Air India black box recovered after crash that killed 241 onboard and several others on the ground
The London-bound Boeing 787 struck a medical college hostel when the plane came down shortly after takeoff on Thursday in a residential area of the northwestern city of Ahmedabad.
The plane's digital flight data recorder, or black box, was recovered from a rooftop near the crash site and India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau said that it had begun its work with 'full force.' The black box recovery marks an important step forward in the investigation, Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu said in a social media post.
The device will reveal information about the engine and control settings, in addition to what the voice recorder will show about the cockpit conversations, Paul Fromme, a mechanical engineer with the U.K.-based Institution of Mechanical Engineers said in a statement.
'This should show quickly if there was a loss of engine power or lift after takeoff and allow a preliminary determination of the likely cause for the crash,' said Fromme, who heads the professional association's Aerospace Division.
Separately, the country's civil aviation regulator ordered Air India to conduct additional inspections of its Boeing 787-8 and 787-9 Dreamliners equipped with General Electric's GEnx engines. That includes checks of the fuel parameters, cabin air compressor, engine control system, hydraulic system and takeoff parameters, the order said.
Investigators on Friday continued searching the site of one of India's worst aviation disasters and Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with the lone surviving passenger a day after the crash.
Aviation safety consultant Jeff Guzzetti, a former crash investigator for both the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration, said investigators should be able to answer some important questions about what caused the crash as soon as next week as long as the flight data recorder is in good shape.
Investigators likely are looking at whether wing flaps were set correctly, whether the engine lost power, whether alarms were going off inside the cockpit and whether the plane's crew correctly inputted information about the hot temperature outside and the weight of the fuel and passengers, Guzzetti said.
Mistakes in the data could result in the wing flaps being set incorrectly, he said.
'I'm not saying that this accident's going to be solved immediately, but I think some basic factual questions will be able to be answered in quick order,' Guzzetti said.
At least five people were were killed on the ground and about 50 injured, but many more victims victims were expected to be found in the search of the crash site. DNA testing was being conducted to identify bodies that were mostly charred beyond recognition.
The plane hit a building hosting a medical college hostel and burst into flames, killing several students, in the city that is the capital of Gujarat, Modi's home state.
'We are all devastated by the air tragedy in Ahmedabad. The loss of so many lives in such a sudden and heartbreaking manner is beyond words,' Modi said on social media after visiting the site. 'We understand their pain and also know that the void left behind will be felt for years to come.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Close call between a B-52 bomber and a commercial jet over North Dakota puts focus on small airports
The evasive action an airline pilot took to avoid a B-52 bomber in the skies over North Dakota has focused attention on the way small airport towers are often run by private companies without their own radars. Neither one of the pilots of the bomber or of the Delta Air Lines jet seemed to know the other plane was there before the airline pilot saw the B-52 looming in its path. The incident last Friday is still under investigation. But the Air Force has said the controller at the Minot airport didn't let the bomber's crew know about the airliner, and the SkyWest pilot flying the Delta flight told passengers he was surprised. Passengers were alarmed by the sharp turn and dive the pilot of Delta Flight 3788 executed to avoid the bomber that had just completed a flyover at the State Fair in Minot, and a video shot aboard the plane captured the pilot's explanation afterward. 'Sorry about the aggressive maneuver. It caught me by surprise,' the pilot can be heard saying on the video posted on social media. 'This is not normal at all. I don't know why they didn't give us a heads-up.' This close call is just the latest incident to raise questions about aviation safety in the wake of January's midair collision over Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people. Here's more about the way small airports like Minot operate: Many small airports lack radar It is common for small airports across the country to operate without their own radar systems because it would be too costly to install them at every airport. But there generally aren't many problems with that. The controllers at small airports are able to guide planes in to land visually with binoculars and radios as long as the weather is clear. Aviation safety consultant Jeff Guzzetti, who used to investigate crashes for both the National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration, said if the weather is bad, a regional FAA radar facility may be able to help, but ultimately planes simply won't land if the weather is too bad. Sometimes small airport towers do have a video feed that gives controllers a view of a radar screen at an FAA facility miles away. Because the radar is so far away the display may not be as detailed about planes flying close to the ground, but the system does give controllers more information. It's not clear if the Minot tower has one of those systems because the company that runs it, Midwest Air Traffic Control Inc., hasn't responded to questions since the incident. The overlapping network of FAA radar facilities across the country also keeps track of planes flying between airports, and an approach control radar center in Minneapolis helps direct planes in and out of Minot before controllers at the airport take over once they see the planes. The Minot airport typically handles between 18 and 24 flights a day. That's how it works at many small airports. 