Latest news with #787Dreamliner
Daily Mirror
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mirror
Expert details Air India plane's 'problem' she believes led to horror crash
Air India flight AI171 crashed earlier this month - killing all but one of the 242 people onboard - but Natarajan Chandrasekaran, chairman of the airline, defended the plane's "clean" engines A computer glitch caused the doomed Air India flight AI171 to crash earlier this month, an aviation expert claimed today. The snag would have sent wrong information to the engine, potentially leading it to believe the Boeing was on the ground when in fact it was airborne on Thursday June 12 in Ahmedabad, western India. The plane careered into a medical college, killing all but one of those onboard and several more people in the building and on the ground. Mary Schiavo, an experienced professional who has worked on aviation disasters across each continent, said she believes a computer error is the most likely cause following a lack of concrete information shared by investigators so far. The former US Department of Transportation inspector general said: "I believe this crash was a computer problem. There are several 787 components that rely on computer code to tell the plane whether it is in the air or on the ground. If the computer or code malfunctions, the engines spool back and the thrust is reduced, even if in flight. "This happened on an ANA 787 flight in 2019, which suffered a dual engine failure as landing, and I'm afraid it could have occurred on the fatal Air India Flight 171." Ms Schiavo is now an aviation analyst and attorney, working for Motley Rice, a law firm investigating the possibilities of what might have occurred during the 787 Dreamliner disaster. As an attorney, she represented more than 50 of the family members of the passengers and crew of all the planes hijacked on September 11, 2001. But the expert says the Air India Flight 171 disaster shares parallels with the ANA 787 flight tragedy in July 2019, which saw another Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner - operated by All Nippon Airways - suffer an engine oil problem on approach to Haneda, also known as Tokyo International Airport, in Japan. It experienced a dual engine failure, something Ms Schiavo believes could have happened to the Air India jet. However, the airline's chairman, Natarajan Chandrasekaran, last week defended the plane's engines, describing them as "clean". The 62-year-old businessman told Times Now: "The right engine was a new engine put in March 2025. "The left engine was last serviced in 2023 and due for its next maintenance check in December 2025. There are a lot of speculations and a lot of theories. "But the fact that I know so far is this particular aircraft, this specific tail, AI171, has a clean history. I am told by all the experts that the black box and recorders will definitely tell the story. So, we just have to wait for that." The investigation into the crash continues.
Mint
3 days ago
- General
- Mint
Indian Air-Safety Audit Finds Multiple Lapses at Airlines, Hubs
(Bloomberg) -- India's aviation safety regulator found multiple aircraft-maintenance lapses in an audit of airlines and airports ordered after the crash of Air India flight AI171, including recurring defects that indicate inadequate monitoring and correction. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation also found unserviceable ground-handling equipment such as baggage trolleys in its surveillance of airports in New Delhi and Mumbai, as well as maintenance procedures such as tool controls and work-order instructions that weren't being followed. 'All the findings observed during the surveillance have been communicated to the concerned operators for taking necessary corrective actions within seven days,' the regulator said in a statement. The findings point to an aviation safety culture that hasn't kept up with the industry's rapid growth in India. Among the failings: Aircraft maintenance engineers ignored safety precautions and reported snags to be rectified, and defect reports generated by the aircraft system weren't being recorded in technical logbooks. One domestic flight had to be held due to worn tires observed by the inspectors, while a flight simulator at one facility wasn't set up to match with the aircraft's configuration, and its software hadn't been updated to the current version. The surveillance — part of the special audit announced after the June 12 crash in Ahmedabad — covered flight operations, airworthiness, ramp safety, air traffic control, communication, navigation and surveillance systems, and pre-flight medical evaluations, the DGCA said. All but one of the 242 people onboard the Boeing Co. 787 Dreamliner died, as well as several dozen on the ground after it crashed into the student hostel of a medical college. The DGCA said that at one of the two airports — it didn't say which — obstruction-limitation data hadn't been updated for three years, and no survey has been performed despite significant new construction near the airport. Since the Ahmedabad crash, India has proposed a law to demolish buildings that exceed height regulations. More stories like this are available on
