Latest news with #Feith
Indian Express
2 days ago
- General
- Indian Express
Air India Ahmedabad crash: Veteran NTSB investigator on what the video footage reveals, focus of the probe
Few people in the world know what to look for in the chaotic seconds after a plane lifts off and something goes terribly wrong. Greg Feith (67) is among them. A former senior air safety investigator with the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Feith has spent decades examining complex air crashes — including those that, like the Air India Express tragedy near Ahmedabad on Thursday, unfolded in the brief but critical moments after takeoff. From the fiery plunge of ValuJet Flight 592 into the Florida Everglades in 1996, which killed all 110 people on board, to the mysterious crash of SilkAir Flight 185 over Sumatra in 1997 that claimed 104 lives, and the midair fire that brought down Swissair Flight 111 near Halifax in 1998, he has investigated some of the most devastating air accidents. In an interview to The Indian Express, he draws on early video footage of the Thursday crash and his decades of experience to explain what may have gone wrong with AI 717, what questions investigators will now be asking, and why patience — not speculation — is essential in the hours and days after a crash. From your expert perspective, what is your initial impression of the air crash given that it occurred shortly after takeoff and below 1,000 feet? One of the first questions, when looking at the video, is whether the airplane was properly configured for takeoff. During takeoff —when the aircraft is heavy, low, and slow—it needs extra lift, which is achieved by deploying the trailing-edge flaps (flaps are adjustable, hinge-like surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing that can be lowered to change wing shape in order to increase wing area and curvature, allowing the aircraft to operate efficiently at lower speeds during takeoff and landing). If the correct flap setting wasn't used, the wings may not have produced enough lift to support the aircraft's weight at low speed. This can lead to what we call getting on the 'backside of the power curve' (an aviation expression for when an aircraft is flying so slowly that more power is required to maintain altitude than to maintain speed). So even with fully functioning engines, the aircraft can 'mush' or settle into the ground if the wings aren't properly shaped to generate sufficient lift. The thing that's curious about the video is that the flaps appear to be up or at a minimal setting that wouldn't be typical of a normal takeoff. Also, at 600 feet, the landing gear (the system of wheels, struts, and other components that allow the aircraft to safely land and take off) should have been up (or retracted). So the question is: why wasn't it? Was it a hydraulic issue or an electrical problem? Landing gear is hydraulically held in place and retracted, while flaps are electrically operated. So why were these systems in an improper position at that low altitude? When you watch the video, the aircraft's pitch attitude — the nose-up angle — appears normal for a climb, yet the airplane is settling into the ground. That could indicate inadequate thrust from both engines. There have been similar cases — such as a Northwest Airlines crash in the U.S. in August 1987 — where improper flap settings during takeoff led the aircraft to lift off briefly, settle into the ground, crash on a highway and it killed the majority of the people. Aircraft performance is going to be a critical aspect of this investigation. Another key question for investigators will be whether the engines were producing proper thrust. This is a highly computerised and technically advanced aircraft. The crew has to account for the aircraft's weight. It was also very hot that day which significantly affects both engine and overall aircraft performance. If the crew didn't factor in the high temperature or didn't set the correct thrust, the engines might not have generated enough power to keep the plane airborne after liftoff. Investigators will examine the crew's procedures: how the aircraft was set up for takeoff, especially considering they were likely operating at a heavy weight with 242 people on board and possibly a substantial fuel load. In addition to pilot actions, they'll be looking closely at mechanical aspects —specifically, whether the engines were generating adequate thrust. So many different aspects in this investigation based on early information from the video, but there are a lot of things that won't be known until we get better data. You mentioned the importance of the appropriate flap setting for takeoff. When is that typically done — before takeoff or during the takeoff roll? The trailing-edge flaps are typically set by the flight crew before initiating takeoff. These flaps change the shape of the wing to produce more lift at low speeds when deployed. As the aircraft climbs and gains altitude, the crew gradually retracts the flaps so that, by the time the plane reaches cruise altitude, the wings are in their optimal shape for high-speed flight. You mentioned that the nose of the aircraft appeared to be in a climb attitude even as it was descending. Could that suggest the engines were not producing enough