Latest news with #JeffGuzzetti
NBC News
16 hours ago
- General
- NBC News
SkyWest flight performed 'go-around' to avoid colliding with a second aircraft
A SkyWest flight had to perform a go-around maneuver after nearly colliding with a military aircraft Friday before it landed in North Dakota. The air traffic control tower had cleared the plane to approach the airport, but the pilot "performed a go-around when another aircraft became visible in their flight path," a SkyWest statement said. Delta flight 3788 operated by SkyWest landed safely in Minot, North Dakota, after flying in from Minneapolis, Minnesota, the airline said. SkyWest said it is investigating the incident. The Department of Defense referred NBC News to the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA said it is "gathering information" about the incident. The near-miss Friday comes just six months after a military helicopter collided with a passenger plane near Reagan National Airport in D.C., killing 67 people. In video posted to social media and verified by NBC News, the plane's pilot can be heard explaining to passengers what happened in the air and apologizing for what he called an "aggressive maneuver," according to the video. The pilot explained that he was instructed by the ATC tower to turn right, but when he looked over, he saw an aircraft that he identified as a B-52 bomber. He said he was then instructed to turn left, but at that point, he looked over and "saw the airplane that was kind of coming on a converging course with us." The second aircraft was moving faster than the SkyWest plane, the pilot said, so he made the decision to turn behind it. "So, sorry about the aggressive maneuver. It caught me by surprise," the pilot said in the video. "This is not normal at all. I don't know why they didn't give us a heads up." The pilot concluded: "Long story short, it was not fun, but I do apologize for it, and thank you for understanding." His message was met with applause from the passengers, the video shows. The passenger who filmed the video, Monica Green, said she was "so sick to my stomach that that was so close to happening." She said she felt the plane take a hard turn and then, "I just remember the plane going, like, sideways... and just looking straight out the window and just seeing grass, like you weren't seeing the skyline anymore," she recalled. She said she's anxious to return to the airport in Minot to fly home. In the video, the pilot also mentioned that the tower that serves the Minot International Airport does not have a radar and controllers rely only on visuals to make calls. The Air Force Base nearby does have radar, the pilot said, which caused him to wonder why nobody said, "Hey, there's also a B-52 in the pattern." Jeff Guzzetti, NBC News aviation analyst, said the lack of radar capability at smaller airport is not at all uncommon. "There are many small airports across the country that have commercial service that don't have radar. Instead, they'll have some sort of coordinating communication with another radar facility several miles away, perhaps with a military base," Guzzetti explained. Since the airport in Minot is so small, the federal government allows it to be a "contract tower," Guzzetti said. This means the air traffic controllers are not federal employees, but are contractors hired by the FAA who are usually retired controllers. Contract towers are also not unheard of, he explained — there are currently 265 of them in the U.S. The key question to answer, Guzzetti said, is how much coordination there was between the Air Force base and the airport. 'I wouldn't think that you would need a more powerful radar system or a larger tower to prevent things like this,' Guzzetti said. "I just think that you need good coordination between the military base and the local civilian airport to work together to avoid these types of near misses."
Daily Tribune
12-07-2025
- General
- Daily Tribune
Air India Responds to Preliminary Report on AI171 Crash, Reaffirms Commitment to Families and Investigation
Air India has issued a formal statement following the release of the preliminary report by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) regarding the tragic crash of Flight AI171, which claimed 260 lives earlier this year. The airline reaffirmed its support for the ongoing investigation and extended its condolences to those affected. 'Air India stands in solidarity with the families and those affected by the AI171 accident. We continue to mourn the loss and are fully committed to providing support during this difficult time,' the airline said. Air India confirmed receipt of the 15-page preliminary AAIB report, released on July 12, but declined to comment on the findings, citing the active status of the investigation. 'We acknowledge receipt of the preliminary report released by the AAIB today. As the investigation continues, we will refrain from commenting on specific details and refer all queries to the investigating authority,' the airline added. Key Findings in the AAIB Report The AAIB report stops short of assigning blame but sheds light on crucial technical events during the final moments of the flight. According to cockpit voice recordings, one pilot questioned the other on why the fuel had been cut off, to which the second pilot reportedly responded, 'I did not.' The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, en route from Ahmedabad to London, suffered a catastrophic failure less than a minute after takeoff. The report states that both engines' fuel control switches moved from the "RUN" to the "CUTOFF" position within one second of each other, cutting power at the aircraft's highest recorded speed. Though the switches were briefly returned to "RUN" and the engines appeared to respond, the aircraft lost altitude rapidly. A 'MAYDAY' call was transmitted before the plane crashed. Only one of the 242 people on board survived the impact, along with 19 fatalities on the ground. Possible Mechanical Fault? The report noted a 2018 FAA bulletin warning of a potential flaw in fuel control switches on Boeing aircraft, which could inadvertently shift to "cutoff" without the locking mechanism engaging. However, inspections for this issue were not mandatory, and the Air India aircraft had not been checked for the defect. Jeff Guzzetti, former chief of accident investigations at the US Federal Aviation Administration, stated: 'We now know — with some degree of confidence — that both engines rolled back because these fuel switches were activated. We just don't know why or how.' The AAIB has not issued any safety recommendations for Boeing 787 or GE engine operators at this time. As the probe continues, aviation experts say the focus will now shift to determining whether pilot error, mechanical malfunction, or a combination of factors led to one of the deadliest aviation disasters in recent years.
