Air India says no issues in fuel control switches in Boeing fleet
The announcement followed a preliminary investigation into last month's Air India plane crash that the switches shifted and flipped within seconds, starving both engines of fuel.
Air India operates a fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners for long-distance operations, while subsidiary and low-cost unit Air India Express operates the Boeing 737 jets for short-haul flights.
The airline inspected its entire fleet of both types of aircraft. "In the inspections, no issues were found with the said locking mechanism," the airline's statement said.
The investigation by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau into the London-bound plane that crashed in the northwestern city of Ahmedabad on June 12, killing 260 people, is centred around the fuel control switches on the Boeing 787 jetliner. One person survived the crash.
ADVERTISEMENT
Last week, India's aviation regulator ordered all airlines operating several Boeing models to examine fuel control switches and submit their findings to the regulator by July 21.
A member of the National Disaster Response Force is seen at Thursday's Air India plane crash site in Ahmedabad, India. (Source: Associated Press)
Air India has 33 Dreamliners in its fleet, and Air India Express operates 75 Boeing 737 jets.
In the past few weeks, the airline has faced disruptions in services amid heightened scrutiny and additional safety inspections, leading to flight delays, cancellations and growing passenger anxiety.
On Monday, an Air India Airbus 320 flight veered off the runway as it landed during heavy rainfall at Mumbai International Airport, partially damaging the underside of one of the plane's engines and leading to a temporary runway closure.
The flight had flown from Kochi in the southern state of Kerala. The airline said in a statement that all passengers and crew members disembarked safely and the aircraft was grounded for checks.
In another incident, an Air India flight from Hong Kong had a fire in its auxiliary power unit yesterday while passengers were exiting the aircraft after it landed in New Delhi.
ADVERTISEMENT
'The auxiliary power unit was automatically shut down as per system design. There was some damage to the aircraft, however, passengers and crew members disembarked normally, and are safe,' the airline said. Its statement added the aircraft was grounded for investigation and the aviation safety regulator notified.
Onlookers watch wreckage from Thursday's Air India plane crash lying atop a building in Ahmedabad, India (Source: Associated Press)
Indian conglomerate Tata Sons took over Air India in 2022, returning the debt-saddled national carrier to private ownership after decades of government control.
The US$2.4 billion (NZ$4 billion) deal was seen as the government's effort to sell off a loss-making, state-run businesses. It also was in some ways a homecoming for Air India, which was launched by the Tata family in 1932.
Since the takeover, Air India has ordered hundreds of new planes worth more than US$70 billion (NZ$116.4 billion), redesigned its branding and livery and absorbed smaller airlines that Tata held stakes in. The company additionally has committed millions of dollars to digital overhauls of aircrafts and refurbishing interiors of more than five dozen legacy planes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Plane that crashed killing 181 could have kept flying
A Jeju Air plane that crashed in December during an emergency landing after a bird strike could have kept flying on the damaged engine that was still working after pilots shut down the other one, according to an update from South Korean investigators. The Boeing 737-800 instead belly-landed at Muan airport without its landing gear down, overshot the runway and erupted into a fireball after slamming into an embankment, killing all but two of the 181 people on board. Investigators have not yet produced a final report into the deadliest air disaster on South Korean soil, but information about the plane's two engines has begun to emerge. According to a July 19 update prepared by investigators and seen by Reuters but not publicly released following complaints from victims' family members, the left engine sustained less damage than the right following a bird strike, but the left engine was shut down 19 seconds after the bird strike. The right engine experienced a "surge" and emitted flames and black smoke, but investigators said it "was confirmed to be generating output sufficient for flight," in the five-page update, which included post-crash photos of both engines. No reason for the crew's actions was given and the probe is expected to last months as investigators reconstruct the plane's technical state and the picture understood by its pilots. Experts say most air accidents are caused by multiple factors and caution against putting too much weight on incomplete evidence. MORE QUESTIONS So far, public attention has focused on the possibility that the crew may have shut down the less-damaged engine, rekindling memories of a 1989 Boeing 737-400 crash in Kegworth, England, where pilots shut down a non-damaged engine by mistake. The disaster led to multiple changes in regulations including improvements in