A few thoughts on the resolution (informed by the resolution video):

- Is it a murder suicide? I think someone deliberately turned both fuel switches off. I agree the most likely cause of this is a deliberate act by one of the pilots, which would be a murder suicide.
- I think there is a small (10%-20%?) chance that it was some kind of of tragic pilot error. Personally I would not feel comfortable resolving pilot error to no at this point but I think a reasonable person could disagree with me here.
- Is there a media consensus? The news outlets I follow have avoided reporting it as a murder-suicide like the plague. Most report factually that the fuel switches were off. The mood I'm sensing coming from them is "someone turned off the fuel switches, we don't know why yet". So IMO there isn't a media consensus that this was a murder-suicide yet.
- Assuming it was a deliberate act, should it resolve to two engines inoperative or other? Hindsight is 20/20 here, but I think the issue with this market is that "two engines inoperative' is typically a 'middle' stage in a chain of events that might lead to a place crash. Engines don't just randomly turn off. Their inoperativeness usually has a root cause, such as a deliberate act, a design flaw, or a catastrophic accident such as a dual engine bird strike. All of this to say I have no idea how to resolve this market.
- As far as I remember, I traded this market thinking that if both engines were inoperative and this contributed to the crash, it would resolve to yes. I'm not saying this necessarily needs to be taken into account in the resolution.

I think these two Jeju Air 2216 markets are instructive in terms of the options design:

https://manifold.markets/fwbt/why-did-jeju-air-flight-2216-crash
This first market is about 'why' the flight crashed and all the options are things that could have initiated the accident sequence.

https://manifold.markets/HastingsGreer/what-happened-during-the-jeju-air-f
This one is about "what happened" rather than any specific causes, but scratches the itch to speculate about which parts / systems of the aircraft might have failed

I posted my resolution deliberation video in the discord #market-misc channel. I am waiting for people to check my thinking process before I resolve.

I haven't seen a "media consensus" on the cause yet, so i'd at least wait for that before resolving/closing. But there's not enough evidence to say with 95%+ certainty that it was deliberate imo.

Market is about to close. I will read over exactly what I wrote in the description, clarifying comments, and consult with moderators before making a resolution. I am not providing any more clarifying answers to the ones that came in the last hours because I dont want to accidentally contradict myself.

"Air India crash report shows pilot confusion over engine switch movement"

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/india-finds-engine-switch-movement-fatal-air-india-crash-no-immediate-action-2025-07-11/

@Bandors , would you interpret this as pilot error?

@JPD Reuters aren't saying it*, perhaps with good reason, but from watching Pilot Speaking I am convinced that one of the pilots deliberately turned the engines off and the other one would naturally be confused (as an understatement) as to why they did this. But that's not "pilot error"

*(pilot speaking refuse to say this either, but they convincingly deal with all other possibilities)

@JoshuaWilkes Yeah I agree that the likely sequence of events given information we have is that one of the pilots deliberately turned both engines off, and that the other pilot being audibly confused at this step isn't an "error" by that individual.

However I'm pretty disappointed in the clarification @Bandors issued here, something I only spotted after the market closed: https://manifold.markets/Bandors/air-india-crash-cause#xhf9jo98glj. In every interpretation possible, the pilot electing to turn off the engines is THE defining erroneous action that caused the plane to crash. The engines were ready for use (operational), it wasn't cargo moving around, it wasn't a malfunctioning flap, and it wasn't "Other".

An erroneous action by one of the pilots (deliberate or not) is clearly the cause of the crash, so dismissing this option because it could have been deliberate sabotage seems incorrect to me.

@JPD I'm going to make a big writeup to go with my resolution. Going to bed for now. I'm going to try my best to make a fair resolution.

@JPD You're letting the difference between "erroneous" (wrong) and "error" (a mistake) do a let of work here!

I am sure that a good number of people will have looked at the available options and chosen "pilot error" as the closest thing to 'pilot action", but I'm equally sure many will not have. And with good reason IMO:

"pilot error" to me means that the pilot was trying not to crash the plane, but in doing so took some action that caused the plane to crash

whereas

"deliberate sabotage (by pilot)" means the pilot was trying to crash the plane, and took some action that caused the plane to crash

The latter is trivially easy to explain, the former very, very challenging. And they would look completely different to outside (of the investigation) observers before reports are released.

In a market trying to understand how a plane crash happened these two options should definitely be distinct from each other.

@JoshuaWilkes https://youtu.be/Hns9iwdgK5Y

Here is my deliberation video. I agree that intentional murder-suicide does not resolve to pilot error. I am leaning to resolving this to OTHER.

@Bandors I watched the video. Because of the way the market is set up (independent multiple choice), people will have been assuming that multiple answers can resolve YES. The fact that "two engines inoperative" is not the root cause is probably correct, but resolving that to NO seems unfair given that "two engines inoperative" was "true."

Personally I wouldn't resolve this for another year until the final report, but I respect that you are going another direction in that respect.

@JoshuaWilkes I think this gets into English. This market was specifically for the "cause" and the "cause" wasn't the engines being out, the "cause" was deliberate turning off of the engines. I agree I will wait longer to resolve.

@Bandors But in that case "the engines were out" would never be the cause.

Birdstrike: Engines are out but birds are the cause

Fuel system: Engines are out but no fuel / dirty fuel is the cause

Would two engines inoperative resolve to YES if loss of altitude and negative vertical speed was caused by two engines not running, one or both engines was restarted immediately before the actual collision with the ground, but they had failed to regain enough thrust to recover?

I am glad I did not place bets on this market because it's starting to look really muddy for how to resolve. I will wait a bit longer for a consensus.

@Bandors would you count deliberate sabotage by a pilot as "Pilot error"?

@Greyhawk Deliberate sabotage would not resolve to pilot error.

@Bandors for the record, I think this is a bad judgement. It seems likely many people would bet on Pilot Error if they were imagining deliberate pilot action to endanger the flight. In some sense, a misbehaving pilot is still making an error in the face of their duty.

Nonetheless grateful for the clarification

@Greyhawk by definition of the word error, it can't be deliberate? Error means mistake.

Speculation based on order for simulation runs and statistical unlikelihood of dual engine failure that wrong engine may have been shut down following loss of other: https://youtu.be/q_3tzn50dYM?si=3EStQM08E7v29FoY

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-787s-emergency-power-system-likely-active-before-air-india-crash-wsj-2025-06-18/

Unsure how to read this but it can’t be the flaps!

If one engine failed, and the pilot incorrectly shut down both or the wrong engine, how would “Two engines inoperative” resolve?

@MarcusM Probably YES, assuming the other engine was inoperative during the crash.

@MarcusM inoperative typically refers to equipment which cannot function eg. a computer which is off is just off but one which can’t be turned on is inoperative. If the pilots lost one engine then erroneously shut down the other functioning engine would you still resolve YES?

@Bandors I’d ask that you reconsider your inoperative criteria. Some (many?) of us read it as both engines unable to function matching what the word means. If as it seems certain now one of the pilots switched off the fuel pumps neither engine was ‘inoperable’ and indeed report is that one had restarted before impact. Just my take.