Air India warned by DGCA for flying Airbus planes with unchecked escape slides
In the report, the said spot checks in May on three Air India Airbus planes found that they were operated despite mandatory inspections being overdue on the "critical emergency equipment" of escape slides.
In one case, the watchdog found that the inspection of an Airbus A320 jet was delayed by more than a month before being carried out on May 15. AirNav Radar data shows that during the delay the plane flew to international destinations such as Dubai, Riyadh and Jeddah.
Another case, involving an Airbus A319 used on domestic routes, showed checks were over three months late, while a third showed an inspection was two days late.
"The above cases indicate that aircraft were operated with expired or unverified emergency equipment, which is a violation of standard airworthiness and safety requirements," the DGCA report said.
'Weak procedural control'
Air India "failed to submit timely compliance responses" to deficiencies raised by the DGCA, "further evidencing weak procedural control and oversight," it added.
Air India, which was taken over by the Tata Group in 2022 from the government, said in statement that it was "accelerating" verification of all maintenance records, including dates of the escape slides, and would complete the process in the coming days.
In one of the cases, Air India said, the issue came to light when an engineer from AI Engineering Services "inadvertently deployed an escape slide during maintenance".
The DGCA and Airbus did not respond to Reuters queries.
'Very serious issue'
Checks on escape slides are "a very serious issue. In case of accident, if they don't open, it can lead to serious injuries," said Vibhuti Singh, a former legal expert at the government's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.
The DGCA said in its report that the certificates of airworthiness for aircraft that miss mandatory checks were "deemed suspended".
The warning notices and the report were sent by Animesh Garg, a deputy director of airworthiness in the Government, to Air India CEO Campbell Wilson as well as the airline's continuing airworthiness manager, quality manager and head of planning, the documents showed.
An aviation lawyer said such breaches typically attract monetary and civil penalties on both individual executives and the airline. Mr. Wilson told Reuters last year that global parts shortages were affecting most airlines, but the problem was "more acute" for Air India as its "product is obviously a lot more dated", with many planes not refreshed since they were delivered in 2010-2011.
'Systemic control failure'
The air regulator, like many abroad, often fines airlines for compliance lapses. The junior aviation minister in February told Parliament that authorities had warned or fined airlines in 23 instances for safety violations last year.
Around half of them — 12 — involved Air India and Air India Express, including in one case for "unauthorised entry into the cockpit". The biggest fine was ₹1.1 crore on Air India for "insufficient oxygen on board" during a flight to San Francisco.
Last week's crash, the causes of which are still being investigated, will further challenge Air India's attempts to rebuild its image, after years of criticism from travellers for poor service. Air India's Chairman N. Chandrasekaran on Monday told staff the crash should be a catalyst to build a safer airline, urging employees to stay resolute amid any criticism.
In its report, the DGCA also said several Air India aircraft checked by officials had outdated registration paperwork. Air India told Reuters all but one aircraft complied with such requirements and this "poses no impact" to safety.
The DGCA investigation report pulled up the airline for what it described as "inadequate internal oversight."