crew communication and emergency procedures. A source told Reuters on Monday that the South Korea-led probe had "clear evidence" that pilots had shut off the less-damaged left engine after the bird strike, citing the cockpit voice recorder, computer data and a switch found in the wreckage. But the latest update on the crash also raises the possibility that even the more heavily damaged engine that was still running could have kept the plane aloft for longer. It did not say what level of performance the operating engine still had, nor what extra options that might have given to the plane's emergency-focused crew before the jet doubled back and landed in the opposite direction of the runway from its initial plan with its landing gear up. Both engines contained bird strike damage and both experienced engine vibrations after the strike. The right engine showed significant internal damage, the Korean-language update from South Korea's Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) said, but it did not describe the damage found in the left engine. The update did not say how the left engine was operating nor the state of systems connected to either engine, said former U.S. National Transportation Safety Board investigator Greg Feith when shown the document translated by Reuters. It contains some new facts but omits far more, resulting in a "cryptic" document, he said. ARAIB, which plans to issue a final report next June, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Safety experts say it is common for early reports to contain sparse facts and limited analysis while investigations continue. A preliminary report released in January said feathers and blood stains from ducks were found in both engines. The engines - made by CFM International, jointly owned by GE and France's Safran - were examined in May and no defects or fault data were found beyond the bird and crash damage, the report said. Families of those who died in the disaster were briefed on the engine findings but asked investigators not to release the July 19 report, saying that it appeared to apportion blame to the pilots without exploring other factors. The report was withheld but Reuters and South Korean media obtained copies. Boeing and GE referred questions about the crash to ARAIB. Safran did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Jeju Air has previously said it is cooperating with ARAIB and is awaiting publication of the investigation. Under global aviation rules, civil air investigations aim to discover crash causes without assigning blame or liability. The Jeju Air pilots' union said ARAIB was "misleading the public" by suggesting there was no problem with the left engine given that bird remains were found in both. A source who attended the briefing told Reuters that investigators told family members the left engine also experienced a disruptive "surge," citing black box data. The pilot union and representatives of bereaved families have asked that evidence be released to support any findings. Relatives say the investigation also needs to focus on the embankment containing navigation equipment, which safety experts have said likely contributed to the high death toll. Global aviation standards call for any navigation equipment in line with runways to be installed on structures that easily give way in case of impact with an aircraft. South Korea's transport ministry has identified seven domestic airports, including Muan, with structures made of concrete or steel, rather than materials that break apart on impact and has said it will improve them. Designs for the new structures are in progress, a ministry official told Reuters last week.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Southwest Airlines jet dives as a fighter jet crosses its path near Los Angeles
By Alexandra Skores and Aaron Cooper , CNN Southwest Airlines Boeing 737s are lined up at the terminal at San Diego International Airport in August 2024. Photo:via CNN Newsource Alarms sounded in the cockpit of a Southwest Airlines jet shortly after taking off from Hollywood Burbank airport near Los Angeles, prompting evasive manoeuvres, the airline said in a statement. Southwest Flight 1496, operating on a Boeing 737, took off just before noon local time on a short flight to Las Vegas. After less than six minutes in the air, a privately owned Hawker Hunter fighter jet, crossed less than two miles in front of it within a few hundred feet of its altitude, according to the flight tracking site Flightradar24. "There was a small initial drop that I thought was just like really bad turbulence," passenger Steve Ulasewicz told CNN. "And then after that, there was this long free fall." He describes being terrified, people screaming and pandemonium in the cabin. "I definitely thought that the plane was going down, that there was a mechanical issue with it," Ulasewicz said. Eventually the pilots got on the intercom and told the passengers they had to manoeuvre the plane to avoid the mid-air collision. "The crew of Southwest Flight 1496 responded to two onboard traffic alerts Friday afternoon... requiring them to climb and descend to comply with the alerts," said Lynn Lunsford, Southwest spokesman in a statement. "Southwest is engaged with the Federal Aviation Administration to