Some airlines checking Boeing fuel switches after Air India crash

NEW DELHI, July 14 (Reuters)

India on Monday ordered its airlines to examine fuel switches on several Boeing aircraft models 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 are safe.

A preliminary report into the Air India crash that killed 260 people found the switches had almost simultaneously flipped from run position to cutoff shortly after takeoff.

One pilot was 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," the report said.

The 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.

India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation said it had issued an order to investigate locks on several Boeing models, including 787s and 737s, after several Indian and international airlines began making their own inspections of fuel switches.

The regulator oversees the world's third-largest and fastest-growing aviation market. Boeing planes are used by three of the country's four largest airlines.

PRECAUTIONARY CHECKS

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 (QAN.AX).

Others said they had made additional or new checks since the release of the preliminary report into the Air India crash.

Singapore Airlines (SIAL.SI) said on Tuesday that precautionary checks on the fuel switches of its 787 fleet, including planes used by its low-cost subsidiary Scoot, confirmed all were functioning properly.

The Lufthansa Group (LHAG.DE) said it had re-checked switches on its 787s since the Air India incident, after initially inspecting them in 2018, and found no issues.

South Korea's Transport Ministry said it ordered domestic airlines on Tuesday to inspect fuel control switches in accordance with the 2018 FAA advisory.

"At that time (2018), it was a recommended measure and was not fully inspected," the statement to media said.

Flag carrier Korean Air Lines (003490.KS) said on Tuesday it had proactively begun inspecting fuel control switches.

Japan's ANA (9202.T) and Japan Airlines (9201.T) said they were conducting inspections in accordance with the 2018 advisory.

Taiwan's EVA Air (2618.TW) said that it understood that no further inspections of Boeing 787s were required.

U.S. carrier Alaska Air (ALK.N) said it has not received guidance from Boeing and is not currently taking action.

Southwest Airlines (LUV.N) said it completed inspections of the affected fuel cutoff switches on its fleet in 2018, immediately after the FAA issued its advisory. "We remain engaged with the FAA and Boeing and will take additional action as necessary," a Southwest spokesperson said.

INSPECTIONS

Boeing referred Reuters' questions to the FAA, which did not respond to a request for comment. Boeing shares closed 1.6% higher on Monday after there were no recommended actions in the report aimed at operators of 787 jets or the GE (GE.N) engines.

Over the weekend, Air India Group started checking the locking mechanism on the fuel switches of its 787 and 737 fleets and has discovered no problems, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Monday.

About half the group's 787s have been inspected and nearly all its 737s, the source added, speaking on condition of anonymity. Inspections were set to be completed in a day or two.

The Air India crash preliminary report said the airline had not carried out the FAA's suggested inspections, as the FAA's 2018 advisory was not a 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.

In an internal memo on Monday, Air India CEO Campbell Wilson said the preliminary report found no mechanical or maintenance faults and that all required maintenance had been carried out.

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-orders-its-airlines-check-fuel-switches-boeing-jets-2025-07-14/

On Jul 17th 2025 India's AAIB released an Appeal - in response to various media reports raising unsubstantiated claims - stating: At this stage, it is too early to reach any definitive conclusion. The investigation by the AAIB is still not complete. ... Therefore AAIB appeals to all concerned to await publication of Final Investigation Report after completion of the Investigation."

Izgleda da ipak nije toliko crno-belo kako se cini na prvi pogled.

Laik sam za letAnje, ali zar ima potrebe da se manuelno isječe crevo za gorivo? Misim, ako se motorin zapali, valjda ima automatiku za gašenje i prekid pumpanja?

39 minutes ago, makaronee said:

Laik sam za letAnje, ali zar ima potrebe da se manuelno isječe crevo za gorivo? Misim, ako se motorin zapali, valjda ima automatiku za gašenje i prekid pumpanja?

Nema (koliko je meni poznato) pilot je taj koji aktivira prekid dotoka goriva, ili aktivira sistem za gašenje požara u motoru i sl.

Kakva god da je automatika uvek bi imao problem da moze zbog greske usled laznog signala da dodje do gasenja motora. Otuda se to ne automatizuje potpuno vec daje odluka pilotu da samo u slucaju da je neophodno izvrsi takvu proceduru. A cak i njega nekada moras spreciti da to moze da ucini.

