Latest news with #RamAirTurbine
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- General
- Time of India
Ahmedabad air crash: Inside the 10-second mystery - What really brought down AI 171?
Representative Image NEW DELHI: The fatal crash of Air India Flight AI 171 has drawn intense attention to a brief but pivotal sequence in the cockpit—ten seconds that may explain how a routine takeoff ended in disaster. As investigators dig into the timeline, a Bloomberg report says that the unexplained actions and delays during this window are now central to understanding what went wrong with Boeing's advanced 787 Dreamliner. On June 12, Flight AI 171 departed Ahmedabad for London with 242 people on board. Both pilots, senior captain Sumeet Sabharwal and junior co-pilot Clive Kunder, were cleared for duty and the aircraft's initial climb appeared normal. But within seconds, a sudden loss of engine power set off a chain of events that the crew could not recover from, despite their efforts. The unexplained 10 seconds • Just three seconds after takeoff, the 787 Dreamliner reached its maximum recorded airspeed. • Both engine fuel switches were inexplicably set to cutoff within a single second, shutting down fuel flow to the engines. • Confusion erupted in the cockpit, with each pilot denying responsibility for moving the fuel switches, according to Bloomberg's reporting. • There was a 10-second delay before the first fuel switch was reset, and another four seconds before the second was restored. • The aircraft was too low and slow for the engines to be reignited in time to regain thrust. •The significance of the ensuing 10-second delay cannot be overstated. As retired FAA inspector Michael Daniel told Bloomberg, 'The 10 seconds are crucial because the aircraft was simply too low and too slow to re-ignite the engines to gain thrust in order to climb.' • The sudden shutdown triggered a barrage of cockpit alarms, possibly causing a psychological 'startle effect' and momentary freeze in pilot response. • Emergency systems like the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) provided minimal power, but only to the captain's controls, forcing a rapid transfer of control from co-pilot to captain. • Despite resetting the switches, the crew ran out of time; a 'Mayday' was sent, but the plane crashed just outside the airport, killing 260 people. The preliminary report, as cited by Bloomberg, has left investigators with more questions than answers. While Air India's CEO said that fleet-wide safety checks found no anomalies, the focus remains on what happened inside the cockpit during those critical seconds. Human factors—including confusion, sensory overload, and psychological shock—are now under close scrutiny, as experts seek to determine whether these played a critical role in the delay that doomed the flight.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Everything we know about the Air India crash points to an uncomfortable truth
With 260 casualties and only one surviving passenger, the Air India 171 crash is one of the deadliest aviation incidents in recent history — and so far it's proving to be one of the most frustratingly opaque. Video of the June 12 incident had previously captured the Boeing 787 taking off successfully from Ahmedabad bound for London, only to rapidly descend, crash into a medical college complex, and explode into flames. The crash killed all but one of the plane's 242 occupants. It also damaged five buildings, killed 19 people on the ground, and injured over 60 more. The weeks that followed saw rampant speculation, AI-generated hoaxes, and conspiracy theories. Finally, on July 11 India's air safety organization, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), issued a preliminary report into the cause of the disaster. The 15-page report pinpointed a dark and disturbing factor as the reason for the crash: Shortly after takeoff, someone or something cut the flow of fuel to both engines, almost simultaneously. This caused a brief but fatal dual engine shutdown that proved impossible for the plane to recover from. The implications of that double shutdown are quite bleak — but there's still a lot we don't know. What caused the crash? In the weeks following the tragedy, public speculation about the potential cause ranged from a bird strike to an electrical problem; some suggested fuel contamination, others a malfunction with the wing flaps. Many focused on what seemed to have been an extreme occurrence suggested by the visibility of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which deploys when there are engine problems: a total engine failure. Over on YouTube, many analyzed the crash, including some pilots. Among them was Trevor Smith, call sign 'Hoover,' a former military pilot who now flies for a commercial airline. On the side, he runs the YouTube crash analysis channel Pilot Debrief. Following the Air India crash, he emphasized what seemed to be the dual loss of thrust to both engines, and speculated that perhaps one engine had lost thrust for an unknown reason and that then one of the pilots had accidentally