Latest news with #VT-ANB
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Business
- Time of India
Air India crash: DGCA orders fuel control switch checks on select Boeing aircraft by July 21; flags 2018 Federal Aviation advisory
Photo/Agencies NEW DELHI: The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) Monday directed Indian carriers to conduct checks on fuel control switches of Boeing aircraft, including the B787 Dreamliner and some B737s. These aircraft are used by operators like Air India Group, IndiGo and SpiceJet. The preliminary report into the June 12 crash Air India crash in Ahmedabad states that fuel supply to the engines was cut off as position of the fuel supply switch was changed from run to cutoff and then back to run again. Some foreign airlines, including Etihad have already begun these checks on their Dreamliners. The DGCA order issued Monday says: "(US) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a 'special airworthiness information bulletin' (SAIB) on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential for disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature on Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes; Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes; Model 737-8 and -9 airplanes; Model 747-400, -400D, -400F, -8, and -8F series airplanes; Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes; Model 767-200, -300,300F, -400ER, and -2C series airplanes; Model 787-8, -9, and-10 airplanes; Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes; and Model MD-90-30 airplanes. " "It has come to the notice of DGCA, that several operators- internationally as well as domestic have initiated inspection on their aircraft fleet as per the (Dec 17, 2018) SAIB.... all airline operators of the affected aircraft are hereby advised to complete the inspection (by) no later than July 21, 2025. Inspection plan and report after accomplishment of inspection shall be submitted to this office under intimation to concerned regional office. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Esta nueva alarma con cámara es casi regalada en Cañadita Alegre (ver precio) Verisure Más información Undo " "Strict adherence to the timeline is essential to ensure continued airworthiness and safety of operations," it adds. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) preliminary report into AI 171 crash had said that since the SAIB wasn't mandatory in nature, Air India had not carried out the checks. "The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) by the FAA. The fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB (the plane that had crashed in Ahmedabad). As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. The scrutiny of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023. However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB,' the preliminary report had said. The AAIB had added that 'at this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers.' Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Mint
5 hours ago
- General
- Mint
After AI crash report, Etihad asks pilots to exercise caution with fuel control switches on Boeing 787s: What we know
Abu Dhabi-based Etihad reportedly issued a directive to its pilots, asking them to 'exercise caution' while operating the fuel control switches on Boeing 787 aircraft. It also ordered an inspection of their locking mechanism. The Etihad bulletin dated July 12 instructed pilots to 'exercise caution when operating the fuel control switches or any other switches/control in their vicinity'. A copy of this directive was viewed by The Hindu. The bulletin added that they should also avoid the presence of any objects on the pedestal that could result in their inadvertent movement. It requires flight crew to immediately report any observed anomalies. It explains why this directive is necessitated and states in its bulletin that this measure is 'out of an abundance of caution' 'as the official safety investigation affecting another Boeing 787 operator continues its course without positive conclusions at this stage'. Meanwhile, a separate bulletin by Etihad ordered inspection of the fuel control locking mechanism across its Boeing 787 fleet, the Hindu reported. It shared a step-by-step guide with its engineering team on how to inspect the fuel control switch locking feature for proper engagement; and replace the thrust control module if required. The directive came after the US' Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reminded its counterparts around the world about its 2018 advisory on disengaging the lock on the fuel control switches. On July 12, Indian investigating agencies released their preliminary findings into the June 12 crash of the Air India Boeing 787-8. According to the report, the FAA had issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. "This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive by the FAA," it said. AAIB also said the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D, which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB. Sources told news agency PTI that Air India had replaced the Throttle Control Module (TCM) of the crashed Boeing 787-8 plane twice in the last six years following a directive from Boeing in 2019. "As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. The scrutiny of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023. "However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB," the report said. After being in cut-off mode, the fuel control switches of the aircraft's two engines were turned on later, but the London-bound aircraft could not get enough thrust and altitude before it crashed into a building in Ahmedabad killing 260 people.