further understand the circumstances." The fighter jet was flying from El Paso, Texas to Venture County Airport in Oxnard, California. The FAA is investigating. It's not clear if the aircraft were directed so close together or if one of them was in a location where they were not supposed to be. When the alarms sounded, the Southwest plane dropped about 475 feet and then went back up about 600 feet over the course of about a minute, according to Flightradar24. The fighter jet went up about 100 feet in just a few seconds. Two Southwest flight attendants are being treated for injuries, but no passengers were hurt, the airline said. The passenger jet did not declare an emergency and continued the 39-minute flight to Las Vegas, landing about nine minutes ahead of schedule. CNN has reached out to Hunter Aviation International, the registered owner of the fighter jet. Most commercial planes are equipped with a Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, often called TCAS, which can direct pilots to climb or descended to avoid getting too close to other planes. TCAS works independently of ground air traffic control, searching nearby airspace using radio frequencies from transponders in other aircraft. - CNN
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
A Theory of Conspiracies
Conspiracy theories are theories too, M Dentith tells Tom McKinlay, and we should judge them on their merits. Conspiracy was part of the landscape for M Dentith growing up. That was in Devonport, on Auckland's North Shore, where there's long been talk of secret tunnels associated with the old fortifications at Maungauika/North Head. There were a couple of leading theories. The first was that there were two old Boeing aircraft — brought to New Zealand early last century for a flying school — buried in the tunnels. The second was that the tunnels were sealed after ammunition was dumped there. The official position is there are no such secret tunnels. The first of the two theories seems unlikely to Dentith. Why would the government want to hide from the public the location of a couple of old planes? The second one seems more plausible, given Devonport has some pricey real estate. "Rich people do not want to know that the hillside that abuts their palatial mansion could explode if a tourist knocks on a rock in the wrong way," they say. Dentith is not recounting the stories because they have a strong opinion one way or the other but rather as a possible explanation for the direction their career has taken. Because Assoc Prof Dentith, these days of the International Center for Philosophy at Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai, is now one of the world's foremost philosphers of conspiracy theories, a researcher of rumours, fake news and secrecy. Among their publications is the 2014 book, The Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories — the first of its kind in its field. The professor is in Ōtepoti Dunedin as a visiting fellow of the University of Otago, where, among other things, they this week gave a lecture suggesting treating conspiracy theories as inherently mad, bad or dangerous would be a mistake. We need to approach conspiracy theories as we do all other theories, on their merits, they say. And in a world seemingly beset by conspiracy from all sides, it certainly seems as though we're called upon to consider more conspiracy theories, more of the time. Dentith confirms that, yes, interest in the field in which they've been quietly working away has experienced a significant uptick. "So, initially, everyone is asking, why are you doing a PhD in conspiracy theories? Nobody finds these particularly interesting," they recall. "And it really is only after I finished my PhD, in 2012, that the politics seems to change in a way that conspiracy theories start becoming, if not more popular, certainly they're being used by politicians more as a kind of rhetorical measure to tarnish their foes or to burnish their credentials." We're talking President Donald J. Trump, of course, and his advocacy of the "birther conspiracy", his talk of the deep state and his nods and winks to QAnon, but also the likes of those other heroes of the right, Hungary's PM Viktor Orban and the UK's Boris Johnson. "Donald Trump is one of the first political candidates in recent memory to really push conspiracy theories as being, 'you are being told lies by the establishment, believe me, instead'," the professor says. It's certainly not unprecedented. Dentith cites the "Red Scare" in 1950s America, driven by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Eventually, people push back against that sort of politics and it falls out of favour, they say — before it comes back around again. So these political elites — Donald, Viktor, Boris et al — start using terminology that used to be verboten but suddenly becomes part of the discourse once more. The receiving environment for conspiracy theories also changed as a result of Covid, Dentith says, which detonated an explosion of interest. All of that notwithstanding, according to US polling data, at least, there aren't any more conspiracy theories now than there were 20 or 30 years ago, the professor says. What may have changed is that with the rise of social media, we've become more aware