Latest news with #RAT
Arab Times
2 days ago
- General
- Arab Times
Fuel Cutoff Mystery: Is the Truth About Air India's Crash Being Covered Up?
MUMBAI, July 18: The captain of Air India Flight 171, which crashed shortly after takeoff in Ahmedabad last month, killing 241 of the 242 people on board, reportedly handed control of the aircraft to his first officer seconds before the disaster, according to information retrieved from the flight's black boxes. Sources familiar with the cockpit voice recordings told Italy's Corriere della Sera that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal told First Officer Clive Kunder, 'The plane is in your hands,' moments before the plane left the runway. While it is not uncommon for a first officer to pilot a flight during takeoff, aviation experts have questioned the timing and circumstances of the handover. Flight data shows the aircraft took off at 1:38pm and remained airborne for just 30 seconds before it lost power and crashed into a residential area, killing 19 people on the ground. The sole survivor on board remains in critical condition. Investigators say the plane's engines lost thrust shortly after takeoff, and that the fuel control switches—critical to maintaining engine power—had been moved from the 'run' position to 'cutoff' within seconds of liftoff. According to India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), both switches were turned off and then switched back on about ten seconds later, but not in time to prevent the crash. The AAIB's preliminary report, released last week, confirmed that no mechanical or maintenance faults were found on the aircraft. However, the cause of the fuel cutoff remains under investigation. The switches are designed with safety locks that require manual lifting to operate, making an accidental flip highly unlikely. Cockpit audio captured in the seconds before the crash suggests rising tension between the two pilots. According to sources briefed on the U.S. assessment of the recordings, First Officer Kunder can be heard repeatedly asking, 'Why did you shut off the engines?' to which the senior pilot vaguely replied, 'I didn't do it.' The exchange, lasting six seconds, has been interpreted by some officials as an indirect admission that the captain may have cut the fuel supply. Flight data further reveals that after the aircraft reached approximately 650 feet, a backup power system—known as the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—deployed, indicating both engines had lost power. Although the fuel switches were returned to 'run' and the engines attempted to restart, the aircraft lacked the altitude and time to recover. The jet clipped treetops and a chimney before crashing into a nearby medical college, erupting in flames. Aviation experts remain baffled by the switch movement. 'It's absolutely bizarre for the engine cutoff switches to be flipped just after takeoff,' said Terry Tozer, a former airline pilot, speaking to Sky News. 'Unfortunately, the altitude was so low that the engines didn't have time to recover.' The AAIB has yet to identify which pilot flipped the switches, and cockpit audio alone has not definitively clarified the roles each pilot played in the final moments. U.S. officials reviewing the early data believe that as the flying pilot, First Officer Kunder would likely have had both hands on the Dreamliner's controls, suggesting Captain Sabharwal may have been responsible for manipulating the switches. Captain Sabharwal had logged over 15,000 hours of flight time, while Kunder had 3,400. According to colleagues cited in Indian media, Sabharwal had recently taken bereavement leave following his mother's death but had been medically cleared to fly. Some sources have raised questions regarding the mental health history of one of the pilots. Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a prominent Indian aviation safety expert, told The Daily Telegraph that one pilot had previously taken extended medical leave for mental health reasons. However, this has not been confirmed by the authorities, and Air India maintains both pilots were fully certified for duty. India's Civil Aviation Minister, Kinjarapu Ram Mohan Naidu, has urged the public to avoid premature conclusions. 'Let us wait for the final report,' he told reporters. Air India CEO Campbell Wilson echoed that message in an internal memo, stating that while the preliminary report found no mechanical issues, further investigation is required to determine the human factors involved. In response to the crash, Indian aviation authorities have ordered comprehensive checks across Air India's Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet. The airline operates 33 of the aircraft. The AAIB has not issued any immediate safety recommendations to Boeing or the engine manufacturer, General Electric. The agency criticised elements of the international media for 'selective and unverified reporting,' stating that the investigation remains ongoing and that drawing conclusions at this stage is premature. The final report into the crash is expected within 12 months, in line with international aviation standards.
News18
3 days ago
- General
- News18
Will An AI Pilot Be Made The Fall Guy Again?
