SASTRA releases BTech admission ranklist
In Stream 1, where 50% of seats is based on JEE Main score and Class XII marks, Akela Meghavan Sarma from Chaitanya Junior College, Karnelampalayam, Andhra Pradesh, came first with a combined score of 99.39. Her Plus Two aggregate was 991/1,000 and her JEE Main score was 99.69. Burra Nishitha from Chaitanya Junior College, Begumpet, Telangana, came second with a combined score of 99.30.
In Stream 2, where seats are based on Class XII aggregate scores, Induri Rashmitha from S R Junior College, Khammam, bagged the first rank with her aggregate 996 /1,000 in Class XII examinations.
Akshaya Sivaguru from Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan School, KK Nagar, Chennai, secured the second rank with an aggregate score of 498/500.
About 40,000 students from various states applied for admissions. SASTRA said a 'transparent online counselling' for admissions would be held from June 15. The institute uses JEE-Main scores and +2 aggregate for admission process without conducting its own entrance exams.
Follow more information on
Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here
. Get
real-time live updates
on rescue operations and check
full list of passengers onboard AI 171
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
11 hours ago
- NDTV
Deliberate Or Mechanical Flaw? Pilots vs Pilot Over Air India Crash Report
New Delhi: The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's preliminary report on its probe into the Air India crash on June 12, in which 260 people were killed, has stirred speculations and debates on two fronts. Firstly, whether there was a deliberate attempt made by the pilot to turn off the fuel switches from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' position during takeoff and secondly, the Wall Street Journal article, which came 20 hours and 8 minutes before the AAIB report was officially released, that focused on "Pilots' Actions and Plane's Fuel Switches". Earlier on NDTV, Captain Mohan Ranganathan, one of India's leading aviation experts and an ex-instructor of Boeing 737, made a stunning claim that the crash of AI171 may have been the result of deliberate human action because the fuel switches can only be moved "manually". However, former pilots and aviation experts have strongly opposed this view. In a roundtable of four aviation experts and ex-pilots, Mr Ranganathan's views were questioned, who stood by his claim of "deliberate manual selection". What Captain Ranganathan Said? On June 12, in an interview with NDTV, the aviation expert was asked if one of the pilots intentionally switched off the fuel, fully aware that doing so could cause a crash, to which Captain Ranganathan said, "Absolutely." On Monday, Mr Ranganathan reiterated his views and said, "The report (AAIB report) points to deliberate manual intervention. The US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) report has said this; there was nothing wrong with the switches today. The switches can't slide back to cut off. So it has to be pulled out and moved back. So that is possible only with a manual intervention." The probe team from AAIB found the fuel switches in the RUN position at the crash site However, Mr Ranganathan has questioned the "wishy-washy" nature of the report, which only mentions one line from the pilot's interaction - One pilot asked, "Why did you cut off?" The other replied, "I didn't". He has called for the release of the full cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data, which will have the sequence of who said what when the fuel switches transitioned to 'CUTOFF'. Captain Ranganathan, however, never inferred that it was done intentionally by the pilot to crash the plane, though he did mention that one of the pilots had a "medical history" and was on medical leave earlier, which led to Dreamliner Pilot Opposes "Manual Intervention Argument" Captain Rakesh Rai shared insights on the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner's characteristics, his experience of flying the same aircraft, and his views on the AAIB report and the "suicide angle" being debated. "Even if they (AAIB) don't want to publish the RT transcript at this stage, it is difficult to digest that only two sentences were spoken in the cockpit. If you look at the picture, which was published in the report, the aircraft is barely 50 to 80 feet or maybe 100 feet above the ground, and the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) is already deployed. It means that something happened right at the time of rotation, when the aircraft is just starting, and the engines have failed," he said. Captain Rai highlighted an important part of the report - The words used by AAIB to describe 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF'. He said they have used the word "transition", adding, "In these modern aeroplanes, you don't need to cut off the fuel control switch. Everything is transmitted electronically. So, even if the fuel switch is in the run position, it can go into the cutoff position without moving the fuel control switch. The fuel can just shut off. If there is something wrong with the software, it commands the fuel shutoff valve to close. With the fuel control switch still in run position, the engines can shut down." An excerpt from the AAIB report is as follows: "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. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off." Captain Ranganathan differed with Captain Rai and said, "You can hold both the switches, pull them out and move," to which the Dreamliner pilot said, "I do not agree with that." Captain Rai said, asking for a full transcript of the pilots' conversation in the cockpit, said, "The report does not talk about the timeline when this sentence, 'Why did you CUTOFF?', was spoken, and that's an important point. "This sentence may have been spoken at a time when they were trying to relight the engine. So, the other pilot may have asked, Did you cut it off? He said, No." "If the pilot had done it deliberately, then there must have been a solid argument in the pilots will not keep quiet, right? There must have been a solid argument in the cockpit. Why did he do it? And you are going to kill all of us," he added. Manual Intervention? "Absolutely Absurd," Says Expert Captain Kishore Chinta, a chief pilot at Sirius India Airlines, strongly opposed Mr Ranganathan's views and said, "I find it absolutely absurd to say that the pilots planned to deliberately turn the switches off. For the simple reason that even if we go by the paraphrased, one sentence in the report, which says that one pilot asked, it is indicative of a surprise element, that it surprised one pilot, and the other pilot answered, Hey, I didn't do it. "The report is absolutely silent and paraphrasing in terms of the selective release of information. If there was a timestamp of each event with what happened in the cockpit in terms of warnings, what was the altitude, what was the engine parameters at that time, followed by cockpit voice recorder, CAM 1, CAM 2, the interaction between the pilots or any warnings picked up, all these would have given us a more, you know, clearer picture on if there was any deliberate action," he said. "Nobody is deliberating on the fact that these switches can be moved uncommanded? Everyone is saying they can only be physically moved. The only reason those switches are recycled is to reset the EEC logic. The electronic engine control logic is reset in case of a dual engine failure to reactivate the start cycle, the igniters and the fuel metering unit; all these logics are reset. If we go by the theory that it was a suicide, why even touch those switches? Takeover controls and just flip the wings over." Squat Switch And Landing Gears Captain MR Wadia, the President of the Federation of Indian Pilots, did not agree with the "manual intervention" argument and explained why the landing gear of the aircraft did not go up when the aircraft was airborne. Captain Wadia said, "As the aircraft is about to take off, the power, everything is fine. There's enough power and enough speed to get the aircraft airborne. However, as he (Captain Ranganathan) pointed out, the first call is positive, radar climb gear up, now, that is a normal call, and I presume the pilot who was supposed to call has called that thing. But why hasn't the gear gone up?" "The reason for this is the squat switch. All aircraft today, whether it's Boeing or Airbus, have something called the squat switch, an electrical switch, that identifies whether the aircraft is on the ground or in the air. Even if you by mistake pull the undercarriage lever switch won't allow it to go up because it is indicating to the computer system that the aircraft is still on the ground." The other aspect in the other, which Captain Wadia stressed upon, was the deployment of RAT or Ram Air Turbine - a propeller that gives emergency power to an aircraft for navigation. Captain Wadia said only these two pieces of evidence are present, and "why would we presume a suicide angle to this?" "Were the fuel switches touched? Yes, but after they were in CUTOFF position and were moved to RUN position," he said, adding that we should go by the pilot's word when he said 'I did not cutoff'. YN Sharma, CEO of Chimes Aviation, said, "The only thing we are getting from the report is that the action of both switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF is a deliberate action. If there is a software issue, and the supply is cut off from the back, but that won't physically move the switch. For that, you need a hand that will physically move the needs to be investigated what prompted that action." He said that as per the information Flight Data Recorder (FDR), the switches were moved from RUN to CUTOFF, and then a few seconds later, they were moved back to the RUN position. Almost five seconds later, the pilot gave a 'MAYDAY' call, and then the aircraft crashed. "This is a preliminary this point, we should have the full transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and FDR Data in the public domain. You have these many data points and this is a preliminary report," Mr Sharma said. 'Who Gets Benefit From This Narrative?' Captain Chintan concluded by saying, "Even the deliberation that the pilot did something is a great disservice to them because they are not there to defend themselves, and also to the family members who lost their loved ones." "What we need to understand is who is getting benefits from this narrative?" he asked. "Does it benefit the Indian aviation regulator, the aviation community or the manufacturer? That will answer all your questions." Referring to the WSJ report, he said, "Why this narrative is being pushed by the western media and where the money is. It benefits the insurers by blaming the pilots and the manufacturers by taking away the liability from them." The AAIB mentioned there was a known FAA advisory from 2018 on a possible fuel switch flaw that existed, but inspections were not done by Air India. The airline's CEO, Campbell Wilson, said the report found no mechanical or maintenance issue with the doomed aircraft or its engines. A Reuters report said that the US Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing have privately issued notifications that the fuel switch locks on Boeing planes are safe. "The FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing aeroplane models, including the Model 787," the Reuters report said. Two hundred and sixty people died in the crash, including 241 passengers. Only one flier on seat 11A survived but battles trauma from the June 12. The report does not clearly define whether the switches were deliberately moved or if it was a mechanical flaw, but families are still waiting for answers while mourning the loss of their loved ones.