News18
6 hours ago
- Automotive
- News18
Air India Replaced Crashed Plane's Throttle Control Module Twice In 6 Years After Boeing Directive
The crashed Air India Dreamliner had replaced its Throttle Control Module (TCM) in 2019 after a Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) by Boeing. The TCM was again replaced in 2023. The Throttle Control Module (TCM) of the ill-fated Air India plane, which crashed near the Ahmedabad airport on June 12, was replaced by the airline twice in the last six years, following a directive from Boeing in 2019, news agency PTI quoted sources as saying. The TCM includes fuel control switches, the ones that feed fuel into the aircraft's engines, the focus to which was shifted in the ongoing probe into the crash. The preliminary report on the crashed Air India plane, released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Saturday, noted that the TCM was replaced in 2019 and 2023. However, it also stated that the TCM replacement was not linked to the fuel control switches. According to PTI, sources said that a revised maintenance planning document (MPD) was issued by Boeing for all the operators of the Dreamliners in 2019, according to which, the operators have to change the TCM every 24,000 flight hours. Specific details about the MPD could not be immediately ascertained, the report stated. It also quoted an Air India spokesperson as saying that the airline was working closely with stakeholders, including regulators. 'We continue to fully cooperate with the AAIB and other authorities as their investigation progresses. 'Given the active nature of the investigation, we are unable to comment on specific details and refer all such enquiries to the AAIB," the spokesperson said. AAIB, in its report, mentioned that at this stage of the investigation, 'there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers". Air India's Dreamliner VT-ANB, which crashed on June 12, was powered by GEnx-1B engines. According to the report, the FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin on December 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. 'This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant an airworthiness directive by the FAA," it said. AAIB also said the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D, which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB. 'As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. The scrutiny of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023." 'However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB," the report stated. After being in cut-off mode, the fuel control switches of the aircraft's two engines were turned on later, but the London-bound aircraft could not get enough thrust and altitude before it crashed into a building in Ahmedabad, killing 260 people. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Automotive
- Time of India
Etihad begins inspection of fuel control switches on its Dreamliners
Etihad begins inspection of fuel control switches on its Dreamliners NEW DELHI: Fuel control switches are under the scanner following the preliminary report by AAIB into the June 12 crash of AI 171. Abu Dhabi-based Etihad has begun an inspection of the locking mechanism of this switch across its Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet after a flight to Hyderabad had to return to the UAE minutes after take off. Etihad started this inspection on July 13 and expects to complete the work in nine days. Air India had replaced the 'throttle control module' (TCM) of the ill-fated B787-8 twice in last six years following a directive from Boeing in 2019. TCM houses, among other things, the fuel control switches. Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's (AAIB) preliminary report said: 'The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued 'special airworthiness information bulletin' (SAIB) on Dec 17, 2018, regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. This SAIB was issued based on reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged. The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) by the FAA. The fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Invest in Bitcoin Without Even Trying Gemini Learn More Undo 'As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory. The scrutiny of maintenance records revealed that the throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023. However, the reason for the replacement was not linked to the fuel control switch. There has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB,' the report said. The AAIB had added that 'at this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers.' Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hindustan Times
20 hours ago
- General
- Hindustan Times
The Air India crash report and unanswered questions