turned off the fuel control switch to the other engine, causing both to lose thrust. Smith was hypothesizing a scenario in which at least one engine had been lost due to a mechanical failure, and an overwhelmed pilot mistakenly deactivated the other engine. The preliminary report, however, was more grim. It rejected all of those possibilities and instead pointed firmly toward a simple but unthinkable event: Both engines were shut down, first one and then the other, by way of the fuel control cutoff switch. In most Boeing airplanes, the flow of fuel to the engines gets activated via two fuel control switches. In the Boeing 787, the jet fuel control switches sit in the main console of the aircraft just below the throttles (which are used to control thrust power). The fuel switches are not easy to engage by accident; they have a built-in spring-loaded locking mechanism that requires anyone using them to first pull up on the knobs, turn them slightly, and then maneuver them up or down into the position you want — a bit like a safety-proof lid on a pill bottle. Additionally, two raised metal guards on either side of the two switches protect against accidental bumping or jostling. There were no historical issues with the switches on this particular 787, and that section of the console had been refurbished as recently as 2023. Additionally, following the crash, other Air India Boeings were inspected, and no fuel switch issues were found with any of them. In a second inspection, Air India reportedly found no issues with the locking mechanisms on the switches either. This crucial context underscores both the reliability of the switches — they were functioning normally with no problems — and the guardrails that were in place to protect against any associated mishaps. With the metal guards and the locking mechanisms, it would be all but impossible for an accident to knock both switches into the cutoff position, especially at the same time. And yet what we know from the preliminary report is that the fuel cutoff switches were somehow switched from 'run' to 'cutoff' — from 'on' to 'off,' effectively. They were moved immediately after the airplane lifted off the ground and reached its maximum takeoff speed of 180 knots, or about 207 miles per hour. In a follow-up analysis video, Smith mapped out the timeline provided in the report, emphasizing that the two switches were turned off in quick succession, just a second apart — a short gap that makes sense, he noted, if someone were to move their hand from one switch to another. Without a fuel supply, the engines immediately lost power. The RAT began supplying hydraulic power to the plane a few seconds after the fuel was cut off. A few seconds after this, one or both pilots realized what had happened. They placed the switches back into the correct position about nine seconds after they were moved. The engines began to restart, but by the time they had recovered, it was already too late. Initial media reports claimed that whichever pilot made the mayday call to air traffic control had stated, 'Thrust not achieved,' as the explanation for the call shortly before losing contact. However, the investigative report didn't include this statement, and recordings from the cockpit have not been made public. What we do know is that according to the preliminary report, 'one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off [the fuel]. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.' So was the cutoff done intentionally? The preliminary report has drawn criticism for its vagueness, and for the lack of a direct transcript of the aforementioned moment from the cockpit recorder. The AAIB has also drawn fire for its decision not to issue any safety guidelines as a result of the early stages of its investigation. However, the report was clear that the investigation is ongoing, and multiple pilots associations have cautioned against speculating before all the facts are known. Still, through its inclusion of the cockpit exchange, the preliminary report indicates that one pilot realized the switches had been manually moved and questioned the other pilot about it before moving the switches back into the 'run' position. Given the virtual impossibility of an accidental dual cutoff, and the extreme unlikelihood of a dual engine shutdown being caused by any other issue, the pilot's implied assumption in the moment that his colleague had manually moved the switches himself seems reasonable. Following the report's release, the Wall Street Journal reported that the investigation was intensifying its focus on the captain, 56-year-old Sumeet Sabharwal. As the pilot monitoring, Sabharwal would likely have had his hands free during the takeoff, while the first officer, Clive Kunder, 32, would have been busy actually flying the plane. According to the Journal, the exchange referenced in the preliminary report involved Kunder querying Sabharwal about why the captain had moved the switches. In the following moments, Kunder 'expressed surprise and then panicked' while Sabharwal 'seemed to remain calm.' Of course, without video of the moment, and