Time of India
19 hours ago
- Time of India
7 study mistakes sabotaging your competitive exam dreams
For millions of aspirants, cracking a competitive exam—be it UPSC, NEET, JEE, CAT, or SSC—is the holy grail of academic success. Libraries become second homes, mock tests become routine, and hours are clocked into exhaustive preparation schedules. Yet, despite intense effort and commitment, many fall short. Why? Contrary to popular belief, it's not always lack of intelligence or dedication that derails success. It's the subtle, often-overlooked study strategy blunders—habits that masquerade as discipline but quietly sabotage progress. Here's a deep dive into seven such strategic missteps that may be the real culprits behind missed selections. The 'More is Better' trap: Quantity over quality In the frenzy to cover the vast syllabus, students often measure success by the number of chapters completed or hours spent studying. But a sprawling 12-hour study session without focus is far less effective than 4 hours of targeted, active learning. The Fix: Apply the Pareto Principle—80% of results come from 20% of efforts. Identify high-weightage topics and focus on mastering them deeply before spreading yourself thin. Ignoring the power of spaced repetition Many aspirants still stick to the linear study method—learn once and move on. This is a cognitive disaster. Without revisiting content, even the brightest minds forget. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Hurt in an Accident? Read This vividtrendlab Undo The Fix: Use spaced repetition through digital tools like Anki or traditional flashcards. Spaced intervals between revisions strengthen memory consolidation and long-term retention—crucial for exams with wide-ranging syllabi. Passive learning syndrome: Reading without engagement Reading NCERTs, coaching modules, or guidebooks passively may feel productive, but this 'illusion of competence' can be deadly. Highlighting text or underlining lines is not learning—it's information grazing. The Fix: Switch to active recall. After reading a topic, close the book and try explaining it aloud or writing it from memory. If you can't teach it, you haven't learned it. Neglecting mock test analytics Solving mock papers has become standard practice, but what follows often isn't. Many students skip in-depth error analysis. They take the test, check the score, and move on. The Fix: Treat every mock like an autopsy. Track error patterns—is it conceptual weakness, silly mistakes, or time mismanagement? Create an 'error logbook' and revisit it regularly. Single source dependency A large number of aspirants cling to one coaching module or book, assuming it's the 'one-size-fits-all' bible. This tunnel vision can leave critical gaps in understanding or perspectives. The Fix: While over-referencing can be chaotic, triangulation is key. Compare at least two trusted sources for every concept, especially in dynamic subjects like polity, economics, or current affairs. Copy-pasting toppers' timetables Blindly adopting a topper's schedule or routine is one of the most common mistakes. What worked for a 2023 JEE Topper in Kota may completely collapse for a working professional preparing for CAT in 2025. The Fix: Build a custom study system aligned with your learning curve, sleep cycle, and mental bandwidth. Templates are only as good as the context they fit into. Skipping mental conditioning Competitive exams are not just academic marathons—they're psychological ones too. Students often underestimate the importance of emotional resilience, leading to burnout, anxiety, or performance paralysis. The Fix: Integrate mindfulness practices, journaling, and short digital detoxes. Don't treat breaks as guilt-ridden gaps; treat them as oxygen masks before a long haul. Rethinking the hustle In the competitive exam ecosystem, the margin between success and failure is razor-thin. When lakhs are vying for limited seats, strategy becomes the true differentiator. By ditching outdated study practices and adopting smarter, evidence-backed techniques, aspirants can finally turn hours of toil into measurable success. Exams don't just test knowledge. They test how you prepare to remember what you know. And in that lies the real battle. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Mint
19 hours ago
- Mint