'Most times it works just fine,' Guzzetti said. Some of these small airports could gain radar as part of a massive overhaul of the air traffic control system, but that will depend on how busy the airports are and how much funding Congress ultimately approves for the multibillion-dollar project. So far, $12.5 billion was included in President Trump's overall budget bill. Private companies operate the towers The FAA says that 265 airport towers nationwide are operated by companies as part of the contract system. The Transportation Department's Inspector General has said the contract towers that handle more than one quarter of the nation's flights are more cost effective than comparable FAA towers and have similar safety records. In some cases, local governments help pay the costs of contract towers. The program began in 1982 at five less busy towers that had closed because of the air traffic controller strike the previous year, and it has expanded significantly over the years because it has been so successful. Most of the airports with contract towers would have no controllers without the program. 'Common sense would tell you that having an extra set of eyes controlling the local traffic — especially in good weather — would be safer than having no controller and just having the pilots talking to each other,' Guzzetti said. That's exactly how it works at the vast majority of the 5,100 public airports nationwide that are smaller than Minot. Pilots at those uncontrolled airports use their radios to coordinate takeoffs and landings with other planes in the area. Only about 10% of all airports have towers. The FAA says it works closely with the companies that run contract towers to ensure their controllers are properly trained. It is easier to get certified at a contract tower because they handle fewer flights than FAA towers even though controllers are held to the same standard. More controllers are needed nationwide The ongoing shortage of air traffic controllers has persisted for years partly because it takes so long to train and certify new controllers. The FAA has said that it is roughly 3,000 short of the number of controllers it should have at its facilities. The staffing situation at private towers is similar because they hire from the same pool of candidates. All the roughly 1,400 controllers at these smaller airports have to meet the same qualification and training requirements. But contract towers also have the ability to hire controllers who retired from an FAA tower before the mandatory retirement age of 56. The contract towers don't have a retirement age. The FAA has been working for a long time to hire more air traffic controllers to replace retiring workers and handle growing air traffic. But it can be hard to find good candidates for the stressful positions who can complete the rigorous training. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has announced several efforts to hire and retain more controllers. The FAA is trying to shorten the time it takes between when someone applies to the air traffic controller academy in Oklahoma City and when they start training, and the agency is also trying to improve the graduation rate there by offering more support to the students. The candidates with the highest scores on the entrance exam are also getting top priority. The FAA is also offering bonuses to experienced controllers if they opt not to retire early and continue working to help ease the shortage. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Everything we know about the Air India crash points to an uncomfortable truth
With 260 casualties and only one surviving passenger, the Air India 171 crash is one of the deadliest aviation incidents in recent history — and so far it's proving to be one of the most frustratingly opaque. Video of the June 12 incident had previously captured the Boeing 787 taking off successfully from Ahmedabad bound for London, only to rapidly descend, crash into a medical college complex, and explode into flames. The crash killed all but one of the plane's 242 occupants. It also damaged five buildings, killed 19 people on the ground, and injured over 60 more. The weeks that followed saw rampant speculation, AI-generated hoaxes, and conspiracy theories. Finally, on July 11 India's air safety organization, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), issued a preliminary report into the cause of the disaster. The 15-page report pinpointed a dark and disturbing factor as the reason for the crash: Shortly after takeoff, someone or something cut the flow of fuel to both engines, almost simultaneously. This caused a brief but fatal dual engine shutdown that proved impossible for the plane to recover from. The implications of that double shutdown are quite bleak — but there's still a lot we don't know. What caused the crash? In the weeks following the tragedy, public speculation about the potential cause ranged from a bird strike to an electrical problem; some suggested fuel contamination, others a malfunction with the wing flaps. Many focused on what seemed to have been an extreme occurrence suggested by the visibility of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which deploys when there are engine problems: a total engine failure. Over on YouTube, many analyzed the crash, including some pilots. Among them was Trevor Smith, call sign 'Hoover,' a former military pilot who now flies for a commercial airline. On the side, he runs the YouTube crash analysis channel Pilot Debrief. Following