&w=3840&q=100)
From takeoff to May Day in 30 seconds: Air India crash report establishes sequence
The London-bound Air India flight was carrying 242 people, including two pilots and 10 cabin crew members. Reuters/File Photo
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released its initial probe report on the crash of Air India flight from Ahmedabad to London on June 12. The 15-page-long document has shed light on the turn of events on that fateful day that killed 260 people.
Air India's Boeing 787-8 plane that was operating flight AI 171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick on June 12, crashed seconds after takeoff.
It said that the mishap occurred after both engines had shut down seconds after takeoff. The report also said that Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF within one second of each other. This means the engines of the aircraft were completely starved of fuel supply.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Here is the series of developments as they happened in the cockpit that eventually unfolded in the crash of the Boeing Dreamliner aircraft:
The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 second
The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cut off the fuel supply, to which the co-pilot replied that he did not
The aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport perimeter wall
Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) data show that both engines' N2 values passed below minimum idle speed, and the RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power
Following this, at 1:38 pm, the cutoff switch of Engine 2 transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN
The EAFR transmission recording stopped at 1:39 pm
At about 1.39 pm, one of the pilots transmitted 'MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY'
The Air Traffic Control Officer (ATCO) enquired about the call sign but did not get any response and observed the aircraft crashing outside the airport boundary and activated the emergency response
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Key to fatal Air India crash mystery: 32 seconds in flight deck
In the final seconds of Air India Flight 171, as both engines lost power and the Boeing 787 began its fatal descent, a crucial exchange unfolded between two experienced pilots that investigators believe holds the key to understanding what went wrong. The crash site of Air India's Boeing 787-8 aircraft, which was operating flight AI 171 from Ahmedabad to London.(PTI) 'One of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so,' according to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's preliminary report. Those paraphrased words are at the centre of a complex investigation into whether the accident was caused by human error, mechanical failure, or an emergency procedure gone catastrophically wrong. The cockpit was staffed according to standard procedures, with first officer Clive Kunder, 32, serving as the pilot flying while captain Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, monitored the flight. Both had passed pre-flight breath analyser tests and met all rest requirements, the report noted. Kunder, the junior pilot, had 1,128 hours on the Boeing 787 and was responsible for controlling the aircraft during the critical take-off phase. Sabharwal, with 8,596 hours on the same type of jet, was tasked with monitoring systems and providing oversight—a standard arrangement designed to combine experience with operational currency. JS Rawat, former joint director general of DGCA, cautioned against drawing conclusions from the limited cockpit voice recorder information. 'While nothing can be ascertained with a paraphrased sentence in the report that mentions one pilot asking the other if he switched off the fuel switches and the second pilot denying the same, nothing can be positively said at this stage,' he said. The preliminary report provides a precise timeline of the crew's actions. Citing flight data from the EAFR (the integrated blackboxes), it states the switches moved to cutoff state one second apart—engine 1 first, followed by engine 2, almost immediately after the plane lifted off from the ground. 'The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the engine 1 and engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec,' it stated. An experienced airline commander, requesting anonymity, questioned the plausibility of pilot error during this critical phase. 'It is highly unlikely that any pilot, especially during take-off, would want to fiddle around with switches behind the thrust levels. At best, you'd focus on raising the landing gear which is located in the front panel of the cockpit, or raise the flaps,' he said. A second pilot framed the phase as a time when pilots are laser-focused on flight instruments in the front, and not the centre console, where the fuel switches are located. 'No pilot is inept to want to play around with switches in the middle section of the cockpit when all attention is focused on forward flight cockpit instruments located in front of the pilots, during take-off and landing,' this person said. At a subsequent moment after the cutoff – the report does not mention when or in what words exactly – came the exchange between the pilots about how the fuel flow stop was engaged. Roughly 10 seconds after the first engine cutoff was recorded by the flight data recorder, one of the pilots – it is unclear who -- returned the first engine's switch to 'RUN' position. Engine 2's switch followed another four seconds later. The four-second interval between restart attempts could indicate pilots following emergency protocols or the time needed to recognise the first engine's restart attempt before moving to the second. 'In my view the 4 second interval was part of emergency protocols and call-outs etc. That is why the entire CVR transcript was essential,' Aviation expert Sanjay Lazar said. Once they engaged the fuel switches in the run mode, the Boeing 787's Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) systems automatically began a sequence to restart the engine. The crew then issued a Mayday call at 08:09:05 UTC (Co-ordinated Universal Time; 5 hours and 30 minutes behind IST)—23 seconds after the initial fuel cut-off and just six seconds before the flight recorder stopped working. Both pilots brought significant experience to the cockpit. Sabharwal had accumulated 15,638 total flight hours across multiple aircraft types, while Kunder had logged 3,403 hours overall. Their flying experience was current, with both pilots having flown more than 230 hours in the previous 180 days. That the report does not identify which pilot made which statement in the crucial exchange reflects investigative protocol designed to avoid prejudging crew actions. Determining whether the pilot flying or pilot monitoring moved the switches—and why—will be crucial to the final investigation. 'What surprises is the intentional mystery with the crew communication transcript documented in the PIR. It's impossible that during an emergency the cockpit would be so quiet. For starters, take- off checklist and emergency call out phrases are left out in the report allowing the reader to be creative with making assumptions. Clearly critical aspects that are known to the investigators have been withheld,' said Mark Martin, CEO of Marin Consulting, an aviation consulting firm based in Asia. Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the US's NTSB, told the BBC: 'There's likely much more on the cockpit voice recorder than what's been shared. A lone remark like 'why did you cut off the switches' isn't enough,' he said.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Air India crash report: Picking up the missing pieces to tragic puzzle
