Latest news with #MU5735
Mint
12-07-2025
- General
- Mint
Air India Ahmedabad crash probe: 5 things to know from the preliminary report
A month after the horrific crash of an Air India Dreamliner at Ahmedabad, the AAIB (Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau) has released its preliminary report to the public. While analysts have been vocal about the preliminary report, the report only dwells over the fact and in most cases does not point to the WHY and HOW of the crash, rather looking at WHAT. The rest is part of the investigation which takes longer. The Annex 13 of Chicago Convention, to which India is a signatory, mandates that states in charge of an investigation must submit a preliminary report to ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) within thirty days of the date of the accident. Preliminary reports can be marked confidential and it depends on the investigation state's discretion if they should be made public. ICAO also mandates that the final report should be made publicly available as soon as possible and if possible within twelve months. However, these are advisories and not rules. Recently China is reported to have refused making the crash report of China Eastern flight MU5735 public citing (it could) 'endanger national security and societal stability'. The last two crashes in India have been the Air India Express crash at Kozhikode on 7 August 2020, with the final report submitted on 13th January 2021 and the Mangalore crash on 22 May 2010, when the final report came out in November that year. These two crashes were in the landing phase, while the Air India crash at Ahmedabad was within seconds of lifting off from the runway. The preliminary report throws light on these five things There has been quite a lot of speculation on what were the last words from the pilots of the AI171, with various sources being cited by each one. Turns out the last words were only 'Mayday, Mayday' and the pilots did not speak about loss of power or anything else. The aircraft which crashed, VT-ANB did not have any critical items under MEL or Minimum Equipment List. The entire MEL list was within the timeline limits. In aircraft, a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is a document that outlines the minimum equipment required for an aircraft to legally operate with certain inoperative systems or components. It allows for safe operation even when some equipment is not fully functional, provided specific conditions are met and the aircraft complies with the MEL's limitations. The MEL is specific to an aircraft type and operator and is derived from a Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) provided by the aircraft manufacturer. Immediately after take off, AI 171's Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF, one after another. In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cut off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so. The AAIB preliminary report mentions how the fuel cutoff switches again transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN with efforts made to relight the engine, one after another. As per the EAFR (Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder), the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN within seconds of pilots talking about cut-off. The APU Inlet Door began opening thereafter, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engine's full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction. The EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1's core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The preliminary report on Air India plane crash does not point to any recommendations for either Boeing, the manufacturer of the plane type or GE, the manufacturer of the engines which powered the plane. With the preliminary report out, the focus will shift on what led to the movement of switches of the Air India AI171 plane that crashes moments after take-off in Ahmedabad. If it was manual, why did that happen and which of the two pilots did it along with ways to ensure this does not repeat again. Both the government and Air India have been criticised for the way the crash was handled. From a single press conference and lack of regular briefings to suspense over where the Black box is and the time taken to get it from Ahmedabad to Delhi, a lot could have been handled professionally. The airline on the other hand started on the wrong foot with the speech from the Chief Executive Officer being accused of plagiarism from the American Airlines incident earlier this year.
Indian Express
03-07-2025
- General
- Indian Express
Panic grips Japan airlines flight after 7km mid-air plunge: ‘Thought I was going to die'
A Japan airlines flight from Shanghai to Tokyo turned into a harrowing experience for 191 people on board after the aircraft made an emergency landing at Kansai Airport on Monday evening. The plane, operated by Spring Airlines Japan under flight number IJ004, diverted to Osaka after a sudden loss of cabin pressure forced the pilots into an emergency landing. What began as a routine evening flight from Pudong to Narita became for some passengers a near death experience. 'I thought I was going to die,' wrote one shaken passenger on social media, describing the dramatic drop in altitude and the moment oxygen masks fell from the ceiling. 'My body is still here, but my soul hasn't caught up. My legs are still shaking. When you face life or death, everything else feels trivial.' According to flight tracking data and witness reports, the Boeing 737-800 plunged more than 10,000 metres (10km) to just 3,000 metres (3km) in about 20 minutes. Although no injuries were reported, passengers recounted moments of chaos, fear, and a chilling silence as the aircraft descended. According to The Standard news agency, a woman named Wang recalled a chilling silence inside the cabin after the oxygen masks dropped. She said she genuinely feared for her life, and seeing flight attendants nearly in tears only deepened the panic. Another passenger told the outlet she had written a goodbye message to her husband as the plane was landing rapidly. Japan's transport ministry confirmed that the flight crew declared an emergency after an alert indicated cabin pressure irregularities which is an issue that while rare can be fatal if left unaddressed. Quick action by the pilots and communication with air traffic controllers helped ensure the aircraft landed safely at 8:50 pm local time. Yet for those onboard, the nightmare didn't end with touchdown. Passengers were kept inside the aircraft for over an hour, reportedly without clear communication. Amid growing complaints, Spring airlines Japan agreed to offer 15,000 yen in compensation to each passenger but only after individuals filed claims themselves. The incident again throws a spotlight on the Boeing 737-800, a model involved in numerous aviation disasters, including the 2022 crash of China Eastern Airlines flight MU5735 and the Jeju air tragedy in South Korea that killed 179 in 2024. While Monday's emergency ended without casualties, it has stirred unease among travelers already wary of the aircraft's history. For now, questions linger—about airline communication, aircraft maintenance, and passenger treatment—but for many who lived through the terrifying plunge, gratitude trumps outrage. 'We're alive. That's all that matters…But I'll never forget the feeling of that fall. It changes you,' one of the passengers said. Spring Airlines' Chinese parent company was quick to distance itself, noting the incident involved Spring Airlines Japan, a joint venture with JAL. Japan Airlines, which took over majority control of the budget carrier in 2021, has not publicly commented beyond confirming the safe landing.
