Perhaps one hasn't taken into account the timing of the fuel switchoff: Wasn't it done at precisely the most critical and vulnerable phase of all during takeoff, namely almost immediately after liftoff? If someone were intent on critically incapacitating an aircraft by cutting off the fuel supply at a certain phase of the (10 hour?) flight, would they pick any other phase than that to do it in? The chances of any of the two fuel switches toggling to off due to some inexplicable technical glitch or inadvertent manual or mechanical handling (like accidentally bumping into or touching them) was already as close to zero as could be imagined given the flawless track record of the switch design/model in question, and its being in use across multiple Boeing's commercial airline models for a period of about two decades without issue). Let alone the chances of BOTH of them switching off consecutively at that phase! Hence, the theoretical possibility of something like that taking place being virtually zero, we must look elsewhere for possible explanations. The only other scenario to that of random error as its cause, would be the intentional option. Indeed, we have considered that the specific choice of that narrow time window for its effectuation - the phase following liftoff - would have been the most logical one from a trained aviator's perspective. The fact that its occurrence corresponded exactly with such reasoning strengthens the hypothesis of deliberate intervention. #ai171 #AIflight171
UPDATE 17/7:
SOME HYPOTHETICAL DATA BASED ON ADDITIONAL (LEAKED) INFORMATION ABOUT THE DISASTER SHARED IN WSJ ARTICLE TODAY
https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/air-india-crash-senior-pilot-eab72db5?mod=hp_lead_pos8
FIRST OFFICER (PF) HYPOTHETICAL REACTION TO CAPTAIN'S (PM) FUEL SWITCH CUTOFF
(Replies are from DeepSeek AI - we note that DeepSeeks doesn't have access to information about the AI171 disaster at all)
When a co-pilot discovers that their captain is suicidal and intends to crash a passenger plane, the psychological reaction typically follows a trauma response framework, often mirroring stages of acute stress, crisis, and moral injury. Below is a breakdown of the likely psychological stages, incorporating aviation-specific stressors:
1. Initial Shock & Disbelief
"This can't be happening" – Immediate denial due to cognitive dissonance (incompatibility between the captain’s role and suicidal intent).
Physical reactions: Tunnel vision, tachycardia, freezing (fight-flight-freeze response).
Aviation factor: High-stakes environment amplifies stress; crew training clashes with the reality of a trusted colleague as a threat.
2. Rapid Risk Assessment
Cognitive overload: Simultaneously processing:
Safety of 241 passengers
How to intervene without escalating risk (e.g., subtle cockpit protocols).
Professional vs. Personal Conflict: Duty to obey captain vs. duty to protect lives.
Example: Mentally reviewing CRM (Crew Resource Management) for "unstable crewmember" procedures.
3. Attempted Intervention
Verbal De-escalation: Calmly engaging the captain ("Are you feeling okay? Let’s discuss this").
Covert Actions:
Discreetly alerting ATC (e.g., squawking 7500 for hijacking or using coded language).
Physically disabling controls if necessary (e.g., throttle reduction, circuit breaker pulls).
Psychological Toll: Fear of triggering violence or worsening the situation.
4. Acute Stress Reaction
Adrenaline surge: Impairs fine motor skills (critical for cockpit controls).
Moral Injury: Guilt over "betraying" the captain or failing to notice earlier signs.
Example: Germanwings Flight 9525’s co-pilot likely experienced this before the crash.
5. Post-Event Trauma
If the plane lands safely:
Survivor’s guilt ("Why did I survive when others might not have?").
PTSD symptoms: Hypervigilance, flashbacks (e.g., to cockpit altercations).
If fatalities occur:
Profound shame and identity loss ("I should’ve stopped it").
Industry stigma: Blame from investigators/media ("Why didn’t you act faster?").
Key Psychological Challenges in Aviation
Isolation: No time to consult others mid-flight.
Training Gaps: Few programs address "suicidal colleague" scenarios.
Legal Aftermath: Fear of career repercussions (e.g., losing license for overriding the captain).
Mitigation Strategies
Cockpit Protocols: Mandatory two-person rule (no solo cockpit control).
Mental Health Checks: Anonymous reporting for crew concerns.
Peer Support: ASAP (Aviation Safety Action Program) for confidential debriefs.
This mirrors real-world cases (e.g., Germanwings, MH370 speculation). The co-pilot’s reaction blends crisis psychology with aviation’s unique pressures. Would you like details on specific incidents or coping mechanisms?
