“The Timestamps Just DON’T Add Up!” Air India 171 With Captain Steeeve + Boeing Whistleblower

0:06Piers Morgan:You got to give that other pilot a few seconds to go through the horror and the panic of what's going on. If the one pilot showed up that day to check out, then he achieved that goal. I don't want to go there, but it's the only thing that fits. These leaks that we see, these leaks that we hear about from a U.S. source to a U.S. media source, it pains me to say this, but this is the same playbook we saw after the Max. The preliminary report doesn't mention anywhere that those physically, those switches moved. That is what is the key to the entire theory. This idea that the government agencies are the only ones that should be able to hold these facts in and they'll feed them out to us like breadcrumbs is ridiculous.

0:45Piers Morgan:They need to put all the facts out there as soon as they get them. You know, anyone flying on a Boeing Dreamliner right now is thinking, well, hang on, what happened here and could that happen to my plane? Well, more details are emerging about the devastating Air India crash, which killed 260 people last month. Many hoped a 15-page glimmering report would bring closure. Instead, it seems to have fuelled ever more speculation. What we know is that seconds after takeoff, both fuel control switches on the Boeing Dreamliner were abruptly switched off, causing the fully loaded plane to fall from the air and crash into a hostel for medical students.

1:21Piers Morgan:One pilot is heard asking the other why he moved the fuel controls to cut off. The other replies that he didn't. We don't know who said what, but attention is focusing on the senior pilot because the younger first officer would have had his hands on the controls. Well, last week, Captain Steve Scheibner gave us a fascinating breakdown of why the evidence points to a deliberate act that prompted two of our next guests, including a Boeing safety whistleblower, to get in touch with a different interpretation. All three of them, join me now, So returning to Uncensored is pilot and YouTube commentator, Captain Steve Scheibner, the executive director of the Foundation for Aviation Safety and Boeing whistleblower Ed Pearson, and a former air accident investigator and pilot, Captain Kishore Chinter.

2:06Piers Morgan:Welcome to all of you to Uncensored, and welcome back to you, Captain Steve. Ed Pearson, let me start with you. You're a Boeing whistleblower. You're not as convinced as Captain Steve that what we're looking at here is most likely to be pilot error. Is that right? Well, I want to say that it's possible it's pilot error, but I think that we need to look at all the possible system failures that could have occurred. We need to exhaust that list before we infer or implicate the pilots. Okay, so let's just go over again. For viewers who may not have seen my earlier interview with Captain Steve, what exactly do we now know happened here?

2:46Piers Morgan:Explain the actual sequence of events as we understand them from all the information that's been released. Yeah. Well, I mean, obviously, the report says that the pilots had a conversation. They're not even that specific about what they're talking about. So one of the real issues I wanted to say right up front is there's not a timestamp detailed timeline. So the information that we have is lacking. There's no information about what the pilots were looking at, the alarms they were seeing or anything like that. So it's really an incomplete report. And we think that's really not fair. It needs to be a lot more thorough.

3:22Piers Morgan:If it wasn't the fuel control switches being cut off, what else could have caused the plane to nosedive so soon after takeoff? Well, we have to look at these things called common mode failures, right? so you could have potentially an electrical short circuit or some sort of arcing some sort of system failure that could occur and these switches and the circuitry you know they're in they're in parallel at certain points and certain points they come together so the proximity and you know it could be potential water leaking we've had reports of water leaking into the electronic There was a federal FAA administration report on actual circuitry issues in the circuitry.

4:10Piers Morgan:So there's a lot of things that need to be examined here systems-wise before we, again, jump to the conclusion that this was a pilot making a mistake or even intentional. OK, Captain Shinta, what's your view? Thank you, gentlemen. Dear respects to both the gentlemen who are former military aviators like me and a hearty welcome to all of you all. I would like to begin with a quote from the FAA handbook on human factors. An accident is the final act of a chain of decisions which is made. What we have from the preliminary report, with due respect to Steve, excellent analysis. I've gone over a bunch of your videos, but let's just talk about just the facts which are on record on the preliminary report.