Boston Globe
11-07-2025
- General
- Boston Globe
Unexpected fuel cutoff preceded Air India plane crash, preliminary report says
Audio from the cockpit suggests both pilots were confused over the change to the switch setting. 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff,' write the report's authors. 'The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' Advertisement The switches have safeguards designed to stop them from being inadvertently moved. 'Each switch has a mechanical lock where you have lift the switch up and then move it, so it's highly unlikely for switches like this to be inadvertently moved absent some mechanical failure,' said Jeff Guzzetti, the former director of the Federal Aviation Administration's Accident Investigation Division. It is also unusual that both switches inadvertently moved to the cutoff position 'one right after another, one second apart,' Guzzetti added. Guzzetti did not rule out the possibility the switches may have been intentionally moved, citing the need to also investigate the pilots. The preliminary report was released around 1 a.m. local time Saturday. The investigation is still in its early stages and is not likely to be completed for more than a year. Advertisement The Boeing 787 took off from Ahmedabad airport in western India before crashing down into a dormitory at a medical college, causing a massive fireball. All but one of the 242 people on the plane were killed, as were 19 people on the ground. One passenger made a miraculous escape from the doomed jet. The airliner was bound for London's Gatwick Airport. The plane appeared to roll down the runway and take off normally, according to experts who have reviewed videos from the scene. But after just a few seconds in the air, the jet stopped climbing. The pilots transmitted a mayday call 23 seconds after the first switch flipped into the cutoff position, according to the report. The plane's landing gear remained down and video and audio suggests an emergency device known as a ram air turbine, or RAT, had deployed on the plane, experts have said, potentially evidence of a rare double engine failure. The device drops from the bottom of an aircraft, spinning as it moves through the air to provide emergency power. But in the weeks since the crash, it has remained unclear what might have ultimately caused the plane to crash. Aviation news site, The Air Current, reported this week that investigators were focusing on the movement of fuel switches on the flight deck, citing people familiar with the probe. The switches are typically used to control the flow of fuel when starting and stopping the engine, but they can also be used if an engine needs to be restarted in flight. The findings issued Friday are required under international standards governing crash investigations. But they are a summary of facts available to investigators and do not include conclusions about why the crash happened. It is likely to take investigators a year or more to complete their work. The US National Transportation Safety Board is leading a team of Americans aiding the probe, but responsibility for releasing information remains with Indian officials. Advertisement The report's authors note that they make no recommendations to Boeing, the manufacturer of the plane, or General Electric, the maker of the engine. Authorities typically provide regular briefings to the public immediately after serious crashes, but in the case of the Air India crash, little official information had been shared. That left a void filled in some cases by misinformation, and it stoked concern among international safety experts that the lack of transparency would make it difficult for other airlines to know whether any broader safety risks needed to be urgently addressed. The investigation got off to a slow start. The plane's black boxes, which record conversations between the pilots and log data from the jet's systems, were recovered from the wreckage in the days after the crash, but investigators did not begin to analyze data from them until June 24 at a lab in Delhi. The information in the boxes will be vital to investigators as they piece together what went wrong.
