AI 171 crash probe raises more questions than answers
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommends that in cases of heightened public attention, the state investigating the case should publish the report within 30 days. It should lay down all facts obtained during the early stages of the investigation and provide safety recommendations if it deems fit at that stage. Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has done remarkably well to meet this deadline. But a bare reading of the report reflects it trying to hide more than providing information. Initial reports of investigations into similar crashes present a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) along with timestamps. For instance, while releasing the early report into the investigation of the accidents involving Boeing 737 Max aircraft, Indonesian and Ethiopian authorities laid out the entire transcript of the CVR. It depicted the pilots' struggle to regain control of the plane despite performing all procedures mandated by the manufacturer. Airlines and regulators across the world look to such cues to take preventive action so as to cut down any factors that can risk flight safety.Absence of such details in AAIB's report - while cherry-picking a single sentence in which one pilot is heard asking the other regarding why he had cut off the fuel switch, to which the reply was that he hadn't - is questionable. It has led to pointless speculation on pilot error, or worse, pilot suicide, since these switches in crafts like the 787 have safeguards like metal lock and a guard built around them to avoid any accidental 'switching off'.By keeping the report open-ended, AAIB has provided fertile ground for claims and counter-claims that can affect pilots at large. Further, it gives no further details on what happened in the 10 secs between the switches being cut off and being put on again. Surely, sharing such details wouldn't have harmed the probe process. Instead, it would have helped to understand why investigators believe they see no risk with either the Boeing 787 aircraft or GE engines.The report also cites a 2018 advisory of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which flagged the possibility of disengagement of the fuel switch-locking mechanism, although in a different type of aircraft. Because the bulletin was advisory and the issue was not deemed an unsafe condition, it stated that Air India did not conduct inspections on its fleet. It raises the suspicion about whether the crash was due to bad engineering practice. But in the very next sentence, the report states that Air India replaced the throttle control module twice, in 2019 and 2023.In a modern-generation jet like Boeing 787, the thrust control module and fuel control switches are physically integrated into the same unit, and replacing the module also involves replacing fuel switches. If at all investigators felt that it was a significant fact in the accident, the least they could have done is advise airlines to check the locking mechanism of the switches.The crux of ensuring success of a process is to maintain public trust. The report has managed to break that trust with some claiming it's hiding pilot error, intentional or not. From the very start, the investigation process has been shrouded with controversy with AAIB or civil aviation ministry deciding not to give any update. It is essential to effectively communicate in today's 'real-time information' era. In the absence of that, it's misinformation that fills the void. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. The 10-second mystery: Did the Air India crash report hide more than what it revealed?
Can Indian IT's 'pyramid' survive the GenAI shake-up?
Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe.
The deluge that's cooling oil prices despite the Iran conflict
Stock Radar: Natco Pharma stock showing signs of momentum after falling over 30% from highs – what should investors do?
In mid-caps, 'just hold' often creates wealth: 10 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential up to 44%
F&O Talk | Foreign outflows, IT drag pull nifty lower; next support at 24,500: Rahul Ghose
How to use dividend yield in volatile times: 6 stocks where this strategy has a high chance of giving much better returns
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Trump announces trade deal with Indonesia, details yet to be disclosed
The announcement comes after the US president last week threatened to impose a 32 per cent tariff on Indonesian goods starting Aug.1. Bloomberg US President Donald Trump said he reached a deal with Indonesia, without providing any specifics of what is included in the accord. 'Great deal, for everybody, just made with Indonesia. I dealt directly with with their highly respected President. DETAILS TO FOLLOW!!!' the US president posted Tuesday on social media. The announcement comes after the US president last week threatened to impose a 32 per cent tariff on Indonesian goods starting Aug.1. The country afterward sent its top trade negotiator to meet with Trump Cabinet officials in order to to secure an agreement. Indonesia's Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Airlangga Hartarto presented several business deals in meetings with US officials, including US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, according to the ministry. An agreement with Indonesia would be the fourth trade framework Trump has announced with foreign governments, after Vietnam and the UK. The US and China also reached a tariff truce that includes the planned resumption of critical minerals and technology trade between the world's two largest economies. Pacts announced by Trump have thus far fallen short of full-fledged trade deals, with many details left to be negotiated later. Vietnam's leadership was caught off guard by Trump's declaration that Hanoi agreed to a 20 per cent tariff, and the Southeast Asian country is still seeking to lower the rate, according to people familiar with the matter.