5:05That's what we should be focusing on. I will break it down to you, summarize. Steve has already done it, but I'm not trying to have an alternate theory over here. but I will just start from the lift off. At 8.08, 39 seconds was the lift off, and three seconds later, it says max speed of 180 knots was achieved, but no altitude is mentioned. Next event is at 43 seconds. We'll assume it's 43 seconds because it says, after 42, immediately a second later, the fuel control switches seemed to be transitioning from run to cutoff. Okay, 43 and 44 is when both these events happened transition. Okay, at 47, the N2 was below minimum idle and the RAT started supplying hydraulics.

5:59It's not mentioned anywhere with a time stamp when the RAT deploys. There's a CCTV footage. We do not know the CCTV footage time stamp when actually they, at what altitude, they see the RAT deployed. If you just go by this sequence of events, we do not see any reason for the rack to deploy. The rack will deploy. Steve will agree with me. We have a gentleman who has technical knowledge on the 737 MAX. The engines to spool down from max takeoff thrust to below 50 % N1 is when the generators will start generating any electrical power, is when the rack should be deploying. If on the ground, Steve mentioned in one of his videos, that it takes a finite amount of time for the engines to spool down, when you get to the gate and you turn off the fuel cut-out switches, even if we take that as 30 seconds for this spool down and take it as 10 seconds or more for it to spool down from idle power to less than 50%, the timestamps just don't match up.

7:05And if it took one second to put off both the switches quickly, why did it take four seconds to put them back on? Even if we say it was a human factor, a deliberate attempt by one of the pilots. Okay, let's just, I put this, I'll be the devil's advocate over here. Okay, why did just the fuel switches be put off? If I had an intent of crashing the airplane, I just had to tip the wings at 50 feet and that would be end of story. Why are we, you know, hypothesizing the mere factor that the preliminary report, it says in the foreword, it is not to apportion blame. We're doing gross injustice to the pilots who are not there to defend themselves by guest estimating and coming up with theories which are mere assumptions.

7:55You know, next assumption, the flight cutoff switches, the APU inlet door opened at 54 seconds up and the whole flight took 32 seconds till the EFR stopped recording. So practically whatever happened, happened in the first 10 seconds from the liftoff. The timestamp doesn't match up as Ed already mentioned. the preliminary report, I won't call it faulty. They did whatever best they could do in placing all the facts and figures. That is the purpose of the preliminary report. At no point of time do they indicate apportioning any blame. The only thing which I can pick out is the incorrect mention of the CVR transcript.

8:40We do not know at what point of time that exchange happened between both the pilots is paraphrased very conveniently between two events so that's where all the uh conclusions are coming up on you know mental health and and we're just going way ahead of

8:58Piers Morgan:on all these theories okay captain steve your response to what the two other guests have said well there's a lot been said so far and i want to stick with what is written in the preliminary report uh the preliminary report does have a fair amount of detail and i'll agree there are some things missing. I think the biggest thing is the people that wrote the report need to get in front of a microphone and answer some questions. We're trying to glean what we can here based on what they gave us. However, the only answer that really fits all of the parameters are that the fuel control switches, as they say in the report, transitioned from run to cutoff.

9:36Piers Morgan:That doesn't happen without human intervention. And anybody that operates those switches knows that they are SPRING LOADED INTO POSITION. THEY HAVE A DETENT TO HOLD THEM THERE. THEY DON'T VIBRAATE OUT OF POSITION. THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT TOOK PLACE AT ALL. WE'RE THINKING OF SOME SORT OF THEORY WHERE THE ENGINES FAILED AND FOR SOME REASON, SOME UNEXPLAINED REASON, THE PILOT OR PILOTS WOULD REACH OVER AND TURN THOSE FIELD CONTROL SWITCHES TO CUT OFF, WAIT FOR SECONDS TO TURN THEM BACK ON TO RUN. THAT'S NOT A PROCEDURE we're trained in for any situation at all. If there's a dual engine failure, you go to cut off and run immediately within a second of each other because you want to get those engines relit.