the Air India crash, he emphasized what seemed to be the dual loss of thrust to both engines, and speculated that perhaps one engine had lost thrust for an unknown reason and that then one of the pilots had accidentally turned off the fuel control switch to the other engine, causing both to lose thrust. Smith was hypothesizing a scenario in which at least one engine had been lost due to a mechanical failure, and an overwhelmed pilot mistakenly deactivated the other engine. The preliminary report, however, was more grim. It rejected all of those possibilities and instead pointed firmly toward a simple but unthinkable event: Both engines were shut down, first one and then the other, by way of the fuel control cutoff switch. In most Boeing airplanes, the flow of fuel to the engines gets activated via two fuel control switches. In the Boeing 787, the jet fuel control switches sit in the main console of the aircraft just below the throttles (which are used to control thrust power). The fuel switches are not easy to engage by accident; they have a built-in spring-loaded locking mechanism that requires anyone using them to first pull up on the knobs, turn them slightly, and then maneuver them up or down into the position you want — a bit like a safety-proof lid on a pill bottle. Additionally, two raised metal guards on either side of the two switches protect against accidental bumping or jostling. There were no historical issues with the switches on this particular 787, and that section of the console had been refurbished as recently as 2023. Additionally, following the crash, other Air India Boeings were inspected, and no fuel switch issues were found with any of them. In a second inspection, Air India reportedly found no issues with the locking mechanisms on the switches either. This crucial context underscores both the reliability of the switches — they were functioning normally with no problems — and the guardrails that were in place to protect against any associated mishaps. With the metal guards and the locking mechanisms, it would be all but impossible for an accident to knock both switches into the cutoff position, especially at the same time. And yet what we know from the preliminary report is that the fuel cutoff switches were somehow switched from 'run' to 'cutoff' — from 'on' to 'off,' effectively. They were moved immediately after the airplane lifted off the ground and reached its maximum takeoff speed of 180 knots, or about 207 miles per hour. In a follow-up analysis video, Smith mapped out the timeline provided in the report, emphasizing that the two switches were turned off in quick succession, just a second apart — a short gap that makes sense, he noted, if someone were to move their hand from one switch to another. Without a fuel supply, the engines immediately lost power. The RAT began supplying hydraulic power to the plane a few seconds after the fuel was cut off. A few seconds after this, one or both pilots realized what had happened. They placed the switches back into the correct position about nine seconds after they were moved. The engines began to restart, but by the time they had recovered, it was already too late. Initial media reports claimed that whichever pilot made the mayday call to air traffic control had stated, 'Thrust not achieved,' as the explanation for the call shortly before losing contact. However, the investigative report didn't include this statement, and recordings from the cockpit have not been made public. What we do know is that according to the preliminary report, 'one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off [the fuel]. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' So was the cutoff done intentionally? The preliminary report has drawn criticism for its vagueness, and for the lack of a direct transcript of the aforementioned moment from the cockpit recorder. The AAIB has also drawn fire for its decision not to issue any safety guidelines as a result of the early stages of its investigation. However, the report was clear that the investigation is ongoing, and multiple pilots associations have cautioned against speculating before all the facts are known. Still, through its inclusion of the cockpit exchange, the preliminary report indicates that one pilot realized the switches had been manually moved and questioned the other pilot about it before moving the switches back into the 'run' position. Given the virtual impossibility of an accidental dual cutoff, and the extreme unlikelihood of a dual engine shutdown being caused by any other issue, the pilot's implied assumption in the moment that his colleague had manually moved the switches himself seems reasonable. Following the report's release, the Wall Street Journal reported that the investigation was intensifying its focus on the captain, 56-year-old Sumeet Sabharwal. As the pilot monitoring, Sabharwal would likely have had his hands free during the takeoff, while the first officer, Clive Kunder, 32, would have been busy actually flying the plane. According to the Journal, the exchange referenced in the preliminary report involved Kunder querying Sabharwal about why the captain had moved the switches. In the following moments, Kunder 'expressed surprise and then panicked' while Sabharwal 'seemed to remain calm.' Of course, without video of the moment, and without knowing more about the closely held details of the investigation thus far, it's difficult to know what the situation in the cockpit truly was. It's possible that Kunder's panic and Sabharwal's calm reflected nothing more than their respective level of career experience. As Nathan Fielder's The Rehearsal recently explored, the power imbalance in a cockpit between a senior and a younger or less experienced pilot can have a huge impact on the outcome of a plane mishap. Yet in this case, it seems likely that even in a balanced co-piloting dynamic, nothing could have