"Despite prior notifications and identified deficiencies, the organisation's internal quality and planning departments failed to implement effective corrective action, indicating systemic control failure," it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Air India crash report: Before jumping to conclusions, what we need to know about aircraft designs
Written by Avijit Chatterjee The preliminary accident report for the Air India 171 Boeing 787 crash (Air India crash report) indicates dual engine shutdown, resulting from a complete fuel supply switch-off during the initial climb phase of the flight following take-off. The task of the investigators is now to establish causality for this event. In aviation, accidents during the take-off phase are statistically far less than during the landing phase, though both are equally devastating in terms of toll. Passenger aircraft are designed based on strict FAA guidelines allowing for take-off and climb in the event of a single engine failure in a twin-engine aircraft like the Boeing 787. Both engines failing is possibly one of the very few ways a twin-engine aircraft can crash during this initial climb phase after take-off. The same engine failure may be relatively less devastating in most other phases of aircraft flight. This places enormous responsibility on the accident investigators to establish causality in the larger interest of passenger safety in global civil aviation. The design and development of modern commercial passenger aircraft is possibly the most conservative process in technology product development. Any significant departure from an existing design requires years of testing by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), mandated by stringent regulatory airworthiness and fault tolerance requirements. There are usually multiple redundancies built into the system to prevent single-point or related failures in critical systems. All this has made modern commercial aviation probably the safest way to travel by most metrics and also the most fuel efficient in terms of passenger kilometres, that is, the number of passengers times the distance travelled. New or 'clean sheet' designs of commercial passenger aircraft are extremely rare, given the large lead time and high costs involved in the aircraft design and development process. Aircraft OEMs generally rely on re-engineering their existing products for more contemporary usage — for example, by stretching the fuselage or installing new, more efficient engines to an existing legacy airframe. These changes can sometimes have unanticipated repercussions, as in the case of Boeing 737 MAX crashes and the recent grounding of various Airbus passenger jet aircraft due to engine-related issues. However, the march of technology, the quest for higher performance and efficiency, new emission regulatory norms brought about by environmental concerns and ever-present economic considerations imply that design and related changes in civil passenger aircraft are inevitable. The familiar shape of a commercial passenger aircraft, the conventional 'tube-wing' architecture, has largely remained unchanged for almost a century. The popular consensus is that this tube-wing architecture has almost reached its limits in terms of the size of the engine it can be integrated with, with adequate ground clearance. Efficiency and, to an extent, emissions in high-speed passenger jet aircraft have traditionally been addressed by increasing the fan diameter, or the so-called by-pass ratio, in modern turbofan engines to reduce fuel burn. However, there will soon be no room left between the ground and the wing to accommodate further increases in fan diameter within such an architecture. An obvious way to reduce flight-related emissions is to move to electric propulsion with an 'all-electric aircraft'. But current battery technology is adequate only for small aircraft, and all-electric aircraft for large-scale commercial aviation is unlikely in the near future. OEMs like Boeing and Airbus, meanwhile, are also betting on the 'more electric aircraft' concept. The more electric aircraft still use a conventional internal combustion (IC) engine. However, secondary on-board power —such as that needed for the cabin environment, anti-icing, and other systems — no longer comes from compressed air bled from the main engine, as is traditionally done. Instead, it is supplied entirely by electricity generated through on-board generators connected to the engines. The Boeing 787 was the forerunner in this technology with radically different onboard electricity generation and distribution compared to its peers. With communication and computing technology progressing at a tremendous pace and at reduced costs, modern aircraft avionics is likely to embrace more of what is referred to as commercial, off-the-shelf technology or COTS products as opposed to being custom-built. COTS usage in aircraft safety-critical applications brings in fresh safety challenges. All this implies that changes — even radical in nature—in civil passenger aircraft technology are inevitable. But as OEMs and regulators have learnt, often the hard way, the safety aspects of these changes are paramount. Commercial passenger aircraft design, development, and manufacture have always been a hugely capital-intensive exercise with uncertain returns, factors responsible for the handful of OEMs in this segment. Given the capital costs and financial risks associated with large aircraft projects, a natural way out was the formation of consortiums like Airbus and Eurofighter. Consortium partners share risks and rewards, as seen in the successful Airbus model. The modern manufacturing system, followed by OEMs like Boeing, relies on outsourcing almost 60–70 per cent of the value of the manufacture to a