Latest news with #aviationregulator
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Air India says flight's power generator catches fire at Delhi airport, grounds for checks
(Reuters) -Air India said on Tuesday it has grounded a passenger jet for checks after a power generator caught fire shortly after landing at India's capital city, New Delhi. The aircraft's auxillary power unit (APU) caught fire when its passengers were getting off the aircraft, and was automatically shut down, a spokesperson for the airline said in a statement. APU is an electrical power generator typically located at the rear of an aircraft. Its primary function is to start the main engines and power essential onboard systems while the airplane is parked at the airport. Passengers "disembarked normally" and are safe but the aircraft, which was flying from Hong Kong, suffered some damage, the airline said. It did not elaborate on the damages caused to the plane. The impacted flight is an Airbus A321, data from flightradar24 showed. Air India said it has notified the regulator of the incident. India's aviation regulator was not immediately available for comment. Air India has come under heightened scrutiny in the aftermath of one of its planes crashing fatally in the western Ahmedabad city in June, which killed 260 people. An Air India jet veered off the runway as it landed during heavy rain in Mumbai on Monday, and suffered damages on the underside of one of its engines. (Reporting by Abhijith Ganaparavam in New Delhi, Hritam Mukherjee and Ananta Agarwal in Bengaluru; Editing by Maju Samuel)
UAE Moments
22-07-2025
- Business
- UAE Moments
Air India Finds No Faults in Boeing 787 and 737 Fuel Control Switches
Air India has confirmed that all fuel control switch locking mechanisms on its Boeing 787 and 737 aircraft are functioning properly, following a round of precautionary inspections sparked by safety concerns. The airline said the checks, which began voluntarily on July 12, revealed no faults or irregularities across its fleet. India's aviation regulator later directed all domestic airlines to follow suit, triggering similar inspections by international carriers and regulators. The inspections come as investigators continue to examine the deadly Air India crash that killed 241 of the 242 people onboard, along with 19 others on the ground. The focus of the probe has zeroed in on the fuel control switches of the Boeing 787 jetliner. These switches manage fuel flow to the engines and allow pilots to shut them off during ground operations or inflight emergencies. A preliminary report released earlier this month by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) noted the switches flipped from 'run' to 'cutoff' shortly after takeoff, leading to engine failure. The AAIB has stated, however, that it's too early to reach final conclusions. Citing past documentation, the report referenced a 2018 FAA advisory that urged operators of multiple Boeing aircraft, including the 787, to inspect fuel switch locking mechanisms to avoid accidental movements. Although Reuters reported that a cockpit recording suggested the captain may have cut fuel to the engines, the AAIB emphasized that the investigation is still ongoing and a final report is expected within a year. Despite the broader probe, Air India maintains that its aircraft are safe. The airline uses Boeing 787s for its long-haul international routes and 737s through its low-cost subsidiary, Air India Express. Meanwhile, both Boeing and the FAA have reassured operators that the fuel switch locks remain safe, according to internal communications cited by Reuters.
News.com.au
17-07-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
Air India probe of Boeing 787 fuel control switches finds no issues
Air India's inspection of the locking feature on the fuel control switches of its existing Boeing 787 aircraft found no issues, an internal communication circulated within the airline said. The switches have come under scrutiny following last month's crash of an Air India jet that killed 260 people after a preliminary probe by Indian investigators found that they had flipped from run position to cutoff shortly after takeoff. India's aviation regulator earlier this week ordered the country's airlines to investigate the locking feature on the switches of several Boeing models. The order came after Boeing notified operators that the fuel switch locks on its jets were safe. But it was in line with a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) issued by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2018, which recommended inspection of the locks to ensure they could not be moved accidentally. Air India's probe, however, found no problems with the locking mechanism. "Over the weekend, our Engineering team initiated precautionary inspections on the locking mechanism of Fuel Control Switch (FCS) on all our Boeing 787 aircraft," the airline's flight operations department said in a communication to its pilots. "The inspections have been completed and no issues were found," the communication said, noting that it had complied with the regulator's directives. It added that all of its Boeing 787-8 aircraft had also undergone "Throttle Control Module (TCM) replacement as per the Boeing maintenance schedule", adding that the FCS was part of this module. Other countries have also ordered their airlines to examine fuel switches on Boeing aircraft. Singapore found them all to be "functioning properly". "Our checks confirmed that all fuel switches on SIA (Singapore Airlines) and Scoot's Boeing 787 aircraft are functioning properly and comply with regulatory requirements," an SIA spokesperson told AFP earlier this week. The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that crashed last month was heading from Ahmedabad in western India to London, with the accident killing all but one of the 242 people on board as well as 19 people on the ground. In a letter to employees on Monday, Air India CEO Campbell Wilson said the investigation into the crash was ongoing and it would be unwise to jump to "premature conclusions".