without knowing more about the closely held details of the investigation thus far, it's difficult to know what the situation in the cockpit truly was. It's possible that Kunder's panic and Sabharwal's calm reflected nothing more than their respective level of career experience. As Nathan Fielder's The Rehearsal recently explored, the power imbalance in a cockpit between a senior and a younger or less experienced pilot can have a huge impact on the outcome of a plane mishap. Yet in this case, it seems likely that even in a balanced co-piloting dynamic, nothing could have helped an unwary pilot predict, prevent, or recover from the engine failure. What do we know about the pilots and the airline? Sabharwal was a true veteran pilot, with over 15,000 career flight hours, nearly half of them piloting the 787. As a younger pilot, Kunder had just 3,400 hours of flight time, but over 1,100 of them were on the 787. It's been widely reported that Sabharwal was planning to retire soon to care for his ailing father, who himself was a career aviation ministry official. In reporting after the crash, he has been universally described by friends and colleagues as extremely kind, gentle, reserved, and soft-spoken. Kunder came from a family of pilots, went to flight school in Florida, and reportedly chose piloting over a career in esports because he loved to fly. Following the crash, the Telegraph quoted a source claiming that Sabharwal had struggled with depression and had taken mental health leave from the company. However, Air India's parent company, the Tata Group, contradicted this, with a spokesperson clarifying to the Telegraph that Sabharwal's last medical leave was a bereavement leave in 2022, and emphasizing that 'the preliminary report did not find anything noteworthy' in his recent medical history. If pilots don't get therapy, they could endanger themselves and others while in the air. But if they do get therapy, the airline could ground them. However, it could be very easy for mental health issues in pilots to go undetected and unreported. That's because the strict scrutiny and restrictions placed upon commercial pilots in the wake of the 2015 Germanwings tragedy — in which a pilot locked his co-pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane, killing everyone on board — creates a dangerous catch-22 for pilots: If they don't get thorough and regular mental health treatment, they could be endangering themselves and others when they're in the air. But if they do get mental health treatment, the airline could ground them, perhaps permanently. For pilots who love flying, it's a major risk assessment: Around 1,100 people have been killed because of plane crashes intentionally caused by pilots since 1982. The tragedy comes at a pivotal moment for both Air India and Boeing, which have each been attempting to rebound from criticism. Air India is one of the oldest and formerly one of the most influential airlines in the world, known for the opulence and exceptional artistic style it cultivated throughout the 20th century. After the company was nationalized in the 1950s, however, its once-sterling reputation significantly backslid, until it was finally re-privatized in 2022 and handed off to the Tata Group. The company's attempts to revitalize the airline have included investing billions in readying the company for an expanded fleet and a reentry into the global market — an expansion that could be jeopardized because of the high-profile nature of the June crash. India's civil aviation minister recently announced that the company has additionally received nine safety notices in the last six months. Meanwhile Boeing continues to face criticism in the face of ongoing safety and maintenance concerns, and recently agreed to pay over $1 billion to avoid criminal prosecution over two plane crashes linked to faulty flight control systems that resulted in the deaths of 346 people. While there's no indication yet that anything about the Air India crash was due to a defect in the plane, the optics won't help the beleaguered airline. Perhaps because the stakes are so high, multiple pilot organizations in India as well as a bevy of media commentators have resisted the preliminary report's implication that one of the pilots caused the crash. The Airline Pilots Association of India as well as the Indian Commercial Pilots Association both released statements criticizing the preliminary report and objecting to any presumption of guilt. Others have suggested an undetected issue with the plane might be at fault, or that the AAIB, which issued the preliminary report, might have something to hide. The full investigation into the crash is likely to take at least a year to complete, but given the vagaries of the information obtained from the cockpit, it's uncertain whether we will ever know more than we currently do. Official aviation organizations have cautioned against a rush to judgment until the investigation is completed. Solve the daily Crossword
Arab Times
6 days ago
- General
- Arab Times
Fuel Cutoff Mystery: Is the Truth About Air India's Crash Being Covered Up?