10:19Piers Morgan:The RAT deployed so quickly because both fuel control switches were placed to cut off. You didn't have to wait for the engines to spool down. Normally on an engine failure, you would wait for the engines to spool down. If you take both of those switches to cut off, the air logic knows that the RAT needs to deploy and it deploys instantaneously. So that explains why the rat came out so quickly. One of the pilots returned the switches back to run and they stayed there. And so the theory that somehow they vibrated out of position or somehow there was something wrong with them and they ended up in their cutoff position uncommanded is just ridiculous because there's pictures of the fuel control switches in the crash, in the run position.

11:01Piers Morgan:They survived the entire G impact of the crash and the fireball afterwards and didn't budge. And so they don't just move on their own. The idea that they somehow vibrated into that position and then everybody was surprised. The only way you can move those switches is to put a hand on them and move them back and then move them back up. What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments? That's right. Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room. It's possible when you call American Financing today. Experts at American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off debt.

11:36Piers Morgan:Consultants are helping many homeowners to restructure their loans and consolidate dates, all with no upfront fees. Their customers are saving an average of$800 per month, which is like a$10 ,000 raise. It's fast, it's simple, and it could save your budget this summer. So call them today before it's too late. 866-721-3300. That's 866-721-3300. Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash peers. What's fascinated many people who are not expert in aircraft is that it would be so easy for a pilot to go rogue and bring down a plane just by switching two switches off. I was pretty startled to discover that.

12:23Piers Morgan:I also assumed that if that ever happened in that eventuality, that that's the point of having a co-pilot, is that they would move immediately to do something about it, which doesn't seem to have happened here. How Captain Steve... I mean, I should say that since we last spoke in an interview, by the way, which I think nearly 2 million people have watched, so there's enormous public appetite for this. Since we last spoke, the Wall Street Journal did a pretty big, deep dive into this, no pun intended, in which they reported that it was Clive Kunder, who was the co-pilot, who asked the captain why he cut the fuel.

13:01Piers Morgan:And the explanation for that is that he would have been the one whose hands were on the actual controls taking off as the co-pilot, so he couldn't have been simultaneously cutting off the fuel. They also said, well, in fact, you could say that the overall feeling of the Wall Street Journal report was reinforcing your theory there was pilot interference and said there was no evidence of aircraft malfunction or that Boeing was therefore to blame. I presume you read that report, Captain Steve. What did you think of the Wall Street Journal report? And what do you say to people who are just like kind of flabbergasted that it would be that easy for a rogue pilot to do what happened, if that's what happened?

13:46Piers Morgan:Well, it is easy. The pilots have their hands on the controls all the time. I think sometimes in a rational mind, like we're trying to approach an irrational act with a rational mind, and it doesn't make any sense. You know, the objection I've heard is, why didn't the pilot just nose the airplane over? Well, that certainly would have been one way to do it. He didn't. We're again applying a rational theory to an irrational act. Clearly, somebody turned those fuel control switches to cut off. Somebody else, I'm assuming, turned them back on. That's an assumption on my part. But it fits with the Wall Street Journal report that one pilot turned them off and the other turned them back on.

14:29Piers Morgan:You got to give that other pilot a few seconds to go through the horror and the panic of what's going on. It would be hard to process what you just saw, that somebody else turned the fuel control switches off because you know the implications of that. You're going to look out in front of you. You're going to see the ground getting closer. You're going to try to push the power up. They got no power. You reach down, you look at the switches again, you turn them back to run, hoping that those engines relight in enough time to get power to climb out of it. That never transpires because the whole thing happens so quickly.

14:59it would be horrible for the other pilot if the one pilot showed up that day to check out

15:05Piers Morgan:and that was his goal then he achieved that goal but sadly it's it's horrible in the extreme to think about that I don't want to go there but it's the only thing that fits all the check boxes and all the parameters of all the things that took place on that aircraft in that 60 second flight okay well I'll come to you in a second Captain Chazelle I know you put your hand up there because I saw, Ed, I saw your facial reactions there suggesting you don't agree with what Captain Steve just said. I don't. I don't agree with Captain Steve. The Wall Street Journal report I found was very, was not very good.

