Let's analyze your scenario. Both switches happen to fail only electrically but remain in RUN position. The pilot noted that the fuel had been switched off was looking at what? Note the pilot asked about the switched specifically being set to CUTOFF. The pilot did not ask why he lost power or why the engines spun down or at 0% power. He asked why the switches were in CUTOFF. Then in your scenario they started working again.

As far as I know "cutoff" is not lingo for "engine rolling back" The pilot would say "Engine rolling back" Also I am not sure the cockpit would display "Fuel Cutoff Active". I would surmise it would say Fuel SYS Inactive or Fuel SYS Active as Fuel Cutoff Active is a double negative of a condition. Just like the plane would show AUTOPILOT ENGAGED or AUTOPILOT DISABLED. The warning would not be AUTOPILOT NOT ENGAGED or AUTOPILOT NOT DISABLED.

Both Airbus and Boeing follow the same basic design for these switches. The switches are there to stop the engines midflight especially if it is on fire. Between the two companies they have made thousands of aircraft. But we should listen to you instead? And what are your qualifications then? Let me guess you don't live in your mom's basement; you live in her attic.

The problem is with the OP's assertion that somehow the switch was never physically flipped to RUN but stayed in CUTOFF the entire flight. Then in Airmode, the controls remembered the physical position of CUTOFF. I could only find the start-up procedure of a 787-8 simulator but it clearly lists

To start an engine:

1. Set the engine start switch of the engine you want to start (L/R) to the START position
2. Move the engine master switch (L/R) from CUT OFF to the RUN position
3. Monitor the engine start on the EICAS

You mean other than the fact the pilot asked the other pilot about it? I take the voice exchange to mean one pilot could physically see the switch had been toggled to CUTOFF. Then the switches got toggled back to RUN.

The switch is right below the throttle. It is easy enough to see; however, the PF eyes should have been focused on other things during takeoff but throttle position would be something the pilots should be aware.

How about looking at the switch itself. Figure 13 of the report.

That is possible but this 787-8 was not new and had been with Air India for 11 years. The MCAS related crashes was on brand new 737-MAX planes servicing Air Lion and Ethiopian Airlines, 2 months and 4 months respectively. Any software would likely be older and the plane had flown for over a decade on Air India.

Not according to SAIB NM-18-33. Some switches were installed that disabled the "pull" requirement.

It seems every time somebody points out the flaws in your arguments, they are "emotional". Maybe your arguments are flawed? Nah, you just resort to major gaslighting.

You seem not to understand that current LLMs suffer greatly from inaccuracy. Checking legal briefs require the LLM to UNDERSTAND them which they cannot do. As the other person pointed out that is not possible. Your response is if they had access to "actual resources". But please point me to a LLM that can CHECK legal briefs for accuracy. I'll wait..

No the FAA bulletin was that some of the switches were installed with the locks disabled. It is possible that the lock failed but the bulletin was not about that.

That is a possibility of adding another mechanism. The investigators need to determine if the locks worked first.

And I await your return from the restaurant. The beating you'll get may alert you to the possibility that your premise of "India and Pakistan have similar cultures" might be highly flawed. But based of your reliance on speculations and falsehoods, it does not seem likely.

No the SAIB NM-18-33 advisory did not say that. The advisory said these switches have a locking mechanism to prevent accidental flips. Some of them were installed with the locking mechanism disabled. "The Boeing Company (Boeing) received reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged." Over time, the switch could wear out and fail to engage but the advisory was more concerned about "inadvertent operation".

Bahahahahaha. Everything you presented was based on another country, in another plane, under different circumstances. But they are similar because you said they were. According to you. Based on your recollections. Of falsehoods.

If you don't know you should go to the nearest Indian restaurant and call them Pakistani. I'll wait for your return.. Hint: the thought that Indian and Pakistani are not similar cultures never crossed your mind, did it?

Bahahaa. These countries are similar according to you. Go into your nearest Indian restaurant and call everyone Pakastani. I'll wait.

Ah yes. More rampant speculation by you based on no evidence. Listen, I'm not saying it was aliens . . . but it was aliens.

Summary: you will make assertions based on no evidence. When challenged you present even more wild claims. Based on no evidence. It's turtles all the way down, eh?

I doubt the switches to turn on the fuel supply would be set to off yet the pilots could start the engines only while on the ground. It would have been one of the things the pilots set to RUN when starting the plane. The data recorder notes the switches were flipped 3 seconds only after take off.

I doubt the switches could have been set to CUTOFF during takeoff as the preliminary report states the change in position. That would be a recipe for disaster for controls to work like that. We will have to wait for the final report but I would guess it would register that the pilots set the position to RUN while starting the engines.

There's nothing wrong with Outlook. People were checking their email wrong. [Unplugs coffee machine, plugs server back in]

I've actually read a 15 page report. Some people here have wildly speculated many things without even reading the report just as they speculated on the causes right after the crash..

There was no option tor the airlines or pilots to disable the locking feature. Some switches installed by Boeing disabled the feature by mistake. The FAA advised airlines to inspect and replace the switches back in 2018; however, it was not a mandate. Air India did not have to do either if they did not want.