Air India plane crash: Expert reveals what went wrong moment before tragic accident, says, ‘wasn't a pilot error'
The crash involved a Boeing Dreamliner 787-8 and occurred in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, resulting in the deaths of 260 people, including 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 individuals on the ground.
Marco Chan, a senior lecturer at Buckinghamshire New University, noted that while the report did not entirely rule out human error by the pilots, the likelihood of them unintentionally activating the fuel cut-off switch was 'almost zero.'
The preliminary report, released on July 12, depicted confusion in the cockpit shortly before the jetliner crashed and killed 260 people last month, after the plane's engine fuel cutoff switches flipped almost simultaneously and starved the engines of fuel.
'If you will to exonerate the pilots from Pilot Error. This is what the reports were stating. Now they didn't say that explicitly, but from reading the findings, it tells me that it wasn't a Pilot error. What the report seems to be suggesting is the error with the chip,' the former pilot told Reuters in an interview, as reported by ANI.
'What the report seems to be suggesting is the error with the chip. It's as simple as one chip not working properly, losing contact,' he added.
A former pilot has shed light on the possible cause of the AI171 crash, stating that a technical issue may have been responsible for the incident. According to the former pilot, once contact is lost, the system can fail, much like a laptop experiencing a blue screen of death.
He explained that the thermal cycle being in a warm condition could have caused the signal to not be contacted properly. 'Once you lose contact, it's kind of like how electricity works; the signal is not contacted properly. It's because the thermal cycle is in a warm condition,' Chan said.
Also Read: Vishwas-kumar-ramesh-sole-survivor-of-air-india-plane-crash-seeks-psychiatric-help-11752339746905.html" data-vars-page-type="story" data-vars-link-type="Manual">'Not talking to anyone': Vishwas Kumar Ramesh, sole survivor of Air India plane crash, seeks psychiatric help
The former pilot further elaborated that the system may have stopped functioning due to excessive workload, similar to a laptop shutting down. 'It's been working very hard, like your laptop stops working, basically giving you the blue screen of death and Windows,' the former pilot added, as reported by Reuters.
During the interview with Reuters, the former pilot pointed out that the fuel control unit (FU) failed to receive a command to stay in a run position, resulting in a brief interruption in fuel supply.
'It doesn't command the FU to be in a run position even for a split second. The fuel stopped for a couple of seconds, and the engine will start decelerating,' the former pilot explained.
Raising key questions about the Air India AI171 crash, highlighting two main areas of investigation. Chan said the investigation should focus on whether Air India carried out necessary maintenance and replacement of certain chips in accordance with the Service Bulletin.
What the report seems to be suggesting is the error with the chip.
"I would say now this spotlight would be on, first of all, whether Air India has carried out the necessary maintenance and replacement of those chips according to the Service Bulletin," Marco Chan added.
The former pilot further emphasised the need to investigate the nature of the bulletin issued by GE Aviation (previously known as General Electric) and its partner, Bowen.
If you will to exonerate the pilots from Pilot Error. This is what the reports were stating.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Air India plane crash: Misinformation takes off amid fog over accident
Hours after the preliminary findings into the June 12 Air India crash were released on Saturday, selective excerpts began circulating on social media — particularly the cockpit exchange — interpreting them as an apparent signifier of pilot error. Aviation safety experts said the report's sparse narrative, lack of timeline, and absence of human factors data have allowed speculation to overwhelm facts. The report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), tasked with inquiring into the crash, said analysis of the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder showed both fuel control switches had been transitioned from run to cut-off position seconds after lift-off. Between 10-14 seconds later, both switches were turned on again, but the plane failed to regain power fast enough to prevent the crash. The report offers no explanation for this. Experts said the absence of technical context, behavioural analysis, or a clear sequence of events has left room for unverified theories and AI-generated content to spread unchecked. ET Bureau Social Media Conjecture As the report circulated, social media timelines were flooded with so-called explainers and crash reconstructions—many of them drawing conclusions or implying fault despite no cause being mentioned in the report. 'It says that the fuel switches moved. It doesn't say the pilots moved the fuel switches. So it's carefully worded,' said Captain John Cox, veteran pilot and safety analyst. The lack of clarity, he warned, has helped misinformation thrive. In light of this, the government has cautioned people not to jump to conclusions until the final report is out. 'This has been what I would call a low point in aviation history because of the actions of people speculating and using the internet, as well as AI, to present things that they say as fact, when in fact, they're not,' said Cox, adding that it was 'cruel to the families' and 'counterproductive.' The misinformation does nothing, he said, 'except provide clickbait for someone who thinks they're an expert when in fact they are not.' 