Air India crash report: Pilots' grouping ALPA seeks fair, fact-based probe into AI plane crash
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its preliminary report into the fatal Boeing 787-8 plane crash on June 12 that killed 260 people.
The report has found that the fuel supply to both engines of Air India flight AI171 was cut off within a second of each other, causing confusion in the cockpit and the airplane plummeting back to ground almost immediately after taking off.
The 15-page report says that in the cockpit voice recording, one unidentified pilot asked the other why he had cut off the fuel, which the other denied.
"The tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias towards pilot error... ALPA India categorically rejects this presumption and insists on a fair, fact-based inquiry," Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA) said in a statement.
The association has also demanded that its representatives should be observers in the investigation process to ensure transparency and accountability.
ALPA Indiais a member associate of the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Association (IFALPA).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
3 hours ago
- India.com
Air India Crash: Why Boeing's Fuel Switch Is Under Scrutiny – And What US Agency Said About It
New Delhi: Days after a preliminary investigation report into the deadly Air India plane crash pointed to a possible issue with Boeing's fuel control switch, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) responded by saying that the switches installed on Boeing aircraft, including the Dreamliner, remain safe for use. The FAA's statement came after India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released its first official findings into the June crash that killed 260 people. The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, flying from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, went down just moments after takeoff. The report stated that both fuel cutoff switches on the aircraft moved from the 'Run' to 'Cutoff' position shortly after liftoff, disrupting engine thrust. This, investigators believe, triggered the chain of events that led to the crash. According to the AAIB, this uncommanded movement of the switches caused both engines to stop receiving fuel. The cockpit voice recorder captured one pilot asking the other, 'Why did you cut the fuel?' The response was, 'I did not.' Indian investigators cited a 2018 FAA advisory that had warned Boeing operators to inspect the locking mechanism of fuel cutoff switches to prevent unintentional movement. However, the FAA had not mandated any action. The AAIB confirmed that Air India had not acted on the 2018 advisory. The FAA said it had reviewed the AAIB's preliminary report and acknowledged the advisory was issued because some switches had been installed without locking features. However, the agency clarified that it did not classify the issue as a safety hazard warranting formal airworthiness directives. The FAA stated that fuel control switches across Boeing models, including the 787, share a similar locking design, and they did not consider the current configuration unsafe. The agency said it would continue sharing findings with other international civil aviation authorities. Air India also issued a statement expressing solidarity with the families affected by the tragedy. The airline confirmed it had received the preliminary report on July 12 and said it was cooperating fully with all relevant authorities. The airline's statement did not comment on the report's technical findings. It reiterated that Air India remained committed to supporting the investigation and requested that any specific queries be directed to the AAIB. The crash occurred less than a minute after takeoff from Ahmedabad. The aircraft hit a building near the runway, killing 260 of the 261 people onboard. A ill-fated flight left one survivor. According to the AAIB, the flight had reached an airspeed of 180 knots when both fuel cutoff switches flipped within one second of each other. Roughly 10 seconds later, the switches were flipped back to the 'Run' position that was too late to prevent engine failure. One of the pilots issued a Mayday distress call, but air traffic controllers received no response. Moments later, the plane crashed. CCTV footage from the airport showed the aircraft lifting off and immediately losing altitude. Investigators highlighted that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a small emergency turbine that deploys to restore hydraulic power, activated just after takeoff, indicating a complete loss of engine power. There were no signs of bird activity or obstruction on the flight path, the report said. A full report with detailed findings is expected within the next 12 months.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 hours ago
- Business Standard
Datanomics: Pilot error identified as top cause for air accidents
Jayant Pankaj Listen to This Article The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Saturday released its preliminary report on the June 12 Air India 171 crash in Ahmedabad, stating that the engine fuel switches appeared to have been 'cut off' seconds after the flight took off. As of now, it remains unclear whether the pilots themselves cut them off, and it is too early to conclude if pilot error was responsible for the accident. However, according to AAIB's investigations, pilot error did emerge as a major source of air accidents between 2014 and 2022. How they happened AAIB investigated 13 cases related to
Economic Times
7 hours ago
- Economic Times
AI 171 crash probe raises more questions than answers
The sole purpose of states devoting resources to investigate an air accident is to determine the cause and take corrective action to prevent a recurrence. What such an investigation absolutely shouldn't do is apportion or indicate blame on investigators in the AI 171 crash have managed to do with the preliminary report that was released on Saturday is exactly opposite of that. It has left the airlines and regulators wondering what should be done to prevent another air tragedy, while hinting at casting aspersions on capability or mental health of pilots. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommends that in cases of heightened public attention, the state investigating the case should publish the report within 30 days. It should lay down all facts obtained during the early stages of the investigation and provide safety recommendations if it deems fit at that stage. Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has done remarkably well to meet this deadline. But a bare reading of the report reflects it trying to hide more than providing information. Initial reports of investigations into similar crashes present a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) along with timestamps. For instance, while releasing the early report into the investigation of the accidents involving Boeing 737 Max aircraft, Indonesian and Ethiopian authorities laid out the entire transcript of the CVR. It depicted the pilots' struggle to regain control of the plane despite performing all procedures mandated by the manufacturer. Airlines and regulators across the world look to such cues to take preventive action so as to cut down any factors that can risk flight of such details in AAIB's report - while cherry-picking a single sentence in which one pilot is heard asking the other regarding why he had cut off the fuel switch, to which the reply was that he hadn't - is questionable. It has led to pointless speculation on pilot error, or worse, pilot suicide, since these switches in crafts like the 787 have safeguards like metal lock and a guard built around them to avoid any accidental 'switching off'.By keeping the report open-ended, AAIB has provided fertile ground for claims and counter-claims that can affect pilots at large. Further, it gives no further details on what happened in the 10 secs between the switches being cut off and being put on again. Surely, sharing such details wouldn't have harmed the probe process. Instead, it would have helped to understand why investigators believe they see no risk with either the Boeing 787 aircraft or GE report also cites a 2018 advisory of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which flagged the possibility of disengagement of the fuel switch-locking mechanism, although in a different type of aircraft. Because the bulletin was advisory and the issue was not deemed an unsafe condition, it stated that Air India did not conduct inspections on its fleet. It raises the suspicion about whether the crash was due to bad engineering practice. But in the very next sentence, the report states that Air India replaced the throttle control module twice, in 2019 and a modern-generation jet like Boeing 787, the thrust control module and fuel control switches are physically integrated into the same unit, and replacing the module also involves replacing fuel switches. If at all investigators felt that it was a significant fact in the accident, the least they could have done is advise airlines to check the locking mechanism of the crux of ensuring success of a process is to maintain public trust. The report has managed to break that trust with some claiming it's hiding pilot error, intentional or not. From the very start, the investigation process has been shrouded with controversy with AAIB or civil aviation ministry deciding not to give any update. It is essential to effectively communicate in today's 'real-time information' era. In the absence of that, it's misinformation that fills the void. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. The 10-second mystery: Did the Air India crash report hide more than what it revealed? Can Indian IT's 'pyramid' survive the GenAI shake-up? Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe. The deluge that's cooling oil prices despite the Iran conflict Stock Radar: Natco Pharma stock showing signs of momentum after falling over 30% from highs – what should investors do? In mid-caps, 'just hold' often creates wealth: 10 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential up to 44% F&O Talk | Foreign outflows, IT drag pull nifty lower; next support at 24,500: Rahul Ghose How to use dividend yield in volatile times: 6 stocks where this strategy has a high chance of giving much better returns