Air India CEO says crash probe raises more questions, premature to jump to any conclusion
New Delhi, Jul 14 (PTI) The preliminary report into the crash of Air India flight AI171 last month has raised more questions, the airline's CEO said as he defended the fitness of pilots and aircraft saying no mechanical or maintenance issues have been flagged in the report. Chief Executive Officer Campbell Wilson said the probe into the June 12 crash of an Air India plane in Ahmedabad, which killed all but one of the 242 onboard and 19 others on ground, was far from over and it is unwise to jump to any premature conclusions. "The release of the preliminary report marked the point at which we, along with the world, began receiving additional details about what took place. Unsurprisingly, it provided both greater clarity and opened additional questions," he said in an internal memo to airline staff. He said there were no issues with fuel quality or takeoff roll and that the pilots had passed mandatory pre-fight breathalyser tests. Amid speculation in various quarters about the reasons for the fatal crash that killed 260 people on June 12, the Air India chief said the preliminary report identified no cause nor made any recommendations and urged everyone to avoid drawing premature conclusions as the investigation is far from over. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Saturday released its preliminary report on the crash of Air India's Boeing 787-8 plane. The aircraft, which was operating the flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, crashed into a building soon after takeoff. In a message to Air India staff, Wilson said "the release of the preliminary report marked the point at which we, along with the world, began receiving additional details about what took place. Unsurprisingly, it provided both greater clarity and opened additional questions". He noted that the preliminary report found no mechanical or maintenance issues with the aircraft or engines, and that all mandatory maintenance tasks had been completed. "There was no issue with the quality of fuel and no abnormality with the takeoff roll. The pilots had passed their mandatory pre-flight breathalyser and there were no observations pertaining to their medical status," he said. Further, Wilson said out of an abundance of caution and under the oversight of regulator DGCA, every Boeing 787 aircraft operating in our fleet was checked within days of the accident and all were found fit for service. "We continue to perform all necessary checks, as we will any new ones that authorities may suggest," he added. The airline, he said, will continue to co-operate with the investigators to ensure they have everything they need to conduct a thorough and comprehensive enquiry. Over the past 30 days, he said there has been an ongoing cycle of theories, allegations, rumours and sensational headlines, many of which have later been disproven. "Until a final report or cause is tabled, there will no doubt be new rounds of speculation and more sensational headlines... Let us not be diverted from what are our top priorities: standing by the bereaved and those injured, working together as a team, and delivering a safe and reliable air travel experience to our customers around the world," Wilson said. He also stressed that the airline must remain focused on its task and be true to the values of integrity, excellence, customer focus, innovation, and teamwork. The AAIB report said the fuel supply to both engines of flight AI171 was cut off within a second of each other, causing confusion in the cockpit and the airplane plummeting back to the ground almost immediately after taking off. The 15-page report also said in the cockpit voice recording, an unidentified pilot asked the other why he had cut off the fuel, which the other denied. On Sunday, the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association (ICPA) said the crew of the AI171 flight that crashed last month acted in line with their training and responsibilities under challenging conditions, and the pilots should not be vilified based on conjecture. Former AAIB chief Aurobindo Handa, on Sunday, said it will be too premature to draw conclusions on the role of pilots from the preliminary investigation report into the fatal crash of the Air India plane last month and the final report will mention about the most probable cause for the accident.
