Flight to London Gatwick crashes at airport in India .June 12 th 2025

  • #401
Would it still be called pilot error in case of pilot sabotage? The Air Current article only mentioned the movement of the fuel control switches being at the center of the investigation, leaving a possibility that they could have been reset. The WSJ piece (with their own sources) goes further and claims that the switches were turned off, leading to the loss of thrust.
If the preliminary report isn't going to be made public, there's a good chance of more leaks to the media.

If the Fuel control switches caused the loss of thrust, they would have a difficult time passing that off as Pilot Error.
Those switches are only used to start the engines and to stop them. It's not something one could do accidentally. That would be like removing your car keys from the ignition and thowng them out the window while you're driving.
 
  • #402
Both pilots were experienced.
And they are dead
so they cannot defend themselves/explain anything.

Some allege it was a mistake.
I mean how could such mistake be made by professionals???

I hope everything will be checked thoroughly.
Experts/Investigators shouldn't be rushed.

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #403
If the Fuel control switches caused the loss of thrust, they would have a difficult time passing that off as Pilot Error.
Those switches are only used to start the engines and to stop them. It's not something one could do accidentally. That would be like removing your car keys from the ignition and thowng them out the window while you're driving.
On the B787 (unlike on other types) resetting the fuel control switches is also a memory item in case of a dual engine failure. Manual RAT deployment is also there.
The investigators already know by now if the engines were working fine until the fuel control switches were moved.
 
  • #404

"According to the report
switches in the cockpit that controlled fuel were moved to 'CUTOFF'.

It said
the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position
one after another with a time gap of one second.

There was also confusion in the cockpit.

In the voice recording,
one of the pilots is heard asking the other
why he 'cut off'.

The other pilot responds that he did not do so.

One of the engines was able to be restarted,
but could not reverse the plane's deceleration,
the report found."
 
Last edited:
  • #405

The aircraft had reached a maximum speed of 180 knots indicated airspeed (IAS) at 08:08:42 UTC, just before both Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from "run" to "cutoff". This effectively shut down both engines in-flight.
 
  • #406
The 15-page preliminary report was just released:


The aircraft air/ground sensors transitioned to air mode, consistent with liftoff at 08:08:39 UTC

When the fuel switches were turned off (CUTOFF mode):
The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec.

When they were turned back on (RUN mode):
...the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC.
Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN.

At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY”.
 
Last edited:
  • #407
Pilots tried restarting the engines, one showed partial recovery, the other did not.

This is terrible :(


"Two minutes from takeoff to crash:

08:07:37 - The aircraft started rolling.

08:08:33 - The aircraft reached takeoff decision speed.

08:08:39 - The aircraft air/ground sensors transitioned to air mode, consistent with liftoff.

08:08:42 - Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF.

08:08:52 - Engine 1 switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN.

08:08:56 - Engine 2 switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN.

08:09:05 - A MAYDAY call was made by one of the pilots.

08:09:11 - Flight recorder stops,
indicating the aircraft had crashed."
 
Last edited:
  • #408
Wow. I want to hear from airline pilots about what they think of this.
 
  • #409
According to the preliminary report the co-pilot was flying the plane:

The co-pilot was Pilot Flying (PF), and the PIC was Pilot Monitoring
(PM) for the flight


In this situation, who would have a better opportunity to mess with the switches?
 
  • #410
If the Fuel control switches caused the loss of thrust, they would have a difficult time passing that off as Pilot Error.
Those switches are only used to start the engines and to stop them. It's not something one could do accidentally. That would be like removing your car keys from the ignition and thowng them out the window while you're driving.
There are really only two alternatives.

Deliberate murder/suicide by pilot.

A brain ‘fart’ by a pilot in which the engines are turned off instead of the undercarriage raised.

Either way the investigation needs to focus on both pilots and look at human factors. Depression, Alcohol, sleep deprivation, medications, family issues.
 
  • #411
In the EgyptAir flight 990 deliberate crash the captain is heard on the CVR asking the co-pilot: "What is this? Did you shut the engines?"
 