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
More flight issues dog Air India, DGCA starts audit
Five passengers and two cabin crew reported nausea and dizziness on a London Heathrow to Mumbai flight on Monday even as the aviation regulator started an annual audit of the airline amid increased scrutiny following the fatal crash of AI 171 in Ahmedabad on 12 June. The London-bound Air India 171 aircraft crashed shortly after taking off from Gujarat airport on June 12. (Reuters) Air India confirmed the incident on flight AI 130 from London Heathrow to Mumbai but did not specify the cause. An airline official familiar with the matter, on condition of anonymity, said the passengers and crew fell sick due to slow decompression, or a gradual decrease in cabin pressure. 'A few of them were taken to the medical room (at Mumbai's Terminal 2 ) on wheelchairs,' an airport official, also on condition of anonymity, added. '... five passengers and two crew members reported feeling dizzy and nauseous during different phases of the flight. The flight landed safely in Mumbai, where our medical teams were ready to provide immediate assistance,' an Air India spokesperson said. The spokesperson said the two passengers and two cabin crew members who were taken to the medical room for further examination were later discharged. 'We are investigating the incident and have duly notified the regulator.' On 12 June, a 787 Dreamliner bound for London crashed in a densely populated residential area less than a minute after take off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 241 of 242 passengers and crew on board and approximately 30 people on the ground. The air crash is being investigated by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) as teams from the US and UK as well as those from Boeing and engine manufacturer GE. In another incident, it emerged that Air India flight AI 505, scheduled to take off for Cochin from Delhi on Saturday, was delayed after the pilot reportedly refused to fly because the mandatory logbook required to be in the cabin was missing. The A320neo (VT CIP) that arrived from Kuala Lumpur at 11am was leaving for Cochin at night, an official familiar with the matter said. 'During the night flight's pre-boarding inspection, it was found that the aircraft's Cabin Defect Log (CDL) was missing,' a second official said adding that it was not found even after searching for almost an hour. A new CDL was issued after discussions as the captain and crew would not fly the aircraft without it as it would be in violation of standard operating procedures, a third official said. An Air India spokesperson did not comment on the matter. But an airline official , on condition of anonymity, said the logbook couldn't be presented to the operating crew by Air India's engineering service provider, which was handling the maintenance checks for the flight. The replacement logbook that was arranged had all the data entries of the earlier book, the official said. 'However, the transfer resulted in a marginal delay and the issue is being investigated,' the official added. 'Unreported defects in emergency equipment may go unnoticed, posing a direct threat during emergencies. Cabin logs are part of regulatory compliance under the DGCA. Engineers rely on the cabin defect log to identify what needs fixing during turnaround. If cabin crew don't log issues, engineers cannot act, resulting in escalated minor issues, repeat occurrences, and poor aircraft reliability and serviceability, said aviation safety expert Amit Singh, founder of the Safety Matters Foundation India's aviation regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had on Saturday warned Air India that it is in danger of losing its licence over violation of crew scheduling norms, licensing, or flight time limitations detected in any post-audit or inspectionand sought action against three officials for systemic failures in crew scheduling, compliance monitoring, and internal accountability. On Monday, the regulator began a detailed audit of the Air India headquarters in Gurugram. The audit is believed to focus on operations, flight planning, scheduling, rostering, and the Integrated Operations Control Centre (IOCC). While it is a regular audit that is conducted annually, officials from the ministry said that unlike the usual three-member team, an eight-member DGCA team is conducting the audit this time, indicating its seriousness. This is in addition to additional safety checks it ordered on the airline's fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners, the type of aircraft involved in the Ahmedabad crash, which Air India said it has completed.
