one would think such a fail state should be only accessible after the user has bypassed and confirmed the action.
let's be honest, do we trust boeing at this point?
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
253 points (100.0% liked)
World News
48356 readers
2010 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
is it clear that FADEC cannot cut-off via software?
So, so many poorly informed people in here jumping to conclusions, many of which were already ruled out in the preliminary report.
I don't know any more than what's in that document myself.
Perhaps some of the armchair aircraft safety investigators in here might want to at least skim the details before coming up with wild theories? Or at least provide reasoning and evidence to support them.
May those who lost their lives, and their loved ones, find peace and closure as best they can once we have all the details. Until then, it would be crass to speculate, especially as non-experts not privvy to the details of the investigation.
If I remember correctly, those switches need to be physically lifted up and rotated for the engines to switch from RUN to CUTOFF. there's also physical guards there to prevent pilots from knocking them. here's a diagram of the layout (source).
I've read theories that the pilot who manipulated the fuel switches could've mistook them for the stabiliser cutout switch but the switches are very different. the timing is also sus because it would've been at just the right time for things to have not been recoverable. 10 seconds earlier and the takeoff could've been aborted, 10 seconds later and the plane could've had enough altitude and speed to land in a safer area. also the way the pilot reacted to the other pilot suggests he saw the other pilot shut off the fuel to both engines one after the other and was in a state of shock
They lift up over a gate and you move them down to shut off, rather than turning. There’s no guard over them though. They’re not really close to any other switches you’d be manipulating at any time, especially right after takeoff, and they are a different shape than any other switch (Boeing likes to shape their switches differently so that if you grab the wrong one you’ll feel it). I cannot imagine how one could accidentally move one, let alone both switches do cutoff. But sometimes my brain does inexplicably dumb shit, so I dunno.
by guards I meant the guard brackets which help prevent accidental movement (source) but I agree I just can't see this being done accidentally. the look and feel of the switches are just so different it'd be almost like mistaking a red light for a green one with normal colour vision or something. it's still early days so i'm sure more will come out about the history of the pilots with time. if this does turn out to be intentional it's pretty scary because it's something that's unrecoverable at that phase of flight if it happens and that needs to not happen again
Oh, ya, ok. Those guards are really more to stop you whacking the side of the switches and breaking the plastic lens and lightbulbs in the top of the switch, but because the switches move up and down and not side to side, those brackets really have no impact on the actual moving of the switches, accidental or otherwise.
Given the mechanical saftey built into those switches, Unfortunately I guess that leaves us with two reasonable possibilities:
A) One of the pilots was somehow mistaken on the function of those switches and toggled them when they should not have. Then they genuinely thought they hadn't when asked why they had cutoff fuel.
Or
B) One of the pilots chose to cut off fuel supply to both engines, intentionally bringing down the plane. They then lied to the other pilot when asked why they'd cutoff fuel.
both pilots were experienced and had also passed breathalyser tests before the flight too (source)
Breathalysers don't detect tired or suicidal pilots.
The interim report stated copilot was pilot flying meaning they only focus on flying and he had also just flown already today. Captain however was his first flight in his shift and was also pilot monitoring.
Could have been cut off by one pilot as part of a troubleshooting attempt, maybe? Thinking “it’s not cut off, just a temporary state of affairs” or something like that. Just trying to think of ways this could be a miscommunication instead of blatant misconduct :(
There is no procedure that involves cutting off fuel to both engines while in-flight; one at a time, but not both. Then, there is no procedure that ever involves touching those controls during takeoff. Finally; there would be communication between the pilots discussing any such troubleshooting, they wouldn't just take it upon themselves to start flipping switches without at the very least letting the other pilot know what they're doing. Particularly when it comes to troubleshooting; there is a strict set of checklists they go through as a team, with one reading out questions, the other responding with data/answers from the instruments and the first confirming that response.
These were both experienced pilots with ample flight hours; they knew what they were doing at those controls. I'm not going to throw human error out the window entirely, but it's not looking very likely unfortunately.
Either that plane was brought down intentionally, or there was a stunning error in judgment wildly disregarding procedure in that cockpit that was not communicated at all. (note: the mics record to the blackbox continuously, they're not ptt, if one of the pilots had said something, it'd be on the tape.)
There’s no communication between the two pilots before the switches were moved to cutoff to suggest they encountered any problems prior to fuel cutoff.
Yeah, I didn’t realize how soon after takeoff this was when I proposed that idea either. There’s no way shutting off the fuel during takeoff would be a reasonable decision.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Sounds like the pilots killed the fuel, and did not mean to do so. Having watched the video, and being totally ignorant of this sort of thing, that makes sense of what I saw.
I'm not trusting any report until I have had heard from Admiral Cloudberg. If you're not familiar, plane crash investigation is what he does. He's completely unbiased and seems to be the expert, at least for us layman.
I watched a very comprehensive and professional video by Captain Steeeve on this subject earlier today. He didn't outright literally say that one of the pilots deliberately downed the plane, but it was very clear that he thought that was the only explanation that really made sense here. Why do you say it sounds like they "did not mean to do so"? The switches are designed to not be movable without considerable deliberation and intent, you can't just bump these with your knee and switch them off. And both pilots were plenty experienced enough to know that you don't turn those switches off at that point in the flight.
