[paul cotter]

I just read the specifications of the Honeywell switch used on 787 and 737 aircraft(possibly all Boeing models) and it is purely a MANUALLY OPERATED TOGGLE SWITCH, with an additional optional locking mechanism. This of course means it had to have been a human input that caused the disaster and no amount of processor power could have influenced the state of these switches. Suicide/mass murder or some mental aberration are the only possibilities.

[Bored chemist]

Can you guess what HW stands for?

Half wit?
That would explain why you think " Takeoff thrust induces rapid thermal expansion. If both MN4 chips had marginal solder joints, a synchronized dropout could occur." is plausible.
Two engines- on opposite sides of the plane have the same failure within a second.
But it's a failure that hasn't been seen in countless previous take-offs.

Marginal solder joints are plausible in your TV set, but they check aircraft carefully.

[Bored chemist]

This tosh about electronics is silly.
Let's look at what we know happened from the actual report, rather than a bit of software prone to hallucination..
"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. The Engine N1
and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut
off.
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."

"As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about
08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with
the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also
transitions from CUTOFF to RUN."

A single cause electronic failure would have resulted in signals (not mechanical switches) changing simultaneously. It would  not happen with 1 second between them- that's the order of magnitude of an interval you expect from human action flipping two switches.

Then we hear someone asking why (not if) the other guy flipped the switches.
That's an important distinction.
If there was an electronic glitch which gave the impression that the switch was flipped than  the computer screens in front of them might say something like "engines switched off".
If you saw that, you would look at the switches.
In any event, once you heard the engines cut out, you would look at the switches.

And if you saw they were off, you would ask your colleague why they had switched them off.
If the switches were still on, you would not ask that question.

You wouldn't ask if they switched them off, because you wouldn't need to.
You know that you hand't switched them off, and there's nobody else there.


Also, Imagine that you are flying the plane and a poltergeist actually switched them off. (Yes- I know it's absurd)
Your colleagues asks you "why did you switch the engines off?"
Your reply isn't likely to be "I did not do so".
It's going to be "what do you mean?".
The question should be so absurd that you would think you had misheard it- unless you actually had killed the engines.

[paul cotter]

A poltergeist?, that is the sort of incisive analysis I was looking for! Me, I was going to blame the pink unicorn, why did I not think of the poltergeist first? Well done ,BC.

[Bored chemist]

The point is that saying "I did not do so" is, paradoxically, only viable if you did.

[alancalverd]

Here is Copolit's reply: https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/KnRTahTgz1jcgHUcK3wzC

fortunately neither I nor Boeing engineers, General Electric, Rolls Royce, the FAA, or the DGCA is as ignorant and obsequious as this selfstyled "copilot"  who I wouldn't even allow as baggage.

The job of a real copilot is not to polish the captain's ego but to assist, monitor, and question, which is why the non-handling pilot is sometimes called the naggivator. And there is evidence (see BC's reply above) that the Air India naggivator did indeed raise the question, and one or other of them did try to fix things.

[Bored chemist]

Now you mention it, calling that mess of software "copilot" is deeply unfair to actual copilots.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

From The Age newspaper, "There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023, the AAIB reported. But no details of this defect were given. Copilot could not clarify for me because it doesn't have access to the relevant logs.

Now, why wouldn't the AAIB name the defect outright? Because doing so would:

Directly implicate Boeings design assurances, which FAA and Boeing currently defend as safe.

Expose regulatory gaps, since the 2018 FAA bulletin was advisory and not enforced.

Trigger public fear, especially among Dreamliner passengers who trust the aircraft's redundancy and safety systems.

This isn't just about technical failure it's about narrative control. The switch defect is too central, too damning, and too likely to erode public confidence. So its linguistically buried under "no defect reported" a phrase that protects institutions but leaves passengers in the dark.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

 The Dreamliner Cutoff: Only Two Possible Causes
The AAIB confirms both fuel control switches were manually moved to CUTOFF within three seconds of liftoff, while the engines were still running normally. This action triggered total thrust loss and led to the crash. And given the mechanical design, only two possible causes exist:
1. Human Action
- The switches are spring-loaded and gated, requiring a deliberate lift-and-toggle by hand.
- No automation?FADEC, TCM, fly-by-wire?can move them.
- This means a human physically initiated the shutdown, whether by reflex, mistake, or impaired cognition.
2. Fabricated Timeline
- If we accept the AAIB timeline as true, human causation is unequivocal.
- But if we reject that timeline, the only alternative is that FADEC failed first, and pilots toggled the switches in a recovery attempt.
- That would imply the AAIB?s data is inaccurate or deliberately curated, shielding Boeing from design liability.

