There is no wire connecting a switch to an actuator or mechanism. The "switch" is a sensor that reports its state to the computer, or the computer polls it to check, dozens of times a second (depends on implementation). The computer then decides what to do. It might issue control instructions to a mechanism or change a display or modify some behaviour.

But don't forget the flip side. If the computer detects a dangerous condition, it can take action on its own. Like shut off fuel. Usually drastic action is accompanied by an alarm, but it seems not in this case. However, if software malfunctioned it might have skipped the alarm, depending on how the software is organized. If the software gets corrupted (bad download, cosmic ray, etc), then all bets are off.

Jumping to a conclusion with no evidence when there are plenty of other alternatives is a bit like premature e__lation. Unfortunately, then it settles into some minds and become enmeshed in confirmation-seeking behaviour and confirmation-bias. Let's hope that doesn't happen here.

So I assume he saw the switches in the "OFF" position, the computer didn't move them.
They also got flipped back to "ON" but too late.

With 1,200 built since 2009 and no fatal accidents up till this plane I am going to assume the software/hardware is robust & redundant enough to not shut off the engines uncommanded.

Article adds the word "he" and assumes question was for pilot, with no evidence.

......also the other pilot answered him so it was not a rhetorical question but a accusation it seems to me.

Also pilots have little time for rhetorical questions under 500ft with no power, it's all memory item check lists and fly the plane and pray.

Both fuel switches were moved to the off position over the detent or notch and then the APU immediately deployed. That's evidence. The problem is, we don't know why. They are springloaded and have to be moved manually. These two levers, one for each engine, were pulled one second apart. By the time the pilots were moving to restart the engines, it was too late.

More than one expert has analyzed the Air India report, and this is the gist of it. It is a big mystery as to how this happened, and we may never know. Perhaps they were cut off by the First Officer thinking they were something else? At any rate, in order for any computer to be told anything to input to the fuel shutoff valves, these switches have to be moved manually.

It really is unthinkable, and a big mystery. Perhaps more info will come out. But we are probably never going to know how this happened.

inadvertent fuel cut-off was the cause with a possible means being the co-pilot switched the fuel cut-off switches instead of landing gear up.

Don't see how you could mistake 2 small switches in the center console for a large lever on the dash

Gear:


Fuel cutout:

Hard to see how that could be a accident as the switch's have to be manually pulled up, then rotated down for off and have raised guards next to them.

Also hard to see how they wouldn't be well aware what the switch's were as they are used to start and stop the engines on every flight.

Because of all the redundancies.

Almost no way to mistake 2 small switches in the center console for a large lever on the dash, if accident becomes improbable that leaves on purpose.

Or gross incompetence in one of the pilots I suppose.

YMMV

2) If it had been deliberate, then there would be evidence of a fight for control in the cockpit. There is none.

If it had been deliberate, the engines would not have been restarted. They were. If one pilot was set on causing a crash they would have prevented restart: 10 seconds later for one and 14 seconds later for the other. Or the pilot would have turned the plane into the ground while the other pilot was restarting the engines.

Distrust "easy deductions". Always dig deeper and consider alternatives. Otherwise it is too easy to fall into confirmation seeking and confirmation bias.

Also the timing very much points to human action, engine 1 shut down, 1 sec later engine 2 shut down, both in the order and timing point to a person to me.

Also the gap between 1st switch back on & 2nd one (4sec?) is pretty long for emergency reset, makes me wonder if they was a fight over the switches.


Technical gremlin not ruled out
Voted most unlikely as Dreamliner's have done millions of miles with millions of passengers without this issue and for it to happen at exactly the worse time I find suspicious also.

Who stated:

The fuel control switches and thrust lever angle resolver signals are hardwired to the engine (with some relays along the way). They do not pass through any A/D conversion, data bus, or network.

Seem to rule out software issues.

one engine was restarted but the other was in the process of start up. While the Boeing plane can fly on one engine, they were too low to recover in this instance.

If the investigators truly did find both switches in the off position, past the detents, then this is also unfathomable, as they were supposed to have been in the process of restarting the engines. The first thing you do is flip the switches to "run." They would have found both switches in the run position. So, maybe the black boxes contain the information about what the switches did. But, this supports your argument.

Still listed as missing (although parts from that 777 have been located on beaches in the Western Indian Ocean, the body of the plane has not been located ) with cause still officially 'undetermined'

However, there is widespread belief that this was a meticulously planned mass-murder suicide likely by the senior pilot for unknown reasons

Wiki is a good place to read more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370

As far as this current Air India crash, The Times of India has an article echoing the concerns of The Airline Pilots’ Association of India that there is a strong, unfair, "Bias towards pilot error"

Read more at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/122403848.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Initially, there was much (likely justified by Boeing's actions these past several years) finger-pointing at the B-787. From the reporting which is now available, it certainly does seem that, perhaps, actions by the pilots cannot summarily dismissed

At some point all will become clear

The combination of cockpit recordings and the fact that the way the switches have to be manipulated in order to cut off the fuel make it unlikely this was anything other than an intentional act.

And the pilot flying may have been a little busy for a fight or argument.

Also if done on purpose they would have a rough idea of how long to spool the engines back up and no need to fight if there is no time left for the engines to get to full thrust.

Why did you assume 1)They were arguing 2) They didn't try?

1) One noticed a bad condition and asked the other about it. They received crucial information from the other officer.

2) They restarted one of the two engines. As stated in the article.

...just like modern, digitized automobile controls.