that people believe conspiracy theories. "And I think because we're more aware than ever before that there are conspiracy theories being talked about, we then want to know, well, how do we respond to these conspiracy theories? And sometimes we want to know how to respond to them because we think, well, they're obviously false and why do some people believe them? And sometimes we want to know how to respond to them because we go, there might be something to this conspiracy theory. I mean, I'm sure you're aware at the moment in the United States, Donald Trump is accusing people who believe in the existence of an Epstein list as believing a vacuous and false conspiracy theory." But a lot of people are thinking, well, Jeffrey Epstein was indeed a convicted sex offender and facing sex trafficking charges when he died in a jail cell, and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of child sex trafficking — and yet no-one else has been arrested, none of the customers of the sex trafficking. "And so it seems reasonable to go, well, maybe there is a list. I mean, it may not be a literal black book that Jeffrey Epstein kept in his pocket, but presumably the FBI have a list of people they think were the clients of Jeffrey Epstein ... What should I believe about this?" Well, working out what to believe is where the philosopher can help. Dentith is an epistemologist, so their interest is in the study of knowledge. "So, how do we justify our beliefs? How can we work out whether our beliefs are true or at least plausible given the available evidence we have? And so I belong to a group of philosophers who say, look, when you encounter a conspiracy theory, don't assume it's necessarily false. The better question to ask is, is there evidence for this particular conspiratorial claim?" Sometimes, and perhaps even most of the time, conspiracy theories will turn out to be false. But most theories turn out to be false. Science is littered with failed theories, they say. Only a subset of theories ever survive. "But sometimes when people put forward a conspiracy theory, there is something to it. Like when people accuse the governments of the UK and the US of fabricating evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And so the question then becomes, well, how do we work out whether a conspiracy theory is something we ought to believe." Dentith offers a toolbox of three factors. The first of which is to consider how conspiratorial is the country you're living in? Relatively open societies are less likely to accommodate successful conspiracies. If they do happen, it is only rarely and they're often quickly exposed. On the other hand, some societies are very closed and may also be corrupt. "So, I lived in Romania for two years doing post-docs in Bucharest, and Romania is by its own admission a moderately corrupt, moderately politically bad environment. It has a government that lies to its people more often than people like. "And so Romanians entertain conspiracies because conspiracies happen in their political system quite a bit." This is what's called a prior probability calculation — how conspired is the society you're living in? If it's highly conspired, a conspiracy theory may well be true. The next question is "what does the evidence say?". Because regardless of how conspired or un-conspired your society is, you still have to consider the particular claim. "I think about when Nicky Hager released the book, Dirty Politics, and John Key at a press conference said, 'we can't believe anything Nicky Hager says. He's just a conspiracy theorist.' And God bless the journalists who were present there, saying, well, yeah, Nicky Hager is a conspiracy theorist, but what does the evidence say in this particular situation, Prime Minister? Because there was evidence that, if not John Key, John Key's office was feeding information to people like Cameron Slater." So that's what we call a posterior probability, Dentith explains, an evaluation of the available evidence at a particular time. Finally, it pays to think about the alternative explanations for any given conspiracy theory — there may well be a more prosaic explanation for it all. "How likely is this hypothesis versus another? "So you consider all those probabilities, and then from that you can go, well, maybe I should believe the conspiracy theory or maybe there's some evidence here, but there's another explanation which is better, which is non-conspiratorial." So far, so good. But either confirming or debunking the conspiracy isn't necessarily the end of the matter, as conspiracies come shipped with a cost, as in the example of Romania — they chip away at public trust. Globally, there is the example of fossil fuel interests' very successful attempts to undermine action on climate change. As work such as Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway's book Merchants of Doubt has shown, many of those involved in the denial industry had previously argued against tobacco control, disputing the harm cigarettes cause. They were serial conspiracists for hire. Alexios Stamatiadis-Brehier, an Athenian philosopher of conspiracy theory has pointed out that once you are aware of such examples, they call into question establishment views, because you see how lobbyists are influencing