Cuttoff at takeoff: Did a Boeing system malfunction doom Air India flight AI171? Read the critical role of engine fuel switches and what the AAIB crash report uncovered
Weeks after the tragic crash of Air India flight AI171 on June 12, which left 260 dead and scores injured, a key detail from the preliminary report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB0 had triggered serious debate about the possible causes for the mishap. The report revealed that both engine fuel control switches transitioned from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” within seconds of takeoff, leaving the pilots helpless as both engines lost power almost simultaneously.
This moment of confusion was record by cockpit voice recorder, with one pilot asking another if he had flipped the fuel switch, to which the other emphatically responds, “I didn’t.” The revelation has raised alarm bells about the aircraft’s systems, particularly the functioning of the fuel switches, and whether a technical malfunction, rather than human error, was responsible for the gruesome tragedy.
Engine fuel control levers or fuel switches, as they are popularly referred to, are crucial part of a modern airliner’s engine management system. In connection with the AI171 crash, which included a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, each engine has a dedicated fuel switch located in the cockpit, typically on the center console.
What are fuel switches in an aircraft?
These switches regulate the flow of fuel from the aircraft’s tanks to its engines, which provides the sheer thrust needed to defy gravity and lift hundreds of tonnes of metal into the sky. In essence, the “RUN” mode allows for uninterrupted fuel flow, keeping the engine alive.
The “CUTOFF” mode, on the other hand, shuts off that supply completely, killing the engine midstream. It is a switch that’s only meant to be used during shutdown or under rare emergency conditions. The importance of this system and the risks associated with its sudden malfunction, cannot be overstated.
During key periods of flight, these switches play an important role. When the pilot start the aircraft on ground, they first bring engine rotation speed up to required levels and then flip the fuel switches to “RUN” to ignite the engines. During normal flight, including takeoff, the switches are kept in the “RUN” position at all times. Moving them to “CUTOFF” is only done during engine shutdowns, such as at the end of a flight or in case of emergencies like an engine fire.
According to the AAIB report, Flight AI171 had accelerated to around 180 knots and had just lifted off when both engine fuel control switches inexplicably moved to “CUTOFF.” This happened within a second of each other, causing both engines to lose power almost instantly. The cockpit voice recorder captured one pilot asking the other, “Why did you cut off?”, to which the other replied, “I didn’t.” One of the pilots then attempted to restart the engines by moving the switches back to “RUN.” While one engine showed brief signs of recovery, the other did not respond. The aircraft rapidly lost altitude and crashed into a densely populated area near the airport.
This exchange, along with the near-simultaneous shutdown of both engines, has raised significant questions. Could one or both of the pilots have made a mistake during takeoff? Or was there a technical malfunction in the aircraft systems that caused the switches to move automatically?
Though pilot error is always a likelihood, as it with any other instance involving humans, it is noteworthy to mention that the AAIB is yet to reach such a conclusion just yet. The report has instead avoided attributing blame, highlighting only what is currently known and stating that the probe is ongoing.
What has gone largely underreported by several international media outlets is the fact that Boeing aircraft, including the 787 series, have previously been the subject of technical advisories related to fuel control systems. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued warnings in the past about certain Boeing models being vulnerable to what is known as “fuel lock” or inadvertent fuel cut-off issues—caused not by human error, but by faults in wiring, electronic engine control modules, or cross-system glitches that could send a false signal to the fuel switches.
In this context, the AI171 incident bears a worrying resemblance. Two highly trained pilots, both having hundreds of hours of flying time, and experienced with the 787, expressed confusion when the fuel supply was cut off. The fact that both switches moved nearly simultaneously could point to a technical failure rather than a human one, especially since modern aircraft systems are supposed to have safeguards to prevent such dual-engine shutdowns during critical phases of flight.
Moreover, the aircraft’s Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup emergency power system, was deployed automatically, indicating a complete loss of electrical and engine power. This further suggests that the problem may have been systemic, rather than isolated to one part of the cockpit.
Fuel control switches, by design, are not meant to be easily or accidentally moved during takeoff. Their positions are deliberate and guarded to prevent unintended action. For both switches to be flipped to “CUTOFF” seconds after takeoff, while the aircraft was at full thrust, is an extraordinary and dangerous occurrence—one that deserves rigorous investigation, not media speculation.
FAA’s warning about “fuel lock” in Boeing aircraft
In light of all this, the rush by several Western media outlets to cast doubt on the pilots’ actions appears premature and potentially irresponsible, perhaps deliberately done to protect Boeing from suffering material and reputational loss over its aircraft’s technical malfunctioning to cause the crash. By focusing on the cockpit conversation and omitting the technical context, especially the FAA’s previous warnings about similar issues with Boeing jets, these reports risk distorting public perception and potentially shielding the aircraft manufacturer from scrutiny.
Until the AAIB concludes its full investigation, any narrative that places blame on the flight crew without definitive evidence is not just speculative, but deeply unfair to the deceased pilots and their families. In fact, it could be safely assumed that any attempt to fix the blame before full investigation is a bid to pass the buck on to the slain pilots to shield the American aviation giant, Boeing. But as in aviation, truth must come from data, not from propaganda exercise.
News