Uttarkashi helicopter crash: AAIB report says pilot tried emergency landing; rotor hit cable
NEW DELHI: The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its preliminary report on the helicopter crash that occurred near Gangnani in Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, on May 8, 2025.
The accident involved a BELL 407 helicopter operated by Aerotrans Services Pvt Ltd.
The crash resulted in the death of six people, including the pilot, and left one person seriously injured. Among the deceased were five women pilgrims who were on their way to the Gangotri temple.
According to the AAIB report, the helicopter began descending from its assigned altitude about 20 minutes after takeoff. The pilot attempted an emergency landing on the Uttarkashi-Gangotri National Highway but was unsuccessful.
During the landing attempt, the helicopter's main rotor struck an overhead fiber cable running alongside the road, leading to the crash.
The pilot, who was among those fatally injured, was 59 years old and had 6,160 hours of flying experience, the report stated.
The AAIB also noted, "The NTSB, USA & the TSB, Canada have appointed Accredited Representative & Technical Advisors for this investigation. The investigation team is coordinating with them for further course of action required to find out the root cause(s)." It added that a technical advisor from Rolls-Royce had travelled to India to assist with engine and powerplant-related activities.
The last scheduled inspections of the helicopter were conducted on April 25, 2025, the report said.
The investigation is ongoing to determine the cause of the crash.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
5 days ago
- NDTV
Air India Crash: We're All Terrified Of Flying Now, Thanks To Conspiracy Theories
The investigation into the tragic crash of Air India flight AI 171 last month has become a subject of intense speculation, memes and long posts on social media. It has also quickly eroded public trust in the investigator as well as the process of investigation. This is a sad state of affairs and also a bit scary, since erosion of trust has triggered apprehensions among the travelling public about air travel. I know of many erstwhile frequent fliers, who thought nothing before taking a flight for work or leisure, now hesitating before making the next flight booking. Some have been barred from flying by families, others remain confused over which aircraft type to fly and whether to risk a long-haul flight, weighing the option of postponing the flight altogether. Took a flight today and the panic post Air India is real - My neighbour was like what's the smoke when they initially spray the disinfectant (I think) - People were extremely attentive to the instructions sitting at the exit door - The air hostess had to literally explain why… — Kirtan A Shah, CFP® (@KirtanShahCFP) June 20, 2025 Speculation Abounds A million theories of what went wrong had already been circulated when the buzz reached a crescendo last week, after the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report. In a poorly worded and somewhat verbose report, the AAIB indicated that the cockpit crew could be responsible for the tragic accident, while seemingly absolving the aircraft manufacturer and other stakeholders. Two specific words or phrases in the report are telling. One, the use of the word "transitioned" in reference to fuel cutoff switches. Second, the report has quoted a part of the conversation between the two pilots, in which one is heard asking the other whether he "cut off". The report says 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". What does "transitioned" mean? Were they moved, or did the switches malfunction? Unless the AAIB was prepared to go further and clarify this, either way, what was the crying need to even mention the 'transitioning' of fuel switches in a preliminary report? The Cost Of Dilly-Dallying As per ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) guidelines, a preliminary report of any accident should ideally be released within 30 days, and the investigator is expected to share "critical initial facts" to enable immediate safety actions globally. The 30-day deadline is meant to compel investigators to prioritise the collection and reporting of readily available, verified factual and circumstantial information, rather than waiting for exhaustive analysis. Obviously, then, the deadline is not meant to encourage speculation, which the AAIB seems to have encouraged, knowingly or unknowingly, by using vague terms like fuel switch transition. Besides, experts have pointed out that while the ICAO norms encourage a preliminary report within 30 days, the AAIB charter has no such requirement, and in at least one previous air crash, the AAIB did not release any preliminary report at all. So, the agency actually had the option of not going through the paces and releasing anything at all. That it chose to do so on the 30th day, past midnight, points to myriad pressures on the investigating team. The Western media thereafter made matters worse by speculating further on pilot suicide theories, quoting unnamed sources. Then, the second word or phrase which stands out in the preliminary report is the mention of a part of the conversation in the cockpit. The AAIB has chosen to reveal that one pilot asked the other about why he "cut off," and the latter replied he did not. Without spelling out which pilot posed the question and which one answered, a Pandora's box has been opened. Not only does providing just a sentence of the conversation in the cockpit fail to give the full picture of what transpired, but there is no clarity on what the pilots were actually talking about. Questions With No Answers Was this conversation about fuel cutoff or something else? If it was about fuel cutoff, which pilot posed the