Air India crash report: Cockpit voices fuel controversy over doomed flight
Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, was the captain on the flight, while Clive Kunder, 32, was the co-pilot who was flying the plane. Together, the two pilots had more than 19,000 hours of flight experience - nearly half of it on the Boeing 787. Both had passed all pre-flight health checks before the crash.Understandably, the wave of speculative leaks has rattled investigators and angered Indian pilots.As theories swirl about Air India crash, key details remain unknownLast week, India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the lead investigator, stated in a release that "certain sections of the international media are repeatedly attempting to draw conclusions through selective and unverified reporting". It described these "actions [as] irresponsible, especially while the investigation remains ongoing".Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the US's National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is assisting the investigation, said on X that the media reports were "premature and speculative" and that investigations of this magnitude take time". Back in India, the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association condemned the rush to blame the crew as "reckless" and "deeply insensitive", urging restraint until the final report is out. Sam Thomas, head of the Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA India), told the BBC that "speculation has triumphed over transparency", emphasising the need to review the aircraft's maintenance history and documentation alongside the cockpit voice recorder data.At the heart of the controversy is the brief cockpit recording in the report - the full transcript, expected in the final report, should shed clearer light on what truly happened.
A Canada-based air accident investigator, who preferred to remain unnamed, said that the excerpt of the conversation in the report presents at several possibilities.For example, "if pilot 'B' was the one who operated the switches - and did so unwittingly or unconsciously - it's understandable that they would later deny having done it," the investigator said. "But if pilot 'A' operated the switches deliberately and with intent, he may have posed the question knowing full well that the cockpit voice recorder would be scrutinised, and with the aim of deflecting attention and avoiding identification as the one responsible."Even if the AAIB is eventually able to determine who said what, that doesn't decisively answer the question 'Who turned the fuel off?'"."We may even never know the answer to that question."Investigators told the BBC that while there appeared to be strong evidence the fuel switches were manually turned off, it's still important to keep "an open mind". A glitch in the plane's Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system - which monitors engine health and performance - could, in theory, trigger an automatic shutdown if it receives false signals from sensors, some pilots suggest.However, if the pilot's exclamation - 'why did you cut-off [the fuel]?' - came after the switches moved to cut-off (as noted in the preliminary report), it would undermine that theory. The final report will likely include time-stamped dialogue and a detailed analysis of engine data to clarify this.Speculation has been fuelled less by who said what, and more by what wasn't said.The preliminary report withheld the full cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript, revealing only a single, telling line from the final moments. This selective disclosure has raised questions: was the investigation team confident about the speakers' identities but chose to withhold the rest out of sensitivity? Or are they still uncertain whose voices they were hearing and needed more time to fully investigate the matter before publishing any conclusions?Peter Goelz, former NTSB managing director, says the AAIB should release a voice recorder transcript with pilot voices identified."If any malfunctions began during take-off, they would be recorded in the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and would likely have triggered alerts in the flight management system - alerts the crew would almost certainly have noticed and, more importantly, discussed."Investigators are urging restraint in drawing conclusions."We have to be cautious because it's easy to assume that if the switches were turned off, it must mean intentional action - pilot error, suicide, or something else. And that's a dangerous path to go down with the limited information we have," Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline accident investigator and aviation expert at Ohio State University, told the BBC.At the same time, alternative theories continue to circulate. Indian newspapers includig the Indian Express flagged a possible electrical fire in the tail as a key focus. But the preliminary report makes clear: the engines shut down because both fuel switches were moved to cut-off - a fact backed by recorder data. If a tail fire occurred, it likely happened post-impact, triggered by spilled fuel or damaged batteries, an independent investigator said.Last week, AAIB chief GVG Yugandhar stressed that the preliminary report aims to "provide information about 'WHAT' happened"."It's too early for definite conclusions," he said, emphasising the investigation is ongoing and the final report will identify "root causes and recommendations". He also pledged to share updates on "technical or public interest matters" as they arise.Summing up, Mr Pruchnicki said the probe "boils down to two possibilities - either deliberate action or confusion, or an automation-related issue"."The report doesn't rush to blame human error or intent; there's no proof it was done intentionally," he added.In other words, no smoking gun - just an uneasy wait for answers that may never even fully emerge.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Day 2 of federal investigation into fatal midair crash of Army chopper, commercial plane opens
