Latest news with #GeoffreyDell
The Age
5 days ago
- General
- The Age
Airlines begin checking fuel switches after Air India crash report
Conjecture about the pilot's mental health has been criticised by an Indian pilot's union, the Indian Pilots Guild, which said: 'The crew of Al171 deserves a thorough, fact-driven investigation.' The crash of Gatwick-bound Air India flight 171, which occurred seconds after take-off from Ahmedabad, India, on June 12, killed all but one of the 242 passengers and crew. It also killed 19 people on the ground. The safety of the fuel switches has come under scrutiny with the release of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) report on Friday. The bureau said the US Federal Aviation Administration issued an airworthiness bulletin in 2018 'regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature'. But 'the airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant [an] airworthiness directive by the FAA'. Loading The throttle control module of the Air India 787 Dreamliner was replaced on the plane in 2019 and 2023, the AAIB notes. 'However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023', the AAIB reported. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been contacted for comment. An Australian source with direct knowledge of aviation maintenance including fuel control switches said it was possible a 'faulty locking feature of the fuel cut off switches' could be to blame. In this case, the problem would result from a switch design that 'had a history of wearing out where the two-action positive lock function is lost allowing the switches to be easily and inadvertently [flipped] back to the CUT-OFF to then shut its engine down'. A worn-out fuel control could be switched off either by the brushing of the hand or vibration by the plane, said the source with decades of domestic and international aviation engineering experience, although both would have to be switched. If the switches were the issue, the manufacturers and airlines had a duty to seek information on their performance for future air directives too, said the source. Honeywell, the maker of the switches, said: 'We do not comment on rumour or speculation. Any questions on the incident should be directed to the appropriate investigating agencies.' Boeing has been contacted for comment. Under the International Civil Aviation Organisation rules, the nation where the accident or incident happened has responsibility for conducting the investigation. To date, the Boeing Dreamliner has had a strong safety record. However, given the safety and production problems linked to the two Boeing 737s Max planes that crashed in 2018 and 2019, the findings of the Air India crash investigation are being closely watched. Dr Geoffrey Dell, head of aviation safety for the AMDA Foundation, said the accident could be the result of an issue with the switches. 'Anything is possible. The question is how probable is it.' The problem with the content of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau preliminary report was there was no data included. It was, Dell said, 'interpretation information'. Without any other facts, it's difficult to 'draw reasonable or even partial conclusions', he said. Dell, who is an aviation crash investigator, said it would be unlikely to be a problem with the switches alone because they aren't designed to be moved accidentally. A pilot would have to adjust them both by accident. Loading The AAIB report states that after the aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots 'and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUT-OFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec.' They were found in the on position after the crash. Swinburne University school of engineering department of aviation's Salim Hijazeen said: 'While the switch design and past FAA advisories carry weight, they are unlikely to be the sole cause of the incident. 'What appears more plausible is a convergence of factors – including human performance limitations under high stress, a potential aircraft system issue which required pilot input, and breakdowns in procedural discipline.' In most flight deck operations, especially those involving engine shutdown, 'a cross-check and verbal confirmation between pilots is required before any critical input is made,' said Hijazeen. 'The report indicates that the pilot monitoring may not have been aware that the shutdown had occurred, pointing to a significant lapse in crew resource management and situational awareness.' A high workload and pressure may have exacerbated this during the initial take-off roll, he said, 'a phase of flight that we still do not fully understand in terms of cockpit dynamics and decision-making'. Dell, the investigator, said that saying pilot error was the cause of the crash is 'like saying the accident was caused by gravity. It's true but not very bloody helpful.' Loading A better question, Dell said, is: 'How did the system allow an error to cause a catastrophic loss? 'Obviously, there's a design problem with the mechanics and the human systems built around it.' The Lifeline number for crisis support is 13 11 14.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 days ago
- General
- Sydney Morning Herald
Airlines begin checking fuel switches after Air India crash report
Conjecture about the pilot's mental health has been criticised by an Indian pilot's union, the Indian Pilots Guild, which said: 'The crew of Al171 deserves a thorough, fact-driven investigation.' The crash of Gatwick-bound Air India flight 171, which occurred seconds after take-off from Ahmedabad, India, on June 12, killed all but one of the 242 passengers and crew. It also killed 19 people on the ground. The safety of the fuel switches has come under scrutiny with the release of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) report on Friday. The bureau said the US Federal Aviation Administration issued an airworthiness bulletin in 2018 'regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature'. But 'the airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant [an] airworthiness directive by the FAA'. Loading The throttle control module of the Air India 787 Dreamliner was replaced on the plane in 2019 and 2023, the AAIB notes. 'However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023', the AAIB reported. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been contacted for comment. An Australian source with direct knowledge of aviation maintenance including fuel control switches said it was possible a 'faulty locking feature of the fuel cut off switches' could be to blame. In this case, the problem would result from a switch design that 'had a history of wearing out where the two-action positive lock function is lost allowing the switches to be easily and inadvertently [flipped] back to the CUT-OFF to then shut its engine down'. A worn-out fuel control could be switched off either by the brushing of the hand or vibration by the plane, said the source with decades of domestic and international aviation engineering experience, although both would have to be switched. If the switches were the issue, the manufacturers and airlines had a duty to seek information on their performance for future air directives too, said the source. Honeywell, the maker of the switches, said: 'We do not comment on rumour or speculation. Any questions on the incident should be directed to the appropriate investigating agencies.' Boeing has been contacted for comment. Under the International Civil Aviation Organisation rules, the nation where the accident or incident happened has responsibility for conducting the investigation. To date, the Boeing Dreamliner has had a strong safety record. However, given the safety and production problems linked to the two Boeing 737s Max planes that crashed in 2018 and 2019, the findings of the Air India crash investigation are being closely watched. Dr Geoffrey Dell, head of aviation safety for the AMDA Foundation, said the accident could be the result of an issue with the switches. 