Air India plane crash: On Father's Day, he flew to Ahmedabad to say hello to one son, goodbye to another
Air India plane crash
AHMEDABAD: It was
Father's Day
on Sunday, but Ramesh Bhaliya arrived in Ahmedabad not to receive warm hugs but to collect the mortal remains of his youngest son. The London businessman flew down to Civil Hospital here, where his younger son Ajaykumar lay in the morgue, while his eldest son Viswash was recuperating in the ward.
Viswash, who was seated on 11A of AI 171, is the sole survivor of the plane crash. Both the brothers, Viswash and Ajay, are British citizens and have come down to Ahmedabad for business.
"Ramesh is in no state to talk to anyone. He is still grappling with the tragedy," said Deepak Devji, village sarpanch from Diu who travelled to Ahmedabad to support the family. Ramesh is staying in a hotel near the hospital, while a close friend maintains watch over Viswash as he recuperates.
"No other close family members have travelled with him to the city," Deepak added.
The brothers hail from the Patelwadi area of Bucharwada village in Diu, having migrated to London several years ago to build their dreams. For 15 years, they had jointly operated a garment business in the UK and a boat business in Diu.
Seat 11A became a lifeline for Viswash since it was near the emergency exit on the ill-fated AI 171. Just across the aisle, on 11J, sat his younger brother, Ajaykumar.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
오스템 임플란트 받아가세요
임플란터
더 알아보기
Undo
Within 30 seconds of take-off, Ajay died.
Viswash stumbled out from the burning wreckage, his survival captured in a heart-wrenching video shot by rescue workers and volunteers. It shows him staggering through the debris, bloodied and in shock, crying out: "Plane fatyo che! Plane fatyo che!" (The plane has exploded). Locals and rescue workers rushed to his aid, pulling him into an ambulance. The brothers and their uncle and aunt were among 15 residents from Diu's Bucharwada and Vanakbara villages aboard the flight.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Air India Crash: Did an electrical failure doom the Dreamliner as both engines failed mid-air?
Three days after the deadly crash of the Air India Express Dreamliner in Ahmedabad—an accident that killed 272 people—the aviation world is still grappling with one burning question: what caused a modern, twin-engine jet to stall and crash just 32 seconds after take-off began? The lone survivor and another pilot on the ground reported hearing a loud boom during take-off, leading experts to suspect a possible engine failure, reported TOI. While losing one engine isn't usually disastrous—modern jets can safely take off, climb, and return on a single engine—what followed defies the norm. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Did the second engine also fail? If not, what else could have triggered the sudden crash? A rare and puzzling event Live Events Twin-engine failures are extremely rare—only seven such cases have been recorded globally in over 70 years. Past causes include bird strikes (like the "Miracle on the Hudson" in 2009), shutting down the wrong engine (as with British Midland in 1989), or fuel contamination. But in this case, a bird strike has already been ruled out, noted the report. What makes this crash particularly unusual is the aircraft involved: the Boeing 787 Dreamliner—a "more-electric" jet designed to save fuel and reduce maintenance by replacing many traditional systems with electric ones. This shift makes the ongoing investigation unprecedented. Is this a one-off glitch, or does it expose a design flaw in one of the world's most advanced planes? According to the news outlet, a senior 787 pilot said it's likely one engine partially or completely shut down after the boom. But with one engine still working, why didn't the aircraft climb and return? One theory is that the pilots were startled by the sound and forgot to retract the landing gear, increasing drag. Another suggests that the co-pilot may have mistakenly retracted the wing flaps instead of the landing gear—though even that shouldn't have been fatal with one engine still functioning. Did the plane lose all power? Some senior pilots believe both engines failed moments after lift-off, which would explain why the landing gear was never retracted, TOI noted. One possible cause: failure of Variable Frequency Starter Generators (VFSGs)—key components that provide electric power and start the engines. If they failed, they could have knocked out the Electronic Engine Controls (EECs), essentially the jet's "throttle computers." Without them, the engines may have dropped to idle power, leaving the pilots unable to increase thrust. Worse, if both engines and the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) were disconnected from the electrical system, the EECs would stop working altogether. While APU can act as a backup, it takes about 90 seconds to spool up and provide support—far more time than the 32 seconds the plane had before crashing. In short: even if pilots called for help, there wasn't enough time for backup systems to kick in. Interestingly, there's some speculation that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—a small emergency wind turbine that pops out to provide basic power—was deployed. Some pilots say a dark blur in crash footage could be the RAT, which would only appear if all main power sources had failed. Unlike the APU, though, the RAT doesn't produce enough power to safely fly or land a plane—only to operate bare-minimum systems. Weight, thrust, and possible mistakes Other theories focus on human error and aircraft weight. Captain Amit Singh, an air safety expert, suspects the aircraft may have been overloaded—possibly with cargo. TOI further reported that if the actual weight was more than what the pilots had entered into the system, it could explain the longer take-off roll and why the plane couldn't maintain altitude after losing an engine. Another senior pilot speculated that