When Emperor Ashoka crashed in 1978, a US court egregiously blamed the pilot; India must not allow that to happen again The man who miraculously survived the AI-171 crash in Ahmedabad must be wondering what he had done to be saved by this act of God. Was it something that he did in his previous life, or was he saved for a duty he must perform in this one? The former reason is impossible to gauge but Vishwaskumar Ramesh certainly stands as the main counterpoint to the familiar narrative that usually follows any air crash: that the pilots erred, not their flying machine. This time too, the initial hours after the crash saw the same pilot error story being peddled, especially by aviation experts abroad and in India. That the pilots were distracted and took catastrophically wrong decisions like retracting the flaps rather than the landing gear or shutting off a running engine rather than one that may have failed. That was accompanied by the mantra—shamefully echoed by many Indian media too—that the Boeing 787-9 is a really safe aircraft. That Boeing's formidable international PR machine could be behind this huge and touching faith in an aircraft is very probable. But what stood squarely in the way of that story taking wing is the testimony of the British-Indian national, Vishwaskumar, recorded by countless media channels. Now that the black boxes have been found their data may well corroborate that the pilots did their best. But will the big guns allow the 'safest" aircraft line to be contradicted? It is also providential that a local boy also filmed the plane going down, from an angle that was far closer than the two clips from the cameras at the airport. In his video, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) can be seen deployed in the undercarriage, which means that the engines and/or power had shut down and the pilots had heroically tried to get emergency power to regain thrust to prevent a crash. That also supports Vishwaskumar's recollection of the flight's last moments. He recollected there was a loud bang—which is now being interpreted as proof of the RAT being deployed. He added that the plane seemed to stop and then the 'engines began to race". That was actually the high-pitched whine of the turbine. He also mentioned a green light coming on in the cabin which is proof of the RAT being deployed and the plane signalling a dire emergency. None of these point to the pilots being distracted or careless; it points squarely to the aircraft. When Air India's much-loved Emperor Ashoka Boeing 747 aircraft—AI 855— bound for Dubai crashed on January 1, 1978, in the Arabian Sea near Mumbai's Bandra Bandstand just minutes after take-off, the investigation followed a rather predictable trajectory. The disaster was blamed on the extremely experienced pilot, Madan Lal Kukar, whose colleagues in the cockpit also had many thousand flying hours to their credit. This, despite evidence of instrument failure. The cockpit voice recorder revealed that the Captain's attitude direction indicator (ADI) had 'toppled", still showing a right bank relative to the horizon when it had actually straightened out. The First Officer's ADI reply indicated his ADI had also toppled. Only the Flight Engineer's ADI showed the aircraft had levelled out. How could the pilot then be solely blamed for banking left to correct that angle when the plane's instrument had malfunctioned? But sadly, he was. In 1985, a single Federal district judge in New York rejected charges of negligence against the Boeing Company and other defendants in a suit related to the crash. Judge James M Fitzgerald ruled that the plaintiffs—families of those who died in the crash—had not proved their contention that it was primarily caused by malfunction of a cockpit instrument. He ruled that the main cause of the crash was the negligence and disorientation of Captain Kukar. He said Kukar was 'unfit to fly" as he was taking diabetes medication and had been dieting, adding that he had consumed alcohol the night before. He also said the co-pilot was 'negligent" as he had not watched the instruments and warned Kukar! Even today's rules (there were none in 1978) stipulate pilots cannot drink alcohol eight hours before a flight; if Kukar had consumed any, it was 24 hours before. Nor was it proved that he had alcohol in his system while flying. There was evidence about two previous incidents involving Boeing planes and malfunctioning ADIs, but they had not caused any accident. That belied Boeing's contention that there had never been multiple such failures on its planes and none on Emperor Ashoka either. One of the incidents was then shown to have 'contradictory" evidence and the judge was not convinced that the other one made a difference to the main issues of the AI-855 crash case. So, the judge decided anyway the ADI had not failed and hence there were no alarms and that the pilot was to blame! No wonder Boeing issued a statement saying it was 'pleased with the court's decision." As were the Lear Siegler who made the ADIs and the Collins Radio division of Rockwell International Corporation, makers of the backup warning system. But why did India not protest against this blatant whitewashing of US companies by a US court? Interestingly, the then government-owned Air India was not party to the case