Latest news with #GregFeith
Indian Express
a day ago
- General
- Indian Express
Air India plane crash: Were Boeing 787's flaps retracted?
Several aviation enthusiasts and experts have speculated whether the flaps of the Air India 171 (Boeing 787 Dreamliner), which crashed on Thursday in Ahmedabad, were retracted while analysing the video of the crash. Flaps are retractable surfaces on the trailing edge of wings. An aircraft, during the take-off and landing phases when its speed is slow, requires extra 'lift' — the upward, aerodynamic force generated by the wings that keeps a plane aloft. This extra lift is provided by the flaps, which increase the wing surface area. Flaps are extended by either of the pilots manually before take-off and landing. Extended flaps are set at different degrees depending on requirement. In all other phases of flight, the flaps remain retracted. Crashed Dreamliner's flaps It appears from the pictures of the wreckage that the flaps were in an extended position, and not retracted, as speculated. Extending the flaps for take-off is part of the 'before take-off' checklist and is done on the ground when the aircraft is on the apron or taxiway. This takes place much before an aircraft enters the runway, and begins its take-off roll and gets airborne. If the crew misses this vital checklist item, the 787's warning system will warn the pilots about the incorrect flap settings. Speaking to The Indian Express, Greg Feith (67), former senior air safety investigator with the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said: '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.' David Learmount, Consulting Editor, FlightGlobal, on his blog wrote, 'Looking at a video of the last few seconds of the flight, the landing gear still remains down, the flaps look as if they are still at a take-off setting, and the aircraft is in a steady descent which only ended in impact with buildings and the ground'. As for why the landing gear was still down, it is likely that the pilots, dealing with the emergency, had no time to retract the gear. V1, Vr, V2 speeds These are three critical speeds during the take-off phase. Rolling down the runway for take-off but not airborne yet, as an aircraft attains V1 speed, the plane's Captain has to decide whether to continue or reject the take-off. If the Captain feels something is not alright, it is her last chance to stop the take-off. V1 is also called the take-off decision speed. Once an aircraft has crossed the V1 point, it is unsafe to reject the take-off as the available runway length may be insufficient to stop the aircraft. Vr is the rotation speed or lift-off speed. At this point, the monitoring pilot calls 'rotate' and the pilot flying gently raises the nose. The wings are producing sufficient lift and the aircraft becomes airborne. V2 or the take-off safety speed is the minimum speed at which an aircraft can climb safely with one engine. V1, Vr and V2 speeds vary for every flight, calculated on the basis of aircraft weight, runway length, weather etc. From the videos, it is evident the Air India 171 did not encounter any problems during the V1 and Vr phases, but experienced problems during the climb phase.
Indian Express
a day 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
New York Times
2 days ago
- General
- New York Times
Live Updates: Over 200 Dead in Air India Crash, Official Says, With At Least One Survivor
The tail of the Air India plane at the crash site in Ahmedabad, India, on Thursday. Plane crash investigations are incredibly complex and it can take months or even years to identify what went wrong. But video and photos of the Air India crash on Thursday prompted some early thoughts from aviation experts. A widely shared video of the crash showed the plane descending over buildings with its nose pointed upward, an unusual position, said John Cox, a former airline pilot and chief executive of Safety Operating Systems, a consulting firm. The plane's position looks as if 'it should be climbing and in fact it's descending,' he said. 'The question is why.' Mr. Cox and other experts cautioned against jumping to conclusions. Planes and the aviation system have many redundancies to prevent a single problem leading to a calamity. As a result, crashes are typically caused by multiple failures, which can include equipment malfunctions, improper maintenance, bird strikes or pilot error. Early hypotheses often are ruled out during lengthy, technical crash investigations. Officials looking into the crash will have no shortage of questions to ask, said Greg Feith, a former investigator at the National Transportation Safety Board. 'Did they properly configure the airplane when it took off? What was occurring with them? Was there a loss of thrust?' he said. 'Was there fuel contamination? Fuel starvation where both engines weren't getting fuel that would have caused a loss of thrust on both engines?' The N.T.S.B., the lead U.S. agency in crash investigations, said it would send a team to India to help with the investigation, which will be led by India's aviation authority. The Federal Aviation Administration said it would provide technical expertise and assistance, and its counterpart in Britain, where the flight was headed, made a similar offer. In the video, the plane's descent appeared to be controlled. That suggests that the pilots may have been trying to slow it down, said Ben Berman, a safety consultant who is also a former airline pilot and federal crash investigator in the United States. 