NDTV
8 hours ago
- NDTV
Air India Crash Report Raises Questions, Has No Answers: Global Pilots' Body
The preliminary report into the probe of an Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad last month raises several questions but does not provide any answers, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has said. The global body for pilots also said that any extrapolation of the content of the interim report can only be regarded as guesswork and may hamper the course of investigation. It said it is committed to support the efforts of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) and that the families of the victims deserve "our collective professionalism" as the entire investigation is conducted. The statement, on Monday, came days after the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Sunday released its preliminary probe report that indicated a possible fuel switch as the reason behind the June 12 crash that was one of the deadliest in recent times. The report sparked criticisms and a massive debate over the actions of the pilots, besides raising serious concerns. "As a reminder, a Preliminary Report is merely the means of communication used for the prompt dissemination of data obtained during the early stages of the investigation and only contains factual information and an indication of the progress of the investigation. In accordance with the provisions of ICAO Annex 13, such Reports are published within thirty days of the occurrence," the statement said. "Whilst this preliminary Report by its very nature raises many questions, it does not provide answers, and any extrapolation of its content can only be regarded as guesswork, which is not helpful to the good conduct of the investigation. IFALPA also notes that the Report clearly states that no safety recommendations are being provided at this stage," it added. The association urged all parties to refrain from speculation, allow the investigation to run its full and proper course, and avoid drawing conclusions from the preliminary report. London-bound AI 171 crashed into the residential quarters of BJ Medical College doctors in Meghaninagar area, seconds after taking off from Ahmedabad airport, before going up in flames. Only one of the 242 passengers and crew members onboard survived the accident. The remaining victims were from those in the college and around the premises. Nine students and their relatives from the institute were among those who were killed in the accident on the ground. In its first investigation report, the AAIB said both switches feeding fuel to the two engines of London-bound Air India flight 171 were cut off followed by pilot confusion, before the aircraft crashed seconds after taking off on June 12. It said that one pilot asked why he had shut off the fuel, and the other responded he didn't do it. "The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS 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 report said. As per the report, 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," it said. In the report of the fatal accident, AAIB also said fuel samples taken from bowsers and tanks used to refuel the aircraft were tested at the Directorate General of Civil Aviation laboratory and were found satisfactory. On Sunday, several experts, including AAIB chief Aurobindo Handa, said it will be too premature to draw conclusions on the role of pilots from the preliminary investigation report. Earlier on NDTV, Captain Mohan Ranganathan, one of India's leading aviation experts and an ex-instructor of Boeing 737, made a stunning claim that the crash may have been the result of deliberate human action because the fuel switches can only be moved "manually". Former pilots and aviation experts have, however, strongly opposed this view.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
8 hours ago
- First Post
Air India 171 crash: Why prematurely blaming pilots is reckless and unethical
The tail of the Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane that crashed is seen stuck on a building after the incident in Ahmedabad, on June 12, 2025. Reuters Allegations of human error are 'deeply insensitive,' says the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association (ICPA) after the preliminary report on Air India flight 171 crash was released. In an official statement, the ICPA called the accusations and allegations against the pilots and flight crew a 'gross violation' and 'disservice to the profession'. 'In the aftermath of this incident, we are deeply disturbed by speculative narratives emerging in sections of the media and public discourse—particularly the reckless and unfounded insinuation of pilot suicide,' said ICPA. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Let us be unequivocally clear: there is absolutely no basis for such a claim at this stage, and invoking such a serious allegation based on incomplete or preliminary information is not only irresponsible, it is deeply insensitive to the individuals and families involved,' it added further. Any mention of pilot error or suicide 'in the absence of verified evidence is a gross violation of ethical reporting and a disservice to the dignity of the profession'. The Association also sought to know how such sensitive investigative details were leaked to a US-based newspaper a few days earlier. The deadly accident on June 12 had claimed 260 lives, 241 on board and 19 on the ground at the crash site. The sole survivor was a 40-year-old British national named Vishwas Ramesh. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released its 15-page preliminary report on the Air India crash on Saturday, July 12. As per the report, the fuel to both engines was cut off shortly after takeoff. Based on the AAIB report, at about 08:08:42 UTC (1:38 pm, 42 seconds) and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cut-off switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec,' stated the report. Experts say accidental movement of the switches is not quite possible. The spring-loaded switches have a stop-lock mechanism that requires the pilots to lift the switch up before moving it between either of its two positions, RUN and CUTOFF. 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut-off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so,' the report added further. 'No sane pilot would move the switches during the flight, and that too at such low altitude, unless there was a dual engine failure to be dealt with. The pilots and the former aircraft accident investigator concurred that during the critical takeoff phase of the flight, pilots would have no reason to keep their hands anywhere close to the fuel control switches. The findings do not make clear how the fuel switches were flipped to the cut-off position during the flight, whether it was deliberate or accidental, or if a technical fault was responsible. It's possible there was a problem with the fuel cut-off system. Unfortunately, the preliminary report has not released a full transcript of the conversation between the two pilots and does not give details of the Cockpit Video Recorder, because that could have clarified this issue. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Don't Jump to Conclusions As per guidelines from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a United Nations agency that recommends practices for the industry, the investigators must submit a preliminary report within 30 days of an accident. The preliminary report has still left many open-ended positions. A full report is not due for months, and India's Civil Aviation Minister, Ram Mohan Naidu, said, 'Let's not jump to any conclusions at this stage.' Commercial Interests of Aircraft Manufacturer The Boeing 737 MAX passenger airliner was grounded worldwide between March 2019 and December 2020, and again during January 2024, after 346 people died in two similar crashes in less than five months: Lion Air Flight 610 on October 29, 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, 2019. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initially affirmed the MAX's continued airworthiness, claiming to have insufficient evidence of accident similarities. But by March 13, the FAA followed behind 51 concerned regulators in deciding to ground the aircraft. All 387 aircraft delivered to airlines were grounded by March 18. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Boeing 787 Dreamliner had been in service since 2011 without a fatal crash. More than 1,100 Dreamliners are in use worldwide, carrying more than 875 million passengers over the last decade, according to Boeing. But the aircraft has had its troubles. The problems began in early 2013, when fires broke out aboard two Dreamliners. Both blazes were traced to overheating of the planes' lithium-ion batteries that power the electrical system. Subsequently, two whistleblowers, former employees, exposed the manufacturing practices of the company. Boeing is a leading aircraft manufacturer in the world and is a major corporation in the US. The company would do anything to safeguard its design and manufacturing reputation. Will it be in a position to influence the outcome of the AAIB investigation? The question is being asked by some. A technical fault could mean the grounding of a very large fleet and would have commercial implications. Western Media Bias towards Accident Investigation STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Indian social media is abuzz with netizens calling out Western media for 'biased' reporting on the Air India flight crash report. Many international outlets are focusing on and highlighting cockpit procedures undertaken by pilots and less on the technical cause of the crash. BBC's coverage sparked widespread backlash for its caption on a video report, 'Pilot cut off fuel to engine—no fault with plane'. Popular YouTuber and former pilot Gaurav Taneja, 'Flying Beast', accused BBC of prematurely absolving Boeing. The framing suggested pilot error without acknowledging the full context of the AAIB's findings, including a 2018 FAA bulletin warning about potential malfunction of the fuel control switch locking mechanism. Writer and stand-up comedian Varun Grover also slammed the reportage and wrote, 'White man will always stand with the white man. Shame.' Senior journalist Barkha Dutt called the BBC's reporting 'scurrilous'. 'Why would you not consider a fuel switch malfunction given the documented FAA advisory?' she questioned on X. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some in the West are quoting selective parts of the preliminary report to blame the pilots and implying that Boeing and engine manufacturers were not culpable. Metro UK went further, placing apparent blame on the crew with its headline, 'Air India plane crash investigation focuses on 'mistake' made by pilots.' Also there is mention that 'inspections were not carried out' and the 2018 FAA fuel control switch advisory (albeit not mandatory) was 'ignored by Air India'. It had flagged 'potential for disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature' in certain Boeing aircraft, including the 787-8. Air India has chosen to maintain silence. Prematurely blaming pilots could irreparably damage the airline's reputation. Serious allegations based on incomplete or preliminary information are not only irresponsible, they are also deeply insensitive to the individuals and families involved. Human Error vs Aviation Automation Statistically, human error causes more than half of all aviation accidents. The human could be the aircrew, aircraft or system designer, maintenance technician, air traffic and radar controller, or even some others closely involved in aviation. Human error could be because of lack of situational awareness, poor skills, overall experience, and health issues, among others. Habit interference when changing over from one aircraft to another, violation of existing orders and instructions, and supervisory inadequacy could also be the reasons. Crew Resource Management (CRM) is another area of human factors. Pilots are not superhuman beings. Pilot's actions do not take place in a vacuum. Human error could also be caused by organisational reasons. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The fuel shutoff switches are not wire-locked. They are locked mechanically in that they have to be lifted before operation. The actual locking is done electronically by the Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC) and/or Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA). It is all computer controlled. The TCMA controls the FADEC and can override the pilot's controls. It can even shut down the engine without the pilot knowing about it. On January 17, 2019, an ANA Boeing 787 Dreamliner suffered a simultaneous dual engine failure on landing at Osaka Itami (ITM). Boeing had earlier issued a bulletin addressing a problem with the TCMA system. Technology has overtaken the man on the machine. The evidence in the Preliminary Report points to a possible malfunction in the TCMA/FADEC system whereby it shut down both engines just after takeoff. It was done even though the pilots' fuel control switches were in the RUN position. Investigators have confirmed that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a last-resort emergency power system, was deployed seconds after the ill-fated Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner lifted off. Was it before or after the fuel shutoff? Could there have been an all-electrical failure or all-electrical shutdown for some reason leading to the accident? How come the Emergency Locator Beacon has not worked? Can such a situation be duplicated on the ground? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Such uncommanded engine shutoffs have happened in the past. But this is the first time it has happened at a critical time. Has automation gone too far? Were the pilots and the cockpit switches out of the loop in the final decision-making? Can automation shut down the engines WITHOUT the switches being physically moved from the RUN position? Should we take the pilot so much 'out of the loop'? Why so much automation? Because in many accidents it came out that humans continued to be the weak link in the man-machine dynamics of aviation. Advances made in the design and reliability of avionics have reduced technical system failure. Although there has been a significant improvement in the training of the aircrew to prevent human error accidents, human error continued to be a leading factor in many fatal aircraft accidents. The entire design philosophy requires a revisit. Accidents Related to Automation Failure Cockpit automation systems, which were developed for the purpose of enhancing aviation safety and decreasing the workload of pilots, have increasingly become the cause of accidents. Air France Flight 447 (2009) from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Paris, France, resulting in the loss of 228 lives, involved a combination of automation issues and pilot responses. Inconsistent airspeed indications and miscommunication led to the pilots inadvertently stalling the Airbus A330. The pilots struggled to regain control after the autopilot disengaged due to icing, in part because their manual flying skills had degraded from over-reliance on automation. The Boeing 737 MAX airliner was repeatedly grounded after 346 people died in two similar crashes in less than five months: Lion Air Flight 610 on October 29, 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, 2019. Boeing confirmed that the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) had been activated in both accidents. Engineering reviews uncovered other design problems, unrelated to MCAS, in the flight computers and cockpit displays. Even last year, on January 5, a 737 Max—Alaska Airlines Flight 1282—suffered a mid-flight blowout of a plug filling an unused emergency exit, causing rapid decompression of the aircraft. To Summarise An aircraft is an extremely sophisticated and complex machine. Flying is a very demanding field. The aircrew have to take a large number of sequential actions and operate many switches and systems. Unlike a surface vehicle, they cannot stop mid-air to review actions or seek external help from a mechanic. Take-off and landing remain very crucial, high demand phases of flight. Aircraft automation, while desirable to relieve the aircrew of increased cockpit load, and improve safety, has its own attendant complexities. Will artificial Intelligence (AI) take over and dictate humanity is being asked. Should automation be limited to support and not total control? Should the aircrew have the final over-ride for every automation? Do aircrew need to enhance training in an automation denied environment? The answer is a loud 'Yes'. It is presumed that the AAIB investigation will be free of all biases. That the large number of aircraft company representatives assisting the investigation would not try to water down technical issues and divert the blame on aircrew. Commercial considerations will not overtake technical flaws and flight safety deliberations. It will be unethical to push the blame on aircrew who are not here to defend themselves. The writer is former Director General, Centre for Air Power Studies. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