'It (the report) does, however, debunk several speculative theories which were in circulation, not least on social media,' said aviation consultant John Strickland. Without clearer framing, facts become fodder for fiction, experts theories have been doing the rounds. Apart from those cited earlier, these include deliberate action, a software or electrical malfunction simulating the activation or that the crew tried to restart engines by toggling cut-offs. Some cited a 2018 FAA bulletin warning of a switch design flaw, reviving concerns about mechanical failure. Patrik Frykberg, an ICAO-certified investigator and former director of Peru's accident investigation board, said the report's structure did little to aid public or policy understanding. ICAO is the International Civil Aviation Organization. 'While the report meets Annex 13 requirements, there are areas where the presentation could be strengthened,' he said. 'A brief executive summary or synthesis of the main findings known so far would aid accessibility for non-technical audiences or high-level stakeholders. The report could have benefitted from a clearer timeline graphic, summarising key actions, from liftoff to impact.' ICAO's Annex 13 is the framework for investigating incidents involving planes. Although the report notes that no immediate safety recommendations have been issued, a short section summarising potential human factors under investigation could offer value without prejudging conclusions, Frykberg said. Strickland, who has over four decades in the industry, said, 'The report is brief. It states facts and figures, but it does not draw conclusions. It is a preliminary report, and only the final report will provide full causal analysis and any mandated actions.' UK safety expert David Learmount said pilots can make mistakes under pressure. 'It's unlikely, but possible,' he said. 'Just after takeoff, both are focused on performance and flight path. Their only task at that point is to raise the landing gear, which isn't near the fuel switches. Yet, they didn't raise the gear, and there was no reason to touch the switches. It's hard to believe trained pilots could make such an error—but maybe. We don't know, and we may never know.' So far there's no evidence of intent—only that the switches were moved, he said. Until the final report emerges, experts said, the bigger concern is not just what happened on the flight deck, but how an inconclusive report, according to experts, has unleashed a flood of misinformation.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Air India Crash Points to Cockpit Confusion as Fuel Flow Cut Out
(Bloomberg) -- The Air India jetliner that crashed on June 12 was doomed almost immediately upon taking off, after both engines lost fuel supply and the pilots ran out of time to regain control and avert catastrophe. A preliminary 15-page report filed on July 11 provided the first detailed account of the fateful 32 seconds between takeoff in Ahmedabad and the descent into an urban district just beyond the airport perimeter, where the Boeing Co. 787 exploded, killing all but one of the 242 people on board. Investigators laid out the sequence of events with exact timestamps, providing a harrowing picture of the plane's final moments. But the findings leave unanswered one central question: Why and by whom were two fuel switches in the cockpit moved to a cut-off position as the jet nosed into the air, starving the two powerful engines of thrust just as the plane required the most lift. At the controls for the aircraft's final journey was First Officer Clive Kunder, a pilot with roughly 1,100 flight hours on Boeing's most advanced jet. The report identified him as pilot flying, while Sumeet Sabharwal, the more experienced and senior cockpit occupant in command, was pilot monitoring for the flight. It's common for a captain and co-pilot to switch flying duties, particularly on longer journeys. Under typical pilot protocol, Kunder would have had one hand on the yoke commanding the widebody into the skies, and another on the throttle controlling the plane's speed. The crew captain would have handled air traffic communications and responded to Kunder's instructions. All seemed normal as the Boeing 787 lifted off into a clear sky in the western Indian city en route to London's Gatwick airport. There was no significant bird activity in the flight path, all but ruling out a collision that could have damaged the engines. Then, according to a chronology laid out by Indian authorities, the two fuel switches in the plane's center console were flipped, about one second apart. It's unclear what prompted the maneuver, but it crippled the plane during a critical phase of flight. A fan, known as the ram air turbine, dropped below the plane's belly to provide emergency power, all while the 787 was still within view of airport cameras. On board, the pilots had a brief exchange — the only cockpit conversation mentioned in the report aside from a final 'mayday' call just seconds before impact. 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff,' the investigators wrote. 'The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' The report didn't identify which of the two men asked the other about the move. It would take about 10 seconds for the first switch to return to its run position, restoring the flow of fuel to the engine, and 14 seconds for the second to be turned back on. Given the aircraft had barely lifted off and was at a critical phase of its flight, that's an eternity for pilots only a few hundred feet above ground and facing a life-threatening emergency. 'It's just strange,' said Bjorn Fehrm, an aerospace engineer and former fighter pilot who is a technical analyst with Leeham News. 