Petter and Ben from Mentour Pilot all but said they came to the same conclusion
Highly recommend everyone give this a listen. It covered most of the other possibilities people are bringing up in this thread:
- They have to be pulled out, moved, and pushed back in to change the state
- The plane cannot take off with them in the wrong position
- There is no procedure to ever toggle both off at the same time, and no procedure to toggle them off period at their low altitude
- Both were toggled off within 1 seconds of each other
- The engines were functioning normally when they were toggled off
Captain Steve really tried to not blame the pilots in previous videos about this crash, in fact he really believed it had to be something else, so it says a lot that this is the only conclusion he can come up with.
Don't know anything about planes. Could these switches be "cross-linked" with some physical link on the other side of the cockpit, so that the other pilot has to pull something to allow the first pilot to even move these switches?
Fuck fly by wire and glass cockpit crap. A physical interlock.
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p2x9093t
Until there's independent evidence otherwise I'm going to assume either fudged maintenance reports or the switch designer at boeing is about to commit suicide by shooting themself in the back of the head hours before talking to the press.
So a mechanical failure let the switches go from RUN to CUTOFF during flight, but they remained in RUN during the entire crash sequence? I don't buy that. The forces experienced by the plane would be magnitudes greater during impact with the ground than any kind of turbulence or other bumps.
Surely someone committing suicide and taking hundreds of people with him in the process wouldn't lie about it.
It's also possible that the one that did it said "why did you do that" to try and shift blame for reason(s) of insurance payout, shame, or something else and the one that said "I didn't" is telling the truth.
Whichever one did it, that video from Captain Steeeve makes a pretty good case that one of them did.
Cloudberg is a she! You are absolutely correct that she is an excellent subject matter expert though.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Mentour Pilot did a livestream today, he's also one of the major commercial aviation YouTubers.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/11/india/air-india-crash-report-intl-latam
This article has a photo of the switches in question, and goes into more detail about how they work.
So I know there has to be a reason why these switches are vitally important but doesn't it seem weird that you can take a catastrophic action like turning the fuel supply off when you're in mid-takeoff? If you try and put a modern car in reverse at 65 MPH, the car is like "haha no" and ignores you.
From the article...
The fuel switches were “designed to be intentionally moved,” according to CNN safety analyst David Soucie, who said cases in which all fuel switches were turned off accidentally are “extremely rare.”
“Throughout the years, those switches have been improved to make sure that they cannot be accidentally moved and that they’re not automatic. They don’t move themselves in any manner,” Soucie said on Friday.
And the photo of the throttle (middle) and fuel cutoff switches (bottom):
There's just one-level-deeper of questions I'd have here. How were the switches designed such that they prevented accidental activation? Because it looks like they just get simply flipped down. Could it be pull-out-and-down? Or maybe there's a lot of resistance during the switch action?
They have metal detents; you have to pull the lever out, then push it down against a reasonably heavy spring.
These had to be very deliberately moved to the cutoff position.
How were the switches designed such that they prevented accidental activation? Because it looks like they just get simply flipped down. Could it be pull-out-and-down? Or maybe there's a lot of resistance during the switch action?
The lever-lock fuel switches are designed to prevent accidental activation - they must be pulled up to unlock before flipping, a safety feature dating back to the 1950s. This isn't a new or weird design. It's essentially the standard used in basically every plane because it works.
"It would be almost impossible to pull both switches with a single movement of one hand, and this makes accidental deployment unlikely," a Canada-based air accidents investigator, who wanted to remain unnamed, told the BBC.
You can also just throttle back, which would have the same effect.
Yeah and of course, you can also just ram the thing into the ground. I'd hate to think this was a deliberate act, but it's certainly possible.
If one pilot tries to ram it into the ground, or just throttles back, the other pilot can fight them for the controls and possibly prevent a crash. When those switches are flipped the engines almost immediately flame out. Even if the other pilot quickly flips them back and prevents the first pilot from doing anything else, it takes time for the engines to automatically relight and spool back up. Done right around liftoff, which seems to be the case from the RAT deployment, there might not be anything the other pilot can do no matter how fast they act.
Edit: According to the flight data recorder, the cutoff switches were flipped 3 seconds after takeoff, one was flipped back on 10 seconds later, the other flipped back 4 seconds after that, and the recording ended 15 seconds later.
When I watched the crash video, I thought that something cut the fuel off. Because that was the most likely reason for all engines to stop.
So, if the pilot or copilot did not do it (I assume it is not just a switch that you can trigger accidentally), what other system has the capability to switch off all fuel lines? Fire suppression systems? Some general "switch off"? And how hard would it be to restart fuel supply? Is it possible to override e.g. such a fire suppression system?
The report specifically says that "cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec". They were later switched back to RUN. It wasn't some other system.
This is such a bizarre situation that with just the voice recording we will probably never know what really happened.
Both the left and right switchs were moved to 'cutoff', one pilot recognized this and asked the other pilot why, the other pilot denied doing it, then the switches were returned to 'run' and the engines began to re-light (this is all straight from the black box recorder). It was too late to recover though, so the plane went down.
There is a mechanical detent requiring you to pull each switch out, then down. They had to be moved deliberately.
So either this was a suicide, or a coverup for just another Boeing failure.
view more: next ›