  • #412
In the EgyptAir flight 990 deliberate crash the captain is heard on the CVR asking the co-pilot: "What is this? Did you shut the engines?"
Let’s assume murder suicide. The one asking the question could still be the perpetrator. Just muddying the waters.

They can’t assume anything about these two individuals. A Deep investigation into both.
 
  • #413
Let’s assume murder suicide. The one asking the question could still be the perpetrator. Just muddying the waters.

They can’t assume anything about these two individuals. A Deep investigation into both.
True. OTOH, one of them was about to get married.
 
  • #414
According to the preliminary report the co-pilot was flying the plane:

The co-pilot was Pilot Flying (PF), and the PIC was Pilot Monitoring
(PM) for the flight


In this situation, who would have a better opportunity to mess with the switches?

I think we have to look at what switch was switched off first, R or L.

The FO was sitting on the left side, piloting. If it was deliberate, it would have been easier for him to start from the closer (left) switch.

The opposite holds true for the captain. IMHO.

Interesting if any was a leftie, though. It would not change the sequence, but just the force applied to switch both off - if both are righties, the one sitting on the R would have to pull with more strength IMHO.
 
  • #415
Let’s assume murder suicide. The one asking the question could still be the perpetrator. Just muddying the waters.

They can’t assume anything about these two individuals. A Deep investigation into both.

100%. You have to look at them and see that they are off.

I think Air India knows who it was. On the other hand, given the huge number of victims, they may not be releasing the name to protect the relatives.
 
Last edited:
  • #416
bbm above AUSTRALIANWEBSLEUTH You have raised many interesting possibilities and I had just finished reading an article I found "disturbingly odd."
"I told him, ‘Your father is too old to be alone.' And he said, "Just one or two more flights...then I'm just going to be with Papa."'
Captain Sumeet Sabharwal: ‘Just one or two flights left, then I am going to be just with Papa': Air India pilot's last words haunt neighbours as Powai says goodbye to Captain Sumeet Sabharwal | Mumbai News - Times of India
Read more at:
Captain Sumeet Sabharwal: ‘Just one or two flights left, then I am going to be just with Papa': Air India pilot's last words haunt neighbours as Powai says goodbye to Captain Sumeet Sabharwal | Mumbai News - Times of India

Had the captain recently contacted his HR and tell them he wanted to retire? Was he depressed
over his aging Father's health? Why not just consider hiring a caregiver?
Something just seems so "off" for lack of a better word. Family issues (Y) marital issues (N).
I am finding this very disturbing.
 
  • #417
I think we have to look at what switch was switched off first, R or L.

The FO was sitting on the left side, piloting. If it was deliberate, it would have been easier for him to start from the closer (left) switch.

The opposite holds true for the captain. IMHO.

Interesting if any was a leftie, though. It would not change the sequence, but just the force applied to switch both off - if both are righties, the one sitting on the R would have to pull with more strength IMHO.
The FO doesn't sit in the left seat when they are the pilot flying.

According to the report the left engine was turned back on four seconds before the right engine.
 
  • #418
Just my impression from distress call communication, the timeline, information about recordings from the Blackbox and the articles below it appears that at 08:08:42 the fuel switches were moved from the RUN position to the CUTOFF one, the Captain Sabharwal notices and asked his FO, who was flying the plane as the Captain monitored, why he did switch them while observing the plane was decelerating. Upon identifying the danger they were in, he likely responded by immediately taking back control of flying the aircraft from the FO as he moved both fuel switches back to the RUN position between 10-14 seconds later in an attempt to restore the engines’ power and save everyone. However, when that failed to immediately restore thrust and the plane’s altitude began to drop, he issued the mayday call relaying to ATC that the plane had no power, no thrust and the plane was going down.





 
  • #419
Which pilot issued the mayday?
 
  • #420
Who ever was responsible for retracting the undercarriage is the one responsible for turning the engines off.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
2,045
Total visitors
2,104

Forum statistics

Threads
632,157
Messages
18,622,836
Members
243,038
Latest member
anamericaninoz
Back
Top