I REPEAT - IF THE AAIB TIMELINE IS CORRECT, THE ONLY POSSIBLE CAUSE OF THE DREAMLINER CRASH IS VIA THE ACTIONS OF ONE OR BOTH OF THE PILOTS. WHY THEN HAS THIS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The AAIB report never explicitly mentions that the fuel pumps were running at the time the switches were set to OFF. Instead, it says "The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values (RPM) as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.".

 In fact, the fuel pump status is never mentioned in the report despite being available!  Why? Maybe because Boeing didn't want the public to know that a mechanical problem was the cause of the crash (which would have been the case if the engine was already shut down when the switches were set to off).

[paul cotter]

True, but they also failed to indicate whether or not the sun had risen in the east that day. If the pumps were not running that would have been the cause of the accident and NOT the fuel cutoff/run switches. I get it now, you don't believe anything that is reported and that is your problem, not mine. This is a multi-agency interim report where the chances of lying would be minimal as some party is eventually going to have to take the heat. If a single agency was conducting the investigation then the possibility of a cover-up would exist.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

If the pumps were not running that would have been the cause of the accident and NOT the fuel cutoff/run switches.

Absolutely; my point exactly!

[mxplxxx (OP)]

If a single agency was conducting the investigation, then the possibility of a cover-up would exist.

Absolutely. And it so happens a single agency IS conducting the investigation. The AAIB or Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the UK.

[paul cotter]

The engines were running prior to activation of the fuel cutoff and there is no escaping this. You have thrown a variety of spurious arguments at this and all have failed. THE OPERATION OF THE CUTOFF SWITCHES KILLED THE ENGINES. For any coverup of intrinsic flaws in the aircraft one would need Boeing and Boeing only doing the investigation. As far as I know the US and Indian transport agencies as well as Boeing are involved- there may be more. PS just checked who is involved: AAIB, FAA, NTSB, GE and Boeing.

[alancalverd]

There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023,

Nor have I been convicted of fraud since 2023. But that doesn't imply that I was ever convicted before 2023.

Absolutely. And it so happens a single agency IS conducting the investigation. The AAIB or Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the UK.

Not true. FAA (USA) and DGCA (India) are also investigating, along with the airline and the major manufacturers (airframes and engines) involved. DGCA has the lead and has no interest in defending anyone.

PS repeated use of "the engine" is not helpful. A salient fact here is that two entirely independent engines failed, and not simultaneously, when their independent fuel switches were turned off..

PPSS Not sure what the Boeing/GE system is, but fuel cutoff on many aircraft is independent of the fuel pumps. The cutoff valves prevent flow input to the fuel pumps whether they are running or not.

[Bored chemist]

The AAIB report never explicitly mentions that the fuel pumps were running at the time the switches were set to OFF.

Of course it doesn't.
It doesn't say that because it does not need to say it.
If the fuel pumps are not running the plane does not take off.
The plane was in the sky.
So we know the fuel pumps were running.

How did you not work that out for yourslef?

[Bored chemist]

PS repeated use of "the engine" is not helpful. A salient fact here is that two entirely independent engines failed, and not simultaneously, when their independent fuel switches were turned off..

And they also, (at least began to) start working again when the switches were returned to the "on" position.

[paul cotter]

A very important point, BC, which proves the only impediment to engine function was the state of the fuel cutoff switches.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The AAIB of India is leading the investigation. India, not UK as I originally stated (turns out there is more than one AAIB).

Engine as in an attributive noun e.g.. Engine Starup/Shutdown. Or dual-engine.

Basically, there are two possible scenarios.

1. The engines were running at the time the cutoff switches were toggled off/on. In which case a Human unequivocally caused the crash, or

2. The engines were not running at the time the cutoff switches were toggled off/on. In which case the crash was almost certainly caused by a Boeing issue (but unequivocally not by a human.).

Yes the cutoff valve stops the flow of fuel to an engine. So?

[paul cotter]

No, When thrust was lost it was noticed that the switches were in the cutoff position by one of the pilots.