Hindustan Times
01-07-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
Terrified passenger writes farewell note as Tokyo-bound Boeing 737 plunges nearly 26,000 feet
A Spring Airlines Japan flight from Shanghai to Tokyo turned into a nightmare for passengers on board on Monday. All seemed normal until a suspected cabin pressure failure caused the Boeing 737-800 to descend rapidly, triggering oxygen mask deployment and panic midair. According to the South China Morning Post, flight JL8696, also listed as IJ004, was en route to Tokyo Narita Airport at the time of the incident. Image used for representational purposes only(AFP) Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism said that the aircraft dropped from 11,000 meters (36,000 feet) to just 3,000 metres (9,800 feet) in under 10 minutes after the flight crew received a cabin pressure alert and declared an emergency, reported The Standard. Flight data confirmed the aircraft's descent of nearly 8,000 meters in just minutes. The aircraft made an emergency landing at the Kansai International Airport in Osaka. Passengers were forced to remain onboard for over an hour before being allowed to disembark. Although all 191 passengers and crew members onboard survived without physical injuries, the emotional toll was immense. Passenger says she wrote a farewell note According to The Standard report, a woman identified as Wang, said there was an eerie silence inside the aircraft after oxygen masks dropped. Wang elaborated that she felt she was going to die and seeing the flight attendants on the verge of tears triggered panic. Another passenger told the outlet that she wrote a farewell note to her husband as the aircraft plunged. Many expressed their shock, fear, and frustration on social media. According to the SCMP report, a passenger described the incident as 'violent and abrupt.' Boeing 737 is back in spotlight The SCMP report added that, following passenger complaints, Spring Airlines Japan has allegedly offered 15,000 yen (approximately $104) in compensation to each passenger. The incident, however, has once again brought attention to safety concerns around the Boeing 737 series. The model has been involved in at least 12 fatal crashes globally since 2000, including the China Eastern Airlines MU5735 crash in 2022 and the Jeju Air crash in South Korea in 2024. FAQs: 1. What happened on the Spring Airlines Japan flight on July 1, 2025? A suspected cabin pressure failure forced the aircraft to make an emergency descent from 11,000 to 3,000 metres, triggering oxygen masks and emergency landing procedures. 2. Were there any injuries? No physical injuries were reported, but many passengers experienced psychological trauma. 3. Where did the plane land? The Boeing 737-800 diverted to Kansai International Airport in Osaka. 4. What kind of aircraft was involved? A Boeing 737-800, a model that has faced scrutiny due to past global safety incidents. 5. Will passengers receive compensation? Spring Airlines Japan is offering 15,000 yen to affected passengers, but it must be claimed directly. 6. Is the airline related to Spring Airlines in China? Spring Airlines Japan is a separate entity partially owned by Japan Airlines. The Chinese parent company clarified it was not involved in the incident.