policy in particular ways. It leads to that loss of trust in authority. "People talk about this thing called post-truth, that nobody really believes anything any more," Dentith notes, with a caveat that it might be overstated. Whatever the case, they point out that we're better to know of authority's failings. Take the "unfortunate experiment" at National Women's Hospital here in Aotearoa, they say, that had disastrous consequences for some of the women involved. "It turned out that we may have actually been almost too trusting of authority in the beginning of the 20th century. And the question now is, have we gone too far? Or are we at the kind of natural level that we're meant to be when it comes to trusting people we have no direct influence over but have sway in our lives?" It is just as well to be aware that the people in charge aren't necessarily as interested in our well-being as we might once have thought. We're making progress, then, across the shifting contemporary currents of truth and conspiracy. But it's not smooth sailing yet. The information ocean on which we float affords unequal access to the facts, and the winds might be blowing in a particular direction for a reason. Back in Trump's America the media landscape is increasingly dominated by billionaire oligarchs pursuing their own self-serving ends, where the algorithms promoting particular views are closely guarded secrets and order the news feed according to others' agendas. "If you're enmeshed in a media landscape which is giving you slightly inaccurate or highly inaccurate information, it makes it very difficult for you to be able to assess the plausibility of a claim," Dentith says. "And it also makes it difficult for you to find out about alternative hypotheses you might also consider as well. "If your media landscape means you aren't even finding out about the things you should normally find out about, then that's going to drive your beliefs down into pseudo-scientific beliefs, radically polarised extremist political beliefs, and some of those are going to end up being unwarranted or suspicious conspiracy theory beliefs as well." It's a bit of a depressing situation, Dentith concedes, because we don't yet know how to dismantle the media echo-chambers where conspiracy festers. There's some comfort to be taken from those US polls showing conspiracy theories are no more prevalent than they ever were, they say. But, on the other hand, the percentages involved are somewhat irrelevant when the most powerful nation on earth is currently run by a conspiracy commander in chief. "Maybe not that many people believe in a deep state conspiracy theory. Donald Trump does. Donald Trump is currently President of the United States of America. "And those conspiracy theories are affecting everything from immigration to economics to whether or not particular land masses should belong to the US or not. So in the end, it doesn't really matter how many people believe these theories." Closer to home, Dentith says, we have a Deputy Prime Minister who seems to believe that any criticism of his policies, certainly in the case of the Regulatory Standards Bill, is due to a conspiracy by academics — some of whom he has diagnosed as being affected by a "derangement syndrome". In that case, the counter-conspiracy is that David Seymour, who has had links to the international libertarian organisation the Atlas Network, is a shill working to introduce its radical more-market economic policies here. It could be part of an international Atlas conspiracy, Dentith says. Or, it could simply be that Seymour's personal politics are aligned with the network. "Maybe it's not a conspiracy, maybe they just share common cause." Again, whatever the case, we need to step back and look at the facts. Dentith has a definition of a conspiracy theory that they think helps: A conspiracy theory is just any explanation of an event that cites a conspiracy as a cause of that event, they say. It's a pretty neutral sort of definition, relatively free of pejorative, leaving us with the theory itself to examine and interrogate. "Yeah, the way you work out whether a conspiracy theory is a good theory or a bad theory is also in part how you work out whether a psychological theory is a good theory or a bad theory, a political theory is a good theory or a bad theory, a scientific theory is a good theory or a bad theory," they say. "We should treat conspiracy theories in the way that we treat any kind of theory about the world — by going, look, I don't know whether it's true or false on the face of it, some investigation has to be made. "And that doesn't mean I'm advocating that every single person, when they get up and they have their coffee and their breakfast and they open their newspaper, has to go, all right, I have to work out whether these theories are true or false. But there need to be people out there whose job it is to investigate these things, whether they be investigative journalists, whether they be historians, whether they be political analysts, there need to be people out there who are open-minded enough to go, well look, it looks like an implausible claim, but some implausible claims turn out to be true, so I'm going to go off and investigate it and then tell people what I've found."