Ekstremno je tesko napraviti masinu koja ce spreciti glupost coveka koji njom rukuje. Bio tamo - probao to vise puta. U jednom trenutku dodjes do apsurda sa zastitom i ogranicenjima.

A losu nameru ako je resio da to izvede nema sanse da mozes spreciti. Ako je pilot resio da izvrsi samoubistvo to je maltene nemoguce spreciti.

Edited July 18, 2025Jul 18 by Downforce

Jasno, nego reko ako se udvoje vitalni sistemi obaveštavanja i tako izbegne lažna uzbuna.. no, biće da je to preveliko opterećenje za budžet, kad se svaki 1/10% broji.

8 hours ago, makaronee said:

Jasno, nego reko ako se udvoje vitalni sistemi obaveštavanja i tako izbegne lažna uzbuna.. no, biće da je to preveliko opterećenje za budžet, kad se svaki 1/10%

8 hours ago, makaronee said:

Jasno, nego reko ako se udvoje vitalni sistemi obaveštavanja i tako izbegne lažna uzbuna.. no, biće da je to preveliko opterećenje za budžet, kad se svaki 1/10% broji.

Nije, samo, stvar cene nego pouzdanosti, šta ako ti jedan sistem šalje podatak a a drugi b?

Nije retko gde imaš upravo takva dupla rešenja.

Boeing laički rečeno se jako drži da pilot odlučuje, Airbus u nekim segmentima ima više elemenata gde avion™ ne da pilotu da zajebe stvar ali i to dok inputi nisu u koliziji, npr AF447

3 hours ago, Zaboravan said:

Nije, samo, stvar cene nego pouzdanosti, šta ako ti jedan sistem šalje podatak a a drugi b?

Nije retko gde imaš upravo takva dupla rešenja.

Boeing laički rečeno se jako drži da pilot odlučuje, Airbus u nekim segmentima ima više elemenata gde avion™ ne da pilotu da zajebe stvar ali i to dok inputi nisu u koliziji, npr AF447

Pitot se jeste zaledio i davao netačne podatke, ali jebi ga - nije ti ovo najbolji primer jer je do nesreće došlo mnoštvom drugih uzroka odjednom. Najkobniji je bio kada je na stall upozorenje dizan nos, umesto da se spusti i ubrza avion.

B737 Max je bolji (nesrećniji) primer kada avion sam spušta nos i to pri poletanju. Airbus ima mnogo više iskustva da bi napravili takve “boljke”.

47 minutes ago, dragance said:

Pitot se jeste zaledio i davao netačne podatke, ali jebi ga - nije ti ovo najbolji primer jer je do nesreće došlo mnoštvom drugih uzroka odjednom. Najkobniji je bio kada je na stall upozorenje dizan nos, umesto da se spusti i ubrza avion.

B737 Max je bolji (nesrećniji) primer kada avion sam spušta nos i to pri poletanju. Airbus ima mnogo više iskustva da bi napravili takve “boljke”.

Pa to kažem, airbus ima odlične sisteme koji baš ne dozvoljavaju pilotu drastične greške, kada se ne posloži da pređe u mod, ja se više ne mešam™ Mislim na avion.

A to je kada se ne može izboriti sa pogrešnim ili kontradiktornim inputima.

A AF447 je pravi primer.

Da nije bilo netačnih inputa teško bi pilot doveo avion u kovit. Avion ne bi dozvolio.

To je sve veći problem da piloti više nemaju treninge da “lete i upravljaju avionom” u slučaju da tehnologija omane, tj bez instrumenata.

Malo duhovito i ne baš precizno

Airbus for stall boeing for thunderstorm.

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by vememah

On 17. 7. 2025. at 14:24, 3opge said:

ili je bio agent pakija

ostaje da se vidi da li je sabotaza ili je neko lose programirao.

Nema programiranja - nije kompjuter ništa imao sa dotokom goriva. Ono o pakistancima je smešnije od glupljeg.

Navodno se već dešavalo da na Boingu 787 sistem isključi dovod goriva motorima bez intervencije pilota.

Top aviation expert: 'Boeing Dreamliner software can cut fuel without pilot input, has happened twice'

Boeing Dreamliner has a system capable of cutting fuel to the engines on its own

Aviation attorney and former US Department of Transportation Inspector General Mary Schiavo has cautioned against rushing to blame the pilots in the Air India crash. She pointed out that the Boeing Dreamliner has a system capable of cutting fuel to the engines on its own.

