Latest news with #ServiceBulletin
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business Standard
Ex-pilot points to chip fault, not pilot error in report on AI171 crash
A report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau following the fatal crash of Air India flight AI171 indicated a chip malfunction as a cause of the crash, a former pilot told Reuters on Saturday. The AI 171 crash of the Boeing Dreamliner 787-8 aircraft in Gujarat's Ahmedabad killed 260 people, including 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 people on the ground. Senior lecturer at Buckinghamshire New University and former pilot Marco Chan said that although the report did not explicitly exonerate the two pilots from human error, the chances of accidentally switching the fuel cut-off toggle would be "close to zero". The preliminary report, released on July 12, depicted confusion in the cockpit shortly before the jetliner crashed and killed 260 people last month, after the plane's engine fuel cutoff switches flipped almost simultaneously and starved the engines of fuel. "If you will to exonerate the pilots from Pilot Error. This is what the reports were stating. Now they didn't say that explicitly, but from reading the findings, it tells me that it wasn't a Pilot error. What the report seems to be suggesting is the error with the chip," the former pilot told Reuters in an interview. "What the report seems to be suggesting is the error with the chip. It's as simple as one chip not working properly, losing contact," he added. A former pilot has shed light on the possible cause of the AI171 crash, stating that a technical issue may have been responsible for the incident. According to the former pilot, once contact is lost, the system can fail, much like a laptop experiencing a blue screen of death. He explained that the thermal cycle being in a warm condition could have caused the signal to not be contacted properly. "Once you lose contact, it's kind of like how electricity works; the signal is not contacted properly. It's because the thermal cycle is in a warm condition," Chan said. The former pilot further elaborated that the system may have stopped functioning due to excessive workload, similar to a laptop shutting down. "It's been working very hard, like your laptop stops working, basically giving you the blue screen of death and Windows," the former pilot added. During the interview with Reuters, the former pilot pointed out that the fuel control unit (FU) failed to receive a command to stay in a run position, resulting in a brief interruption in fuel supply. "It doesn't command the FU to be in a run position even for a split second. The fuel stopped for a couple of seconds, and the engine will start decelerating," the former pilot explained. Raising key questions about the Air India AI171 crash, highlighting two main areas of investigation. Chan said the investigation should focus on whether Air India carried out necessary maintenance and replacement of certain chips in accordance with the Service Bulletin. "I would say now this spotlight would be on, first of all, whether Air India has carried out the necessary maintenance and replacement of those chips according to the Service Bulletin," Marco Chan added. The former pilot further emphasised the need to investigate the nature of the bulletin issued by GE Aviation (previously known as General Electric) and its partner, Bowen. "The second question will likely be for Bowen and General Electric together, why it was issued as a surface bulletin rather than an airworthiness kind of mandate, where a directive or call that you must carry out those actions," he added.
India Gazette
5 days ago
- India Gazette
Former pilot points to chip malfunction, not pilot error in initial report on AI171 tragic crash
London [UK], July 13 (ANI): A report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau following the fatal crash of Air India flight AI171 indicated a chip malfunction as a cause of the crash, a former pilot told Reuters on Saturday. The AI 171 crash of the Boeing Dreamliner 787-8 aircraft in Gujarat's Ahmedabad killed 260 people, including 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 people on the ground. Senior lecturer at Buckinghamshire New University and former pilot Marco Chan said that although the report did not explicitly exonerate the two pilots from human error, the chances of accidentally switching the fuel cut-off toggle would be 'close to zero'. The preliminary report, released on July 12, depicted confusion in the cockpit shortly before the jetliner crashed and killed 260 people last month, after the plane's engine fuel cutoff switches flipped almost simultaneously and starved the engines of fuel. 'If you will to exonerate the pilots from Pilot Error. This is what the reports were stating. Now they didn't say that explicitly, but from reading the findings, it tells me that it wasn't a Pilot error. What the report seems to be suggesting is the error with the chip,' the former pilot told Reuters in an interview. 'What the report seems to be suggesting is the error with the chip. It's as simple as one chip not working properly, losing contact,' he added. A former pilot has shed light on the possible cause of the AI171 crash, stating that a technical issue may have been responsible for the incident. According to the former pilot, once contact is lost, the system can fail, much like a laptop experiencing a blue screen of death. He explained that the thermal cycle being in a warm condition could have caused the signal to not be contacted properly. 'Once you lose contact, it's kind of like how electricity works; the signal is not contacted properly. It's because the thermal cycle is in a warm condition,' Chan said. The former pilot further elaborated that the system may have stopped functioning due to excessive workload, similar to a laptop shutting down. 'It's been working very hard, like your laptop stops working, basically giving you the blue screen of death and Windows,' the former pilot added. During the interview with Reuters, the former pilot pointed out that the fuel control unit (FU) failed to receive a command to stay in a run position, resulting in a brief interruption in fuel supply. 