'Anything is possible. The question is how probable is it.' The problem with the content of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau preliminary report was there was no data included. It was, Dell said, 'interpretation information'. Without any other facts, it's difficult to 'draw reasonable or even partial conclusions', he said. Dell, who is an aviation crash investigator, said it would be unlikely to be a problem with the switches alone because they aren't designed to be moved accidentally. A pilot would have to adjust them both by accident. Loading The AAIB report states that after the aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots 'and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUT-OFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec.' They were found in the on position after the crash. Swinburne University school of engineering department of aviation's Salim Hijazeen said: 'While the switch design and past FAA advisories carry weight, they are unlikely to be the sole cause of the incident. 'What appears more plausible is a convergence of factors – including human performance limitations under high stress, a potential aircraft system issue which required pilot input, and breakdowns in procedural discipline.' In most flight deck operations, especially those involving engine shutdown, 'a cross-check and verbal confirmation between pilots is required before any critical input is made,' said Hijazeen. 'The report indicates that the pilot monitoring may not have been aware that the shutdown had occurred, pointing to a significant lapse in crew resource management and situational awareness.' A high workload and pressure may have exacerbated this during the initial take-off roll, he said, 'a phase of flight that we still do not fully understand in terms of cockpit dynamics and decision-making'. Dell, the investigator, said that saying pilot error was the cause of the crash is 'like saying the accident was caused by gravity. It's true but not very bloody helpful.' Loading A better question, Dell said, is: 'How did the system allow an error to cause a catastrophic loss? 'Obviously, there's a design problem with the mechanics and the human systems built around it.' The Lifeline number for crisis support is 13 11 14.
Egypt Independent
7 days ago
- General
- Egypt Independent
Air India crash report answers one question
CNN — An official report on the world's deadliest aviation accident in a decade has answered one key question – but raised others. Air India flight AI171 had barely left the runway last month when it lost momentum and crashed in a densely populated area of India's western city of Ahmedabad, killing all but one of the 242 people on board and 19 others on the ground. Now, a preliminary report by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has revealed that fuel supply to both engines was cut in the crucial minutes as the aircraft was ascending. The plane's 'black box,' its flight data recorder, showed that the aircraft had reached an airspeed of 180 knots when both engines' fuel switches were 'transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one,' the report says. The switches were flipped within a second of each other, halting the flow of fuel. On an audio recording from the black box, mentioned in the report, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he flipped the switches. The other pilot responds that he did not do so. The report does not specify who was the pilot and who was the co-pilot in the dialogue. Seconds later, the switches on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner were flipped the other way to turn the fuel supply back on. Both engines were able to relight, and one began to 'progress to recovery,' the report said, but it was too late to stop the plane's gut-wrenching descent. The report reveals the fundamental reason why the jet crashed, but much remains unexplained. From RUN to CUTOFF – but how? The findings do not make clear how the fuel switches were flipped to the cutoff position during the flight, whether it was deliberate, accidental or if a technical fault was responsible. On Boeing's 787 Dreamliners, the fuel switches are between the two pilots' seats, immediately behind the plane's throttle levers. They are protected on the sides by a metal bar. The switches require an operator to physically lift the switch handle up and over a detent – a catch – as they are deliberately designed so they can't be knocked accidentally. Geoffrey Dell, an air safety specialist who has conducted numerous aircraft accident investigations, finds it hard to see how both switches could have been flipped in error. 'It's at least a two-action process for each one,' he told CNN. 'You've got to pull the switch out towards you and then push it down. It's not the sort of thing you can do inadvertently.' According to Dell, it would be 'bizarre' for a pilot to deliberately cut fuel to both engines immediately after take-off. There is 'no scenario on the planet where you'd do that immediately after lift-off,' he said. Pointing to the fact that both engine switches were flipped within a second of each other, Dell noted: 'That's the sort of thing you do when you park the airplane at the end of the flight… You plug into the terminal and shut the engines down.' One possibility the report raises relates to an information bulletin issued by the US Federal Aviation Administration in 2018 about 'the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature.' But, given that this was not considered an unsafe condition, Air India did not carry out inspections. Dell said an aircraft's flight data recorder should help explain how the fuel switches were flipped in each case. However, India's AAIB has not released a full transcript of the conversation between the two pilots. Without it, Dell says it's difficult to understand what happened. Rescue workers at the site where the Air India plane crashed. Amit Dave/Reuters Former pilot Ehsan Khalid also believes that the report's findings raised questions over the position of the vital engine fuel switches, which, he said, should be clarified by the investigators. Speaking to Reuters, Khalid warned against pinning the blame on the pilots. 'The AAIB report to me is only conclusive to say that the accident happened because both engines lost power.' He added: 'The pilots were aware that the aircraft engine power has been lost, and pilots also were aware that they did not do any action to cause this.' 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.' The Air India jet took off from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in India's western state of Gujarat on June 12, bound for London Gatwick. Air India had said 242 passengers and crew members were on board. That included 169 Indian nationals, 53 Britons, seven Portuguese and one Canadian. Everyone on board was killed, except for one passenger. The 19 people on the ground were killed when the plane crashed into the BJ Medical College and Hospital hostel. Air India has acknowledged that it has received the report and said it will continue cooperating with authorities in the investigation.