India.com
03-07-2025
- General
- India.com
Revealed: Both Engines Of Air India 171 Died Mid-Air – What Really Brought Down The Dreamliner
New Delhi: The Air India 171 flight lifted off the Ahmedabad runway on a clear morning. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner showed no signs of trouble. No warnings. No delays. Nothing to raise eyebrows. Seconds later, it lost altitude. Fast. The descent rate crossed 475 feet per minute. Then came the crash. Now, an investigative report by The New York Times has revealed what many had feared. Both engines of the aircraft failed at the same time. This is the first confirmation backed by real data. A Wall Street Journal report earlier hinted at a dual-engine failure. But it left room for doubt. The NYT investigation has narrowed that gap. Experts analysed crash footage and found no signs of asymmetrical thrust. When one engine fails, planes typically swerve. This flight did not. That detail changed everything. The emergency call made by the pilot seconds before impact adds more weight. He reported losing thrust. Said he could not lift the aircraft. Aviation safety veteran Jeff Guzzetti reviewed the video. He saw no yawing, no smoke, no flame. That pointed to a full and simultaneous power loss. But how can both engines fail together? Two main theories have emerged. One – contaminated fuel entered both engines. Two – someone fed incorrect flight data into the system before takeoff. Investigators have not ruled out a software-induced glitch either. Aviation attorney Mary Schiavo said modern aircraft software, if wrongly configured, can create a cascading failure. Some pilots have experienced similar glitches before. But never in this way. There is more. The plane might have used a full runway backtrack for takeoff. CCTV footage supports that theory. Experts think the pilots wanted extra distance, possibly due to weight or engine concerns. But that is still under review. The Dreamliner's landing gear never fully retracted. Wreckage shows the wheels tilted, half inside. That could mean a power failure midway through retraction. Wing slats were deployed. That is another critical detail. These slats increase lift and are often used during emergency descents. Burn marks on the right wing suggest the slats were extended before the crash, not on impact. Flight tracking data has troubling gaps. Black box recordings are under analysis at the AAIB lab. So far, the data suggests the aircraft took off clean, but failed to climb after a short time airborne. India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau recreated the flight in a simulator. They used the same settings – gears down and slats extended. The simulated plane stayed airborne. It did not crash. That means something else went wrong. And that something is likely the engines. The experts say modern aircraft engines are extremely reliable. Dual failures are almost unheard of. Which is why this crash has stunned global aviation circles. There were 241 people on board. Only one survived. The final report is still weeks away. But the early findings point toward a rare and catastrophic systems failure. And investigators still do not know if it began on the ground or in the sky.
Hindustan Times
14-06-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
Ahmedabad plane crash: Two black boxes recovered. What will the probe focus on?
Two black boxes from the wreckage of the ill-fated Air India flight 171 were recovered on Friday as investigators intensified efforts to determine what transpired in those 33 seconds mid-air that caused India's deadliest aviation disaster in three decades. Experts have raised concerns of possible technical faults, crew miscalculations, and configuration errors in the Boeing 787-8 plane. One of the black boxes was retrieved from the rooftop of a hostel mess building near the BJ Medical College in Ahmedabad, where the Dreamliner crashed shortly after takeoff on Thursday, killing 241 people on board. The second recorder was also located on Friday, and both are now being examined for clues, officials said. Follow Ahmedabad plane crash live updates. As experts from India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) sifted through twisted metal and scorched debris, a team from Boeing joined the probe on-site. Parts of the aircraft's two General Electric GEnx engines are being sent to the United States for detailed analysis. The wreckage will be moved to a secure facility for reconstruction in collaboration with the AAIB, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and other agencies, an official familiar with the probe confirmed. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), India's aviation regulator, has meanwhile ordered targeted safety inspections of all Air India Boeing 787-8 and 787-9 jets. The inspections will focus on six critical systems — fuel parameters, fuel flow systems, electronic engine controls, hydraulic systems, and takeoff performance settings. 'The order by the DGCA seems to have indicated their suspicion of all that could have led to the B787-8 crash on Thursday,' said aviation expert Amit Singh. 'While the checks mentioned by the DGCA are all performed by the pilots before take-off, they are only a few of the total checks performed. This could imply the regulator may have learnt about snags or probable issues with the aircraft,' he added. Officials involved in the investigation told the Associated Press that early indications suggest the aircraft may not have been correctly configured for takeoff. The landing gear was still extended during ascent, and flap components were found strewn across nearby roads in what appeared to be an incorrect take-off setting — factors that may have deprived the aircraft of critical lift. 'We can see what we see on video and all of these potential issues we're talking about: fuel, engine thrust, settings for the flaps and slats. That's all going to be recorded on the flight data recorder,' AP quoted aviation safety consultant Jeff Guzzetti, a former US crash investigator, as saying. He added, 'The cockpit voice recorder will hopefully have the discussion between the crew on what kind of performance numbers are being put into the computer.' Guzzetti and others believe investigators are likely probing whether the engines lost power during takeoff, whether the aircraft's weight and environmental conditions were correctly input, and whether the crew made configuration errors in setting the flaps and slats. 'The image shows the airplane with the nose rising and it continuing to sink,'' noted John M. Cox, CEO of Safety Operating Systems and a former pilot. 'That says that the airplane is not making enough lift.'' Cox added: 'It's hard to tell but from looking at the aircraft from behind … it doesn't look like that the trailing edge flaps are in the position I would have expected them to be. But I'm very cautious that the image quality is not good enough to make that a conclusion. It's just an area where I know that they're going to look.'' According to a Reuters report citing unnamed sources, the probe is examining potential faults related to engine thrust, flap settings, and the unusual fact that the landing gear remained extended — though a bird-hit has been ruled out as a primary cause. Maintenance issues and crew inputs are also under review. While officials caution that it is too early to arrive at conclusions, the focus of the investigation is sharpening around a combination of mechanical failure and human error.