thrust? Based on the pitch attitude and the fact that the flaps don't appear to be in the down position, it's possible the pilots were maintaining a climb attitude but didn't have enough thrust for the aircraft to actually gain altitude. Given how low they were, they may have been trying to keep the airplane flying by holding that attitude — essentially gliding it forward as far as possible. If there was insufficient thrust, it could have been due to engine rollback or even flameout (read: completely shut down) caused by a fuel issue. What does the altitude of 600 feet tell you about the phase of flight and the pilot's workload at that moment? Typically, in that particular phase of flight, the airplane would have been on the takeoff roll, then rotated, and started its initial climb. Once you establish a positive rate of climb — or rate of ascent — the callout is 'positive rate, gear up.' The pilot monitoring calls 'positive rate, gear up,' and the flying pilot gives the command and executes it. That's why it's curious that at 600 feet, the gear was still down. So is that because of an engine problem — or problems with both engines? Is it a hydraulic problem? Or did the pilot become consumed with handling another issue and simply didn't get the gear up? There are a number of possible scenarios based on what the pilots may have been dealing with. Takeoff and climb, under normal conditions, aren't considered a high-workload phase, but they are a phase where both pilots are actively monitoring instruments, engine performance, and aircraft behaviour. If a problem developed that prevented them from retracting the landing gear — or if there was a hydraulic issue and the flaps retracted on their own — that would cause performance problems. Now the pilot flying has to expend significant mental effort to understand what's happening and figure out the appropriate corrective action. How much room does a pilot typically have to recover from an emergency at such a low altitude — just seconds after takeoff? That's a hard question to answer because it really depends on the nature of the problem. For example, if during takeoff and the initial climb only one engine failed, the airplane is certified to fly on a single engine. So the pilots would just continue what they were doing—climbing and monitoring the aircraft's performance to reach a safe altitude. You can have an engine failure and still keep flying. Now, if they had a total electrical failure, the airplane would still fly, but it would require a different kind of corrective action. So being at 600 feet is just an altitude—what the pilots should do depends entirely on the specific situation they're facing. With more than 8,000 hours of flying time, the captain was highly experienced. Does that make this crash surprising to you? At this point, there's no reason to be surprised — because we don't yet know what the crew was dealing with. Was it an issue with the aircraft that couldn't be corrected at such a low altitude? Take the example of Jeju Air and the 737: that crew flew through a flock of birds, and both engines rolled back. The pilots, relying on their experience, managed to get the plane back to the airport. But they didn't complete all the necessary procedures — like lowering the landing gear or properly slowing the aircraft—so it went off the end of the runway. In this case, we simply don't know what these pilots were facing. Until we have a better understanding, it's hard to be critical or supportive of the crew's actions because we don't know what they were dealing with. How common are air crashes during the takeoff phase? For a major air carrier worldwide operating as an airline, takeoff accidents are rare. They do happen and have happened because I've investigated them over my career. But they are rare events. Could you explain why crashes during takeoff are less common than, say, those during landing? Typically during takeoff, the crew has had time to prepare the airplane while they're sitting at the gate. They're configuring it, making sure the flight management computer has all the relevant information necessary to determine the proper engine thrust for takeoff. As they're heading to the runway, they're setting the airplane up — putting the flaps at the appropriate setting for the conditions they're taking off in. Then, on the takeoff roll, one pilot is flying the airplane, and the other is monitoring what's going on — airspeed, engine thrust, and everything else. Unless the aircraft encounters something like a flock of birds — like what happened with the 'Miracle on the Hudson,' where Sully Sullenberger flew through a flock of geese and lost thrust — that's a very rare event. Or, if the airplane is taking off in bad weather that causes wind shear or some other issue, that can also affect the aircraft's ability to fly. But again, those are rare events. Pilots typically don't take off in dangerous weather. They're very aware of conditions during takeoff. Now, we tend to see more accidents during landing, because the aircraft is committed to its destination. Weather might have more of an adverse effect on landing performance than on takeoff. Unless something happens that severely impacts the airplane in a way that prevents the pilot from taking corrective