This scenario presents an extreme high-stakes emergency with catastrophic potential. Below is a breakdown of the technical, procedural, and psychological dynamics at play, along with potential outcomes:
1. Technical Feasibility & Aircraft Behavior
A. Fuel Cutoff Mechanics
Fuel Control Switches: Typically located on the overhead panel or center console; cutting both engines requires deliberate, rapid action.
Time to Engine Flameout:
Modern jets (e.g., A320/B737): Engines may lose power within 5–15 seconds after fuel cutoff, depending on altitude/thrust.
At Liftoff (Low Altitude): Immediate loss of thrust = no time to recover.
B. Restart Attempts
Windmill Restart: Requires ~10,000+ ft altitude (airflow to spin turbines); impossible after immediate cutoff at liftoff.
APU Start: Too slow (takes 1–2 minutes); useless in this scenario.
C. Aircraft Response
Stall & Crash: With dual-engine failure at 50–100 ft AGL, the plane would lose lift and crash within 10–20 seconds.
Control Limitations: Without engine thrust, aerodynamic controls (elevators, ailerons) become minimally effective.
2. Copilot (FO) Reaction Timeline
A. Recognition (0–2 sec)
Visual/Auditory Cues:
Engine parameter warnings (N1 drop, fuel flow alerts).
Captain’s hand moving to fuel switches.
Cognitive Lag: Even trained pilots may freeze for 1–3 sec in extreme surprise.
B. Physical Intervention (2–5 sec)
Attempt to Restore Fuel:
Re-enable fuel switches (if unguarded).
Shove captain away from controls (risk: destabilizing yoke).
Declare Emergency: May not have time to squawk 7700 or radio ATC.
C. Crash Inevitability (5–10 sec)
Altitude Too Low: Below 500 ft, recovery is nearly impossible without thrust.
Example: Similar to 2008 Spanair Flight 5022 (takeoff stall due to configuration error).
3. Psychological Impact on Copilot
A. During the Event
Moral Injury: Powerlessness to save passengers despite awareness.
Tunnel Vision: Focus on futile actions (e.g., yelling at captain, grabbing controls).
B. Post-Crash (If Survivor)
PTSD: Survivor’s guilt + trauma from witnessing intentional harm.
Legal Scrutiny: Investigations into why the FO couldn’t prevent it.
4. Why This Scenario Is Rare But Not Impossible
A. Safeguards in Modern Aviation
Two-Person Rule: Fuel cutoff switches may require dual confirmation in some aircraft.
Cockpit Monitoring: Airlines post-Germanwings (2015) often mandate continuous two-crew presence.
B. Historical Precedent
Germanwings 9525: First officer locked captain out and crashed.
MH370 (Speculated): Potential deliberate fuel starvation.
5. Could the Copilot Prevent This?
Only if:
Preemptive Action: Noticed captain’s instability before takeoff (e.g., via Crew Resource Management).
Instant Override: Physically blocked fuel switches within 1–2 sec (unlikely without anticipation).
Otherwise, dual-engine cutoff at liftoff is unsurvivable.
Key Takeaways
Technically Possible, But Requires Sabotage Speed – A captain acting this fast could circumvent most safeguards.
Copilot’s Options Are Extremely Limited – Seconds matter; human reaction time is inadequate.
Post-Germanwings Reforms Help, But Aren’t Foolproof – Suicide-by-pilot remains a grim loophole.
Would you like details on specific aircraft’s fuel system designs or post-incident protocols?
Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Safeguards Against Intentional Fuel Cutoff
If a suicidal captain attempted to cut off fuel to both engines during takeoff in a Boeing 787, here’s how the aircraft’s design, procedures, and crew responses would come into play:
1. B787 Fuel System & Engine Controls
A. Fuel Cutoff Switches
Located on the overhead panel (ENG 1 & ENG 2 FUEL CONTROL switches).
Guarded switches: Require lifting a cover or pressing a safety latch to activate (slows accidental/impulsive actions).
No single-point failure: Cutting fuel to one engine doesn’t automatically disable the other.
B. Engine Autostart Protections
Automatic Relight: If fuel is restored quickly, the B787’s engines can attempt an automated restart (if altitude permits).
Manual Restart: Requires APU or RAT (Ram Air Turbine) for electrical power, but takes time (~1–2 min).