MUMBAI, July 18: The captain of Air India Flight 171, which crashed shortly after takeoff in Ahmedabad last month, killing 241 of the 242 people on board, reportedly handed control of the aircraft to his first officer seconds before the disaster, according to information retrieved from the flight's black boxes. Sources familiar with the cockpit voice recordings told Italy's Corriere della Sera that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal told First Officer Clive Kunder, 'The plane is in your hands,' moments before the plane left the runway. While it is not uncommon for a first officer to pilot a flight during takeoff, aviation experts have questioned the timing and circumstances of the handover. Flight data shows the aircraft took off at 1:38pm and remained airborne for just 30 seconds before it lost power and crashed into a residential area, killing 19 people on the ground. The sole survivor on board remains in critical condition. Investigators say the plane's engines lost thrust shortly after takeoff, and that the fuel control switches—critical to maintaining engine power—had been moved from the 'run' position to 'cutoff' within seconds of liftoff. According to India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), both switches were turned off and then switched back on about ten seconds later, but not in time to prevent the crash. The AAIB's preliminary report, released last week, confirmed that no mechanical or maintenance faults were found on the aircraft. However, the cause of the fuel cutoff remains under investigation. The switches are designed with safety locks that require manual lifting to operate, making an accidental flip highly unlikely. Cockpit audio captured in the seconds before the crash suggests rising tension between the two pilots. According to sources briefed on the U.S. assessment of the recordings, First Officer Kunder can be heard repeatedly asking, 'Why did you shut off the engines?' to which the senior pilot vaguely replied, 'I didn't do it.' The exchange, lasting six seconds, has been interpreted by some officials as an indirect admission that the captain may have cut the fuel supply. Flight data further reveals that after the aircraft reached approximately 650 feet, a backup power system—known as the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—deployed, indicating both engines had lost power. Although the fuel switches were returned to 'run' and the engines attempted to restart, the aircraft lacked the altitude and time to recover. The jet clipped treetops and a chimney before crashing into a nearby medical college, erupting in flames. Aviation experts remain baffled by the switch movement. 'It's absolutely bizarre for the engine cutoff switches to be flipped just after takeoff,' said Terry Tozer, a former airline pilot, speaking to Sky News. 'Unfortunately, the altitude was so low that the engines didn't have time to recover.' The AAIB has yet to identify which pilot flipped the switches, and cockpit audio alone has not definitively clarified the roles each pilot played in the final moments. U.S. officials reviewing the early data believe that as the flying pilot, First Officer Kunder would likely have had both hands on the Dreamliner's controls, suggesting Captain Sabharwal may have been responsible for manipulating the switches. Captain Sabharwal had logged over 15,000 hours of flight time, while Kunder had 3,400. According to colleagues cited in Indian media, Sabharwal had recently taken bereavement leave following his mother's death but had been medically cleared to fly. Some sources have raised questions regarding the mental health history of one of the pilots. Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a prominent Indian aviation safety expert, told The Daily Telegraph that one pilot had previously taken extended medical leave for mental health reasons. However, this has not been confirmed by the authorities, and Air India maintains both pilots were fully certified for duty. India's Civil Aviation Minister, Kinjarapu Ram Mohan Naidu, has urged the public to avoid premature conclusions. 'Let us wait for the final report,' he told reporters. Air India CEO Campbell Wilson echoed that message in an internal memo, stating that while the preliminary report found no mechanical issues, further investigation is required to determine the human factors involved. In response to the crash, Indian aviation authorities have ordered comprehensive checks across Air India's Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet. The airline operates 33 of the aircraft. The AAIB has not issued any immediate safety recommendations to Boeing or the engine manufacturer, General Electric. The agency criticised elements of the international media for 'selective and unverified reporting,' stating that the investigation remains ongoing and that drawing conclusions at this stage is premature. The final report into the crash is expected within 12 months, in line with international aviation standards.