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Three years after China Eastern plane crash, regulator has not released report
BEIJING/SEOUL (Reuters) - China's aviation regulator has not released an expected update on its investigation into a deadly China Eastern Airlines crash three years ago, leaving relatives and the aviation industry with no details on the cause of the disaster. On March 21, 2022, a China Eastern Boeing 737-800 jet plunged into a hillside in the southwestern region of Guangxi about an hour after takeoff, killing all 132 people on board in China's deadliest air disaster in three decades. The Civil Aviation Administration of China issued a preliminary report and two anniversary updates on the crash of China Eastern flight MU5735, but the updates were only a few paragraphs, offering scant details. CAAC has said it would release relevant information based on the progress of the investigation. But on Saturday, after the third anniversary of the crash, relatives were still waiting to learn what caused the plane to nosedive from cruising altitude. CAAC and China Eastern did not respond to requests for comment. Global aviation guidelines call for an initial report within 30 days of an accident and a final one ideally within a year. Failing that, investigators should issue statements on each anniversary. Final reports are a major tool used by the aviation industry to help prevent new accidents by learning lessons from previous tragedies. Aviation bodies have raised the alarm over the number of delayed or non-existent final reports globally, blaming scarce investigation resources, judicial interference or a lack of political willingness to disclose certain narratives. CAAC has maintained that no faults or abnormalities were found in the aircraft or engines before takeoff from Kunming, bound for Guangzhou, or with the weather or communications. The crew held valid licences, adequate rest and passed health checks on the day of the flight, and there was no dangerous weather or dangerous goods on board the plane, the regulator has said. Investigators examined the crew's actions after finding no malfunctions, two people briefed on the matter said at the time. In May 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported that "black box" data indicated someone had intentionally crashed the plane, citing a preliminary assessment from U.S. officials. CAAC has previously said speculation surrounding the crash had "gravely misled the public" and interfered with accident investigation work. Chinese lawmakers are considering significant changes to the country's civil aviation law, including measures against spreading rumours about aviation safety, CAAC said last month. Some users of Chinese social media platforms Xiaohongshu and Weibo took note of the lack of a report. "Three years... no results? Does nobody remember?" a Weibo user wrote. Others expressed hope it would be released so as to give the public and family members of victims an explanation. "Not releasing in itself is a type of report," a Xiaohongshu user wrote Saturday.
Reuters
22-03-2025
- General
- Reuters
Three years after China Eastern plane crash, regulator has not released report
BEIJING/SEOUL, March 22 (Reuters) - China's aviation regulator has not released an expected update on its investigation into a deadly China Eastern Airlines ( opens new tab crash three years ago, leaving relatives and the aviation industry with no details on the cause of the disaster. On March 21, 2022, a China Eastern Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab 737-800 jet plunged into a hillside in the southwestern region of Guangxi about an hour after takeoff, killing all 132 people on board in China's deadliest air disaster in three decades. The Civil Aviation Administration of China issued a preliminary report and two anniversary updates on the crash of China Eastern flight MU5735, but the updates were only a few paragraphs, offering scant details. CAAC has said it would release relevant information based on the progress of the investigation. But on Saturday, after the third anniversary of the crash, relatives were still waiting to learn what caused the plane to nosedive from cruising altitude. CAAC and China Eastern did not respond to requests for comment. Global aviation guidelines call for an initial report within 30 days of an accident and a final one ideally within a year. Failing that, investigators should issue statements on each anniversary. Final reports are a major tool used by the aviation industry to help prevent new accidents by learning lessons from previous tragedies. Aviation bodies have raised the alarm over the number of delayed or non-existent final reports globally, blaming scarce investigation resources, judicial interference or a lack of political willingness to disclose certain narratives. CAAC has maintained that no faults or abnormalities were found in the aircraft or engines before takeoff from Kunming, bound for Guangzhou, or with the weather or communications. The crew held valid licences, adequate rest and passed health checks on the day of the flight, and there was no dangerous weather or dangerous goods on board the plane, the regulator has said. Investigators examined the crew's actions after finding no malfunctions, two people briefed on the matter said at the time. In May 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported that "black box" data indicated someone had intentionally crashed the plane, citing a preliminary assessment from U.S. officials. CAAC has previously said speculation surrounding the crash had "gravely misled the public" and interfered with accident investigation work. Chinese lawmakers are considering significant changes to the country's civil aviation law, including measures against spreading rumours about aviation safety, CAAC said last month. Some users of Chinese social media platforms Xiaohongshu and Weibo took note of the lack of a report. "Three years... no results? Does nobody remember?" a Weibo user wrote. Others expressed hope it would be released so as to give the public and family members of victims an explanation. "Not releasing in itself is a type of report," a Xiaohongshu user wrote Saturday.