ABC News
25-06-2025
- Business
- ABC News
How to find out if an airline is safe — and why there isn't more info available
The Air India crash earlier this month in Ahmedabad that killed all but one passenger was the worst aviation disaster in a decade. Less than a minute after take-off, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner bound for London plummeted into the dormitory of a medical college, resulting in the deaths of 270 people. A full investigation is still underway into the cause of the crash. But in the days afterwards, it was revealed India's civil aviation regulator had issued Air India with warnings that safety checks on some of its other aircraft were overdue. The warnings were in relation to three of Air India's Airbus planes found to have been operating despite mandatory inspections being overdue on the "critical emergency equipment" of escape slides. They were not related in any way to the Boeing aircraft that crashed. It left some asking how travellers are supposed to determine which airlines are safer than others. And why is some safety information about airlines not made public? an Australian company, calls itself "the world's only safety and product rating website". It gives airlines around the world a score out of seven stars for safety, based on several measures. For example, it explains: "Has the airline experienced a fatal crash in the last 10 years? Three stars are deleted from the rating if the airline has had any fatalities to passengers or crew in the prior 10 years." But, it says, "If deaths occurred through acts of terrorism, hijackings, OR pilot suicide, they have not been included. Nor if the death is not attributable to the airline (faulty manufactured part)." RMIT University's aviation lead, associate professor Chrystal Zhang, said resources like AirlineRatings could be useful. Dr Zhang said consumers could also search for media coverage or even look at an airline's annual reports to find out how old its aircraft were and get information on its corporate culture and safety records. But she said that ultimately, "from the public's perspective, it is very hard". AirlineRatings and resources like it are limited to publicly available information. In contrast to AirlineRatings, Skytrax — a UK-based consultancy that issues widely recognised quality ratings for airlines — does not publish a comparative rating of airline safety standards or records. "There is no single accurate, global reference of safety standards and/or safety incidents which provides information that can, in our opinion, be truly trusted by passengers, or which supplies total accuracy to customers in choosing an airline," it says. Aviation law specialist John Ribbands said some websites were based on customers' subjective experiences. Airline safety standards fall roughly into two tiers. These are international standards that member-states sign up to, and national laws developed by each country's aviation regulator, Dr Zhang explained. Most countries are members of the Chicago Convention, an agreement established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The convention sets out the core principles for international civil aviation and establishes the rules of airspace, aircraft registration, and safety. But Dr Zhang said how well those standards were implemented by ICAO signatories depended on individual countries' domestic civil aviation laws. In Australia, airlines are regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). CASA spokesperson Peter Gibson said airlines operating in Australia needed to continuously meet safety regulations and standards. Not every detail of an airline's maintenance could be made public, Mr Gibson said, "because it would just make the whole system unworkable". Mr Ribbands explained that Australian regulations required airlines to implement a system of maintenance whereby anything going wrong could be traced back to a single part of the plane. "It's so complex that when an engineer goes and puts a spanner on the aircraft, they've got a sign off on their name, the size of the spanner they used, the size, and part number of the bits and pieces that they put onto the aircraft," he said. Back in 2011, CASA took the unprecedented step of grounding all flights by Tiger Airways. The authority said at the time it did not have "confidence in the ability of Tiger to continue to manage the safety of their operations". Tiger later ceased Australian operations during the COVID pandemic. There are arguments both ways. Dr Zhang said individuals should have the right to the information they need to make informed decisions, but that certain details about safety and maintenance could be commercially sensitive. "Perhaps there could be more detailed [safety] information [in the annual reports] — it's a good debate and conversation that should be had," she added. While air safety records can indicate what happened previously, they cannot predict what happens next, and thus, Dr Zhang said that might not be enough to outweigh the disadvantages of making such records public. Even airlines that are 100 per cent airworthy with exemplary safety records and up-to-date maintenance can still crash due to mechanical failures and weather conditions. Mr Ribbands agreed that making such records publicly available might not be necessary. "It's in the best interest from a marketing and business perspective for the airlines to maintain a safe record," he said. "So, large airlines with large organisations become almost self-regulating." Consumers in Australia should be reassured that Australia's aviation regulators have a "tight system" when regulating Australia's airspace, Mr Ribbands said. "With CASA, it doesn't matter whether you're a small charter operator where you're flying, for example, from Melbourne to Flinders Island, or whether you're on Qantas flying to London, you're subject to the same requirements," he said. Australia is a member of the ICAO, which audits signatory nations regularly. "There's quite a few levels internationally making sure that the system hangs together and delivers the right outcomes," said Mr Gibson. "There's no, sort of, discount that the budget carriers get in terms of safety. "They still have to deliver the same safety performance, regardless of whether the price for the tickets is lower."
