&w=3840&q=100)
Air India crash: Parliamentary Committee summons Boeing officials and civil aviation secy
The parliamentary committee is also expected to hold meetings with officials from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Air India and Boeing read more
This handout taken and posted on the X (formerly Twitter) account of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) On June 12, 2025 shows the back of an Air India plane after it crashed in a residential area near the airport in Ahmedabad. Image- AFP
The Parliamentary Committee on Transport has summoned Boeing officials and the civil aviation secretary to appear before it over the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad earlier this month.
The committee is tasked with conducting a detailed study of the crash of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft that killed 275 people, with investigations being underway to ascertain the cause of the mishap.
The parliamentary committee is also expected to hold meetings with officials from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Air India and Boeing, according to a report by Economic Times.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The committee, led by Rajya Sabha MP and JDU national working president Sanjay Jha, also oversees matters concerning civil aviation. It is currently preparing a comprehensive report on passenger safety in air travel and plans to hold broader discussions on the Ahmedabad plane crash as part of this effort.
Earlier today, India denied the United Nations permission to join the probe into the AI 171 crash. The UN's aviation agency has taken the unusual step of offering India one of its investigators to assist.
Previously, the International Civil Aviation Organisation has deployed investigators to help with certain probes, such as the downing of a Malaysian plane in 2014 and a Ukrainian jetliner in 2020, but those times the agency had been asked for assistance.
Meanwhile, the Union Aviation Ministry, on Thursday, said that investigators downloaded flight recorder data around two weeks after the crash.
Under international rules known throughout the industry by their legal name 'Annex 13,' the decision of where to read flight recorders should be made immediately in case the evidence obtained could avert future tragedies.
Earlier this week, an Indian aviation ministry official who declined to be named said the department has been 'following all the ICAO protocols.' The official added that media representatives have made updates on important events.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
The Bomb That wasn't: How South Asia Lost Its Chance at Peace
History is shaped not just by what happened, but also by what didn't. In the early 1980s, India was ready for a pre-emptive strike on its sworn enemy that would have rewritten the future of South Asia. The plan was bold. Israeli jets would take off from Jamnagar airbase, refuel midair, and obliterate Pakistan's Kahuta nuclear facility—then still vulnerable. Operation Bonsai, as the Israelis reportedly codenamed it, had support in the highest quarters of Indian intelligence. But it was vetoed by Indira Gandhi—twice. Once in 1982. Again in 1984. Why? Washington's arrogance. Pakistan was its Cold War ally. The same Washington that now sermonises India about non-proliferation while running covert operations from Tel Aviv to Tehran. That selfsame empire sent veiled warnings of 'consequences' if India dared cross the line. And so Indira blinked. The rest is nuclear fallout. Now imagine a counter-history. Had the Kahuta facility been flattened before it reached criticality, Pakistan's nuclear deterrent would never have existed. No mushroom cloud diplomacy, no doctrine of 'plausible deniability' through nuclear cover that emboldened the Pakistani deep state to launch asymmetric warfare. Kargil might never have happened. The 2001 Indian Parliament attack could have met with full-spectrum retaliation. The 26/11 Mumbai massacre might not have been followed by a strategic shrug and a surgical strike for optics. More importantly, Pakistan would have been forced to behave like a conventional state, not a jihadist startup with nukes. Instead what has Islamabad done since going nuclear? Hosted Osama bin Laden under the nose of its military in Abbottabad. Launched Kargil under the nuclear umbrella.