action, accidents during takeoff—like this one—are very rare. We've had them before, like Northwest 255 in Detroit, years ago. The pilots didn't put the flaps down into the proper configuration, so when they tried to take off, the wing didn't produce enough lift. The airplane, similar to what we see in this video, lifted off briefly and then settled back into the ground—crashing on a highway and, unfortunately, killing everyone onboard except for one person. That happened in 1987 and killed 154 people. But again, that kind of accident with a major commercial airline is extremely rare today. If you were leading this investigation, what would your top priorities be? If I were running this investigation, there would be multiple priorities. First, of course, would be recovering the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. That will give the investigative team the most reliable information to determine the direction the investigation should take — whether it's pointing to an aircraft issue, a pilot issue, or a combination of both. So that would be a top priority. Another priority would be collecting as much video evidence as possible — including what's already circulating online, but also checking for any additional footage from airport security systems. Can we see the airplane at the gate? Can we observe whether it was properly configured while taxiing or during the takeoff roll? That kind of information could be captured by security cameras and would help investigators assess whether they need to focus more on mechanical systems or on flight crew actions and procedures. And then, of course, there's the physical wreckage. Examining the accident site for any visible signs of damage or failure can help determine whether there was a mechanical malfunction or or failure of the aircraft. Given that much of the physical wreckage appears to be completely destroyed, what kind of clues can the accident site still hold to indicate a mechanical failure? Correct — but that's the forensic part of the investigative process. You're looking for components or parts of the airplane that are not in a normal state. For example, if investigators find the trailing-edge wing flaps, they'll examine the mechanical devices that move them — like the jack screws — to measure how much the flaps were deployed. If one flap is at a five-degree position and the other is at fifteen degrees, that's an anomaly. The next question is: why did that happen? In the cockpit, investigators will look at the physical positions of the thrust levers, the flap handle, and the landing gear handle. Then they'll compare those positions to the data from the flight data recorder. If the recorder shows the landing gear or flaps were in the 'up' position, but physically we know the gear was still down, that's another anomaly. That's why the forensic, on-scene work is so important. Even in a crash like this, where the aircraft appears completely destroyed, there's still a lot to learn. It's like working a crime scene — sometimes it's the smallest pieces of evidence that matter most. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. It's not always the big things — it's often the little things that provide the biggest clues. How long does it typically take for an investigation like this to conclude — or at least to arrive at some conclusive findings? In this case, the investigative process is really twofold. The first part involves gathering as much information as possible to determine whether there was some kind of deficiency, inadequacy, or failure within the broader system. And when we say 'system,' we're talking not just about the aircraft, but also about policies, procedures, regulations — anything tied to the airline, including training and operational practices. We also need to identify whether there were any mechanical failures or malfunctions with the aircraft itself. All of these factors can have an adverse impact on flight safety. The goal is to find out what went wrong as early as possible — so if there's something that needs to be fixed, it can be addressed immediately, while other aircraft are still flying. That's why investigators push to get actionable information quickly. But the full investigation typically takes between 18 and 24 months. How quickly do you think investigators can gather actionable information — so that corrective measures can be identified and implemented? I think if the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR) provide useful information because these boxes, while they are built to be somewhat indestructible, they have failed in the past. I've had to deal with that in the past. Assuming we get good data from both the CVR and FDR, that's a good start. In addition, aircraft constantly transmit data to the ground, so we have access to other repositories as well. I would expect that if there is any kind of issue that has an adverse effect on flight safety, I would expect the investigators to identify it within a week. Any final thoughts you'd like to share? I think right now, with all the media coverage and the chatter on the internet by so-called experts — and all the hypotheticals and theories floating around — it can mislead people, especially passengers who are about to get on an airplane or are making decisions