'Any reduction you can make to the air speed at impact is going to have a big positive effect,' he said. 'It's consistent with that, but it could also mean any number of other things.' Heat is another consideration. The weather topped 100 degrees in Ahmedabad, the city from which the plane departed on Thursday. High temperatures make takeoffs more difficult because engines produce less thrust and warm air is less dense, making it harder for the airplane to generate lift. While the full investigation could take more than a year, corrective actions could potentially arrive sooner, Mr. Feith said. 'The whole purpose of accident investigation is to identify safety critical issues — if there's a problem with the airline, the crew, the airplane itself — you want to get those safety critical issues identified and corrective actions implemented sooner rather than later,' he said. The plane's black boxes should provide early insights, too. The information on the flight data recorder includes time, altitude, airspeed and heading. The cockpit voice recorder can offer clues about the moments leading up to the crash, including what the pilots were saying, engine noises, stall warnings or other equipment sounds. 'If they functioned correctly, they'll give a tremendous amount of information, because the 787 has a huge number of parameters recorded,' Mr. Berman said. That data could be recovered and assessed preliminarily within days, Mr. Cox said. The footage of the plane's descent is shaky and grainy and it wasn't clear whether the wing's trailing edge flaps were properly extended as they typically would be when a plane is taking off, experts said. Those flaps and slats at the front of the wing are typically extended during ascent to provide more surface area and alter the shape of the wing to help lift the plane at relatively low speeds. 'In the video, you see the landing gear is still down but the flaps look to be in a relatively up position,' Mr. Feith said. 'That will have to be examined. Normally on a large aircraft like that, you need to use some level of flap deployment. If the airplane was not properly configured, that can present a performance issue.' Mr. Berman said that typically pilots retract landing gear, which includes the plane's wheels, quickly after taking off because it can create drag as the plane tries to climb, but not always. The brakes on a larger, heavier jet like the Dreamliner can get very hot and sometimes pilots may leave the landing gear down for a bit to cool them off, he added. 'It might have been intentional,' he said. 'It might have been that they had a massive problem right after takeoff and they may have neglected to raise the gear. We'll need to know a lot more about the airplane to comment on this intelligently.'
New York Times
2 days ago
- General
- New York Times
What Caused the Crash? Experts Study Video of Plane's Sudden Descent.
Plane crash investigations are incredibly complex and it can take months or even years to identify what went wrong. But video and photos of the Air India crash on Thursday prompted some early thoughts from aviation experts. A widely shared video of the crash showed the plane descending over buildings with its nose pointed upward, an unusual position, said John Cox, a former airline pilot and chief executive of Safety Operating Systems, a consulting firm. The plane's orientation looks like 'it should be climbing and in fact it's descending,' he said. 'The question is why.' He and other experts cautioned against jumping to conclusions. Planes and the aviation system have many redundancies to prevent a single problem leading to a calamity. As a result, crashes are typically caused by multiple failures, which can include equipment malfunctions, improper maintenance, bird strikes or pilot error. Early hypotheses often are ruled out during lengthy, technical crash investigations. Officials looking into the crash will have no shortage of questions to ask, said Greg Feith, a former National Transportation Safety Board investigator. 'Did they properly configure the airplane when it took off? What was occurring with them? Was there a loss of thrust?' he said. 'Was there fuel contamination? Fuel starvation?' The N.T.S.B., the lead U.S. agency in crash investigations, said it would send a team to India to help with the investigation, which will be led by India's aviation authorities. The Federal Aviation Administration said it would provide technical expertise and assistance, too. The plane's black boxes should provide some early insights. The information on the flight data recorder includes time, altitude, airspeed and heading. The cockpit voice recorder can offer clues about the moments leading up to the crash, including what the pilots were saying, engine noises, stall warnings or other equipment sounds. That data could be recovered within a day or two, with a readout to follow soon after, Mr. Cox said. 'Hopefully within a few days, we'll know why the airplane flew the profile that it did,' he said.
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.