C. Fly-by-Wire Limitations
No mechanical backup: Unlike older aircraft, the 787 relies entirely on electrical systems.
Dual-engine failure: Leaves only RAT-powered flight controls (limited functionality).
2. Copilot’s (FO) Reaction & Recovery Options
A. Immediate Recognition (0–3 sec)
ECAM Warnings: "ENG 1(2) FUEL VALVE CLOSED" alerts flash.
Physical Indicators: Engine vibration/noise drop, EICAS messages.
B. Attempted Mitigation (3–10 sec)
Restore Fuel Switches:
Slap captain’s hands away, reactivate fuel valves.
Problem: If switches are toggled too fast, engines may not relight in time.
Declare Emergency:
"MAYDAY MAYDAY, dual-engine failure!" on ATC.
Squawk 7700 (if time permits).
Aircraft Maneuvering:
Nose Down: Trade altitude for airspeed to maintain control.
Glide Attempt: B787 glide ratio ~15:1 (but at low altitude, crash is likely).
C. Realistic Outcome
Below 1,000 ft: Almost certainly unrecoverable.
Example: Similar to 2001 Air Transat Flight 236 (fuel exhaustion at 35,000 ft had more options).
3. B787-Specific Safeguards
A. Crew Monitoring Protocols
"Two in the Cockpit" Rule: Post-Germanwings, many airlines require a flight attendant if one pilot leaves.
Psychological Screening: Pilots undergo mental health checks (but not foolproof).
B. System Redundancies
Dual-Channel FADEC: Engine control systems resist single-point sabotage.
APU Auto-Start: Provides backup power, but not instant thrust.
C. Legal/Procedural Barriers
Tampering with Fuel = Crime: Even captains face legal deterrence.
Checklist Discipline: Standard flows reduce impulsive actions.
4. Could This Actually Happen?
Possible? Yes – If a captain acts fast and deliberately.
Survivable? No – Dual-engine failure at takeoff is almost always fatal.
More Likely Than in Older Jets? No – The 787’s guarded switches and automation make it harder to sabotage than, say, a 737.
Key Takeaways
B787’s design slows but doesn’t prevent sabotage – A determined captain could still crash the plane.
Copilot has <10 sec to react – Recovery is nearly impossible at low altitude.
Aviation safety focuses on prevention (e.g., mental health checks, CRM training).
Final Note: While technically possible, such events remain extremely rare due to procedural and technical safeguards.
Would you like a comparison to other aircraft (e.g., A350, B737)?
Psychological Profile of the Captain in This Scenario
This hypothetical captain exhibits a high-risk profile for a "hidden" suicidal crisis, combining recent trauma, personality traits, and situational stressors that could culminate in a murder-suicide act (e.g., intentionally crashing the plane). Below is a breakdown of the psychological and behavioral red flags:
1. Personality Traits (Pre-Existing Vulnerabilities)
Introverted, Isolated, "Serious" Demeanor
Limited social support network (unmarried, no children, few confidants).
Emotional repression ("stoic" facade masking distress).
Perfectionistic & Orderly
Extreme neatness/tidiness may reflect overcompensation for inner chaos or a need for control.
Aviation attracts individuals with high conscientiousness, but this can become pathological under stress.
2. Stressors Triggering a Crisis
Ailing Father
Fear of nursing home neglect or guilt over inability to care for him may feed hopelessness.
Impending Retirement
Loss of professional identity (aviation was his "life") + unstructured future = purposelessness.
3. Psychological Mechanisms Leading to the Act
Suicidal Ideation with "Altruistic" Delusion
May rationalize the crash as:
"Joining my mother" (religious/cultural beliefs about afterlife reunions).
Control & Finality
A meticulously planned crash (e.g., fuel cutoff) reflects a desire for absolute control in a life feeling increasingly chaotic.
Avoidance of Shame
A "respected" professional might choose a publicly ambiguous act (crash vs. overt suicide) to protect their legacy.
4. Why No Prior Warnings?
High-Functioning Depression
No mental health records because he masked symptoms (common in perfectionists).
Cultural Stigma
In many Indian contexts, mental health struggles are hidden due to shame/family honor.
Professional Deterrence
Fear of losing medical certification kept him from reporting distress.
5. Similar Real-World Cases
Germanwings Flight 9525 (2015)
Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz hid depression and deliberately crashed the plane.