as out-of-court settlements limited its liability in crashes to $20,000 per passenger on international flights. Between 1978 (the crash) and 1985 (the verdict), eight ministers handled civil aviation including two PMs, Morarji Desai and Rajiv Gandhi. Also, in 1985, US courts dismissed the Indian government's $3.3 billion claim against Union Carbide Company for the Bhopal gas disaster. A fake document purported to be a 'preliminary finding" of India's Air Accident Investigation Bureau claimed that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal's seat slid back at takeoff leading to his body falling on the thrust gears, resulting in engines stalling and crashing! But the black boxes have been sent to US's National Transportation Safety Board for deciphering so how could AAIB report that the data pins the crash on a faulty seat and pilot error? Disinformation has begun. top videos View all What next for AI-171? Vishwaskumar's testimony backs the pilots. But Boeing has a brimming order book, as does the engine maker GE. A lot of money is at stake. So, the next target will probably be Air India itself. Will the presence of the airline, the aircraft maker, the engine-supplier and international and national accident probe agencies in the investigations ensure that none of them will be able to exert pressure to exonerate themselves or diminish culpability? The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 20, 2025, 15:11 IST News opinion Opinion | Will An AI Pilot Be Made The Fall Guy Again? Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
4 days ago
- General
- Time of India
Air India crash: Pilots slam 'deliberate' ambiguity in report timeline
Air India crash KOLKATA: Serving and retired pilots have expressed concern over what they term "deliberate" ambiguity in the timeline mentioned in the preliminary probe report prepared by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) into the AI 171 crash. They allege this has been done to absolve the aircraft manufacturer of any responsibility in the accident and pin the blame on the dead pilots. They also point out that the word "transition" of fuel switches used in the report attempts to insinuate that they were manually moved. "This is an American expression. In India, it would normally have been written: The switches were moved. It is the fuel valves that transition while the switches can move from RUN to CUT OFF or vice versa," a veteran pilot pointed out. While several timelines are mentioned in the report, it is unclear during the crucial phase immediately after takeoff when the two engines momentarily shut down after fuel flow stopped, leading to the crash. The AAIB provides the timestamp to the exact second for a number of actions. The aircraft started rolling at 8:07:37 UTC (13:37:37 IST, i.e., 37 seconds past 1:37 pm). The aircraft and ground sensors recorded the liftoff at 08:08:39 UTC (13:38:39 IST). It then states the aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots (333 km/h) at about 08:08:42 UTC (13:38:42 IST). Thereafter, the timelines become unclear. It says immediately thereafter, engine 1 and engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 second. It then states, 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cut off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata "When did all of this happen and in which sequence? That is a crucial segment of the flight when something catastrophic happened that took down the plane. It is not possible to move both switches from RUN to CUT OFF in a second. The SOP as laid down in the manual for reviving engines during a dual engine failure is to move the switches from RUN to CUT OFF and back to RUN. The pilots in the ill-fated aircraft did so and we know the engines revived but the plane crashed because it did not gain enough altitude to clear the buildings," another experienced captain explained. The report goes on to state that CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed during the initial climb immediately after lift-off, but the time is not mentioned. The next timestamp is when the RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at about 08:08:47 UTC (13:38:47 IST). A pilot pointed out that since the RAT takes around 7-8 seconds from auto deployment to begin functioning, then the plane should have lost the engines around 08:08:40 UTC (13:38:40 IST). "If that is so, then how did the plane achieve the maximum airspeed 2 seconds later at 08:08:42 UTC (13:38:42 IST)?" he questioned. Another pilot said it is critical to know the exact conversation that took place in the cockpit from the start of the takeoff run to the Mayday call to know what the pilots were experiencing in the cockpit before the crash. "This is not just for the sake of learning why flight AI 171 crashed but to ensure that another flight does not meet the same fate in the future," a pilot said. Another captain also pointed out that both pilots in the ill-fated flight were wearing headsets and they spoke on different channels, as is the mandatory procedure during takeoff. "Then why is there no clarity on who said what because it's available in the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)?" he questioned.
Mint
7 days ago
- General
- Mint
What caused the Air India crash: Malfunction or human error?