the crew might have mistakenly entered only the aircraft's "zero fuel weight"—excluding the 50–60 tons of fuel onboard. That would have led to lower thrust settings during take-off, which, when paired with an engine failure, could have proved disastrous. But others pushed back on that idea. A B787 commander argued that the aircraft's weight sensors—linked to the landing gear—would have alerted the pilots if their inputs were significantly off. Regardless, one fact appears increasingly clear: at least one of the two engines wasn't producing thrust when the plane hit the ground. Photos from the crash site show no fan blade damage or casing breaches on one engine, which experts say suggests it was either shut down, flamed out, or idling. Some have floated the idea that the wrong engine was shut down—but that action typically happens at around 400 feet of altitude, and the plane never got that high. What's next? The investigation is now focusing on the electrical systems and engine response—especially the role of the VFSGs, EECs, and whether the APU had time to engage. Sabotage has already been ruled out by the National Security Guard, shifting attention to potential maintenance lapses and design vulnerabilities. The Dreamliner is packed with cutting-edge tech, including: Four Variable Frequency Starter Generators (VFSGs) on the engines Two APU Starter Generators (ASGs) for emergency backup A Ram Air Turbine (RAT) for last-resort power Two lithium-ion batteries, including one for backup flight controls If the cause turns out to be a systems glitch or design weakness, this crash could reshape how these high-tech aircraft are flown and maintained worldwide
The Print
37 minutes ago
- The Print
Why do airplanes still crash?
Statistically, flying remains one of the safest modes of transport. But the sight of an aircraft falling from the sky severely dents public confidence. It begs the question: Why do airplanes still crash? The tragic crash of Air India Flight AI171 on 12 June, the deadliest aviation accident in India since the 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision, has reignited public debate and scrutiny over aviation safety. Aviation accidents are exceedingly rare. The probability of an air accident is roughly 1 in 11 million flights. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)'s 2024 Safety Report, 2023 was the safest year in the last five, with a global accident rate of 1.87 per million departures—down from 2.05 in 2022—and a fatality rate of 17 per billion passengers, down from 50 the year before. Global passenger traffic reached 4.2 billion in 2023, with over 35 million departures. Only one fatal accident occurred, involving a turboprop aircraft that claimed 72 lives. The International Air Transport Association (IATA)'s 2024 report confirms this trend, recording 12 accidents, no jet hull losses, and no fatal jet crashes. Yet, when crashes do occur, they are often catastrophic. ICAO data shows that about 80 per cent of accidents involve human factors, 15 per cent stem from technical issues, and 5 per cent are due to environmental conditions such as weather or bird strikes. In many cases, more than one factor is involved, highlighting the complex nature of aviation safety. Human error dominates because aviation remains heavily dependent on human decision-making, especially during critical phases of flight such as take-off and landing. Technical failures, like engine malfunctions or system glitches, are less common, and even when they occur, aircraft redundancies prevent disaster. Environmental factors, such as low visibility, wet runways, turbulence, or bird strikes, can exacerbate existing problems, but rarely cause accidents on their own. Also read: Kanishka to Charkhi Dadri – 6 plane tragedies that shook India before Human error: The dominant factor Human error encompasses a range of issues, from miscommunication to flawed decision-making under pressure. The ICAO defines 'human factors' as the study of human abilities, limitations, and interactions with equipment, procedures, and environments. In the case of AI171, experts have raised concerns over why the landing gear was not retraced by the crew immediately after take-off, as the standard procedure requires. The reason could be technical—such as a loss of hydraulic power caused due to loss of engine thrust, or an electrical malfunction. Or it could be a temporary lapse in decision-making ability under stress. Such errors are rare, but not improbable. The investigation would probe all possibilities. Two factors often overlooked, but crucial to human performance, are training and fatigue. Pilot training Pilot training is the cornerstone of aviation safety, but gaps exist. The 1989 British Midland crash near Kegworth, England, which killed 47 people, was partly attributed to pilots' unfamiliarity with a new aircraft variant. Similarly, the 2018 and 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crashes (346 deaths) exposed deficiencies in training on the MCAS automated system. Modern training emphasises simulation, crew resource management (CRM), and handling automation. Still, the 'startle effect' triggered by unexpected real-world contingencies can overwhelm even the most experienced pilots. The only antidote is realistic and repeated training for time-critical emergencies. Experience alone offers no protection against failure. Crew fatigue Crew fatigue is another critical factor. Long-haul flights, irregular schedules, and tight turnarounds can impair cognitive function, slow reflexes, and cloud judgement. Studies estimate that fatigue contributes to 20 per cent of aviation incidents. In the 2009 Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash (50 deaths), fatigued pilots failed to respond to a stall warning. While aviation regulators like the United States' FAA and India's DGCA impose duty-hour limits, enforcement varies. In 2024, DGCA proposed new Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms to align with global practices. However, under pressure from airlines, implementation was postponed indefinitely. Pilot unions approached the Delhi High Court, which directed the DGCA to enforce the revised norms. These updated rules, which offer slightly better working conditions, are yet to be implemented. Also read: Pilots flying your planes are stressed, sleep-deprived. 