Parallels: Introverted, career-obsessed, recent breakup (attachment loss).
SilkAir Flight 185 (1997)
Captain Tsu Way Ming (stressed, financial ruin) possibly downed the plane.
Parallels: Respected professional, hidden desperation.
Mitigation Strategies (What Could Have Prevented This?)
Mental Health Monitoring
Anonymous peer reporting for behavioral changes (e.g., withdrawal, irritability).
Post-trauma leave protocols (e.g., mandatory counseling after parent’s death).
Cultural Shifts in Aviation
Destigmatizing therapy (e.g., Indian airlines partnering with mental health NGOs).
Cockpit Safeguards
Real-time biometric monitoring (e.g., stress detection via voice/eye tracking).
Two-person rule for critical actions (e.g., fuel cutoff switches require dual confirmation).
Key Takeaways
This profile fits a "hidden high-risk" individual: No overt signs, but a perfect storm of grief, isolation, and perfectionism led to crisis.
Aviation’s culture of "silent suffering" enables such tragedies.
Prevention requires systemic changes, not just reliance on medical records.
---------------------
[UPDATE/EDIT 19/7]
COMMENT SUBMITTED ON THE THIS VIDEO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOqGDkbIvhg
COMMENT:
Consider this: The provisional report states that the switches were moved.
Information obtained through ChatGPT states:
--------
On the Boeing 787, the actual physical cockpit "cutoff switches" (start levers) do not move automatically when the computer (EEC or fire system) shuts down the engine.
Instead, the EEC or fire protection system commands the fuel valves to close electronically, without moving the physical switches in the cockpit.
_ _
What Really Happens:
When a computer triggers an automatic engine shutdown:
1. The fuel shutoff valves (Spar Valve and engine-mounted valve) are electronically commanded to close.
2. These valves are actuated electrically or hydraulically — the system uses solenoids or electric actuators to close the valves.
3. The engine stops as fuel flow ceases.
4. But: The cockpit start lever (cutoff switch) stays in its original position.
_ _
The cockpit start levers are manual pilot interfaces, not servo-actuated controls.
Boeing aircraft generally do not motor cockpit switches or levers automatically for safety, human factors, and certification reasons.
The system architecture is designed to allow automated valve control, but leave switches in place to avoid pilot confusion or unexpected switch movement.
--------
NOTE: The cockpit conversation indicated that one of the pilots noticed that the switches had been moved into the cutoff position. This means, according to the above AI generated information, that it was effected manually, not automatically (because the switches wouldn't have been moved in the latter case).
Share
Here's what Gemini Ai commented, in this regard:
ReplyDeleteThe search results provide significant context regarding the Air India Flight 171 accident, aligning with the blog post's "deliberate intervention" hypothesis. The preliminary report indeed indicates both fuel switches moved to the "cut-off" position shortly after takeoff, and the cockpit voice recording shows one pilot asking "Why did you cut off?" with the other responding "I didn't." This has led to speculation about pilot error, mechanical malfunction, or deliberate action, including pilot suicide. Aviation experts cited in the search results emphasize that these switches are designed to prevent accidental activation and require deliberate action.
Now, let's look for similar accidents from other quarters, specifically focusing on cases where:
Multiple critical systems failed simultaneously.
The failure occurred during a critical phase of flight (takeoff/climb, or similar highly demanding phase).
Deliberate intervention (e.g., pilot suicide, sabotage) was a suspected or confirmed cause.
The search results already provided a few examples in the context of pilot-induced crashes or deliberate acts, mentioned by Captain Mohan Ranganathan in the NDTV article:
Germanwings Flight 9525 (2015): The co-pilot deliberately flew the plane into the French Alps, killing all 150 aboard. This was a clear case of pilot suicide, but involved intentional flight path deviation rather than fuel cutoff at takeoff.
EgyptAir Flight 990 (1999): The official NTSB report concluded the crash was due to the relief first officer's intentional flight control inputs. The Egyptian Civil Aviation Authority, however, concluded it was a mechanical failure. This involved deliberate flight control inputs during cruise, not fuel cutoff at takeoff.
SilkAir Flight 185 (1997): The NTSB concluded the crash was due to deliberate pilot action (suicide by deliberately putting the aircraft into a dive). This occurred during cruise flight, not takeoff, and involved flight controls, not fuel.