15:41Piers Morgan:You know, the airplane is incredibly complex, right? If you ever looked inside the airplane infrastructure, you would see an absolute jungle of electrical, electronic computer systems. Switches have been known to, it's called mimicking, switch mimic, which means that something could happen to a circuit that actually could cause an indication that something was moved when in fact the switch wasn't moved. That's just one example of a systems engineering type issue. And I'm not an expert in these areas. One of the things we really need to do is need to bring in expertise in electronics, that type of technology.

16:15Piers Morgan:I'm bothered by this because, you know, if we want to stay within the boundaries of the report, then these leaks that we see, these leaks that we hear about from a U.S. source to a U.S. media source, it pains me to say this, but this is the same playbook we saw after the MAX. We saw blame the pilots. FAA, Boeing sent out a message saying everything's fine. Meanwhile, conceal, withhold critical information. In fact, there's information today that the NTSB is withholding about the ET302 crash that they're not sharing with the international parties. So it's really bothersome. We need to look at the facts.

16:51Piers Morgan:And this idea that the government agencies are the only ones that should be able to hold these facts in and they'll feed them out to us like breadcrumbs is ridiculous. They need to put all the facts out there as soon as they get them. The only people that are benefiting from delaying putting out all the facts is the parties that have financial interests in mind. So I feel like we need to do a lot more and not be so quick to look at this report and make assumptions that this was done by the pirates. Let me ask you, just again, not being as expert as you in this. is there any difference in terms of liability for Boeing if it turns out to be a deliberate attack by one of its pilots or if it was a system malfunction that caused the crash?

17:39Piers Morgan:Are they more or less liable with one or the other? I think, first of all, we want Boeing to be successful. It's important to our country and our national security. But if this turns out to be a system failure, if they go through the process and release the facts. And again, by sharing the facts out to a large audience, to the public, you bring in all that expertise, right? Instead of trying to do with a small team. So I think that there is liability, unfortunately. If there is a system failure, design failure, it could be a maintenance failure. I mean, I'm keeping that door open as well. But right now, there's such, the report is just woefully inadequate.

18:18Piers Morgan:Right, but the point I was making is, is there any difference to your knowledge in potential liability, whether it's pilot error or plane error? In other words, if it actually comes to claims from the families of all those who died, is there a qualitative difference in the amount that could be paid out by Boeing? I mean, I'm assuming, given that the pilots were Boeing employees, that Boeing would still be liable regardless? Well, that's a great question. And honestly, Pierce, I can't answer that. I'm not an attorney. But my gut reaction is that if there's a responsibility on Boeing, if that failure occurred because of Boeing or Boeing employees, then, yes, that would probably increase their liability.

19:00Piers Morgan:OK, let me bring Captain Chinter back. You raised your hand to make a point. What was the point you were going to make? Summer is here, and everyone knows to protect their skin from the sun. But what if you could also protect it from collagen loss and inflammation, even repairing damage you did when you were younger? Well, the good news is that you can. Something I learned from the scientists at OneSkin. They can protect your skin from UV damage and work at the cellular level to repair damage and prevent collagen loss. It's packed with science-backed ingredients, including the OS1 peptide for protection, nourishment, and repair in one step.

19:38Piers Morgan:Our sponsor, OneSkin, is the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, OneSkin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try OneSkin with 15 % off using code peers at oneskin.co. That's 15 % off at oneskin.co with code peers. After your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. So please show us your support by telling them that I sent you. To start with, Steve mentions the RAD deployed. Let's assume, based on his assumption, that the RAT deploys immediately once you put those switches off. Just by the facts on the preliminary report, those switches were switched off at 43 seconds.