Time of India
6 days ago
- General
- Time of India
Pilots: Deliberate ambiguity in report timeline to shift blame
1 2 Kolkata: Serving and retired pilots have expressed concern over what they term "deliberate" ambiguity in the timeline mentioned in the preliminary probe report by Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on the AI 171 crash. They allege this has been done to absolve the aircraft manufacturer of responsibility and pin the blame on the pilots. They also point out that the word "transition" of fuel switches used in the report attempts to insinuate that they were manually moved. "This is an American expression. In India, it would normally have been written: The switches were moved. It is the fuel valves that transition while the switches can move from RUN to CUT OFF or vice versa," a veteran pilot said. While several timelines are mentioned in the report, it is unclear at the crucial phase immediately after takeoff, when the two engines momentarily shut down after fuel flow stopped. AAIB provides the timestamp to the exact second for a number of actions. The aircraft started rolling at 8:07:37 UTC (13:37:37 IST, ie, 37 seconds past 1.37pm). The aircraft and ground sensors recorded the lift-off at 08:08:39 UTC (13:38:39 IST). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo It then states the aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots (333 kmph) at 08:08:42 UTC (13:38:42 IST). You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata Thereafter, the timelines become unclear. It says immediately after, engine 1 and engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUT OFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 second. It then states: "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." "When did all of this happen and in which sequence? That is a crucial segment of the flight when something catastrophic happened that took down the plane. It is not possible to move both switches from RUN to CUT OFF in a second. The SOP as laid down in the manual for reviving engines during a dual engine failure is to move the switches from RUN to CUT OFF and back to RUN. The pilots in the ill-fated aircraft did so and we know the engines were revived, but the plane crashed because it did not gain enough altitude to clear the buildings," another captain explained. The report goes on to state that CCTV footage obtained from the airport showed the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) getting deployed during the initial climb immediately after lift-off, but the time is not mentioned. The next timestamp is when the RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power, 08:08:47 UTC (13:38:47 IST). A pilot pointed out that since the RAT takes around 7-8 seconds from auto deployment to begin functioning, the plane should have lost the engines around 08:08:40 UTC (13:38:40 IST). "If that is so, then how did the plane achieve the maximum airspeed 2 seconds later at 08:08:42 UTC (13:38:42 IST)?" he said. Another pilot said it was critical to know the exact conversation that took place in the cockpit from the start of the takeoff run to the Mayday call, adding: "This is not just for the sake of learning why flight AI 171 crashed but to ensure that another flight does not meet the same fate in future." Another captain also pointed out that both pilots were wearing headsets and spoke on different channels, as is mandatory procedure during takeoff. "Then why is there no clarity on who said what, it's available in the cockpit voice recorder?" he said.
Business Insider
15-07-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
Boeing Stock (NYSE:BA) Gains as Fuel Switches Pass Muster
Good news for aerospace stock Boeing (BA) emerged as the Air India crash just became a lot less like Boeing's fault. The fuel control switches recently passed safety checks with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), removing a major potential cause of the crash. That was good enough for investors, who gave Boeing shares a modest boost in Monday afternoon's trading. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week. The fuel safety switches became a major part of the analysis of the Air India crash, especially after a preliminary report released from investigators noted that fuel to the Dreamliner's engines had been cut just moments after takeoff. This provided an excellent explanation for why the aircraft's Ram Air Turbine (RAT) system deployed, but became a question in and of itself. Reports from India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) note that the fuel cutoff switches had been moved from 'run' to 'cut-off.' Doing that accidentally is virtually impossible as the switches are specifically designed to protect against such accidents. The AAIB also noted a 2018 FAA advisory that urged airlines to check that locking feature to ensure the protection they provided was actually working. Air India did not take that advice to heart, reports noted. One Step Closer for the 777X Better yet, the 777X line is also getting closer to seeing service. While there are still several months between now and the official launch, some recent retooling work has brought Boeing one step closer. The 777X line is now on track to be certified this year. And with EIS approval next year, the 777X may finally start going into production and seeing wide use. The 777X line has already come a long way, with the GE9X engines requiring removal and return for an outright redesign due to 'technical issues.' Moreover, the software needed to be revamped as it was calling for '…uncommanded nose-down flight anomalies.' A full review of work on the 777X following the 2018 and 2019 737 Max crashes, and even the rise of COVID-19 itself, prompted further delays that are only now being fully addressed. But all this has been addressed, and now, the 777X is closer than ever to release. Is Boeing a Good Stock to Buy Right Now? Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Strong Buy consensus rating on BA stock based on 18 Buys, three Holds and one Sell assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. After a 26.65% rally in its share price over the past year, the average BA price target of $233.25 per share implies 1.52% upside potential.