CNN
5 days ago
- Automotive
- CNN
NTSB to determine probable cause of Boeing 737 door plug blowout Tuesday
On January 4, 2024, a door plug blew out on a Boeing 737 Max at more than 16,000 feet in the air, leaving a gaping hole in the side. On Tuesday, the National Transportation Safety Board will hear the investigation's findings and vote on the probable cause of the incident was. The findings could put to rest one of the biggest questions around the terrifying incident: Who is to blame? The hearing comes at a fraught time for Boeing, as well, which is now the focus of the fatal crash of a 787 Dreamliner operated by Air India this month. While there is no indication yet that Boeing's work caused the crash of the nearly 11-year-old plane, confidence in Boeing could suffer further unless it is cleared as the cause. And after two fatal 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019, respectively, were traced back to design and software errors, and the Alaska Air door plug incident was caused by the jet being delivered to the airline by the embattled aircraft maker without the four bolts needed to hold it in place, Boeing had little reputation left to lose. In the January 2024 door plug blowout, passengers' clothing and phones were ripped away and sent hurtling out of the plane, and the missing piece from Alaska Air flight 1282 was later found in an Oregon backyard. Through a combination of crew skill and luck, with no one seated next to the hole, it could easily have turned into a tragedy. In the NTSB's preliminary findings, it was revealed that four bolts that hold the door plug in place on the Boeing 737 Max were missing at the time of the plane's delivery to Alaska Air in October 2023. The plane made 153 flights over 10 weeks before the incident, including 22 flights between Hawaii and the mainland. Had the incident occurred over the Pacific at 35,000 feet rather than minutes after taking off from Portland airport, it could have led to the loss of the plane. What has not been revealed is who exactly was responsible for leaving the bolts off the door plug during the manufacturing process. Boeing revealed there was no internal paperwork showing that the door plug had been removed and then put back in place without the bolts, so workers who were moving the plane along the production line were not aware it needed to have the bolts reattached. The NTSB already held a fact finding hearing into the incident in August, where it revealed interviews with Boeing employees who said they felt pressure to work too fast to avoid mistakes. A Boeing employee, identified as a Door Master Lead, told investigators that much of the assembly work needed to be redone because of the later discovery of problems, as happened with the door plug that was removed to fix some rivets. The worker said there was no special training to open, close or remove a door plug versus a regular door. The worker's team was 'put in uncharted waters to where… we were replacing doors like we were replacing our underwear.' As a result of the incident the Federal Aviation Administration announced additional oversight of Boeing and limits on its production levels. The aircraft maker only recently returned to the production level for the 737 Max that it planned ahead of the incident. Boeing said it has taken its own steps to improve the quality and safety of its planes, and it replaced the CEO at the time of the incident, Dave Calhoun. And last month the Justice Department dropped criminal charges it had planned against Boeing for defrauding the FAA during the certification process for the Max ahead of two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019. The complete final report on the Alaska Air incident from the NTSB will be available in a few weeks.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
New planes were meant to be more comfortable. Here's why it didn't happen
Quick quiz for airline enthusiasts: flying economy class aboard Singapore Airlines, would you rather sit in one of the airline's Boeing 777 aircraft or a Boeing 787? The 787 Dreamliner is newer, its cabin is pressurised to a lower altitude, which means more oxygen in your lungs, the seat back comes with a slightly larger in-flight entertainment screen and both aircraft have the same 3-3-3 seating configuration, but there's one crucial factor that makes the 777 the aircraft I'd prefer to fly on. On Singapore Airlines' 777s, the seat width is 18 inches (45.7cm);* aboard the 787, the tape measure says 17 inches (43.2cm). That's just 2.5 centimetres, less than half the size of a credit card from top to bottom. An inch, if you like. How First World-problematic can you get? But that 2.5cm matters. Seat pitch, which determines the amount of legroom per seat, is the standard measure of comfort in economy class seating, but the width of the seat is just as important. When you're reading a book or eating in a narrow seat you need to squish in your elbows and give yourself T-Rex hands, especially in the middle seat. A narrow seat also gives you less shoulder room, and a shoulder that sticks out into the aisle gets plenty of attention from passing passengers, as well as the meal trolley. It wasn't supposed to be this way Boeing conceived the 787 with eight seats across in its economy cabin, with a seat width of 18.5 inches (47cm), but airlines had other ideas. By squeezing in another seat per row, they could add at least 15 seats per aircraft, and for airlines, that's money in the bank. That meant tighter seating for passengers, but cash trumps comfort when it comes to economy class air travel. One of the very few airlines that flies the Boeing 787-9 and most of its 787-8s with eight economy seats per row in a 2-4-2 configuration is Japan Airlines. Those seats are a comfy 47.8cm wide, and seat pitch is an equally commendable 83.8cm. However, note that one of the three versions of JAL's Boeing 787–8 aircraft has a 3-3-3 configuration, which shrinks the seat width to just 43.2cm. The same thing happened to the 787's wide-body predecessor, the 777. Boeing designed the 777 with nine economy seats per row in mind, with a 3-3-3 configuration, and that was what airlines got when the aircraft entered service in the mid-1990s. After just a few years, the US carriers levered another seat into the mid-section and the trend caught on, especially with the introduction of the 777-300ER. Today it's almost impossible to find any airline operating a Boeing 777 with nine seats across.
