengers who died on the plane filed a lawsuit in the US against planemaker Boeing and aircraft parts maker Honeywell, accusing the companies of negligence.

The lawsuit accused the companies of doing "nothing" despite being aware of the risks of the aircraft's design.

Whenever articles like this appear it's important to find out who the people/organisations quoted are. These people will sometimes have an agenda or other motivations which are conveniently not mentioned.

In this case the Safety Matters Foundation looks like something run by by one man. Located in - India.

The sequence of events leading to this crash are perfectly clear.

The only question is why someone moved both fuel control switches to "CUT OFF"

Discerning for intent of the cockpit question (did U cut off), hinges on whether or not the ‘answering pilot’ responded honestly or deceitfully. Claiming it was the latter’ that it must be suicide, firstly also requires investigative responsibility in determining for certain it wasn’t valiant relight/restart effort to achieve quicker spool up (ie a pilot override) of faltering engines /thrust for whatever reason.

In researching it became clearer that this aircraft’s flightpath transitioned from V-1/V-2 in a runway headwind to more-like tailwind by 200agl into/closer-up-to drier/hotter inversion (narrow transition / coolest at the surface). The honesty/dishonesty perspective for this cut off together with those other factors … is IMO where any “faltering” would have been felt suddenly by both these pilots prior to one of them asking the question and the other denying all-the-while troubleshooting the problem in the mere seconds that were left.

[BTD]

IMG_0336.gif (452.04 KiB) Viewed 236 times

Wind was not a factor. The engines lost power, for one reason or another. The crew wouldn’t have noticed a wind shift. Especially over a massive loss of thrust.

[A346Dude]

Discerning for intent of the cockpit question (did U cut off), hinges on whether or not the ‘answering pilot’ responded honestly or deceitfully. Claiming it was the latter’ that it must be suicide, firstly also requires investigative responsibility in determining for certain it wasn’t valiant relight/restart effort to achieve quicker spool up (ie a pilot override) of faltering engines /thrust for whatever reason.

In researching it became clearer that this aircraft’s flightpath transitioned from V-1/V-2 in a runway headwind to more-like tailwind by 200agl into/closer-up-to drier/hotter inversion (narrow transition / coolest at the surface). The honesty/dishonesty perspective for this cut off together with those other factors … is IMO where any “faltering” would have been felt suddenly by both these pilots prior to one of them asking the question and the other denying all-the-while troubleshooting the problem in the mere seconds that were left.

You gotta respect the dedication.

[pdw]

The crew wouldn’t have noticed ….

Well yes, that’s it. The tower met-readings to the east were too far away to catch it as a tail vector for Vaah just above the deck. (How much missing extra-thrust is that already unexpected?). Secondly, the reduced thrust already set (is protocol/accepted). How many tons less thrust is that already?

Engine issue was third (the big thrust loss) if it holds true that something “felt” first … before the “switching” , a determination already made (preliminary info off FDR). How much more thrust deterioration (in tons) was required at that point to lose climb. What was the actual highest airspeed reached, …. Ie how is that determined “180kts”.