The question spurring fresh intrigue in the Air India crash
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, bound for London Gatwick from Ahmedabad, crashed shortly after takeoff, resulting in 260 fatalities, including 241 of the 242 people on board.
Cockpit voice recordings captured a moment of confusion where one pilot questioned why the fuel had been cut off, which the other pilot denied.
The two pilots, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Cliver Kunder, had vastly different levels of experience, with Mr Sabharwal nearing retirement and Mr Kunder at the start of his career.
The Airline Pilots' Association of India has rejected the presumption of pilot error, calling for a "fair, fact-based inquiry," while Air India's CEO cautioned against premature conclusions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
British man who was world's oldest marathon runner dies aged 114
A British man who is believed to be the oldest marathon runner in the world has died in a road accident aged 114. Fauja Singh was hit by a car while trying to cross a road in his birth village Beas Pind, near Jalandhar in Punjab on Monday. His London-based running club, Sikhs In The City, confirmed his death and said their upcoming events will be a celebration of his life and achievements. Born in what was British-ruled Punjab in April 1911, Singh was said to have suffered from thin and weak legs as a child. The youngest of four children in a farming family, he was unable to walk until he was five years old. He moved to England and settled in Ilford, east London in 1992 with his son after the death of his wife Gian Kaur in Jalandhar. It was not until 2000, aged 89, that he took up running, quickly rising to fame by completing his first marathon in London in six hours and 54 minutes - 58 minutes faster than the previous world's best in the 90-plus age bracket. He made his name by beating a number of records for marathon times in multiple age brackets, and the centenarian became an inspiration for countless athletes by running marathons past the age of 100. His personal best came at the Toronto marathon in 2003, where he ran the course in just five hours 40 minutes. He then became the first centenarian to run a marathon eight years later and retired at the age of 101, after being a torchbearer for the London 2012 Olympics. Harmander Singh, Fauja Singh's coach at Sikhs In The City, confirmed his death in a statement posted to the running club. The statement said: 'Dearest runners. It is with great sadness that we can confirm our icon of humanity and powerhouse of positivity Fauja Singh has passed away in India. Aged 114 years old. 'He succumbed to injuries caused by a vehicle accident while crossing the road close to his home.' The club will be devoting all of its events until March next year to celebrate Singh's life and achievements. It asked mourners to donate to his clubhouse appeal rather than buy flowers. Labour MP Preet Kaur Gill also paid tribute to the runner, posting on X: 'Saddened to hear about the passing of Fauja Singh. 'I had the honour of meeting him. A truly inspiring man. His discipline, simple living, and deep humility left a lasting mark on me. 'A reminder that age is just a number, but attitude is everything. Rest in power, legend.'
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Air India crash: Five unanswered questions in wake of 'murky' report
Crash investigators, fresh from combing through the wreckage of Air India Flight AI171, have released a short, 15-page report clarifying the facts around the disaster Air India crash investigators have delivered what experts have criticised as a "murky and inexact" preliminary report that has left several new questions about the disaster. All but one of the plane's 242 passengers and dozens of people on the ground in Ahmedabad, India, died when flight AI171 plummeted to the ground shortly after taking off for London's Gatwick Airport on June 12. Investigators from multiple agencies have spent the following month poring over the crash site and black box recordings recovered from the aircraft. The Air Accident Investigation Bureau has now delivered its first report, but it has raised new questions where it should have provided some initial clarity. Did someone turn off the plane's engines? Investigators said in their report that fuel to the plane's engines appeared to have been cut off shorly after it took off for its flight to the UK. The report also documents a conversation between the two pilots captured by cockpit voice recording - one of several black box components - during which one of the pilots appears to accuse the other of having deliberately cut the engines. The report states: 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off. "The other pilot responded that he did not do so." The report, which also confirms mechanical failure did not cause the disaster, adds the fuel switches were moved back to allow fuel to properly flow, but the plane was already doomed at this point. Could the plane have recovered? Crucially, the Air India report reveals the fuel switches were not placed in the "off" position by mechanical fault, and that pilots had flicked them back to the "on" position after realising how they were organised. The report states that, when this is done in flight, the plane "automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction". It adds that the engines were able to reignite, and "core deceleration" stopped in number one before progressing to "recovery" mode. Engine two, however, was unable to "arrest core speed deceleration", and was repeated re-introducing fuel to increase "acceleration and recovery". The plane crashed a matter of seconds later as it drifted too close to the ground at too slow a speed, and it remains unclear as to whether, had the other engine been able to properly reactivate, it could have recovered from this point. What happened in the cockpit? The report only includes a very brief mention of an interaction between the two pilots, but nothing else, leaving questions about what was happening in the cockpit before the crash. Experts have said investigators still need to identify voices inside the cockpit to decode the full conversation leading up to the disaster, and that this hasn't been done yet. Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the US air accident investigation organisation, said this is "crucial". He told the BBC: "They haven't identified the voices yet, which is crucial. Typically, when the voice recorder is reviewed, people familiar with the pilots are present to help match voices. As of now, we still don't know which pilot turned the switches off and back on." Why does the report mention a 2018 bulletin? The report, building the focus on the fuel switches, includes a passage mentioning a report released by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) "regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature". The bulletin, the report mentions, was issued "based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes thatthe fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged". Despite occupying more than half a page of the report, the passage adds that the feature was not "considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) by the FAA". Airworthiness Directives are regulations subject to legal enforcement that correct any unsafe conditions identified in a product, and the absence of one in this case suggests the cited problem is not especially major. Experts have questioned why the report was included, and what it may mean. Speaking to the BBC, former airline accident investigator Shawn Pruchnicki, who is now an aviation expert at Ohio State University in the US, said the passage leaves even more unanswered questions. He said:"What does this [bit in the report] exactly mean? Does it mean that with a single flip, that switch could shut the engine off and cut the fuel supply? "When the locking feature is disengaged, what exactly happens? Could the switch just flip itself to off and shut down the engine? If that's the case, it's a really serious issue. If not, that also needs to be explained." What happens next? The preliminary report, posted exactly a month following the Air India disaster, is a short, 15-page document that establishes some basic facts about the incident. While it has naturally raised more questions about the crash itself, it has also left people curious as to when investigtors will deliver full, more complete conclusions. The exact timeframe remains to be seen, with a full report not expected to arrive for another several months now.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
The unanswered questions about Air India crash after preliminary report published
On The Ground newsletter: Get a weekly dispatch from our international correspondents Get a weekly dispatch from our international correspondents Get a weekly international news dispatch Email * SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month's crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground. The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence. Here's what the report actually says, why we don't yet know what caused the crash, and why it's important not to speculate. What the preliminary report does say What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff. open image in gallery A crane retrieves part of the fuselage from the crash site ( Getty Images ) According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU). The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure. The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots. Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from 'run' to 'cutoff' three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to 'run'. The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn't restart in time. open image in gallery 260 people died in the crash ( Getty Images ) We don't know what the pilots did Flight data recorders don't capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they're an accurate representation of the pilot's actions in the cockpit. While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case. In my own work investigating safety incidents, I've seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action. We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don't know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to 'cutoff'. And we may never know. As we also don't have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots' actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by theaircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit. We don't have the full conversation between the pilots open image in gallery People light candles in a prayer ceremony for the victims of the crash ( AFP/Getty ) Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says: 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don't know who says what. Second, we don't know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don't know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased. Finally, we don't know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know. What's crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn't support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation. Air India flight 'was doomed' without sufficient power, explains Simon Calder We don't know if there was a mechanical failure The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine. This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that. What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world. This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened. Why we must resist premature conclusions In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers. It's also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It's based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace. The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement. This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast. Guido Carim Junior is a Senior Lecturer in Aviation at Griffith University This article was originally published by The Conversation and is republished under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article