NDTV
44 minutes ago
- NDTV
Sabotage Angle Also Being Probed In Air India Crash Case: Union Minister
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is probing from all angles, including sabotage, the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad that killed 274 people on board and on the ground last month, Minister of State (MoS) For Civil Aviation Murlidhar Mohol said. Mr Mohol also said the black box of the Air India flight AI 171 that has been recovered is in AAIB's custody and will not be outside the country for a thorough assessment. The MoS was in conversation with NDTV's Jitendra Dixit at the Pune chapter of the Emerging Business Conclave when he made the remarks. "It (plane crash) was an unfortunate incident. The AAIB has begun a full investigation into it... It is being probed from all angles, including any possible sabotage. The CCTV footage are being reviewed and all angles are being assessed... several agencies are working on it," he said. On June 12, London-bound AI 171, belonging to Boeing Dreamliner 787-8 fleet - crashed seconds after taking off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. Only one of the 242 passengers and crew members onboard survived the crash. Officials said the aircraft lost altitude soon after taking off at around 1.30pm. It crashed into the residential quarters of BJ Medical College doctors in Meghaninagar area before going up in flames, sending plumes of thick black smoke spiralling up in the air. Nine students and their relatives from the institute were among those who were killed in the accident on the ground. The pilot had issued a 'Mayday' distress call, denoting a full emergency, soon after takeoff, the Air Traffic Control at Ahmedabad said. The minister called the crash a "rare case". "It has never happened that both engines have shut down together," he said, referring to claims by veteran pilots and experts that a dual engine failure may have led to the crash. "Once the (probe) report comes, we will be able to ascertain if it was an engine problem or fuel supply issue or why both the engines had stopped functioning. There is a CVR (cockpit voice recorder) in the black box which has stored the conversation between the two pilots. It is too early to say anything but whatever it is, it will come out. The report will come in three months," he added. A black box is a small device that records information about an aircraft during its flight. It helps in the investigation of aviation accidents. It comprises two devices - the CVR and the flight data recorder (FDR). Mr Mohol dismissed reports that the black box will be sent abroad for scrutiny. "It will not go anywhere. It is in AAIB's custody and there is no need to send it outside. We will do the entire investigation," he said. He said it was natural for passengers to develop apprehensions over air travel immediately after the Air India plane crash. "But let me tell you... all 33 Dreamliners have been inspected on the orders of the DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation). Everything was found safe. That is why I said it was a rare accident. People are no longer scared and travelling comfortably," he said. Besides the crash, the minister spoke on issues such as 419 technical vacancies in the DGCA, the alleged exploitation of pilots by private airlines and on means to make air travel cheaper. "The DGCA will soon begin working on the issue of technical vacancies," he said. Asked if private airlines can make key appointments on their own, he said: "No appointments can be made without the DGCA's approval. Private airlines cannot take whoever they want. You need certain qualifications, etc." He also said a pilot working for a private airline can approach the Civil Aviation Ministry if he or she feels harassed over working long hours. Asked how air travel and food sold across airports can be made cheaper, he said: "The people will get food at cheap rates... Four to five airports have Udaan Yatri Cafes where you get water for Rs 10, tea and samosas for Rs 20 for tea... these will gradually expand."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
The emerging divide in US-Japan relations
The US–Japan alliance is considered the most enduring partnership in the Indo-Pacific. However, recent developments indicate a growing unevenness in this crucial bilateral relationship. Once a predictable and resilient alliance now appears misaligned, particularly in expectations surrounding defence spending, diplomatic access, and international crises. Japan's anxieties resurfaced with the return of a Donald Trump administration, although initial gestures offered reassurance. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, despite not having a prior personal relationship with Donald Trump, was among the first world leaders invited to the White House. This early outreach mirrored the treatment of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. By contrast, the Australian Prime Minister was kept waiting and, even after re-election, has yet to be hosted in Washington. For Japan, this suggested that they might successfully recalibrate ties with Washington. Growing inconsistencies in US demands and Japan's limited diplomatic access to key American officials are causing unease in Tokyo, particularly given the Ishiba administration's relative inexperience. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There are three clear signs of emerging strain. First, the US appears to be making broad demands on its allies in Europe and Asia regarding defence spending. The recently concluded NATO Summit in The Hague focused almost exclusively on persuading member states to raise defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. While this was directed at NATO members, similar expectations are now surfacing in US dealings with Indo-Pacific partners like Japan, Korea and Australia. In fact, Japan's Prime Minister Ishiba declined an invitation to attend the NATO summit, despite a recent tradition of Japanese PMs participating in the post-Ukraine context. This absence was interpreted as a deliberate signal that Tokyo does not wish to be drawn into the same defence-spending framework that NATO members have accepted. Japanese officials have reportedly encountered mixed messaging from Washington. On one hand, Japan is being informally asked to raise its defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP, a significant increase from its current level of 1.8 per cent, with a planned rise to 2 per cent by 2027. On the other hand, US interlocutors are framing this expectation as a part of trade negotiations, linking it to tariff reductions. This dual messaging is complicating Japan's internal policy environment. Tokyo wants such increases to be seen as sovereign decisions, not concessions made under US pressure, particularly with Upper House elections looming in July. Ishiba is wary of appearing weak or reactive in the face of American demands. A second sign of strain lies in the way US officials are extending NATO-style expectations to Indo-Pacific allies. During the Shangri-La Dialogue, US defence officials suggested that Australia should aim for 3.5 per cent of GDP in defence spending. The same figure is now increasingly being floated in Washington's dealings with Tokyo. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This recalibration appears to stem from people like Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defence for Policy. Japanese officials reportedly find it difficult to engage with Colby's office, which they view as pushing unrealistic and uncoordinated demands. Complicating matters, is confusion in Tokyo about whether the 5 per cent NATO target applies to Indo-Pacific allies, 3.5 per cent for defence and 1.5 per cent for infrastructure resilience, which Japan may find more manageable than significantly raising direct defence outlays. The NATO-IndoPacific4 communique is unclear on this. The US justifies these expectations by framing them in the context of preparing for a possible Taiwan crisis, which Washington believes could be triggered by China by 2027. However, the abruptness and unilateral nature of these expectations are generating friction rather than fostering alignment. Japan feels cornered by demands that neither respect its political sensitivities nor offer strategic clarity. Reflecting this discontent, Tokyo has postponed the US–Japan '2+2' ministerial meeting between their foreign and defence ministers, originally scheduled to coincide with the upcoming Quad Foreign Ministers' Meeting in July beginning. While Japan remains committed to participating in the Quad event, it has declined to hold the bilateral dialogue at this time. Tokyo insists it prefers to wait until after the July 20 Upper House elections, when Ishiba hopes for a stronger domestic mandate. Observers in both countries doubt this will significantly alter Washington's expectations or attitude. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Another manifestation of unevenness lies in Japan's cautious stance on US military actions. Japan has not explicitly supported the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, despite its alliance obligations. Ishiba remarked, 'It is difficult for Japan to make a definitive legal evaluation at this point.' Japan agrees that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons but is reluctant to condone an action lacking United Nations authorisation. For a country that places strong emphasis on international law, Japan fears that overt support for legally questionable military strikes could set dangerous precedents. This is especially relevant given the risk of China or North Korea engaging in similar actions in Japan's neighbourhood. Japan's current reticence is different from its past behaviour. In 2017, when the US struck Syria in response to chemical weapons use, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed understanding, albeit without giving outright support. In 2019, following attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, the US asked allies to join a naval coalition. Japan delayed participation for months and eventually sent its Self-Defence Forces independently, avoiding association with the US-led effort. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Japan's nuanced diplomacy reflects its effort to balance alliance solidarity with its national legal and economic considerations, particularly its better relations with Iran and its dependence on stable energy imports. The inconclusive Trump-Ishiba meeting on the sidelines of the G7 taught Japan that doing more on defence is not getting it leeway on trade tariffs. Strategic Mistrust Growing? In sum, the emerging unevenness in US–Japan relations stems from several sources: inconsistent and opaque US demands, lack of diplomatic access to key American policymakers, pressure to commit to steep defence increases, and divergent interpretations of international law. These issues are further exacerbated by a sense in Tokyo that Washington's strategic messaging lacks coordination and is poorly timed with Japan's domestic political calendar. The Ishiba administration appears intent on managing the alliance with caution and asserting Japan's strategic autonomy where possible. Yet the reality remains that alliance management under Trump 2.0 is proving more complicated than anticipated. Japan may be unwilling to say 'no', but it is increasingly finding ways to say 'not yet'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As regional instability intensifies and Washington raises the stakes in its strategic competition with China, how the US and Japan recalibrate their expectations of each other may well determine the future balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. The author is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, ASEAN and the African Union. He tweets @AmbGurjitSingh. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
