Latest news with #AirAccidentInvestigationBureau
Sinar Daily
17-07-2025
- Sinar Daily
Recovered police helicopter wreckage to undergo investigation at Subang base
A detailed investigation will be carried out by the Air Accident Investigation Bureau. 17 Jul 2025 05:27pm The operation to retrieve the AS355N helicopter with registration number 9M-PHG began early this morning and the wreckage was lifted from the seabed at 11am. Photo by Bernama ISKANDAR PUTERI - The wreckage of the police helicopter that crashed in Sungai Pulai, Gelang Patah, last week has been recovered and will be transported to the Air Operations Force (PGU) base in Subang for further investigation. Commander of the PGU under the Internal Security and Public Order Department Datuk Noor Sham Md Jani said a detailed investigation will be carried out by the Air Accident Investigation Bureau. "Cooperation from multiple agencies expedited the process of retrieving the wreckage and will allow for a more thorough investigation,' he said when contacted by Bernama. The operation to retrieve the AS355N helicopter with registration number 9M-PHG began early this morning and the wreckage was lifted from the seabed at 11am. Photo by Bernama The operation to retrieve the AS355N helicopter with registration number 9M-PHG began early this morning and the wreckage was lifted from the seabed at 11am. The wreckage was lifted using a crane vessel and several police assets. Among the agencies involved were the Royal Malaysian Navy, the Region Two Marine Police and the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency. Bernama's observations at the site from 7.30am found that preparations for the operation were carried out meticulously before the wreckage was gradually hoisted and later brought to a nearby jetty. The helicopter crashed last Thursday while participating in the Multilateral Nuclear Security Detection Exercise (MITSATOM) 2025 involving Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Singapore, held at the Gelang Patah Maritime Jetty. All five on board were injured in the incident, and they have been reported to be in stable condition. - BERNAMA More Like This
New Straits Times
17-07-2025
- New Straits Times
Final ascent: Police chopper wreckage retrieved a week after crash
ISKANDAR PUTERI: After seven long days beneath the murky waters of Sungai Pulai, the wreckage of the police helicopter that crashed during a simulation flight was finally brought to the surface at 11am today. The AS355N aircraft, bearing registration number 9M-PHG, plunged into the river on July 10 during a multilateral training exercise involving forces from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore, under the MITSATOM 2025 nuclear security programme. This morning's recovery operation began at 8am from the integrated command centre near the crash site. Despite a receding tide, clear skies provided favourable conditions for the delicate salvage effort. At 11am, the silhouette of 9M-PHG emerged from the riverbed, hoisted gently by crane and placed onto the deck of a waiting vessel within 15 minutes. The wreckage will be transported to a nearby jetty for forensic examination. Investigations will be led by the Air Accident Investigation Bureau from Putrajaya, in collaboration with the Johor Department of Internal and Public Security, to determine the cause of the crash. The ill-fated flight had carried five personnel — Assistant Commissioner Faizul Muhammad (pilot), Superintendent Ahmad Bustamin Baharom (co-pilot), Sergeant Siti Latipa Khairuddin, Corporal Adeline Liu Yan Sin, and Constable RG Devendran. As of press time, Constable Devendran of the Tanjung Kupang police station remains in critical condition. Corporal Liu, initially reported as critical, is reportedly on the road to recovery. The remaining three officers, though injured, are in stable condition. All five continue to receive treatment at Hospital Sultanah Aminah (HSA), Johor Baru. Today's retrieval marks a solemn milestone — the end of a physical recovery, and perhaps the beginning of a deeper reckoning for those who serve in the skies.
Daily Mirror
15-07-2025
- General
- 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.