question? AAIB has itself said that it recovered two hours of audio from the flight data recorders. The words "cut off" could have referred to anything - engine, instruments, etc, not necessarily fuel switches. What the preliminary report has also done is this: it has provided a virtual clean chit to Boeing & Co. The report says that at this stage of the investigation, "there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers". No one wants to fly Air India anymore. For years, people tolerated bad service, delays, rats and broken TV systems etc, but now it's about existential threat to life. Brand is badly damaged. Tata took it easy and focused on bells & whistles changes instead of improving customer… — Rajesh Sawhney 🇮🇳 (@rajeshsawhney) June 15, 2025 Again, a mere preliminary report need not have been in such undue haste to absolve either Boeing or any other stakeholder of negligence or faults. The report should have stuck to facts. It should have given out the sequence of events; details of the number of crew involved and their experience (without identifying them); number of casualties and number of injured; and the fact that both aircraft engines flamed out. Nothing else was needed in the preliminary report. Flaws are emerging even in the constitution of the probe team. Until recently, no senior pilot had been included in the team, since only Air India has a fleet of Dreamliners, and the AAIB probably wanted to avoid allegations of any bias. Then, despite more than a month having elapsed, the AAIB has not found the time to launch an appeal for the public to depose with any evidence about the crash. The Buzz In Parliament As the buzz about the crash and the AAIB's insinuations gets louder, Union Civil Aviation Minister Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu has had to assert in Parliament that the AAIB is unbiased and has been conducting a probe based on rules and regulations. His comments follow an appeal by the AAIB itself, urging the media and the public to refrain from "spreading premature narratives that risk undermining the integrity of the investigative process". There are really only two options now to mend the situation: either AAIB release further details of the cockpit conversation and reasons for the crash, or it follow the dictum of 'Mum's the Word' and carry out further investigation out of public glare. Rebuilding public trust in the probe - and Indian aviation- itself is the need of the hour.
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Indian Express
Air India crash aftermath: What are the steps Centre is taking to strengthen India's aviation sector? Union Minister answers
Air India Flight 171 crash: The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has recently released its preliminary report of the investigation into the June 12 Air India plane crash at Ahmedabad (AI-171). However, a detailed investigation is in progress to determine the probable cause(s)/ contributory factor(s) leading to the accident. The tragic accident killed 260 people (241 on board and 19 on the ground). In a written reply to Rajya Sabha, Murlidhar Mohol, MoS, Civil Aviation said that the data from one of the Flight Recorders of AI-171 (VT-ANB) has been downloaded in the Flight Recorder Lab of the AAIB at Udaan Bhawan. He also stated that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has undertaken several efforts to strengthen the country's aviation safety on a regular basis. 'An Investigation has been ordered by Director General (DG), Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) under Rule 11 of the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents & Incidents) Rules, 2017 to determine the probable cause(s)/ contributory factor(s) leading to the accident. Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) – India has a robust mechanism to enhance the aviation safety to ensure the safe operations,' the Union Minister said. A look at the steps taken by the DGCA for ensuring safe flight operations in the country:
The Print
5 days ago
- The Print
Air India crash report shows an institutional reform of AAIB and aviation ministry is in order
Firstly, this was the world's first major air crash involving a Boeing Dreamliner. Naturally, global attention was focused on the investigation into this accident and its findings. Interest in this investigation was high also because this accident involving a Boeing aircraft came after a few other accidents and malfunctioning reports involving Boeing planes, although of different types. Boeing was interested in the investigation report, perhaps more than anyone else, as passengers' perception and airlines' choice of its aircraft would have been influenced by the kind of responsibilities that the findings would have fixed on it. Make no mistake about the enormity of the accident that took place within half a minute of Air India 171 taking off from Ahmedabad and crashing into a hostel that housed medical students. This enormity arose not just because of the number of casualties. There were many other factors that perhaps were ignored by the authorities. Even as the country reels from the loss of 260 lives in the tragic crash of Air India's flight from Ahmedabad to London on June 12, there is a growing sense of unease over the way the investigation into the accident has been conducted. A quick assessment of recent developments would suggest that such unease and concern have been caused by the authorities' failure to anticipate the huge consequences and ramifications of this accident and take necessary steps in advance to ensure a competent handling of its investigation and management of the external environment. Secondly, this was the first time the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), a department under the Union ministry of civil aviation, conducted the investigation of a major