Pilots' union questions Air India crash report, alleges presumption of guilt
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
36 minutes ago
- Mint
Air India Crash Points to Cockpit Confusion as Fuel Flow Cut Out
(Bloomberg) -- The Air India jetliner that crashed on June 12 was doomed almost immediately upon taking off, after both engines lost fuel supply and the pilots ran out of time to regain control and avert catastrophe. A preliminary 15-page report filed on July 11 provided the first detailed account of the fateful 32 seconds between takeoff in Ahmedabad and the descent into an urban district just beyond the airport perimeter, where the Boeing Co. 787 exploded, killing all but one of the 242 people on board. Investigators laid out the sequence of events with exact timestamps, providing a harrowing picture of the plane's final moments. But the findings leave unanswered one central question: Why and by whom were two fuel switches in the cockpit moved to a cut-off position as the jet nosed into the air, starving the two powerful engines of thrust just as the plane required the most lift. At the controls for the aircraft's final journey was First Officer Clive Kunder, a pilot with roughly 1,100 flight hours on Boeing's most advanced jet. The report identified him as pilot flying, while Sumeet Sabharwal, the more experienced and senior cockpit occupant in command, was pilot monitoring for the flight. It's common for a captain and co-pilot to switch flying duties, particularly on longer journeys. Under typical pilot protocol, Kunder would have had one hand on the yoke commanding the widebody into the skies, and another on the throttle controlling the plane's speed. The crew captain would have handled air traffic communications and responded to Kunder's instructions. All seemed normal as the Boeing 787 lifted off into a clear sky in the western Indian city en route to London's Gatwick airport. There was no significant bird activity in the flight path, all but ruling out a collision that could have damaged the engines. Then, according to a chronology laid out by Indian authorities, the two fuel switches in the plane's center console were flipped, about one second apart. It's unclear what prompted the maneuver, but it crippled the plane during a critical phase of flight. A fan, known as the ram air turbine, dropped below the plane's belly to provide emergency power, all while the 787 was still within view of airport cameras. On board, the pilots had a brief exchange — the only cockpit conversation mentioned in the report aside from a final 'mayday' call just seconds before impact. 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff,' the investigators wrote. 'The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' The report didn't identify which of the two men asked the other about the move. It would take about 10 seconds for the first switch to return to its run position, restoring the flow of fuel to the engine, and 14 seconds for the second to be turned back on. Given the aircraft had barely lifted off and was at a critical phase of its flight, that's an eternity for pilots only a few hundred feet above ground and facing a life-threatening emergency. 'It's just strange,' said Bjorn Fehrm, an aerospace engineer and former fighter pilot who is a technical analyst with Leeham News. 'I would never, ever wait 10 seconds to put them on again. I would put them on in a jiffy.' While both engines were relit, only the first one started to regain power before the 787 plunged to the ground. The sequence of events was gleaned from different data points, including the cockpit voice and flight-data recorders that were recovered from the wreckage. There's no mention in the report of any additional exchanges in the cockpit or of any noises on the flight deck that the sensitive microphones would have picked up. 'The most important information is the voice dialog between the pilots, and we only get one line, which is totally inadequate,' said Fehrm. That leaves other key questions unanswered, including how the two pilots interacted as the aircraft sagged back to the ground, and who was ultimately in control in those frantic final seconds. Why one of the men would have conducted the unusual and highly risky maneuver of manipulating both fuel toggles also remains unknown. The switches are secured with a mechanism that requires a specific movement to shift them between on and off mode. And they are idled only when the plane is on the ground, or in an extreme emergency during flight, such as an engine fire. Given the trajectory of flight, starving the aircraft of fuel seconds after takeoff made it almost impossible to save the plane because the jet had just left the ground, providing very little recovery room. The Boeing 787 crashed just outside the airport boundary, having grazed some trees before plunging into a hostel packed with students. Some 19 people died on the ground, the report found. The preliminary version hinted at another matter to be explored by investigators, without elaborating. It flagged an airworthiness bulletin by the Federal Aviation Administration from 2018 that said that some fuel control switches on Boeing planes including the smaller 737 and the 787 were installed without their locking mechanism engaged. The Air India jet was not inspected for that mechanism fault as the matter was not mandatory. No defect relating to the switches had been reported since the throttle control module was replaced in 2023, the report said. Investigators said that they found no evidence so far that would require them to take actions over the Boeing aircraft or the GE Aerospace engines powering it. 