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's (AAIB) preliminary investigation report has deepened the mystery of the Air India Flight 171 crash. The ministry of civil aviation investigators, who analyzed cockpit voice recordings, have found that the 12-year-old Boeing 787 Dreamliner's fuel control switches transitioned from 'RUN" to 'CUTOFF" position within one second, causing a sudden power loss, leading to the 12 June accident that claimed 260 lives. One pilot can be heard asking the other, 'Why did you cut off?" To which the other replied, 'I did not do so." The final conversation between the pilots suggests either a malfunction or an involuntary action. Mint explains what transpired in the cockpit of the London-bound jet. What happened after takeoff? The flight received takeoff clearance at 1:37pm IST. According to the flight recorder data, the aircraft crossed the takeoff decision and achieved an airspeed of 153 knots at 1:39pm. The jet achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots and started gaining height. After a few seconds, fuel control switches of both engines 1 and 2 transitioned from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' position in 01 second, killing the fuel supply. What were pilots doing? In voice recordings retrieved from the black box, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cut off the fuel supply. The other pilot responded that he did not do so. At 1:39pm, one of the pilots transmitted a'MAYDAY' call to air traffic control, but there was no response. The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport perimeter wall and crashed into the BJ Medical College. The airport CCTV footage showed Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—an emergency power source in case of a complete or partial loss of primary power systems— getting deployed immediately after lift-off. RAT uses airflow to generate power to keep essential aircraft systems running. Did pilots attempt to restart the engines? The Engine 1 fuel control switch transitioned from 'CUTOFF' to 'RUN' at about 1:38pm. Within four seconds, the Engine 2 switch also transitioned from 'CUTOFF' to 'RUN'. The data showed that Engine 1's core deceleration stopped, reversed, and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not stop the speed deceleration. The data recording stopped at 1:39pm. The AAIB said that when fuel control switches are moved from 'CUTOFF' to 'RUN' while the aircraft is in flight, each engine's full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction. FADEC is a digital electronic system that manages an aircraft engine's performance. Is there an advisory for the use of the fuel control switches? The US aviation authority, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), issued a special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB) in 2018 about the possible disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. The SAIB was issued based on reports from 737 MAX aircraft that control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. Did Air India follow the FAA advisory? Air India told investigators that the fuel control switch design is similar in all Boeing aeroplanes, and the same was fitted in VT-ANB. According to Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was 'advisory and not mandatory". The AAIB's investigation of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB (Dreamliner) in 2019 and 2023. However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switches. No defect has been reported regarding the fuel control switches on VT-ANB since 2023. Was the aeroplane well maintained? All applicable airworthiness directives and alert service bulletins were complied with on the aircraft and engines, according to the AAIB. The last major line maintenance check, as per the Aircraft Maintenance Programme, was carried out as per schedule. The next major check was due on the aircraft in December 2025. The left engine was installed on 1 May 2025, and the right engine on 26 March 2025. What are experts saying? Mark Martin, chief executive of Martin Consulting, said no pilot would fiddle around with switches in the middle section of the cockpit when all attention is focused on forward flight cockpit instruments located in front of the pilots, during takeoff and landing. He added that the 787 Dreamliner is a comprehensively digitally controlled and software-driven aircraft that constantly needs patches and system updates. If the fuel switches moved to 'CUTOFF', the cause of this trigger needs to be established. Amit Singh, CEO of Safety Matters Foundation, raised questions on the timeline accuracy and data interpretation on the microblogging site, X. He highlighted that the RAT was deployed while the aircraft was barely airborne. In a Boeing 787, RAT takes 3-5 seconds after the engine failure to fully get deployed. He suggested that the engine failure occurred within seconds of lift-off. What happens now? Further probe is underway by an investigation team led by Sanjay Kumar Singh of the AAIB. The FAA, US National Transportation Safety Board, UK Civil Aviation Authority, UK NTSB, and Boeing are supporting the investigation. The team will review and examine additional evidence, records, and information that is being sought from the stakeholders. At this stage, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers by the AAIB.
India Today
13-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
What caused Air India crash? Expert dismisses pilot error theory, questions probe
More than a month after Air India flight AI 171 crashed moments after takeoff from Ahmedabad, killing 241 of the 242 people on board, aviation experts are questioning the preliminary report of the official probe and raising unsettling questions about what really happened in the cockpit of the doomed Boeing to India Today TV, Sanjeev Kapoor, former Director with the Indian Air Force (IAF), has sharply criticised the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's (AAIB) initial 15-page report, calling its conclusions incomplete and its timeline suspiciously ever does a pilot issue a Mayday call lightly. The relevance of a Mayday means something grave has happened — and there's no doubt both engines failed. But how they failed is simply not covered in this preliminary report," Kapoor said, reacting to the AAIB's disclosure that one of the pilots broadcast three consecutive distress calls before the aircraft went down on June 12. According to the AAIB, the cockpit voice recorder captured a chilling exchange between the pilots in which one asked the other why the fuel supply had been cut off — a move that caused both engines to lose power seconds after takeoff. The report says the fuel control switches for both engines were shifted from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' within a single second, resulting in an immediate loss of altitude."It is absolutely bizarre to suggest that any sane pilot would deliberately operate the fuel cut-off switches right after takeoff. Why would a pilot, having just lifted off manually, turn the aircraft 170 degrees just to shut down the engines? It defies all logic," Kapoor also slammed the time taken to produce the preliminary findings, pointing out that the cockpit data was downloaded nearly three weeks ago. "It took 20 days for this report to come out, which is far too long. Given that they had all the data, this report should have contained much more detail than it does," he pointed Air India Dreamliner had barely lifted off when it began losing power. The initial report suggested that once the engines stalled, an emergency Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed automatically to supply minimal hydraulic crew managed to relight both engines, but only one recovered. As the aircraft lost speed and altitude, it clipped trees near the airport boundary before crashing into a nearby hostel filled with students.- EndsMust Watch