'It doesn't command the FU to be in a run position even for a split second. The fuel stopped for a couple of seconds, and the engine will start decelerating,' the former pilot explained. Raising key questions about the Air India AI171 crash, highlighting two main areas of investigation. Chan said the investigation should focus on whether Air India carried out necessary maintenance and replacement of certain chips in accordance with the Service Bulletin. 'I would say now this spotlight would be on, first of all, whether Air India has carried out the necessary maintenance and replacement of those chips according to the Service Bulletin,' Marco Chan added. The former pilot further emphasised the need to investigate the nature of the bulletin issued by GE Aviation (previously known as General Electric) and its partner, Bowen. 'The second question will likely be for Bowen and General Electric together, why it was issued as a surface bulletin rather than an airworthiness kind of mandate, where a directive or call that you must carry out those actions,' he added. (ANI)
The Print
5 days ago
- General
- The Print
Air India crash prelim report sparks criticism, debate: ‘Bias toward pilot error, shrouded in secrecy'
According to the report, fuel to both engines was cut off, even though the pilots could be heard saying they did not do it. They also seemed to have tried to restart fuel supply to the engines, but could not manage to keep the aircraft up. On 12 June, the London-bound 787-8 Dreamliner crashed within 1 minute of departure, right after take off. At least 275 people died in the crash, 241 of the 242 on board. While many pointed out that the report raised many questions and provided few answers, some already began a blame game. New Delhi: Soon after the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India came out with its 15-page report on the AI-171 crash, reactions started pouring in, despite Minister of State for Civil Aviation warning that this was just a preliminary report and people should not jump to conclusions. Minister of State for Civil Aviation Murlidhar Mohol's warned after the report was made public: 'The AAIB has brought out a preliminary report. This is not the final report. Until the final report comes out, we should not arrive at any conclusion. AAIB is an autonomous authority, and the ministry does not interfere in their work.' But despite this, the detailed findings in the report have already sparked public debate and raised serious concerns. 'The Preliminary Report on the accident of B787 of Airlines raises more questions than answers,' said Aviation expert and former Head of Operations at Indian Airlines, Shakti Lumba, reacting to the findings in a post on X. 'What I find interesting is this observation: Any such action is the purview of @DGCAIndia, and giving a clean chit to @BoeingAirplanes, @airindia, and @GeneralElectric sours the whole investigation—especially given the fact that the Service Bulletin (SB) on the fuel switches was ignored. A safe airline would have carried it out no matter what,' Lumba added. The report also mentions that the aircraft accelerated normally during takeoff. But seconds later both engines of the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner shut down one second apart. This caused the aircraft to lose altitude rapidly and crash near the boundary of Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. 'Does the takeoff roll and critical gates (V1, Vr) versus time indicate a normal acceleration till liftoff? There's nothing in the CVR or prelim report that says it doesn't. Why would any trained crew operate a fuel switch at that critical juncture?' asks K.P. Sanjeev Kumar, widely known as Kaypius, is a former Indian Navy test pilot. 'Lack of transparency' In response to the AAIB's preliminary report, the ALPA-India (The Association of Licensed Pilots of India) has issued an official statement expressing serious concerns over the investigation process and the manner in which the report was presented to the public. 'Investigations continue to be shrouded in secrecy, undermining credibility and public trust. Qualified, experienced personnel—especially line pilots—are still not being included in the investigation team,' said ALPA-India. ALPA-I also raised concerns over a recent Wall Street Journal article that mentioned the inadvertent movement of fuel control switches, questioning how such sensitive details were leaked to international media while the investigation was still ongoing. ALPA-India also rejected any presumption of pilot guilt. 'The investigation suggests a bias toward pilot error, we reject this presumption and insist on a fair, fact-based inquiry,' the statement further said. Preliminary rep sparks debate Reactions—not only from the general public and families of victims, but also from aviation officials and industry experts—are mixed. Former Union Civil Aviation Minister and BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain said, 'This report is an eye-opener about how the aircraft engine was not getting fuel.' Families of those who lost their lives in the tragic Air India Flight AI-171 crash have also expressed concerns following the release of the AAIB's report. Speaking to ANI, Yashpal Singh Vansdiya, who lost both his parents in the crash, raised questions about the findings. 'I have certain questions to ask the government and the investigation agencies. Based on the report, which mentions one pilot asking the other if he has turned off the switch, it means there were some technical issues. Were all preventive checks of the aircraft done? I hope I get answers to all these questions,' he said. As the report was released a month after the incident, there are questions also on the timing of its release. 'Like everything the Modi government does, the report was released late in the night—at 2 am—under the cover and silence of darkness,' said Rajya Sabha MP and All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) national spokesperson Saket Gokhale. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Fuel switches transitioned to 'cut-off' 1 second apart for both engines—Air India crash preliminary report