'At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers,' according to the report from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau. The National Transportation Safety Board referred any questions to Indian authorities. Air India said it's unable to comment on specific details of the investigation and it was cooperating with officials. Boeing said it continues to support the investigation and Air India and referred questions to the AAIB. The people conducting the probe are also looking at the backgrounds and experience of the pilots — a normal step for this kind of investigation. Sabharwal had about 8,500 flight hours, according to the report. Both pilots were based at Mumbai and had arrived in Ahmedabad the previous day with 'adequate rest period' prior to the flight, the report said. 'We now know — with some degree of confidence — that both engines rolled back because these fuel switches were activated,' said Jeff Guzzetti, a former accident investigation chief for the US Federal Aviation Administration. 'We just don't know why or how these switches were activated and that's going to be a big part of this investigation.' A final report that seeks to determine the cause of the incident will take months to compile. --With assistance from Anthony Palazzo and Mary Schlangenstein. More stories like this are available on
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Not fair, not clear: What's wrong with the AI 171 crash report
When a big plane crashes, the most important thing is to find out why – so it doesn't happen again. Sadly, when Air India flight AI 171 crashed on June 12 and all 270 people on board died, the first report that came out didn't give any real answers. The group responsible for this is called the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). They had 30 days to share a first report, and they did – but it's more confusing than helpful. Here's what we know: Just three seconds after takeoff, both engines stopped working. That's shocking. There are only two things that could've caused it: The pilots switched off the fuel supply – which would be an unthinkable, deadly mistake. The switches themselves were faulty – which could mean a design or safety failure in the plane. But the report doesn't clearly say what happened. Instead, it hints that maybe the pilots messed up. It mentions a short conversation between the two – one supposedly asked why the engines were shut off, and the other said, 'I didn't do it.' We don't even know their actual words or who said what. The report doesn't explain what happened before or after, either. So why share this tiny piece of the story in a way that makes the pilots look bad? They're not here to explain their side, and that's unfair. Also, years ago, the US found a problem with fuel switches on some Boeing planes – the kind used on this flight. Those switches sometimes didn't lock properly. That could be a big clue. The report does mention this, but not very seriously. Even worse, the report wasn't signed by anyone, no experienced pilots helped with the investigation, and journalists in other countries saw it before it was shared in India. So yes, AAIB met its deadline. But the report didn't help grieving families or make flying safer. It just raised more questions – and that's not how something this serious should be handled. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Need for a revamp: on the Ahmedabad air crash probe, aviation safety
The preliminary report flowing from the investigation into the crash of an Air India Boeing 787-8 at Ahmedabad, on June 12, 2025, has a focal point now. Released in the early hours of July 12, a month after the accident, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's 15-page document has highlighted the fuel control switches of 'Engine 1 and Engine 2' having 'transitioned from the 'Run' to the 'Cutoff' position, one after another, with a time gap of one second'. That this happened just after flight AI171 had begun to lift off from the 3,505-metre-long runway, leading to the engines beginning to decrease from their take-off values as fuel starvation hit, has accentuated another detail. How did two separate switches that are guarded by brackets, feature a metal stop locking mechanism and have separate systems for redundancy move to 'cutoff'? And why? The element of bafflement by one crew member, and denial by the other pilot, over the cutoff, has compounded the issue, more so in the absence of the full and raw transcript of the cockpit voice recording. However, in the midst of the crisis, what must be acknowledged was a display of airmanship, with a partially successful relighting of the GEnx-1B70/75/P2 engines, which ended with the call of May Day. While the key details in the report have evoked appeals by a pilot body for a revamped probe, especially to 'stop the bias towards pilot error', the investigation team must now stay the course to ensure that there is a sound, comprehensive and transparent investigation. There has also been focus on an FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin of 2018 that concerns the potential for disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature, and applicable to the Boeing 787 aircraft family. In a reaction to the preliminary report and its findings, there has been some expert commentary on the topic of crew well-being, but in a counter to this, the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association has said that 'pilots undergo extensive psychological and professional screening... and operate under the highest standards of safety'. However, the subject of Crew Resource Management and Line Oriented Flight Training may need to be revamped, more so with this being an unusual incident of dual engine failure. Finally, despite the preliminary report's pitch of there 'not being recommended actions that concern the aircraft type and the engine manufacturer', India's expanding civil aircraft fleet requires greater vigilance in terms of maintenance and operations. Airport funnel zones and obstacle limitations must be reviewed too as it is a given that air crew and passengers have safer flights.