helped an unwary pilot predict, prevent, or recover from the engine failure. What do we know about the pilots and the airline? Sabharwal was a true veteran pilot, with over 15,000 career flight hours, nearly half of them piloting the 787. As a younger pilot, Kunder had just 3,400 hours of flight time, but over 1,100 of them were on the 787. It's been widely reported that Sabharwal was planning to retire soon to care for his ailing father, who himself was a career aviation ministry official. In reporting after the crash, he has been universally described by friends and colleagues as extremely kind, gentle, reserved, and soft-spoken. Kunder came from a family of pilots, went to flight school in Florida, and reportedly chose piloting over a career in esports because he loved to fly. Following the crash, the Telegraph quoted a source claiming that Sabharwal had struggled with depression and had taken mental health leave from the company. However, Air India's parent company, the Tata Group, contradicted this, with a spokesperson clarifying to the Telegraph that Sabharwal's last medical leave was a bereavement leave in 2022, and emphasizing that 'the preliminary report did not find anything noteworthy' in his recent medical history. If pilots don't get therapy, they could endanger themselves and others while in the air. But if they do get therapy, the airline could ground them. However, it could be very easy for mental health issues in pilots to go undetected and unreported. That's because the strict scrutiny and restrictions placed upon commercial pilots in the wake of the 2015 Germanwings tragedy — in which a pilot locked his co-pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane, killing everyone on board — creates a dangerous catch-22 for pilots: If they don't get thorough and regular mental health treatment, they could be endangering themselves and others when they're in the air. But if they do get mental health treatment, the airline could ground them, perhaps permanently. For pilots who love flying, it's a major risk assessment: Around 1,100 people have been killed because of plane crashes intentionally caused by pilots since 1982. The tragedy comes at a pivotal moment for both Air India and Boeing, which have each been attempting to rebound from criticism. Air India is one of the oldest and formerly one of the most influential airlines in the world, known for the opulence and exceptional artistic style it cultivated throughout the 20th century. After the company was nationalized in the 1950s, however, its once-sterling reputation significantly backslid, until it was finally re-privatized in 2022 and handed off to the Tata Group. The company's attempts to revitalize the airline have included investing billions in readying the company for an expanded fleet and a reentry into the global market — an expansion that could be jeopardized because of the high-profile nature of the June crash. India's civil aviation minister recently announced that the company has additionally received nine safety notices in the last six months. Meanwhile Boeing continues to face criticism in the face of ongoing safety and maintenance concerns, and recently agreed to pay over $1 billion to avoid criminal prosecution over two plane crashes linked to faulty flight control systems that resulted in the deaths of 346 people. While there's no indication yet that anything about the Air India crash was due to a defect in the plane, the optics won't help the beleaguered airline. Perhaps because the stakes are so high, multiple pilot organizations in India as well as a bevy of media commentators have resisted the preliminary report's implication that one of the pilots caused the crash. The Airline Pilots Association of India as well as the Indian Commercial Pilots Association both released statements criticizing the preliminary report and objecting to any presumption of guilt. Others have suggested an undetected issue with the plane might be at fault, or that the AAIB, which issued the preliminary report, might have something to hide. The full investigation into the crash is likely to take at least a year to complete, but given the vagaries of the information obtained from the cockpit, it's uncertain whether we will ever know more than we currently do. Official aviation organizations have cautioned against a rush to judgment until the investigation is completed. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
10 hours ago
- New York Post
Delta flight frantically halts takeoff as another plane almost lands on top of it in heart-pounding scene
A US-bound Delta flight with at least 150 people onboard was forced to hit the brakes during takeoff in Mexico this week when another jet nearly landed on top of it. Delta Flight 590 had just started rolling down the runway at Aeropuerto Internacional Benito Juárez in Mexico City on Monday when the regional AeroMéxico plane suddenly flew overhead and landed in front of it, Flightradar 24 data showed. 3 An AeroMéxico plane nearly landed on top of a Delta Air Lines 737 as it was taking off this week. FlightRadar24 The regional jet came within less than 200 feet of the Atlanta-bound Delta flight, CNN reported. The Delta pilots quickly aborted takeoff and returned to the terminal in the wake of the near collision. 'Delta will fully cooperate with authorities as the circumstances around this flight are investigated,' the airline said in a statement. 3 The AeroMéxico plane came within 200 feet of Delta's Boeing 737. AFP via Getty Images 3 The incident is currently under investigation. AFP via Getty Images 'We appreciate the flight crew's actions to maintain situational awareness and act quickly – part of Delta's extensive training.' AeroMéxico and the Mexican civil aviation authority haven't yet commented on the ordeal. The Delta flight, which was carrying 150 passengers and crew, ended up taking off again several hours later.