Pointing to past incidents involving Boeing 787s, she said known software-triggered engine issues — including systems that can cut fuel flow mid-air — must be thoroughly examined before drawing conclusions.

"In about 75% of the cases, the pilots are blamed — and in many cases, we've been able to disprove that," Schiavo said in an interview with Barkha Dutt. "It is not only unfair but simplistic and harmful to blame the pilots… there are too many suspicious things to say, 'Oh, it's the pilots'."

Schiavo pointed to prior incidents involving the same aircraft model where onboard systems, without pilot input, cut fuel to the engines mid-air. She cited a 2019 All Nippon Airways incident where a Boeing 787's system mistakenly shut off fuel mid-air after misjudging that the aircraft had already landed. "That system — TCMA — has already been faulted in a prior incident. It can and will cut the thrust to both engines if it malfunctions," she said.

"There have already been two interesting somewhat similar situations on the All Nippon Airways flight back in 2019," she said. "As the plane was coming into land, the fuel control cut off occurred. The plane itself cut off the fuel to the engines. The plane came in like a very heavy glider, but because it was landing, not taking off, there was no crash."

She also referred to a more recent case involving a United Airlines Dreamliner flight between Washington DC and Nigeria. "The plane itself put the plane into a nose dive. There was a thrust issue, there was an engine issue, and the plane experienced some deviations," she said.

What happened in the All Nippon case?

Explaining the ANA case in detail, Schiavo said the Boeing 787 is equipped with several automated systems, including one mandated by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to help distinguish between flight and ground conditions. "This particular system wanted the plane to have the ability all by itself — pilots didn't have to do this — to sense whether it's in the air or on the ground," she said. "And what happened in the ANA flight back in 2019 is the plane thought it was already on the ground and it was still in the air, and it cut the fuel."

Such misjudgements can have serious consequences, she noted, particularly during takeoff, when aircraft have only seconds to achieve a stable rate of climb. "On takeoff, you don't have that luxury," she said.

What is TCMA? 

At the centre of her concern is the Dreamliner's Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) system, a software protocol mandated by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which can command the aircraft to cut engine power under certain conditions. "The TCMA is a system that the FAA mandated so that the plane itself can assess when it needs to cut back the power. And that is tied in with the flight controllers, which are on both of the engines," she explained. "This system, which has already been faulted in a prior incident, can and will cut the thrust to the engines both if it malfunctions and says it's time to cut the thrust. And that has happened before."

'Not enough evidence to blame the pilots'

Schiavo criticised the rush to pin the Air India crash on the pilots, pointing out that such conclusions often come too early and derail a full investigation. "Just having one pilot allegedly say to the other, 'Why did you do cut off?’ and the other one say, 'I didn't,' that's not nearly enough," she said.

"There are experts whose job it is literally to listen for tiny inflections in the pilot's voice, to listen for every click in the cockpit, to listen for everything that happens. Until that is done, and until we know whether the aircraft itself could have cut those switches — as it did in All Nippon Airways — it is unfair and simplistic to blame the pilots."

Schiavo also invoked past examples where pilots were wrongly blamed. "In about 75% of the cases the pilots are blamed and in many cases… we’ve been able to disprove that," she said. "Everyone remembers MH370. There was not a shred of evidence that the pilots did that intentionally and yet they got blamed."

She cautioned that such investigations can take years. "The flight data recorder will have literally millions of lines of code and reported information. It’s the most advanced flight data recorder out there. Each of those will have to be examined,” she said. "In the case of a takeoff… pilots simply do not have the time and the altitude. Altitude is time. The higher you are, the more time you have to react."

Until all these angles are explored, Schiavo says, "it is not only unfair, but it's simplistic and harmful to blame the pilots."

https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/top-aviation-expert-boeing-dreamliner-software-can-cut-fuel-without-pilot-input-has-happened-twice-485119-2025-07-17

Neki od ovih eksperata iz prethodnih klipova su tvrdili da bi ručno prebacivanje prekidača za dovod goriva motorima u drugi položaj moralo da se čuje na snimaču glasa, tako da pretpostavljam da bi za ovaj konkretan slučaj u preliminarnom izveštaju drugačije formulisali kad ne bi bili sigurni da li je dovod goriva motorima isključio sistem ili neki od pilota ručno.

Edited July 20, 2025Jul 20 by vememah