Preliminary report into Air India crash finds fuel cut off three seconds after takeoff
A preliminary report into the Air India crash last month has found that fuel to the engines appears to have cut off shortly after takeoff.
According to the report, the switches in the cockpit which provide fuel to the engines turned to the CUTOFF position.
The engines tried to restart, but it was too late to prevent the Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft from crashing shortly after takeoff.
The Air India flight AI 171 departed from Ahmedabad Airport on June 12 and was heading towards Gatwick when it crashed into a residential area.
260 people died in the crash, including 241 on board and at least 19 on the ground. There was one survivor from onboard the flight.
Under the International Civil Aviation Organisation, it is a requirement to file a preliminary report within 30 days of a crash.
Fuel gets cut off shortly after takeoff
According to the report, "Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of one second.
"The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off."
In a voice recording from the cockpit, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he had initiated the cut-off.
The other pilot then responds, saying he didn't.
The fuel was then switched back on to both engines, with both engines restarting one after the other.
Engine 1 was able to restart and was able to reverse the deceleration that occurred as a result of the switch off. The report said the engine had "started to progress to recovery".
Engine 2 on the aircraft restarted, but was unable to regain stable thrust. According to the report, the engine's core continued to lose speed despite repeated attempts to boost power by reintroducing fuel. Although the engine relit, it could not accelerate enough to return to normal performance.
The pilot transmitted a call for 'MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY' with the cockpit recording finishing six seconds later.
The report also details a timeline of the flight before the fatal crash:
05.47.00 - The aircraft touched down at Ahmedabad airport after flying from Delhi.06.25.00 - The flight crew underwent a breath analyser test and were found fit to operate. 07.05.00 - The crew is seen arriving at the boarding gate in CCTV recording.07:43:00 - The aircraft requested pushback and startup. 07:43:13 - Air Traffic Control (ATC) approved pushback. 07:46:59 - ATC approved start-up. 07:49:12 - ATC queried if the aircraft required the full length of the runway. The aircraft confirmed the requirement of the full length of runway 23.07:55:15 - The aircraft requested taxi clearance, which was granted by ATC. 08:03:45 - The aircraft was instructed to line up on the runway.08:07:33 - The aircraft was cleared for takeoff.
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.
In the minutes that followed, emergency services flocked to the scene of the accident as social media videos began circulating early reports of the tragedy.
Smoke was seen billowing from the wreckage as rescuers worked to recover survivors both on the ground and from the plane.
As the day went on, the scale of the disaster became apparent as the number of dead began to rise.
A 40-year-old British man was the only survivor who was onboard the aircraft.
Several people were also killed and injured on the ground after the aircraft struck a dining hall where medical students were having lunch at the time.
A month on, families of the victims are still waiting for details of what happened.
Air India's chairman, Natarajan Chandrasekaran, described the incident as a 'tragic accident' and a 'devastating event."
Tata Sons, the company that owns Air India, said it would offer around £86,000 to the families of each person who died in the plane crash.
They added that the company would cover the medical bills of those injured as a result of the incident.
Several safety issues have struck Boeing over recent years; however, this is the first time a Boeing 787 Dreamliner has crashed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Air India CEO says pilots ‘passed' tests as criticism mounts over probe report
The preliminary investigation report on last month's Air India crash found no mechanical or maintenance issue with the aircraft, the company's chief executive said. In an internal memo, Campbell Wilson said the probe into the Boeing Dreamliner crash in Ahmedabad, which killed 260 people, was "far from over". He added the pilots had 'passed' all pre-flight checks amid allegations that the disaster was caused by human error. The report found "no mechanical or maintenance issues with the aircraft or engines and that all mandatory maintenance tasks had been completed," Mr Wilson said. "There was no issue with the quality of fuel and no abnormality with the take-off roll.' The report released by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau a month after the 12 June crash found that three seconds after taking off, the plane's fuel switches almost simultaneously flipped from run to cutoff, starving the engines. The London-bound Dreamliner immediately began to lose thrust and sink. According to the report, one pilot could be heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he had cut off the fuel. "The other pilot responded that he did not do so," it said. It did not identify which remarks were made by the flight's captain and which by the first officer, nor which pilot transmitted "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" just before the crash. At the crash site, both fuel switches were found in the 'run' position and the report noted that there had been indications of the engines relighting before the low-altitude crash. Rejecting allegations of pilot error causing the crash, the Air India chief said that they both had "passed their pre-flight breathalyser and there were no observations pertaining to their medical status". The aircraft was piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and assisted by First Officer Clive Kundar. Both were experienced jet pilots with nearly 19,000 flying hours between them, including more than 9,000 on Boeing 787. The Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA-India), representing Indian pilots at the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations, Montreal, also rejected the presumption of pilot error and called for a "fair, fact-based inquiry". "The pilots' body must now be made part of the probe, at least as observers," ALPA India president Sam Thomas told Reuters. American aviation safety expert John Cox said a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches feeding the engines. "You can't bump them and they move," he said. ALPA India, in a letter posted on X, said the preliminary investigation report referred to a 2018 FAA advisory "concerning the fuel control switch gates, which indicates a potential equipment malfunction". The Indian Commercial Pilots' Association said the ill-fated flight's pilots "should not be vilified based on conjecture", adding that the crew "acted in line with their training and responsibilities under challenging conditions". "To casually suggest pilot suicide without verified evidence is a gross violation of ethical reporting and a disservice to the dignity of the profession," it said in a statement. "Let us be unequivocally clear,' it added, 'there is absolutely no basis for such a claim at this stage and invoking such a serious allegation based on incomplete or preliminary information is not only irresponsible – it's deeply insensitive to the individuals and families involved." Relatives of the crash victims criticised the preliminary report as a "cover up" as they hoped for more answers from the investigators. A cousin of sisters Dhir and Heer Baxi, who were flying home to London when they died in the crash, said they were not satisfied with the report, The Guardian reported. Ishan Baxi said they were "still hoping for a more transparent and honest investigation that doesn't shy away from addressing possible mechanical flaws or lapses in protocol to avoid future potential accidents'. 'I just hope the final report brings full clarity on what exactly failed and who's accountable. It shouldn't hide behind vague terms. More than anything, it should push for real changes so this never happens again," the Ahmedabad resident said. Tushar Joge, whose two relatives were on the ill-fated aircraft, alleged that the preliminary report was a "cover up" to save Air India and Boeing. "We were pre-empting that they would start blaming the pilots," Mr Joge was quoted as saying by The Times of India. In the wake of the preliminary findings, Boeing privately issued a notification stating that the fuel switch locks on Boeing planes were safe, Reuters reported. The US Federal Aviation Administration separately said that "although the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models, the FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing airplane models, including the Model 787'.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The unanswered questions from the Air India crash report
Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month's crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground. The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence. Here's what the report actually says, why we don't yet know what caused the crash, and why it's important not to speculate. What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff. According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU). The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure. The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots. Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from 'run' to 'cutoff' three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to 'run'. The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn't restart in time. We don't know what the pilots did Flight data recorders don't capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they're an accurate representation of the pilot's actions in the cockpit. While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case. In my own work investigating safety incidents, I've seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action. We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don't know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to 'cutoff'. And we may never know. As we also don't have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots' actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by theaircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit. We don't have the full conversation between the pilots Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says: '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.' This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don't know who says what. Second, we don't know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don't know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased. Finally, we don't know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know. What's crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn't support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation. We don't know if there was a mechanical failure The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine. This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that. What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world. This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened. Why we must resist premature conclusions In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers. It's also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It's based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace. The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement. This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast.