The release of the preliminary investigation report into the tragic crash of Air India Flight AI171 on June 12, 2025, brings with it a fresh wave of confusion, and suspicion. The 15-page document, expected to clarify the early findings of the crash of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner at Ahmedabad, opens a Pandora's box of unresolved questions and incomplete disclosures. It paints a picture that is more fragmented than coherent. Flight AI171, operating a scheduled service from Ahmedabad to London, crashed moments after takeoff, killing all 260 people on board. The aircraft, VT-ANB, lifted off the runway and within seconds, both engines ceased to produce thrust. Within half a minute, the plane had descended into the nearby college hostels, engulfed in flames. According to the report, the aircraft reached a speed of 180 knots at approximately 08:08:42 UTC. Shortly after, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel control switches were found to have transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF — just one second apart. Ten seconds later, the crew attempted to restart the engines. But by then, it was too late. The aircraft descended uncontrollably to the ground. ICAO Annex 13 clearly states that the objective of a preliminary report is not to assign blame or determine cause, but to provide a factual sequence of events, highlight significant safety concerns, and issue urgent recommendations if necessary. It is meant to inform other States and parties involved about the early facts of the case, so that timely corrective actions may be initiated if needed. However, while the AI171 preliminary report adheres to the form of Annex 13, it falls short in spirit and substance. It avoids conclusions, as expected, but in doing so also omits a substantial amount of critical information that should have been presented. The most glaring absence is of the comprehensive Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data. The report mentions the transition of the fuel control switches, which implies that this data exists and was retrieved. Yet, no graphical or tabular snapshot has been shared through the report. Nor is there any confirmation that 100% of the FDR data was recovered. Similarly, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) is only referenced once — a vague sentence about an attempted restart. There is no transcript, no clear timeline of the cockpit conversation, and no insight into the crew's awareness or state of mind. In high-profile crashes worldwide — such as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — the preliminary reports have included detailed readouts from the FDR and CVR, graphical system schematics, warning messages, and pilot action logs. Those reports ran over 30 pages and offered transparency in the public interest. In contrast, AI171's report appears hastily compiled, which should not be the case for an investigative report. It describes the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) — a small emergency turbine that powers key systems during engine failures, shortly after takeoff. It also notes a slew of unrelated system alerts yet offers no explanation as to why these were triggered, whether they were consequential or collateral, or how the aircraft's health monitoring system processed them. Moreover, critical questions remain unanswered: Did the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) generate an ENG FAIL or similar warning at any point? Why did both fuel control switches move to CUTOFF? Was it pilot action, inadvertent contact, or a system fault? Did the pilots misinterpret any signal, or was the failure abrupt and total? Why did the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) not activate? Why were crash-proof recorders (EFAR) damaged, especially when installed in parts of the fuselage designed to survive impact? Adding to the mystery is the discrepancy in the aircraft's altitude. The RAT is said to have deployed at 60 feet, as inferred from the CCTV image, which again fails to produce a timestamp, which suggests that the onboard systems had already detected a power loss almost instantly after liftoff. Yet, the report timestamps this after the fuel control switch cutoff. Which came first: the RAT deployment or the engine shutdown? Absolute clarity about the sequence is necessary. The report offers no safety recommendations. Despite multiple system anomalies, potential failure of critical safety features, and questionable cockpit switch behaviour, the report stops short of issuing a preliminary advisory to airlines, manufacturers, or regulators. Compare this with Boeing's past actions. After similar incidents, service bulletins and safety information bulletins were quickly issued. Was any such communication shared internally within Air India or to other 787 operators worldwide? For the families of the 260 people killed, this report offers no reassurance on the investigation, no clarity on whether similar aircraft are safe, and no indication that anyone has been held accountable or that corrective measures are underway. Transparency is the cornerstone of trust in aviation safety. A preliminary report that fails to provide basic data may only fuel doubt, and grief. In a country striving to become a global aviation hub, where air traffic is growing exponentially, this tragedy — and the lacklustre handling of its investigation — signals that our institutional capacity for accident investigation is still inadequate. The AI171 preliminary report was an opportunity to demonstrate transparency, integrity, and commitment to learning. Instead, even as it avoids speculation, it avoids detail too. It follows the letter of ICAO Annex 13, but not its spirit. What we need next is not just a final report but a cultural shift where accident reports are comprehensive, timely, and made with the public's right to know in mind — where safety recommendations are proactive and where the data speaks for itself, because in aviation, the truth is a matter of life and death. Amit Singh, a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society (FRAeS), is the founder of Safety Matters Foundation. The views expressed are personal
