Boeing Fuel Switches Checked, as Critic Cites a Similar Fuel Switch Cutoff in 2019 (financialexpress.com)
- Reference: 0178418308
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/07/19/168254/boeing-fuel-switches-checked-as-critic-cites-a-similar-fuel-switch-cutoff-in-2019
- Source link: https://www.financialexpress.com/business/airlines-aviation/ai-171-crash-boeing-787-experienced-fuel-switch-cut-off-in-2019-too-says-us-aviation-expert-japan-pilots-never-touched-it/3917100/
> 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, [2]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," [3]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 [4]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 [5]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 " [6]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 [7]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
[8]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.[9]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 [10]wired_parrot for sharing the news.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/International/air-india-captain-shut-off-fuel-ahead-deadly/story?id=123829589
[2] https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/air-india-crash-senior-pilot-eab72db5
[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-orders-its-airlines-check-fuel-switches-boeing-jets-2025-07-14/
[4] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/amid-air-india-probe-us-faa-boeing-notify-fuel-switch-locks-are-safe-document-2025-07-13/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Schiavo
[6] https://www.financialexpress.com/business/airlines-aviation/ai-171-crash-boeing-787-experienced-fuel-switch-cut-off-in-2019-too-says-us-aviation-expert-japan-pilots-never-touched-it/3917100/
[7] https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/25076
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC
[9] https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-orders-its-airlines-check-fuel-switches-boeing-jets-2025-07-14/
[10] https://slashdot.org/~wired_parrot
It's not a trick (Score:2)
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:2)
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:2)
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.
Oh good just what we need (Score:2)
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:2)
> 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?
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:2)
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.
Vibe coding will fix this! (Score:2)
Just call in doge.
What did John Barnett know? (Score:3)
This again brings my thoughts to what whistleblower [1]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.
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 ... which the police somehow determined to have been suicide.
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnett_(whistleblower)
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:2)
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.
A&P explains 787 Fues System (Score:2)
American Airlines A&P discussing 787 systems and specially the controversial topic of the fuel switches.
[1]https://youtu.be/-ur234kwnhk?s... [youtu.be]
[1] https://youtu.be/-ur234kwnhk?si=Addo04SsLljAqODZ&t=893
WSJ source? (Score:4, 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:
The switches changed states electrically in the computer but the physically the switches never moved.
The switches moved physically on their own without input from the crew.
The switches were moved accidentally by crew.
The switches were moved deliberately by crew.
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:2)
I hope this sort of accidents help restart conversations about video capture [1]https://simpleflying.com/could... [simpleflying.com]
[1] https://simpleflying.com/could-cockpit-video-recorders-help-air-crash-investigations/
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, refusing to speculate and waiting for the release of the final report, way after the accident has been forgotten, doesn't sell ads or subscriptions.
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.
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:2)
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