"Conclusive that accident happened because both engines lost power": Aviation expert Ehsan Khalid on AAIB preliminary report
Speaking to ANI, Khalid emphasised that any claims suggesting the pilots deliberately shut down the engines three seconds after takeoff are completely incorrect.
He explained that the switch in question is a physical one and cannot be activated accidentally, nor can it move due to any failure or malfunction.
'When it collided, the switch position was in the run position. The AAIB report to me is only conclusive in saying that the accident happened because both engines lost power. Any kind of suggestion that pilots killed the engines 3 seconds after takeoff is totally incorrect. It is not possible that the switches can move from one place to another on their own,' the aviation expert said.
'The AAIB preliminary report has clarified a few speculations, which are out the window now. There was no sabotage, there was no fuel contamination, there was no flap misconfiguration, there was no problem with the aircraft maintenance, the Aircraft was producing full power, it achieved the right speed, and it got airborne, and the first three seconds of its flight were absolutely normal,' Khalid added.
He noted that the physical switch cannot move inadvertently because of any failure or malfunction.
'Now this is conclusively proven by the AAIB report. In the timestamp of 0842, which is three seconds after takeoff, the AAIB report states that the power and the engine fuel switch move transitions from the run to cutoff within one second. That means within one second, this switch moved its position. There is no automatic movement of the switch. The switch is a physical switch and it cannot move inadvertently or because of any failure or because of any malfunction,' he added.
He stated that the conversation between the two pilots of Air India Flight 171, which crashed in Ahemadabad killing 260 people, including 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 people on the ground, mentioned in the reports revealed that both the pilots were aware that the aircraft Engine power had been lost, and the pilots also were aware that they did not do any action to cause this.
'What is conclusive is that at that particular instance, the aircraft stopped producing power. It was producing 100 per cent power or thrust, and thereafter it started to reduce power, at which the AAIB says the pilot asked the other pilot, Why did you cut off the switch? Pilot said, I didn't do it. That means pilots were aware that the aircraft Engine power had been lost, and pilots also were aware that they did not do any action to cause this. From thereafter, for the next 10 to 14 seconds, the engines were not producing power and the aircraft eventually lost lift and speed and then it continued to descend,' he further added.
India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released the preliminary report into the tragic crash of Air India flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 aircraft, which crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on June 12.
The report outlines a harrowing sequence of events that unfolded within 90 seconds of takeoff, as both engines of the aircraft shut down unexpectedly during the initial climb, leading to a catastrophic loss of thrust and rapid descent.
Flight AI171 was a scheduled service from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, carrying 230 passengers and crew. The crash represents one of the deadliest aviation accidents in India in recent history.
Flight data recovered from the aircraft's Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) revealed that the fuel cutoff switches for both engines were inadvertently moved from RUN to CUTOFF, one after the other within a 1-second interval, at an altitude just moments after liftoff. One pilot was heard asking the other, 'Why did you cut off?' to which the response was, 'I did not.'
This uncommanded shutdown triggered the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), and the aircraft began losing altitude almost immediately, unable to sustain powered flight.
According to the AAIB, the pilots re-engaged the fuel switches in an attempt to relight both engines. Engine 1 showed signs of recovering thrust, but Engine 2 failed to stabilise. The aircraft, which had briefly reached a speed of 180 knots, was already descending and failed to regain altitude. The final distress call -- a 'MAYDAY' -- was transmitted at 08:09 UTC, just seconds before the aircraft crashed into residential buildings outside the airport perimeter. (ANI)
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: Pilots question preliminary probe report's intent, cite ambiguities
Air India plane crash (Picture credit: AP) MUMBAI: What do pilots have to say about the AAIB report? Capt Amit Singh, an air safety expert, commented: "At what stage did the engines actually stop producing thrust? The AI-171 Preliminary Report says: 'After 08:08:42 UTC when Fuel Control Switches were moved to CUT OFF. But in a later paragraph, the report stated the RAT (ram air turbine) was already deployed immediately after take-off. A simple report consisting of the collated data to date would have served the purpose of a preliminary report. This report has raised questions and suspicion about the intent and motive." Capt Sam Thomas, president of the Airline Pilots' Association of India (APAI), said: "The conversation between the pilots enquiring who cut off the fuel control switch is alarming. Another crucial issue is, why did the emergency locator transmitter not work after the accident? It should emit signals if the force of impact is between 3.2 to 3.5 G; the impact of the accident would have been exponentially higher. The AAIB report carries no official signature or attribution, investigations continue to be shrouded in secrecy, undermining credibility, and public trust. Thirdly, qualified, experienced personnel - especially line pilots - are still not being included in the investigation team. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo ALPA-I renews its request to be included, at the very least as observers, in the investigation process to ensure transparency and accountability. A July 10 report in the "Wall Street Journal" references inadvertent movement of the fuel control switches, ALPA questions how such sensitive investigative details were leaked to international media." Capt Mohan Ranganthan, a former Boeing 737 commander and instructor, claimed: "The pilot cut off the fuel knowingly. The left engine failed several seconds after the right engine, indicating that the fuel control switches were cut off one after the other. The AAIB report has a lot of ambiguity." A senior Boeing commander, requesting anonymity, said: "The argument that since Boeing has not issued an advisory, it indicates the pilot moved the fuel to the cut-off position is flawed. Lack of advisory does not confirm system safety. Several aircraft design flaws were acknowledged only after multiple incidents, history has shown. We know how pilots were the first to be blamed after the Lion Air crash involving the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2018. "
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Pilot error? Don't jump to conclusions, there are other questions: Experts on Ahmedabad plane crash
THE PRELIMINARY report of the ongoing investigation into the June 12 crash of Air India flight AI 171 is far more detailed than what industry veterans and experts expected, and gives an indication of the direction the probe may be headed in. The 15-page report from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), an office attached to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, has zeroed in on the most probable primary cause of the accident— the engines being starved of fuel with the transitioning of the fuel control switches from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' position within a second of each other moments after lift-off. From the cockpit voice recorder data, the report notes that one of the pilots asked the other why he cut off the fuel, to which the other pilot responded saying he did not. While some interpret these findings as hinting at human error, aviation industry veterans said it is too premature to arrive at any conclusion based on just the preliminary report. The report, they said, does answer some key questions, but also raises many that only a meticulous investigation would be able to clear up. Union Civil Aviation Minister K Ram Mohan Naidu warned against jumping to conclusions and Minister of State for Civil Aviation Murlidhar Mohol said commenting or drawing any conclusion on the basis of the preliminary report wouldn't be appropriate. 'The initial finding that the fuel control switches went to cut-off mode is truly shocking. They (investigators) now have the most probable cause, and now they must investigate to figure out how it happened and why it happened. These are the key questions that must be answered in the final investigation report. The real investigation has actually started now,' a former air accident investigator told The Indian Express. An aircraft is an extremely sophisticated and complex machine, and detailed and painstaking investigations are required to ascertain the exact cause or combination of causes. The odds that an aviation accident has a single trigger are rare; there could be many, or one leading to another. The AAIB is expected to release the final probe report within a year of the crash, as per international guidelines. To be sure, the report just says the engine fuel control switches that allow and cut fuel flow to the plane's engines transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF. It does not state these were moved by either of the pilots to the CUTOFF mode. The report does mention one pilot asking the other why he cut-off fuel supply, with the other responding he didn't. Experts say accidental movement of the switches is not quite possible. The spring-loaded switches have brackets on either side to protect them and there is a stop lock mechanism that requires the pilots to lift the switch up before moving it between either of its two positions—RUN and CUTOFF. 'No sane pilot would move the switches during the flight and that too at such low altitude, unless there was a dual engine failure to be dealt with. And even that would be in coordination, not a unilateral move. Moving them by accident is also not really a possibility, as they have to be pulled up to disengage the lock and then moved mechanically to one or the other mode,' said a senior airline pilot with years of experience on the Boeing 787 aircraft. Experts believe only the full audio and transcript of the cockpit voice recorder would be able to give more information on the pilots' discussions and actions in the cockpit in the minutes leading up to the tragedy. Meanwhile, a pilot association has raised concerns on the direction the AI 171 crash investigation appears to be taking. 'The tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias toward pilot error. ALPA-I categorically reject this presumption and insist on a fair, fact-based inquiry,' Sam Thomas, president of the Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA-I) said in a statement. The pilots' body has reiterated its request to be included 'at the very least, as observers' in the air crash investigation. 