based on what they've read online. That kind of information has to be taken with a high level of caution, because a lot of people are speculating without having any real facts — aside from a video that's circulating. I've read a bunch of stuff online that I know is completely wrong. But to someone who's untrained or not familiar with aviation, it may sound like fact when it's actually fiction. So, people really need to take a step back and allow the investigative process to begin. There's a team coming from the AAIB in the UK and the NTSB from the US as well. As more information comes out over the next 48 to 72 hours, we'll hopefully get a better understanding of what took place — whether it was an issue with the airplane, the pilot, or a combination of both. Ritika Chopra, an award-winning journalist with over 17 years of experience, serves as the Chief of the National Bureau (Govt) and National Education Editor at The Indian Express in New Delhi. In her current role, she oversees the newspaper's coverage of government policies and education. Ritika closely tracks the Union Government, focusing on the politically sensitive Election Commission of India and the Education Ministry, and has authored investigative stories that have prompted government responses. Ritika joined The Indian Express in 2015. Previously, she was part of the political bureau at The Economic Times, India's largest financial daily. Her journalism career began in Kolkata, her birthplace, with the Hindustan Times in 2006 as an intern, before moving to Delhi in 2007. Since then, she has been reporting from the capital on politics, education, social sectors, and the Election Commission of India. ... Read More
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Toronto plane crash outcome a ‘miracle': experts
(NewsNation) — Several things went right when a passenger jet landing at a wintry Toronto airport lost its wings and flipped over with no loss of life, according to aviation experts reviewing preliminary information. Investigators will try to sort out what happened to the Delta Airlines CRJ-900 as it arrived from Minneapolis and touched down at Toronto Pearson International Airport at 2:15 p.m. It's possible the plane bounced and pilots lost control, said Greg Feith, former senior air safety investigator for the NTSB. 'The good thing is … both the wings were shed,' he said. 'That usually takes up a lot of the major impact forces. And because the tube, the fuselage tube, stayed intact, that's what enhanced the survivability for all these people, even though there was a small fire that did break out.' What we know about CRJ-900, aircraft that flipped over in Toronto The integrity of the fuselage is a testament to advances in airplane engineering, Feith added. 'We've learned a lot of lessons from history,' he said. Also probably helping the outcome was that jet fuel was dispersed when the wings detached, Feith said. He praised passengers and the flight crew for the orderly evacuation of the upside-down aircraft. The fact that all 80 people aboard the plane survived is amazing, retired commercial pilots Michael Coffield and Richard Levy agreed. Both nodded their heads vigorously and said, 'Miracle.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Helicopter never confirmed view of plane: Ex-NTSB investigator
(NewsNation) — Crews are continuing search-and-recovery operations Friday in the Potomac River after an Army Black Hawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional passenger jet collided near Reagan National Airport on Wednesday night. A key part of the investigation will revolve around the interaction with air traffic control in the final moments before the collision. According to investigators, the jet was cleared to land at a shorter runway just minutes before at Reagan National. The pilots acknowledged the change as well. Air traffic control also asked the helicopter if it could see the plane and if it could pass behind it, but, seconds later, the crash occurred. 'PAT25, do you have the CRJ in sight?' An air traffic controller asked the helicopter, requesting it look for an American Airlines Bombardier jet. 'PAT25, pass behind the CRJ,' the controller added, using aviation shorthand to refer to a Canadair Regional Jet. DC plane crash: Flight manifest expected to be released Friday Greg Feith, a former senior investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board, tells NewsNation's 'Morning in America' that the audio suggests the helicopter crew never confirmed seeing the plane. 'When the air traffic controller called the traffic and said, 'Do you have the RJ in sight?' If you listen to the response, the military crew never said, 'We have the RJ in sight,'' he said. 'They said, 'We have an aircraft, and we have the aircraft in sight.'' Feith noted there were three other aircraft in the area, including a regional jet that had just taken off. He emphasized the importance of analyzing the plane's recovered cockpit voice record to better understand which aircraft the crew was tracking. Congress authorized more flights at Reagan National despite warnings 'It's apparent that they did not identify the aircraft that they struck, probably as the traffic that was being called by the air traffic controller,' he said. As of Friday morning, D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services confirmed the recovery of 41 bodies from the crash site, including all three soldiers who were on the Army Black Hawk helicopter. Michael Ramsey, Tom Dempsey, Kevin Bohn and Jacqueline Hughes contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBS News