20:26Okay, 8.08.43. The RAT starts, the same report says the RAT starts... Can you explain, sorry, just to jump in,

20:33Piers Morgan:can you explain for viewers who don't understand the term, what is the RAT? Let's explain that again. Captain Steve did in the... The RAT turbine is a propeller which deploys once the engine shut down to provide hydraulic and electrical power to the pilots to continue flying the airplane while they attempt to be light of the engines or you know it is continued to be fly worthy right you know it gives power supply to the engine instrument I mean the aircraft instruments as well as hydraulic for flying the airplane. Okay. And just to remind people, you are a former... It takes a finite amount of time for the RAT to start developing that power.

21:19If it deployed three seconds before, if we go by the timeline, you know, Steve is mentioning, three seconds is too less a time for the RAT to start generating power to start supplying hydraulics. So that's where the theory ends over there. The assumptions we're making, who said what, did the flight control switches actually move? They used the word transition. Steve, they used the word transition because the EFRs did not record the switch movement. The EFR records the signal that the switch provides. The flight control switch provides power to the spar-value valve switch, which in sequence gives signal to the fuel monitoring unit and further to the high-pressure shut-off valve and, you know, so on and so forth.

22:11OK, but Captain Shins, let me jump in.

22:13Piers Morgan:Let me jump in. Just in simple layman's terms, is it possible that those fuel switches were turned off without human involvement? Captain Steve... Exactly, that's where I'm coming. Captain Steve has extensive, obviously, flying experience. He does not believe that is possible. Yeah, I'm coming to that. I have a background to this. I spent almost my entire military life, you know, electronic warfare. Okay. I understand, you know, EM waves and Steve would be good to read. FA Chief Scientist and Technical Advisor Dave Wallen in December 2002 had put out a paper. It mentions how electromagnetic interferences affect aircraft systems.

23:00To go on to that, there are so many documented, uncommanded FADEC inputs for engine shutdowns. You can take, for instance, the ANA 787 Dreamliner of the same type. There are Embraer aircraft which have FADEC shutdowns. The military aircraft where uncommanded ejections have happened. There are military aircraft where engines have shut down. You know, on a Mirage 2000, one of the most advanced engines, the Snekma engine, had a phatic shutdown. So it is not something which you can just rule out out of the window just like that.

23:35Piers Morgan:So it is technically possible. And one more point which I would like to make is that the EFRs, you know, the rare EFR, sustained damage to an extent where it is, you know, twisted and out of shape. That can only happen, metal can only bend when there is an electrical fire. A fuel fire will not generate enough heat for metal to bend that way. Okay, so tell me, Captain Chindul, what is your best working theory right now about what you think happened? I wouldn't like to hypothesis, I wouldn't like to make any assumptions, But the AIB, in best course of action, the AIB, this is what the AIB should be doing, is as per Chapter 2, Para 2.2 in the Dock 9756, which is the Manual of Aircraft Investigation, They should issue an interim statement with the transcript of the CVR, which will debunk all theories on who said what and what was the events in terms of the ICAS warnings once the fuel switches were transitioned to cutoff.

24:50All those aspects will come out once the communications in the cockpit will be clear. Next thing, it should be a data-driven investigation. We should investigate all aspects of EM interference or the FADEC failure or any other electrical supply malfunction or a software glitch in the entire command system of the Boeing 787, which may have caused these switches. Okay, before I go back to... Everyone's saying those fuel switches went to cut off. Yeah. But the preliminary report doesn't mention anywhere that physically those switches moved. That is what is the key to the entire theory. Those switches moved, we do not know.

25:36Yes, those shut off the fuel supply, which caused the engines to lose power, yes. Why that happened, we do not know right now. We should not... Just to be clear...

25:46Piers Morgan:Just to be clear, you're saying that the fuel supply could have cut off without these switches being turned off? Yes, it is a possibility which cannot be ruled out at this stage. OK, but do you also... Presumably, you can't also rule out human error. You can't definitively say it wasn't pilot error. Absolutely, absolutely. I have no point saying that you can rule out human factors at this stage of the primary report. we would be unfair to both the pilots or anyone else in terms of human factors, which may have led to a cause of this accident. It is too preliminary to even, you know, make an assumption of mental health and all the...