select sub-group of suppliers, in what is popularly known as the Tier 1 supply chain model. This can further lead to a potential lack of oversight and safety issues. Modern commercial passenger aircraft is an incredibly complex system, but it is a part of civil aviation — a system-of-systems, which includes multiple stakeholders like passengers, ATC, flight crew, maintenance, operations, etc. This system-of-systems usually operates with rare precision to transport billions of passengers per year safely to their destinations. However, despite multiple built-in redundancies for safety purposes, accidents do happen. It is imperative that, through a thorough accident investigation, causality is established in such eventualities, leading to OEMs, regulators, and airline operators making necessary design and/or policy changes in the interest of the safety of passengers, crew, and denizens of communities in risk-prone airport communities. The writer is professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT-Bombay
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Apple needs a new CEO? Analyst says Tim Cook not the right boss in AI age
There has been long-standing talk of a new Apple CEO taking the helm of the company. Many have discussed who might be next in line after Tim Cook. Now, with this talk already in place, analysts have said that Apple may, in fact, need a new CEO amid the fast-growing AI race. Apple CEO Tim Cook took the helm of the company in 2011.(Reuters) As reported by Bloomberg, analyst Walter Piecyk from LightShed Partners has voiced that a change could be for the better. The analysts made this statement just days after Apple announced that its Chief Financial Officer would be replaced to make way for Indian-origin executive Sabih Khan. This major shift seems to have sparked the debate all over again: does Apple need a new CEO? And where is Apple currently lacking? MOBILE FINDER: iPhone 16 LATEST Price Apple Needs A Product-Focused CEO, Analyst Says Walter Piecyk told Bloomberg in a video interview that while Tim Cook was an incredible CEO for the iPhone era for Apple, the company now needs someone who's 'product-focused.' 'This is to say nothing of Tim Cook being an incredible CEO for what they needed during this iPhone era with logistics. But now, you clearly need someone that can move forward on a lot of the product development,' Piecyk said. Apple Needs To Step Up With AI The analyst also didn't sugar-coat their words when it came to their interpretation of the state of AI at Apple. He said that Apple has missed product cycles, with the big one being AI. 'It's one thing to pull the string on things like Apple TV, which were predicted for years and never happened, or 'Project Titan' which was a much bigger one, which was an autonomous car.' 'Huge opportunity, I think missed, by stopping that program,' Walter Piecyk said. 'AI, in general, not only is a missed revenue opportunity, but if you're not a major player there, and you're one of these large companies like Apple, Google, or whoever, you know, that in itself can disrupt you, " he added. He added that Apple is clearly far behind in the AI race, and that the iPhone maker 'over promised' a year ago and that's being kind to call that over promising. The analyst also called Siri 'not a good service', and labelled it as a 'real risk to the company.' Tim Cook May Not Go Anywhere, Anytime Soon So, while analysts have voiced that Tim Cook needs to go in favour of a product-focused CEO, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has reported a contrasting view, saying that Tim Cook is not going anywhere, but an Apple shake-up certainly is in line. He says there are currently no signs to suggest that Apple CEO Tim Cook could leave the helm, and he says that the board is not asking him to either. This is despite the fact that Cook's COO, Jeff Williams, is going to retire from his position. The report also adds that most of Cook's direct reports are not that young, and are in their 60s. This is why Apple seems to be overhauling its leadership, with people like Sabih Khan coming into the picture. Having said that, considering many have said that Apple needs a product-focused CEO, people like John Ternus have been thrown into the limelight again to potentially succeed as Apple's next CEO.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
South Korea preparing to order airlines to check fuel switches on Boeing jets
South Korea's transport ministry is preparing to order all airlines in the country that operate Boeing jets to examine fuel switches in accordance with a 2018 advisory from the US Federal Aviation Administration, the ministry's foreign media spokesperson said on Monday. The spokesperson did not give a timeline for the checks. Boeing did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Fuel switch locks have come under scrutiny after a preliminary report into the crash of an Air India's Boeing 787-8 jet that killed 260 people last month mentioned a 2018 advisory from the FAA. The FAA advisory recommended, but did not mandate, operators of several Boeing models, including the 787, to inspect the locking feature of the fuel cutoff switches to ensure they could not be moved accidentally. Reuters reported on Sunday, citing a document and sources, that the planemaker and the FAA have privately issued notifications to airlines and regulators that the fuel switch locks on Boeing planes are safe and checks are not required. The Air India preliminary report said the airline had not carried out the FAA's suggested inspections as the FAA's 2018 advisory was not a mandate. But it also said maintenance records showed that the throttle control module, which includes the fuel switches, was replaced in 2019 and 2023 on the plane involved in the crash.