31-01-2025
- General
- CBS News
Experts ask why Black Hawk helicopter may have been flying above allowed altitude before crash
The military Black Hawk helicopter that crashed into a passenger plane near Reagan National Airport Wednesday appears to have been flying above the permitted altitude, publicly available flight data analyzed by CBS News shows. This data point is one of several key mysteries investigators are exploring as they seek to explain what caused the nation's worst air disaster in more than a decade, aviation experts said. "That's the $64 million question that needs to be answered," said Greg Feith, a former senior air safety investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board, in an interview with CBS News. The permitted flight ceiling on the Potomac River near Reagan National Airport is 200 feet – a crucial ceiling for keeping the heavy flow of military helicopters safely clear of the steady commercial aircraft traffic into and out of the nation's capital. Data from FlightRadar24, which tracks and records aircraft data for most flights across the U.S., showed the helicopter's last estimated altitude was about 400 feet when it crashed. The jet's altitude was about 375 to 400 feet, according to data from FlightAware and FlightRadar24. "They're military pilots; they're familiar with the routes," Feith said. "Why is it on this day, on that flight, they were [as much as] 150 to 200 feet higher than they knew they should be?" Steven B. Wallace, a former director of accident investigations for the Federal Aviation Administration, told CBS News he believes investigators will direct attention to the altitude of the Black Hawk. "I don't want to speculate on the cause, but I can speculate what's going through the mind of the investigators," Wallace said. "I think that is very likely going to be the focus." Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the investigation is examining if the aircraft was at the right altitude at the time. NTSB investigators have not so far disclosed the helicopter's altitude in their briefings, and said their working groups will evaluate "pre-impact course and altitude." The Army helicopter's deviation above the flight ceiling is one of several similar near collisions involving helicopters at Reagan National that date back more than a decade. A near midair collision between an airplane and a helicopter in July 2015 occurred 400 feet off the ground on approach to the same runway being used in Wednesday's crash – Runway 33 — according to a CBS News Data Team review of anonymous reports to NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System. The pilot's report said the aircraft "came within very close contact of another aircraft." "This occurred about 400 feet off the ground to the point where the pilot monitoring had to take the controls to make a correction in order to prevent it from becoming a midair collision," the 2015 report said. Two years earlier, in May of 2013, a pilot reported problems with a helicopter while circling to land on Runway 33. That is a shorter runway intended for smaller aircraft, like American Airlines 5342. Pilots who land there told CBS News they want to be at the "floor," or lowest altitude during their approach because they need to hit the beginning of the runway to have maximum distance to stop. "As we continued our approach; Tower instructed the helicopter to 'make a right 360 for a jet on a 2 mile final for Runway 33; and to report him in sight," the pilot wrote. "The Tower then asked the helicopter if he had us in sight. He replied 'yes'; and the Tower told him to maintain visual separation," the report said. "As we began our turn from base to final; the helicopter made what looked like a right turn directly into our flight path." The pilot reported having to execute a hard right turn and abort the approach to avoid a collision. "I'm not sure how close we came to the helicopter since it was on the left side of the aircraft; but I would guess it was only a few hundred feet," the report said. CBS News' review of the NASA safety data identified at least nine near midair collisions at the airport since 2005, including three involving helicopters. Feith said he believes investigators from the NTSB and the military will be examining the altimeters in the helicopter to see if they malfunctioned, checking for any wind impact that could have hindered the pilot's ability to hold the helicopter at 200 feet, and exploring whether or not the crew should have been using night vision goggles. He said the flight recorders on both aircraft will be helpful in determining what happened. Authorities reported that they had been recovered from the Potomac River on Thursday. "If they had been at 200 feet, there wouldn't have been an issue because the plane typically would've been 400 to 500 feet off the ground," Feith said. "Those two RJ [regional jet] pilots didn't know what hit them until the helicopter hit them."