Scattered across a 1,000-foot debris field in Ahmedabad, the remnants of Air India Flight 171 provided investigators with a puzzle of twisted metal and damaged components that would prove crucial to understanding what caused the Boeing 787's catastrophic engine failure. Ahmedabad: Wreckage of Air India's Boeing 787-8 aircraft, which was operating flight AI 171 from Ahmedabad to London, placed under tight security, seen a month after the tragedy, in Ahmedabad, (PTI) The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's preliminary report reveals how each recovered piece—from heavily damaged flight recorders to precisely positioned cockpit controls—contributed to reconstructing the final 32 seconds of a flight that claimed 260 lives. A tale of two black boxes The investigation's breakthrough came from one of the aircraft's two Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFR), integrated black boxes that combine traditional flight data recording with cockpit voice capture in single units. The aft EAFR, located in the tail section, was discovered on the roof of the hostel mess a day after the crash. 'The EAFR had impact and thermal damages to the housing. The wires were protruding from the housing and the connectors were burnt,' the report states. The extensive damage rendered it unreadable through conventional means. A breakthrough came when the forward EAFR was found three days later 'from the wreckage debris besides the Building F' — this building was one of the hostels. Despite being 'burnt and covered in soot,' this recorder remained 'still attached to the equipment shelf with part of the connector melted but still connected,' providing investigators with the critical data needed to understand the disaster. The forward recorder yielded 'approximately 49 hours of flight data and 6 flights, including the event flight' plus 'two hours in length' of voice recordings that captured the crucial final moments. Console, frozen in time The cockpit's centre console was recovered, where investigators discovered both fuel control switches in the 'RUN' position— confirming the attempt by the pilots to avert the crash. 'Both fuel control switch were found in the 'RUN' position'. The components told a story of proper procedures followed until the moment of crisis. The flap handle assembly, despite sustaining 'significant thermal damage,' was found 'firmly seated in the 5-degree flap position, consistent with a normal take-off flap setting.' The landing gear lever remained in the 'DOWN' position, indicating the gear had not yet been retracted when the emergency began—consistent with the aircraft being only seconds into its climb. However, the thrust lever 'sustained significant thermal damage' with 'both thrust levers found near the aft (idle) position' and the report notes this contradicted flight recorder data: 'the EAFR data revealed that the thrust levers remained forward (takeoff thrust) until the impact.' This discrepancy suggests the levers could have moved during the crash from impact, rather than reflecting pilot actions during the emergency. Emergency systems: Automatic responses to crisis The wreckage provided evidence of the aircraft's automatic emergency responses. The Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) was 'found intact inside the APU compartment' with its 'air inlet door found open,' indicating the APU had automatically started in response to the dual engine failure. The report notes that 'the APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic,' suggesting the aircraft's emergency systems functioned as designed. Despite the intense post-crash fire fuelled by 54,200 kilograms of jet fuel, many critical components survived in recognisable condition. The investigation team successfully recovered and analysed the fuel control switches, landing gear components, flap mechanisms, and portions of the flight deck. One notable absence from the wreckage analysis was any mention of the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). The report states simply: 'The Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) was not activated during this event,' without elaborating on the device's condition or why it failed to function.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Expert claims pilot may have deliberately crashed flight
Captain Mohan Ranganathan, one of India's leading aviation experts, has pointed to the sequence of fuel cutoff switches and cockpit audio to suggest that the crash may have stemmed from deliberate actions taken in the cockpit, potentially even suicide. When asked if one of the pilots intentionally switched off the fuel, fully aware that doing so could cause a crash, Captain Ranganathan said, 'Absolutely.' 'It has to be manually done,' Captain Ranganathan said when asked if there is any way fuel can be shut off to the engines of the Dreamliner. 'It cannot be done automatically or due to a power failure because the fuel selectors are not the sliding type. They are designed to stay in a slot, and you have to pull them out to move them up or down. So, the possibility of inadvertently moving them to the 'off' position doesn't arise. It's definitely a case of deliberate manual selection to move it to 'off'.' His remarks come just 24 hours after India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) published its preliminary findings into the June 12 crash, which killed 241 people onboard and 19 more on the ground. The crash marked the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner since the aircraft entered commercial service in 2011. Airport CCTV footage, flight data from the aircraft's Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR), and cockpit voice recordings from the CVR offer a disturbing reconstruction of the last seconds of Flight 171. According to the AAIB report, both fuel control switches governing engines 1 and 2 were turned from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' within one second of each other. The switches, located on the central pedestal of the cockpit, are protected by a guard rail and require deliberate effort to toggle. They are not touch-sensitive and cannot be triggered by turbulence, power failure, or software glitch.