'It wasn't as intense earlier, now it's chaos' Technology's role in enhancing safety Technology has transformed aviation safety. Modern aircraft are built with multiple redundancies and are designed to operate safely even if key systems, like an engine, fail. Fly-by-wire controls and modern autopilot systems allow for more precise and safer flight operations. Digital cockpit displays offer real-time system-diagnostics, besides navigation and communication information. Key safety innovations include: Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS): Alerts pilots to nearby traffic, preventing mid-air collisions. Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems (EGPWS): Warns pilots of terrain risks to reduce controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents. Flight Data Recorders (Black Boxes): Store critical data to support accident/incident investigations and improve standard operating procedures. Automated Weather Radar: Helps pilots avoid turbulence and storms. Despite these advances, technology isn't infallible. The AI171 crash occurred just 35 seconds after take-off, suggesting that under specific conditions, even advanced systems can fail so fast that recovery becomes impossible. Manned vs unmanned: Could drones be safer? Could unmanned aircraft, like military drones or future autonomous passenger jets, eliminate human error? In theory, yes. AI-powered autonomous systems don't suffer from fatigue, distraction, or stress. They don't need sleep or frequent training, and regulatory compliance can be built into the code. Cargo drones tested by companies like UPS and Amazon have shown promising reliability in controlled environments. But transitioning this technology to passenger aviation is a massive leap. Human pilots are still unmatched in their ability to improvise during unanticipated emergencies—as demonstrated by Captain Sully's (Chesley Sullenberger) miraculous Hudson River landing, which saved 155 lives. AI struggles with unpredictable scenarios such as rare mechanical failures or complex air traffic control (ATC) instructions. Public trust is another barrier. Passengers may hesitate to board pilotless planes. Imagine hearing: 'I am your captain speaking. I am working from home today.' Cybersecurity risks, such as hacking or failure of communication with ground stations, also merit consideration. Although unmanned military drones have lower crash rates than manned fighter jets (US Air Force data shows Predator drones crash at 7.5 per 100,000 hours vs 15 for F-16s), passenger aviation demands near-zero failure rates. For now, hybrid systems—where human pilots oversee AI-assisted operations—appear to offer the most plausible middle ground. Conclusion: Keeping aviation safe Flying remains extraordinarily safe. The crash of AI171, while devastating, is an outlier in an industry that has steadily reduced accident rates over decades. From the Wright brothers' fragile biplane to today's high-tech cockpits, aviation has evolved by learning from past tragedies. Technology has bolstered safety. Regulations have grown stronger. Training has become more rigorous. But the AI171 crash exposes persistent vulnerabilities. Human factors, including fatigue and training gaps, demand stricter oversight. India, now the world's third-largest domestic aviation market, must match growth with safety. The DGCA must institute and enforce crew rest standards reflective of the high stress environment they operate in. Similarly, maintenance protocols must be followed rigorously. Tendency to continue operating aircraft with prolonged unserviceabilities under minimum equipment list must be curbed. Airlines must foster a culture where crew can report safety concerns without fear. Unmanned flights may one day reduce human error, but for now, the focus should be on refining human-machine collaboration. The survival of Ramesh Vishwaskumar in AI171, against astronomical odds, reminds us of aviation's resilience, as well as its fragility. Flying remains safe. But to keep it that way, we must never stop improving. Group Captain Ajay Ahlawat is a retired IAF fighter pilot. He tweets @Ahlawat2012. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)
Economic Times
40 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Air India Dreamliner bound for Delhi returns to Hong Kong after technical snag
Live Events Ahmedabad crash Air India flight AI315, operating from Hong Kong to Delhi, returned to Hong Kong after the pilot detected a possible technical issue mid-air, ANI reported on flight, operated by a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, had departed Hong Kong for its scheduled aircraft landed safely in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the nature of the technical concern is yet to be Dreamliner aircraft is now undergoing checks, Reuters reported citing sources.(Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)According to tracking data on Flightradar24, flight AI315 took off from Hong Kong at 12:16 p.m. and landed just over an hour comes amid Indian aviation sector's woes piling up following the Air India flight crash in Ahmedabad that happened on Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner was en route to London from Ahmedabad when it crashed shortly after taking off from the airport and rammed into a doctors' hostel of BJ Medical College in Gujarat's were 242 people on board the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, including 230 passengers and 12 crew members. Of the passengers, 241 died in the crash. The lone survivor, identified as Vishwashkumar Ramesh, a British national of Indian origin, sustained injuries and is undergoing treatment.