Middle East Eye
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
ICJ president accused of plagiarism in dissenting opinion on Israeli occupation
Julia Sebutinde, the current president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has been accused of plaigarising parts of her dissenting views in the court's advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. In July last year, the 15-judge panel found that Israel's decades-long occupation of the Palestinian territories was "unlawful", and that its "near-complete separation" of people in the occupied West Bank breached international laws concerning "racial segregation" and "apartheid". While the opinion was agreed upon by most of the judges, Sebutinde rejected the findings of the court, stating that the case should be settled through negotiations between the parties. Zachary Foster, a researcher on Palestine, pointed out the alleged plaigarism in a thread on X on Sunday. In one section of the dissenting opinion, Sebutinde writes: "Territorially, the name 'Palestine' applied vaguely to a region that for the 400 years before World War I was part of the Ottoman Empire. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "In 135 CE, after stamping out the second Jewish insurrection of the province of Judea or Judah, the Romans renamed that province 'Syria Palaestina' (or 'Palestinian Syria'). The Romans did this as a punishment, to spite the 'Y'hudim' (Jewish population) and to obliterate the link between them and their province (known in Hebrew as Y'hudah). "The name 'Palaestina' was used in relation to the people known as the Philistines and found along the Mediterranean coast." The three sentences appear to be lifted, almost word for word, from an article published in December 2021 by Douglas J Feith in the Hudson Institute. Feith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, was US under secretary of defence for policy in the President George W Bush administration from July 2001 until August 2005, devising American strategy for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During that time, Feith was in charge of a key Pentagon office that produced "inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the US intelligence consensus disputed". Missing citations In 1996, Feith co-wrote a policy paper for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that suggested Israel should consider removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and militarily engage Syria using proxy forces. Feith's piece for the Hudson Institute is not cited in the bibliography of Sebutinde's dissenting opinion. Middle East Eye has reached out to the ICJ and Feith for comment. Foster pointed out in his thread that Sebutinde also lifted several sentences from The Jewish Virtual Library, changing a few words. Sebutinde wrote: "When the distinguished Arab American historian, Professor Philip Hitti, testified against the Partition of Mandatory Palestine before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he remarked: 'There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history; absolutely not.'" A very similar line in the Jewish Virtual Library's myths and facts page reads: "When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." Foster highlighted four sentences from the dissenting opinion borrowed from the Jewish Virtual Library. The website is not mentioned in the Ugandan judge's citations. The Jewish Virtual Library is part of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, which says it "provides facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict" and fights the "delegitimisation of Israel". Dissenting voice Sebutinde became the president of the ICJ earlier this month after former head Nawaf Salam was appointed Lebanon's next prime minister. In January last year, the ICJ delivered an interim ruling calling on Israel to refrain from impeding the delivery of aid into Gaza and improve the humanitarian situation. Nawaf Salam, the ICJ president who became Lebanon's prime minister Read More » It also ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide in the besieged enclave and to punish incitement to genocide, among other orders. Sebutinde, who has been described in the Israeli media as "pro-Israel", was the only judge on the 17-member panel who voted against all six measures adopted by the court. Israeli judge Aharon Barak also voted against several of the measures. The dissenting opinion prompted Uganda to distance itself from Sebutinde. "The position taken by Judge Sebutinde is her own individual and independent opinion, and does not in any way reflect the position of the government of the republic of Uganda," a government spokesperson said in a statement at the time. They added that Kampala supported the position of the Non-Aligned Movement on the war, which was adopted during a summit in the Ugandan capital. The Non-Aligned Movement had condemned Israel's war on Gaza and its killing of civilians.