Saudi Gazette
15-07-2025
- Saudi Gazette
As theories swirl about Air India crash, key details remain unknown
AHMEDABAD — While the preliminary report into what caused the loss of Air India Flight 171 last month has provided some answers, it has also prompted a wave of speculation about its cause. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed into a building less than a minute after take-off from the city of Ahmedabad in western India en route to London, killing 241 people on board, along with 19 on the ground. One passenger survived. Information contained in India's Air Accident Investigation Bureau report, the first official account of what happened, has raised questions about the role of the pilots. However, experts within the aviation industry claim investigators have been highly selective in what they have chosen to say. Under international protocols, the state leading an air accident investigation is meant to issue a preliminary report within 30 days. The 15-page document published by India's Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Saturday fulfils this requirement. Although the AAIB has been leading the investigation, US interests are also represented, because Boeing, the maker of the aircraft, and GE Aerospace, the engine manufacturer are American. The report does not set out any conclusions as to the cause of the accident. Nevertheless, it has sparked considerable controversy. In its account of the accident flight, the AAIB states that two fuel cut-off switches were moved from the 'run' to the 'cut-off' position seconds after take-off. This deprived the engines of fuel and caused them to lose thrust. Although data from the flight recorder shows the engines were subsequently restarted, it was too late to prevent the crash. These switches are normally only used to turn the engines on before a flight and off afterwards. They have a locking mechanism, which means they need to be pulled out before being flipped, a system designed to prevent accidental deployment. The report also states that one pilot asks the other "why did he cutoff", while his colleague "responded that he did not do so". However, it does not provide any direct transcript of the conversation, which would have been picked up by the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). Nor does it identify which pilot asked the question. It is worth remembering that preliminary reports are not intended to offer a full picture of what happened or draw firm conclusions. They are meant to be a factual summary of the information obtained in the early stages of what could be a lengthy investigation. The investigating authority is also under no obligation to make their preliminary reports public. The information released so far has prompted a number of commentators to claim, in the media and online, that the accident was the result of deliberate and intentional action by one of the pilots. It is a view that has attracted an angry response from the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association, which warned that "invoking such a serious allegation based on incomplete or preliminary information is not only irresponsible – it is deeply insensitive to the individuals and families involved". It added that "to casually suggest pilot suicide in the absence of verified evidence is a gross violation of ethical reporting". In a memo to staff, the chief executive of Air India struck a similar note. Campbell Wilson warned against drawing "premature conclusions". Since the report was issued, the BBC has spoken to a range of people within the industry, including pilots, accident investigators and engineers. While theories as to what actually happened vary widely, the dominant view is that important information is currently missing. "They've told us stuff they want us to know at the moment, and withheld what they don't want us to know," explained one pilot, who asked not to be identified. "It's not a complete report." One of the main criticisms is the lack of a transcript from the cockpit voice recorder, which would enable the reported conversation between the pilots about the fuel cut-off switches to be put in context. Bjorn Fehrm, an aeronautical analyst at consultants Leeham Company said this was "totally unacceptable". "They have all this technical detail. Then you have this reference to dialogue, but it doesn't even tell you who's speaking," he said. Fehrm was also concerned that there was no reference to what happened in the cockpit between the switches being flipped from run to cut-off, and the first switch being pushed back into position to relight the first engine 10 seconds later. "It's someone trying to hide something," he said. An engineering source, meanwhile, said the report was "very selective", and did not have any detailed information about what the engines were doing immediately before the switches were flipped. The document does say that the engine speed began to decrease from take-off values "as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off." This, they said was important - because flipping the switches to cut-off and back was something a pilot would be trained do to in order to restart an engine that was already losing power. Tim Atkinson, an aviation consultant and former air accident investigator in the UK said, "it is very disappointing to read a report which does provide a few salient facts, but leaves many more questions". Another element of the report that has caused controversy is a reference to a safety bulletin – known as a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin – published by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2018. This was used to alert the aviation community that operators of some Boeing 737 models had reported cases in which the fuel cut-off switches had been fitted with the locking feature disengaged - potentially enabling the switch to be flipped by accident. At the time, the FAA described this as an "airworthiness concern", but said it was "not an unsafe condition" that would require mandatory action via what is known as an Airworthiness Directive. Operators of a number of different Boeing models fitted with similar switches, including 787s, were advised to carry out simple inspections. The investigation report says Air India did not carry out those inspections - prompting speculation that the accident could have been caused by faulty switches being flipped by accident. However, in an internal note seen by the BBC, the FAA has since reiterated its belief that the issue did not compromise safety. Engineering sources have also pointed out that the report says the throttle control module on the crashed aircraft was replaced on two occasions, most recently two years before the accident. This would have involved replacing the cut-off switches as well. According to Bjorn Fehrm of Leeham Company, the reference to the FAA's advice contained in the report was "totally irrelevant" in the context of the accident. Nevertheless, India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation has asked the operators of all aircraft covered by the FAA's original bulletin to carry out inspections by 21 July. For former accident investigator Tim Atkinson, the vagueness of the report may have been deliberate - in order to suggest an explanation for the crash, while avoiding being too explicit. "The very worst reports are those written to be read 'between the lines', and if that is what we have here, then it does no credit to the investigators," he said. Meanwhile those seeking firm answers to what happened on Flight 171 may well have to wait. International protocols stipulate that a final report should be published within a year of the accident. However, in practice, it can take a lot longer than that. — BBC
India Today
14-07-2025
- Automotive
- India Today
Aviation body orders fuel switch checks of all flights registered in India
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has ordered inspection of engine fuel switches for all flights registered in India, following the preliminary report on the AI-171 crash. This decision comes as a preventive measure, with airline operators given a deadline of July 21st to complete the inspections. The move is in response to the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) report that flagged issues with the disengagement of engine fuel switches. The inspection will cover nearly two dozen Boeing models, not limited to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner or Boeing 737. This action aligns with a December 2018 advisory, emphasising the need for thorough compliance and safety checks in the aviation sector.