air crash within India's shores. Earlier, the cockpit voice record and the flight data record would be sent abroad for retrieval and for eventually arriving at a conclusion. The AAIB had recently acquired domestic capacity to retrieve such records, which was an achievement. Yet, it should have recognised the need for exercising greater vigilance, at least for two reasons. This investigation was its first such exercise and, therefore, would have come under closer scrutiny by global stakeholders in the aviation sector. Equally important, even a remote suggestion that absolved either the aircraft manufacturer or the airline operating it, or the pilots commanding that ill-fated flight would have been inherently controversial. Thirdly, the crash of Air India 171 was the first such accident that took place after the airline was privatised in January 2022. Since the Tatas took over Air India, its services have been under watch. There were many incidents involving passenger misbehaviour during flights, which could have been handled more maturely and carefully. There were also reports of aircraft-related incidents, which raised questions about how well the planes had been maintained from a safety point of view. Even though Air India was no longer a state-owned enterprise, the responsibility of the civil aviation ministry was no less than before the ownership change. Finally, the accident took place in Ahmedabad, the capital city of Gujarat. The death of so many people in an aircraft crash in any part of the country would be mourned as a national tragedy. But Gujarat is also the state whose leading politicians are at the helm of the Union government in New Delhi. Indeed, one of the casualties of this accident was a former chief minister of Gujarat, Vijay Rupani. Home Minister Amit Shah visited Ahmedabad the same day of the crash and Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in the city the following day. Beyond the tragic loss of so many lives in the aircraft and on the ground, the political sensitivity of this accident could hardly be underestimated. Yet, the manner in which the AAIB has handled the investigation would seem to suggest that it was oblivious to the many ramifications of the four factors that made the Ahmedabad air crash uniquely significant. Going by reports, for instance, the composition of the AAIB committee left much to be desired. According to experts, the absence of a pilot knowledgeable about a Dreamliner, which is highly reliant on electronic systems, was quite jarring. Of course, the AAIB should be complimented for the time-bound manner in which it finalised the preliminary report within one month of the accident. But what was the need for releasing the report late in the evening on a Friday? Apart from meeting a deadline, it served no other purpose. On the contrary, it gave rise to needless speculation over what the report revealed, which the AAIB or the aviation ministry made no effort to scotch through an official briefing. The AAIB report was not even signed by any of the members who were part of the committee that investigated the crash and prepared the preliminary report. Some experts have also indicated that the preliminary report failed to capture critical segments of the conversation the two pilots had in the cockpit. Indeed, they have argued that interpreting the entire 40 minutes of the cockpit voice recorder or the flight data recorder would not have taken more than two hours. So, why wasn't that task undertaken to lend clarity to what really happened? Worse, sections of the foreign media seemed to have accessed some segments of the pilots' conversation to present a different perspective on why the aircraft crashed. In a competitive media environment, such reports have fuelled further speculation over the causes of the crash. To be sure, the AAIB has explained in its report that its objective is not to reach conclusions about the reasons of the crash, but to shed light on what happened during those crucial minutes before the plane went down. Both the AAIB and the National Transportation Safety Board of the US have described those media reports about the probable causes of the crash as premature and speculative, based on selective and unverified reporting. But incalculable damage has already been done to the morale of pilots in the industry and to the confidence of ordinary fliers in the country. Could the authorities have prevented such unfortunate developments in the wake of the report on the aircraft crash? Perhaps the civil aviation ministry could have recognised the enormity of this crash and prepared the AAIB and its investigating team for its sensitivities. Perhaps senior retired pilots with experience in flying such state-of-the-art aircraft like the Dreamliner could have been inducted into the investigation committee or their expert views obtained before finalising the report. Perhaps, the ministry and the AAIB could have held more frequent and even informal media interactions to explain the intricacies and dimensions of the accident. Keeping them under wraps and promising to reveal them in the final report after a year was not a good idea. An institutional reform of the AAIB and even the ministry is in order. Undertaking such reforms can be easier if the ministry takes the primary step of filling nearly half the technical posts in its regulatory arm, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. India is not short of technical people or pilots. Having more of these experts on these bodies would only improve their efficacy and enhance their ability to handle such emergency tasks of conducting investigations into an aircraft crash. And there should be no compromise on making communication faster and more effective. AK Bhattacharya is the Editorial Director, Business Standard. He tweets @AshokAkaybee. Views are personal.