'I would never, ever wait 10 seconds to put them on again. I would put them on in a jiffy.' While both engines were relit, only the first one started to regain power before the 787 plunged to the ground. The sequence of events was gleaned from different data points, including the cockpit voice and flight-data recorders that were recovered from the wreckage. There's no mention in the report of any additional exchanges in the cockpit or of any noises on the flight deck that the sensitive microphones would have picked up. 'The most important information is the voice dialog between the pilots, and we only get one line, which is totally inadequate,' said Fehrm. That leaves other key questions unanswered, including how the two pilots interacted as the aircraft sagged back to the ground, and who was ultimately in control in those frantic final seconds. Why one of the men would have conducted the unusual and highly risky maneuver of manipulating both fuel toggles also remains unknown. The switches are secured with a mechanism that requires a specific movement to shift them between on and off mode. And they are idled only when the plane is on the ground, or in an extreme emergency during flight, such as an engine fire. Given the trajectory of flight, starving the aircraft of fuel seconds after takeoff made it almost impossible to save the plane because the jet had just left the ground, providing very little recovery room. The Boeing 787 crashed just outside the airport boundary, having grazed some trees before plunging into a hostel packed with students. Some 19 people died on the ground, the report found. The preliminary version hinted at another matter to be explored by investigators, without elaborating. It flagged an airworthiness bulletin by the Federal Aviation Administration from 2018 that said that some fuel control switches on Boeing planes including the smaller 737 and the 787 were installed without their locking mechanism engaged. The Air India jet was not inspected for that mechanism fault as the matter was not mandatory. No defect relating to the switches had been reported since the throttle control module was replaced in 2023, the report said. Investigators said that they found no evidence so far that would require them to take actions over the Boeing aircraft or the GE Aerospace engines powering it. 'At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers,' according to the report from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau. The National Transportation Safety Board referred any questions to Indian authorities. Air India said it's unable to comment on specific details of the investigation and it was cooperating with officials. Boeing said it continues to support the investigation and Air India and referred questions to the AAIB. The people conducting the probe are also looking at the backgrounds and experience of the pilots — a normal step for this kind of investigation. Sabharwal had about 8,500 flight hours, according to the report. Both pilots were based at Mumbai and had arrived in Ahmedabad the previous day with 'adequate rest period' prior to the flight, the report said. 'We now know — with some degree of confidence — that both engines rolled back because these fuel switches were activated,' said Jeff Guzzetti, a former accident investigation chief for the US Federal Aviation Administration. 'We just don't know why or how these switches were activated and that's going to be a big part of this investigation.' A final report that seeks to determine the cause of the incident will take months to compile. --With assistance from Anthony Palazzo and Mary Schlangenstein. More stories like this are available on
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Not fair, not clear: What's wrong with the AI 171 crash report
When a big plane crashes, the most important thing is to find out why – so it doesn't happen again. Sadly, when Air India flight AI 171 crashed on June 12 and all 270 people on board died, the first report that came out didn't give any real answers. The group responsible for this is called the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). They had 30 days to share a first report, and they did – but it's more confusing than helpful. Here's what we know: Just three seconds after takeoff, both engines stopped working. That's shocking. There are only two things that could've caused it: The pilots switched off the fuel supply – which would be an unthinkable, deadly mistake. The switches themselves were faulty – which could mean a design or safety failure in the plane. But the report doesn't clearly say what happened. Instead, it hints that maybe the pilots messed up. It mentions a short conversation between the two – one supposedly asked why the engines were shut off, and the other said, 'I didn't do it.' We don't even know their actual words or who said what. The report doesn't explain what happened before or after, either. So why share this tiny piece of the story in a way that makes the pilots look bad? They're not here to explain their side, and that's unfair. Also, years ago, the US found a problem with fuel switches on some Boeing planes – the kind used on this flight. Those switches sometimes didn't lock properly. That could be a big clue. The report does mention this, but not very seriously. Even worse, the report wasn't signed by anyone, no experienced pilots helped with the investigation, and journalists in other countries saw it before it was shared in India. So yes, AAIB met its deadline. But the report didn't help grieving families or make flying safer. It just raised more questions – and that's not how something this serious should be handled. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