'Apart from looking into the action of pilots, the investigators should look if the fuel switch cut-off could be due to any other electrical or system-related issues. Could it be an electrical or software malfunction that signalled to the aircraft system that the switches were in cut-off mode, even if they had not been actually moved?' a senior airline pilot asked, considering the Boeing 787 is a modern electrically heavy aircraft. Another airline pilot said it was theoretically possible to have such a scenario without the physical movement of the switches. Further analysis of the aircraft's black boxes should be able to establish whether the switches were indeed moved mechanically, or whether the cut-off was due to some other issue. The pilots and the former aircraft accident investigator concurred that during the critical take-off phase of the flight, pilots had no business in keeping their hands anywhere close to the fuel control switches, as per established standard operating procedures. This is to prevent accidental or inadvertent toggling of any critical switch. The fact that the preliminary report has not issued any recommendation to the operators of the Boeing 787 aircraft and the GE GEnx-1B engines suggests that the investigators, at least for the time being, do not have sufficient reason to believe that an electrical or system malfunction could have led to the fuel control switches 'transitioning' to CUTOFF. Experts also pointed out that these switches are manual and not motorised, and cannot be physically moved by electrical signals or the plane's avionics. Notably, the report also makes mention of the 2018 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) issued by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regarding the 'potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature'. Air India, however, did not carry out the inspection as the SAIB was merely advisory and not mandatory. Moreover, the cockpit's throttle control module—which houses the fuel control switches among others—was replaced in 2019 and 2023, but the reason for replacement was not linked to the fuel control switches. The initial report said that no defect pertaining to the fuel control switches on the aircraft was reported since 2023. Nevertheless, could the disengagement of the switch lock, component fatigue, or a mechanical failure move the switches? Experts said this is unlikely. The possibility of even one disengaged switch being flicked by accident was highly unlikely, they said, pointing out the report's findings that both switches appeared to have changed positions. Sukalp Sharma is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express and writes on a host of subjects and sectors, notably energy and aviation. He has over 13 years of experience in journalism with a body of work spanning areas like politics, development, equity markets, corporates, trade, and economic policy. He considers himself an above-average photographer, which goes well with his love for travel. ... Read More
NDTV
5 hours ago
- NDTV
Should Changing Switches Have Been A Must? On Air India Crash, Expert Says...
An advisory had been issued by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) in 2018 about fuel cutoff switches moving without any force after they get worn out and, in hindsight, it would have been better if changing them had been made mandatory, a former director general of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has said. Speaking to NDTV on Saturday, Group Captain Aurobindo Handa (retired), former director general of the AAIB, also said that he was with the Air Force where no chances are taken on ejection seats and engines and, going by that, "a better application of mind" should have taken place. In its preliminary investigation report on the Air India Dreamliner crash in Ahmedabad, the AAIB noted that both engines of the plane had shut down mid-air within seconds of take-off and both fuel cutoff switches moved from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' position within a second of each other. This meant no fuel was reaching the engines, causing the plane to lose thrust. The report said that, in the cockpit voice recording, one pilot can be heard asking, "Why did you cut off?" and the other replies, "I did not". Group Captain Handa - who handled at least 100 such investigations, including the August 2020 crash of an Air India Express flight from Dubai to Kozhikode- said it is "extremely difficult" for both fuel cutoff switches to move together and then pointed to the 2018 advisory. "Way back in December 2018, there was an advisory issued by Boeing through the FAA that these gated switches get worn out over a period of time and they can move without any force. They had suggested that they should be checked and, in case they are worn out, they should be changed. But they recommended an on-condition change. On-condition means that if you see a worn-out valve, change it," he pointed out. "But what now, in hindsight, all of us are thinking is that it would have been better had they made it a mandatory change at that point in time... at the same time, there is a saying everyone is wise in hindsight. But, being from the Air Force, let me tell you one thing very clearly: On ejection seats and on engines, we do not take a chance. So, going by that, since this pertained to engine controls and flame-out in air, I think better application of mind should have taken place," the former AAIB chief said. He continued, "When this advisory was issued in the form of a bulletin, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation should have called the senior pilots operating the variants of Boeing and should have told them 'This bulletin has come, please apply your mind and tell us what we should do. So, automatically, there would have been a better collaborative decision... we would have arrived at a better decision." Transparency Group Captain Handa praised India's leadership, in civil aviation and otherwise, for coming out with the preliminary investigation report, saying it was important given how many lives were lost in the crash and because it will give grieving relatives some sense of what happened. The Air India Dreamliner 787-8 - operating as AI flight 171 to London, had crashed into a medical college's hostel in Ahmedabad on June 12, just 32 seconds after taking off. One passenger had miraculously survived, but all the other 241 people on board and at least 20 on the ground were killed. On whether the crash raises concerns about the accountability of the manufacturer, operator or regulatory bodies, the former AAIB chief said it is hard to say at this point because the investigation is only in its initial stages. "We should wait for at least four, five months because it is a long-drawn process... The evidence is comparatively low in this crash," he sai, urging everyone to refrain from speculation.