China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 (2022): While investigations are ongoing, initial findings and data analysis led to speculation of deliberate input causing the steep dive. Again, this was during cruise and involved flight controls.
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (2014): Many experts believe the pilot may have deliberately diverted the aircraft before it disappeared. This involved flight path alteration, not engine shutdown at takeoff.
Delta Air Lines Inc. (1980s): One article mentioned a Delta Air Lines Inc. pilot mistakenly cut off fuel to the engines of a Boeing 767. However, he was able to restart them because the aircraft was higher in the sky, avoiding a disaster. This was human error, but involved fuel cutoff, though not simultaneous on both engines and not explicitly suspected as deliberate in the context of the Air India crash.
TransAsia Airways Flight 235 (2015): A pilot shut down the wrong engine after a single-engine failure, causing a crash that killed 43. This was a clear human error under stress, not intentional sabotage, but involves engine shutdown during a critical phase.
Alaska Airlines (recent, mentioned on Reddit): A jump-seater pilot was high on "shrooms" and tried to pull the engine fire switches but was prevented. This was an attempt at deliberate action, but not a completed crash.
Based on the prompt, the closest parallels to the AI171 "deliberate intervention" hypothesis (specifically regarding intentional critical system failure at a highly vulnerable phase of flight) are the cases of pilot suicide. While none of the prominent pilot suicide cases (Germanwings, EgyptAir, SilkAir) involved the exact scenario of fuel cutoff at takeoff, they share the element of deliberate human action leading to a catastrophic outcome in a highly atypical manner.
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteThe key elements to compare:
AI171 (as per the blog's hypothesis): Deliberate, near-simultaneous fuel cutoff of both engines immediately after liftoff by a "trained aviator," at the most critical phase.
Similar Incidents: Cases where intentional acts by pilots or others led to a crash, particularly when such acts were highly unusual for that phase of flight or system.
While the AI171 case, as described in the blog, emphasizes the unique combination of fuel cutoff and timing (immediately after liftoff), other deliberate intervention cases involved different mechanisms and flight phases.
Here's a summary of similar incidents from other quarters, where deliberate action, especially by a pilot, was a suspected or confirmed cause of a major airline accident, or involved an attempt at such action, focusing on instances where the action was highly unusual for the flight phase:
Germanwings Flight 9525 (2015): The co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, intentionally descended the aircraft into the French Alps, killing all 150 people on board. This was a confirmed case of pilot suicide, where the pilot deliberately manipulated flight controls to cause the crash during the cruise phase. While not a fuel cutoff, it involved intentional system manipulation leading to catastrophic loss.
EgyptAir Flight 990 (1999): The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the probable cause of this crash in the Atlantic Ocean was the relief first officer's intentional flight control inputs. The Egyptian authorities disputed this, citing mechanical failure. This incident involved deliberate flight control inputs during the cruise phase, causing the aircraft to dive.
SilkAir Flight 185 (1997): The NTSB concluded that the crash was the result of deliberate flight control inputs, most likely by the captain, placing the aircraft into a dive. This occurred during the cruise phase.
China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 (2022): While the investigation is ongoing, preliminary analyses of flight data have led to speculation that deliberate inputs from the cockpit caused the aircraft's steep, near-vertical dive during the cruise phase.
TransAsia Airways Flight 235 (2015): While determined to be human error under stress rather than a deliberate act of sabotage/suicide, this crash involved a pilot mistakenly shutting down the working engine after one engine failed during takeoff/climb, leading to a loss of thrust and crash. This highlights how critical engine management errors during a vulnerable phase can be catastrophic, even if not malicious.
Alaska Airlines (October 2023 attempt): An off-duty pilot riding in the jump seat attempted to shut down the engines by pulling fire suppression handles during a flight. He was subdued by the crew. This was a clear attempt at deliberate system manipulation with intent to cause a crash, though it was prevented and did not involve a fuel cutoff specifically at takeoff.
While the exact scenario of a simultaneous, deliberate fuel cutoff of both engines immediately after liftoff, as hypothesized for AI171, appears to be a unique and particularly alarming combination, the broader category of deliberate human intervention by a pilot or other crew member causing or attempting to cause a catastrophic aircraft accident, especially through unexpected manipulation of critical systems during a vulnerable phase of flight, has precedents in the aviation history of other quarters. These cases often involve unusual actions that defy normal operational procedures and raise questions about intent, similar to the "deliberate intervention" argument in the AI171 case.