Skift
25-06-2025
- General
- Skift
Indian Aviation Regulator Audit Flags Safety Gaps Across Airlines and Airports
The DGCA hasn't tied these findings to the recent Air India crash, but the timing says a lot. As India's aviation sector grows fast, these lapses raise questions about who's keeping things in check, and whether current safeguards are enough. Skift's coverage of the Air India crash is offered free to all readers. India's aviation regulator the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on Tuesday released a set of findings from special audits conducted at major airports. DGCA found a number of safety lapses, many of which reflect recurring issues, prompting questions around the enforcement of basic standards in India's aviation ecosystem. DGCA launched the audits less than two weeks after the June 12 crash of an Air India Dreamliner departing Ahmedabad. The audits covered critical areas like aircraft maintenance, airport operations, air traffic services, and training simulators. While not naming specific airlines or airports, the findings released on Tuesday point to a broader failure to catch and fix known problems. What the Audits Found DGCA said its inspection teams visited major airports, including Delhi and Mumbai, and found repeated technical faults on aircraft that airlines had previously claimed to have already fixed. They noted 'multiple cases wherein the reported defects reappeared many times on the aircraft,' which suggested that airlines either didn't repair the issues properly or skipped them altogether. The inspection also led to the delay of a domestic flight as it had 'worn tyres.' The aviation regulator said the flight took off only after engineers fixed the issue. Even the flight simulators had problems. Inspectors found that one simulator didn't 'match with the aircraft configuration' and the software also hadn't been updated. Some of the audit findings were: Life vests weren't properly secured under the seats. Corrosion-resistant tape on the lower blade of the right winglet was damaged. Ground handling equipment like baggage trollies and lifts were 'found unserviceable.' Maintenance staff didn't follow proper procedures. In many cases, DGCA noted that 'safety precautions found not taken by AME (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer) as per AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual).' Some AMEs didn't fix reported snags and failed to log alerts from the aircraft systems. At one airport, the runway center line was faded, and officials hadn't updated 'obstruction limitation data' for three years. On the ramp, several vehicles didn't have speed limiters. Authorities pulled those vehicles out of service and suspended the drivers' airport passes. Why the DGCA Is Doing These Audits Now The June 12 crash triggered widespread concern. In response, DGCA deployed two teams led by joint director generals to inspect operations during night and early morning hours. The regulator has since rolled out a new Comprehensive Special Audit Framework. According to DGCA, this framework will move beyond the old, narrow approach where different departments inspected only their piece of the puzzle. Instead, it will 'generate a 360-degree evaluation of the aviation ecosystem,' including scheduled and charter airlines, training schools, airports, maintenance companies, and even ground handling staff. DGCA launched these audits after safety incidents or signs of poor compliance, but it also plans to carry out regular reviews. It gives entities 14 days' notice for routine audits, 3 days for follow-ups, or inspects them without warning when urgent safety concerns arise. What Happens Next The DGCA has asked all concerned entities to respond to the audit findings with a corrective action plan within seven days. Depending on how serious the violation is, companies could face anything from written warnings to suspension of licenses. The regulator has said it will monitor how these companies fix the problems through follow-up audits and ongoing review. It also said that any good practices that the authorities spot during the inspections will be shared across the industry to improve standards overall. On Saturday, DGCA also ordered Air India to remove three senior employees from crew scheduling duties, citing previous violations of pilot rest and licensing rules. The action, however, was not directly related to the June 12 crash, which brought additional scrutiny to Air India's operations. DGCA said there have been multiple violations after Air India switched its internal crew scheduling software last year. Post the crash, the aviation regulator also asked Air India to conduct a one-time inspection of these planes before any departure from India, including checks on the aircraft's engines, cabin air compressors, take-off parameters, and more.