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
‘Just one or two more flights': Haunting words of Air India pilot at centre of ‘mental health' probe after mum's death
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) THE doomed Air India flight's captain was considering quitting his job early to look after his elderly father, his neighbours have revealed. The London Gatwick-bound AI 171 flight was led by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who was reportedly just months away from retirement. 7 Captain Sumeet Sabharwal was the lead pilot in the doomed Air India flight 7 Officials inspect the remains of the Air India passenger plane at the crash site near Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad Credit: EPA 7 The plane seconds before disaster Credit: X He wanted to retire early and take care of his 92-year-old father Pushkaraj Sabharwal, who was a former official of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) - India's aviation regulatory body. Savitri Budhania, an elderly neighbour of Captain Sabharwal, revealed she once told him that "your father is too old to be living alone". To which the pilot replied: "Just one or two more flights… then I'm going to just be with Papa." Ms Budhania told the Times of India that Captain Sabharwal was a gentleman who would often take his father out for evening walks. She added: "Whenever he wasn't flying, you'd find him walking hand in hand with his father in the evening. "They would smile at everyone, just wonderful people. "Who knew this would be it." But a leading aviation expert in India told The Telegraph that Captain Sabharwal suffered from mental health issues and depression - and had taken time off in the last few years following his mum's death. Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a former instructor pilot of Boeing 737, said: "I have heard from several Air India pilots who told me he had some depression and mental health issues. "He had taken time off from flying in the last three to four years." Pilot of doomed India Air jet hailed a hero by locals who cheated death by a few feet Although Mr Ranganathan added that Captain Sabharwal "must have been medically cleared by the company [Air India] doctors" before flying. The Air India pilot, 56, is understood to have taken a Class I medical exam on September 5 last year. Investigators are now said to be probing his medical records after the preliminary crash report indicated there may have been human error, although some aviation experts claim it is a case of deliberate action. Sources said the black box analysis has so far been unable to rule out 'improper, inadvertent or intentional' action that caused them to be flipped. Families of the victims who tragically died in the crash have slammed the preliminary report as a cover-up. They have dubbed the investigation "biased" and said it only appears to "blame the dead pilots". Key findings of the report: Dual engine shutdown - fuel cutoff switches moved from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' - fuel cutoff switches moved from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' Confusion between pilots - cockpit audio confirms one pilot asked 'why did you cutoff', the other replied 'I didn't' - cockpit audio confirms one pilot asked 'why did you cutoff', the other replied 'I didn't' RAT deployed - as seen in CCTV footage before the crash - as seen in CCTV footage before the crash Engine relight attempted - fuel switches were found returned to the "RUN" at crash site - fuel switches were found returned to the "RUN" at crash site 32 seconds - the time the aircraft was airborne before it crashed the time the aircraft was airborne before it crashed Thrust levers mismatch - Thrust levers found at idle but black box data shows takeoff thrust was still engaged - Thrust levers found at idle but black box data shows takeoff thrust was still engaged Fuel test pass - fuel was clean without any contamination - fuel was clean without any contamination Normal take-off set-up - Flaps and landing gear correctly configured - Flaps and landing gear correctly configured No bird activity - clear skies, good visibility, light winds - clear skies, good visibility, light winds Pilot credentials clear - both medically fit and rested - both medically fit and rested No sabotage detected - although FAA alerted over a known fuel switch vulnerability not checked by Air India - although FAA alerted over a known fuel switch vulnerability not checked by Air India Aircraft loading - the flight was within weight and balance limits The Airline Pilots' Association of India (APAI) rejected the 'tone and direction' of the inquiry and said it came without sufficient evidence. However, India's Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu said that investigators probed in a "mature, transparent" way. "This is a preliminary report. We want the final report to come in, so let us wait for it," he added. Early findings in the 15-page report released by the Indian authorities indicate switches to the engines' fuel supplies were moved from the "RUN" position to "CUTOFF". The fuel switches were then toggled to the "RUN" position, and the engines appeared to be gathering power, but failed to stop the plane from decelerating. Analysis of the cockpit voice recording revealed that one of the pilots asked: 'Why did you cut off?" To which the other pilot replied: 'I didn't." 7 A cockpit view of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft shows the fuel switch; Annotations by The Sun Graphics Credit: Getty 7 Clive Kunder was the co-pilot on the doomed flight Credit: Getty 7 Landing gear of the Air India plane crashed directly on the BJ Medical College UG hostel mess Credit: x/mitrapredator Though the report does not identify which comments were made by the flight's captain and which were made by the first officer. Nor does it "identify the cause - whether it was crew error, mechanical malfunction, or electronic failure." It is almost impossible to turn the switches off accidentally - they must be pulled up and locked before flipping - a safety design feature that was introduced decades ago. Protective guards are further installed to minimise the risks - raising further questions as to why the fuel switches in the Air India flight were turned off. The report points out that the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2018 issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) - highlighting that a few Boeing 737 fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. But it was not deemed unsafe, and no Airworthiness Directive (AD) - a legally enforceable regulation to correct unsafe conditions in a product - was issued. A similar switch design is used in Boeing 787-8 aircraft, including Air India's VT-ANB Dreamliner in question. The FAA and Boeing have now privately issued notifications that the fuel switch locks on Boeing planes are safe, according to four sources and a document seen by Reuters. The report said Air India had said it had not carried out the FAA's suggested inspections, as the FAA 2018 advisory was not a legal mandate. But it also 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. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner with 242 passengers on board - including 53 Brits - smashed into a doctors' hostel in Ahmedabad in the west of India. The plane was headed to London Gatwick when it crashed just seconds after take-off, killing all but one passenger.
