‘Use latest technology to hold online counselling classes'
2
3
Patna: Nalanda Open University (NOU) vice-chancellor (VC)
Ravindra Kumar
on Friday called upon the teachers and counsellors to hold their online counselling classes using the latest technology.
This would ensure that even students residing in remote areas could take advantage of these classes and enhance their knowledge, compared to day scholars enrolled in regular institutions.
Inaugurating a daylong workshop on "online counselling classes" organised for coordinators and teachers, the VC said that the basic aim of the university is to link all the needy students enrolled in the distance mode of education with online classes before their examinations.
"This will help them understand their subjects properly," he said.
The participants learned the techniques for creating their online links and conducting counselling classes. Previously, the university created a link for all the online classes, which sometimes confused the teachers and students.
The course coordinator of information technology Amar Nath Pandey conducted the workshop and gave a presentation on the technique of conducting online classes. Information technology teacher Kiran Pandey proposed a vote of thanks.
Follow more information on
Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here
. Get
real-time live updates
on rescue operations and check
full list of passengers onboard AI 171
.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 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.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Dismay, unease among Air India pilots after preliminary crash report
They flag its 'vague' language and omission of key technical details Deepak Patel New Delhi Listen to This Article Air India pilots are 'deeply disturbed' and 'demoralised' by what they claim is an ambiguous preliminary report that hints at pilot error while failing to account for known technical concerns, following last month's fatal crash of flight AI171 near Ahmedabad. Speaking to Business Standard, pilots criticised the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's (AAIB) preliminary findings — released on Saturday — for using vague language and omitting key technical details. The report stated that both engine fuel control switches on the Boeing 787-8 'transitioned' from 'RUN' to 'CUTOFF' just three seconds after takeoff on June 12, resulting in a sudden dual-engine power loss.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
The Air India crash report and unanswered questions
The release of the preliminary investigation report into the tragic crash of Air India Flight AI171 on June 12, 2025, brings with it a fresh wave of confusion, and suspicion. The 15-page document, expected to clarify the early findings of the crash of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner at Ahmedabad, opens a Pandora's box of unresolved questions and incomplete disclosures. It paints a picture that is more fragmented than coherent. Flight AI171, operating a scheduled service from Ahmedabad to London, crashed moments after takeoff, killing all 260 people on board. The aircraft, VT-ANB, lifted off the runway and within seconds, both engines ceased to produce thrust. Within half a minute, the plane had descended into the nearby college hostels, engulfed in flames. According to the report, the aircraft reached a speed of 180 knots at approximately 08:08:42 UTC. Shortly after, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel control switches were found to have transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF — just one second apart. Ten seconds later, the crew attempted to restart the engines. But by then, it was too late. The aircraft descended uncontrollably to the ground. ICAO Annex 13 clearly states that the objective of a preliminary report is not to assign blame or determine cause, but to provide a factual sequence of events, highlight significant safety concerns, and issue urgent recommendations if necessary. It is meant to inform other States and parties involved about the early facts of the case, so that timely corrective actions may be initiated if needed. However, while the AI171 preliminary report adheres to the form of Annex 13, it falls short in spirit and substance. It avoids conclusions, as expected, but in doing so also omits a substantial amount of critical information that should have been presented. The most glaring absence is of the comprehensive Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data. The report mentions the transition of the fuel control switches, which implies that this data exists and was retrieved. Yet, no graphical or tabular snapshot has been shared through the report. Nor is there any confirmation that 100% of the FDR data was recovered. Similarly, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) is only referenced once — a vague sentence about an attempted restart. There is no transcript, no clear timeline of the cockpit conversation, and no insight into the crew's awareness or state of mind. In high-profile crashes worldwide — such as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — the preliminary reports have included detailed readouts from the FDR and CVR, graphical system schematics, warning messages, and pilot action logs. Those reports ran over 30 pages and offered transparency in the public interest. In contrast, AI171's report appears hastily compiled, which should not be the case for an investigative report. It describes the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) — a small emergency turbine that powers key systems during engine failures, shortly after takeoff. It also notes a slew of unrelated system alerts yet offers no explanation as to why these were triggered, whether they were consequential or collateral, or how the aircraft's health monitoring system processed them. Moreover, critical questions remain unanswered: Did the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) generate an ENG FAIL or similar warning at any point? Why did both fuel control switches move to CUTOFF? Was it pilot action, inadvertent contact, or a system fault? Did the pilots misinterpret any signal, or was the failure abrupt and total? Why did the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) not activate? Why were crash-proof recorders (EFAR) damaged, especially when installed in parts of the fuselage designed to survive impact? Adding to the mystery is the discrepancy in the aircraft's altitude. The RAT is said to have deployed at 60 feet, as inferred from the CCTV image, which again fails to produce a timestamp, which suggests that the onboard systems had already detected a power loss almost instantly after liftoff. Yet, the report timestamps this after the fuel control switch cutoff. Which came first: the RAT deployment or the engine shutdown? Absolute clarity about the sequence is necessary. The report offers no safety recommendations. Despite multiple system anomalies, potential failure of critical safety features, and questionable cockpit switch behaviour, the report stops short of issuing a preliminary advisory to airlines, manufacturers, or regulators. Compare this with Boeing's past actions. After similar incidents, service bulletins and safety information bulletins were quickly issued. Was any such communication shared internally within Air India or to other 787 operators worldwide? For the families of the 260 people killed, this report offers no reassurance on the investigation, no clarity on whether similar aircraft are safe, and no indication that anyone has been held accountable or that corrective measures are underway. Transparency is the cornerstone of trust in aviation safety. A preliminary report that fails to provide basic data may only fuel doubt, and grief. In a country striving to become a global aviation hub, where air traffic is growing exponentially, this tragedy — and the lacklustre handling of its investigation — signals that our institutional capacity for accident investigation is still inadequate. The AI171 preliminary report was an opportunity to demonstrate transparency, integrity, and commitment to learning. Instead, even as it avoids speculation, it avoids detail too. It follows the letter of ICAO Annex 13, but not its spirit. What we need next is not just a final report but a cultural shift where accident reports are comprehensive, timely, and made with the public's right to know in mind — where safety recommendations are proactive and where the data speaks for itself, because in aviation, the truth is a matter of life and death. Amit Singh, a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society (FRAeS), is the founder of Safety Matters Foundation. The views expressed are personal