The National Transportation Safety Board enters a second day of public hearings Thursday on the January midair collision between an Army Black Hawk helicopter and a passenger plane that killed all 67 people aboard the aircrafts. On the first day, investigators highlighted a number of factors that may have contributed to the crash and the warnings about helicopter traffic that FAA received years before the tragedy over the Potomac River. It's too early for the board to identify what exactly caused the crash. The board's final report won't be released until sometime next year. But it became clear Wednesday how small a margin of error there was for helicopters flying the route the Black Hawk took the night of the nation's deadliest plane crash since November 2001. The January incident was the first in a string of crashes and near misses this year that have alarmed officials and the traveling public, despite statistics that still show flying remains the safest form of transportation. FAA didn't add warning to helicopter charts, official says NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said an FAA working group raised concerns about all the helicopter traffic around Reagan airport and the risk of a collision in 2022, but the FAA refused to add a warning to helicopter charts urging pilots to use caution when this runway was in use. 'This is the very event that this would have been the cautionary note for,' she said. Video and animation presented during the proceeding's first day showed the helicopter flying above the 200 feet (61 meters) altitude limit before colliding with the plane. Investigators said Wednesday the flight data recorder showed the helicopter was actually 80 feet to 100 feet (24 to 30 meters) higher than the barometric altimeter the pilots relied upon showed they were flying. So the NTSB conducted tests on three other helicopters from the same unit in a flight over the same area and found similar discrepancies in their altimeters. Dan Cooper with Sikorsky helicopters said that when the Black Hawk helicopter involved in the crash was designed in the 1970s, it used a style of altimeter that was common at the time. Newer helicopters have air data computers that didn't exist back then that help provide more accurate altitude readings. Chief Warrant Officer Kylene Lewis told the board that she wouldn't find an 80 to 100 foot discrepancy between the different altimeters on a helicopter alarming because at lower altitudes she would be relying more on the radar altimeter than the barometric altimeter. Below 500 feet (152 meters), Lewis said she would be checking both instruments and cross referencing them. Army officials said a discrepancy of 70 to 100 feet (21 to 30 meters) between the Black Hawk's altimeters is within the acceptable range because pilots are expected to maintain their altitude plus or minus 100 feet. Concern about distances between planes and helicopters The greater concern is that the FAA approved routes around Reagan airport that included such small separation distances between helicopters and planes when planes are landing. 'The fact that we have less than 500 foot separation is a concern for me,' said Scott Rosengren, who is chief engineer in the office that manages the Army's utility helicopters. During the two minutes before the crash, one air traffic controller was directing airport traffic and helicopters in the area, a task that involved speaking to or receiving communications from several different aircraft, according to the NTSB's History of Flight Performance Study. The air traffic controller had spoken to or received communications from the Black Hawk helicopter, an airplane that was taking off, an Air Force helicopter, an airplane on the ground, a medical helicopter and an inbound flight that was not the American Airlines plane that would crash. 'All aircraft could hear the controller, but helicopters could only hear other helicopters on their frequency and airplanes only other airplanes,' the report stated. 'This resulted in a number of stepped on transmissions as helicopters and airplanes were not aware when the other was communicating.' Stepped on transmissions are those that are unheard or blocked because of other transmissions. The NTSB report provides a list of 29 separate communications between the airport tower and other aircraft during approximately the 1 minute and 57 seconds before the collision. Previously disclosed air traffic control audio had the helicopter pilot telling the controller twice that they saw the airplane and would avoid it. The animation ended with surveillance video showing the helicopter colliding with the plane in a fiery crash. Investigations have already shown the FAA failed to recognize a troubling history of 85 near misses around Ronald Reagan National Airport in the years before the collision, and that the Army's helicopters routinely flew around the nation's capital with a key piece of locating equipment, known as ADS-B Out, turned off. ___ Associated Press writers Leah Askarinam, Ben Finley and Rio Yamat contributed to this story.
Metro
17 hours ago
- Metro
Boeing 787 Dreamliner narrowly avoided crash after engine failure
A Boeing 787 Dreamliner crash nearly crashed just moments after taking off because of an engine failure. The United Airlines plane took off from Washington Dulles Airport bound for Munich on Friday but was forced to turn around just minutes into the flight. A 'Mayday' was declared by the crew at around 5,000 feet after a malfunction was reported in the aircraft's left engine. The crew on the plane were directed by air traffic control to a holding pattern northwest of Washington so that they could dump fuel. They asked the pilots: 'How long do you expect to hold, fuel, or just get set up there?' The pilot responded: 'We'll have to climb six [thousand feet] and adjust fuel.' The Dreamliner remained at around 6,000 feet for several minutes while it dumped the fuel. The pilot told air traffic control: 'We're dumping fuel at six thousand. We'll let you know when complete.' Luckily, the crew managed to land the plane safely back at Dulles Airport, and no injuries were reported, and all passengers disembarked safely. Because of engine failure, the plane had to be towed off the runway by the ground crew. Flight data shows that the aircraft's left engine failed while it was climbing after it departed. The aircraft is still grounded at the airport while engineers inspect the engine and the damage. Aviation authorities, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), are expected to investigate the incident. A United Airlines spokesperson told Metro: 'United flight 108 to Munich returned to Washington Dulles shortly after takeoff to address a mechanical issue. 'The plane landed safely, and all passengers deplaned normally at the gate. 'The flight was subsequently cancelled and we arranged alternate travel arrangements to take customers to their destination as soon as possible.' Boeing has been approached for comment. The safety model of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is currently under scrutiny because of the Air India crash last month. That incident involved both engines failing shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad airport. More Trending The tragic crash killed more than 260 people and the circumstances around it are still under investigation. Other problems with Boeing 787s have been reported this year, including an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 en route from Addis Ababa to Mumbai. It experienced a mid-air depressurisation event, prompting an emergency descent. Oxygen masks were deployed, and seven passengers needed medical attention when they landed in Mumbai. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Wizz Air launches 5 new Spanish routes from the UK – but not everyone is happy MORE: One of the world's highest volcanos erupts after 8.8-magnitude quake MORE: New York City skyscraper shooting victims identified: Everything we know
Daily Mail
17 hours ago
- Daily Mail
United plane forced to land minutes after takeoff over engine failure
A transatlantic United Airlines Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner was forced to return to the airport just moments after taking off after suffering a mid-air engine failure . Flight UA108, carrying 219 passengers and 11 crew members, departed Washington Dulles Airport at 5:40 p.m. on Friday, July 25, bound for Munich in Germany . But as the jet climbed through 5,000 feet, the left engine failed, prompting the pilots to declare a 'MAYDAY' and alert air traffic controllers. What followed was nearly three hours of tense aerial maneuvering. The crew entered a holding pattern northwest of Dulles, circling at 6,000 feet while dumping fuel to reduce the aircraft's landing weight. Throughout the emergency, the pilots worked closely with air traffic control to maintain safe separation from other aircraft and prepare for the return. Once the fuel dump was complete, the plane was cleared to land using an Instrument Landing System approach to Runway 19 Center. In a statement to the Independent , United Airlines confirmed the emergency, saying the aircraft returned to Dulles 'to address a mechanical issue.' A spokesperson added: 'The flight was subsequently cancelled, and we arranged alternate travel arrangements to take customers to their destination as soon as possible.' The airline declined to provide further details about the engine malfunction or confirm whether an investigation is underway. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority also confirmed the emergency landing, noting that the aircraft was met by fire and rescue crews and towed to a gate for inspection.
