Posts about: "AAIB (All)" [Posts: 151 Pages: 8]

From your excerpt, which I've verified by checking the WSJ story:

Not just unnamed sources, but unnamed sources allegedly familiar with the assessments of other unnamed sources whose relationship to the investigation, if any, is unspecified. Later in the WSJ piece and definitely also pertinent:

The ultimate assessment of the contents of the preliminary report is some time off in the future (contents, here meaning what is included and what is not). That being said, the comparison to the several briefings by NTSB in the wake of the 29 January 2025 midair collision at DCA is less valid than might at first seem to be the case.

First, the DCA collision occurred against the backdrop of significant weaknesses in the United States ATC system. The accident itself may have involved acts or omissions by the Army helicopter pilot or pilots, so there is that similarity in a general sense. But although a non-aviator, I did understand the many statements on the threads and in the general media about the difficulty of "visual separation" at night, particularly in the D.C. area and in the approach corridors to DCA. This is quite unlike the surpirse and/or disbelief that an experienced airline aviator would move fuel control switches to cutout at or nearly at the time of rotation. So the nature of the acts or omissions in question is quite different.

Second, it obviously occurred at Washington, D.C.'s close-in airport, which has been such a focal point of Congressional "air commuters".

There also is a difference in the likely litigation courses the two accidents will follow. On the premise that the WSJ report aligns with what appears to be the consensus on this thread - namely that the PM moved the switches although no one now knows why - and then reasoning further from that premise, the litigation to be faced by Air India will be considerable. I do not know the Law of India whatsoever, but under the Montreal Convention system for liability determinations and damages, I think it is a very easy straightforward assessment to say that the airline is going to face intense litigation challenges. In that light, the families will have their day in court (I mean, even without knowing Law of India, I think that's safe to say). Going beyond what - if I am reading and understanding the posters with actual significant investigation experience correctly - is the formal or nominal charge of the AAIB in this matter is not required in order to help the families. (And how bad would it be for them if the AAIB had to retract or materially change some information released ahead of determinations with certainty?)

Not least, in the DCA accident the legal landscape is quite diffrerent. Without rehashing the (perhaps tedious) posts I put on the DCA thread, the scope of available legal relief is quite limited under applicable federal law (just for reference, the "discretionary function exception" to the allowance to sue federal entities will almost certainly limit the scope of recoveries available from the Army or FAA/Dept of Transportation; the airline can be sued but it will be, in my not-so-hmo, ridiculous and mercenary to do so, as the CRJ and its tragically ill-fated crew had done nothing wrong).

Somewhat relatedly, on the WSJ article, while its sources are unnamed, I'm trying to recall a single article published in that newspaper (including online) about a major aviation incident which later was shown to have been inaccurate. Maybe there are one or more examples. Generally The Air Current's publisher got a very good start.

I'm sensing that the Journal, while not immune whatsoever to commercial pressures, is well-sourced.

From the article: "The preliminary details have fueled the belief among some U.S. officials that criminal authorities should review the matter, as would likely be the case if the crash had occurred on American soil, people familiar with the matter said." This assertion, stated without attribution, is fairly viewed as having unknown credibility.

But it also might be understood differently when read in a context of the entire reporting which includes these two quite specifically attributed statements:
From the article: "An NTSB spokesman said that [NTSB Chair Jennifer] Homendy has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Air India investigation, including the cockpit voice recording and details from the flight data recorder. Homendy said her goal in working with Indian authorities was 'to quickly determine whether the crash presented any immediate safety concerns to the traveling public.'\x94 (internal quotation as in article)
........
From the article: "The Indian authorities\x92 preliminary report finding that the fuel control switches were flipped in succession, one second apart, suggested a deliberate act, according to Ben Berman, a former senior NTSB official who helped oversee the U.S.-led investigation into the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 in 1999.

Berman said that, prior to the engines\x92 fuel being cut, the report didn\x92t suggest anything out of the ordinary for what should have been a routine takeoff and climb-out. 'There was nothing to prompt the crew to perform emergency procedures, become stressed, or do anything except rotate the nose up and retract the landing gear, like they had done so many times before,' Berman said." (internal quotation as in article)

The Air Current's reporting just prior to release of the preliminary report - based on unnamed sources possibly with close access to the AAIB - turned out to have been correct. Would NTSB have offered the comments it did, if it believed the Journal was about to publish stuff it was just making up?

Edit: the WSJ also, on Wednesday, published a column by one of its regular staff columnists who thinks pilotless airliners are inevitable and would be a much better system architecture. Perhaps in publishing this reporting about the Air India accident the Journal is hoping to preserve credibility among the industry and regulators, despite the nonsense (imho) of that part of the column (most of it concerns the apparent cause of the accident, which - as some post many many pages ago predicted would occur - becomes supposed justification for Captain HAL).

That's better than being at the mercy of speculation from the AAIB.

It's easy to go, "it must be suicide, there's nothing else in the preliminary report that explains it". Well, the things that might turn out to be a factor are not in the preliminary report because they're still being investigated. Fuel samples. The switches themselves, which suffered fire damage. A thorough understanding what can cause the transitions logged on the EAFR, and what did cause them.

YOU are one of the sources of "speculation of unknown origin".

It really baffles me how the French prosecutor was able to come out just two days after the Germanwings 9525 crash and lay out the likely cause in remarkable detail \x97 even identifying it as an apparent suicide by the co‑pilot. Yet here we are with the Air India 171 crash: it took the AAIB an entire month to release a so‑called \x93preliminary\x94 report, and even then it\x92s vague, incomplete and raises more questions than it answers.

To me, this is unacceptable. If the French could piece things together and be honest about it in 48 hours, the AAIB should have been able to do better than this.

You forget, circumstances are different.

It has taken a while to get the "golden" flight recorder shipped, for instance, to recover the data.

Please stop this nonsense. There was no problem with the engines until one of the pilots set both fuel control switches to the CUTOFF position. Why is it so hard to understand that the change of position of the switches is the reason there was no thrust anymore? There is not a single report of a switch failure on any of B787 aircraft.

BTW, pondering some of the perhaps slightly ambiguous phrasing in the Preliminary Report, I asked a Hindi-speaking friend to look at the Hindi language version. But it turns out - very much open to correction! - that the Indian AAIB issues its reports only in English (Hindi and English are the two official Indian Govt languages). A clue is that Indian AAIB reports don't have that note you often seen in, eg, French English-language Accident Reports that, in the event of differences, the French language report rules. So, what the AAIB said is what it meant to say.

WSJ being leaked to again and they are not even trying to hide the fact that it is US officials doing the leaking as with the leaks in the days before the preliminary report

it\x92s hard to justify this and it does just make the AAIB\x92s job more difficult, would the NTSB appreciate Indian entities leaking to the Indian media before a preliminary and then final report?

im not saying it\x92s correct but it does only fuel the simmering Indian (domestic) audience\x92s views of a US/Boeing \x91coverup\x92

what new details were actually revealed here, it didn\x92t counter the facts laid out by the AAIB prelim at all so it\x92s not like we can claim the AAIB is covering up and the US has to issue counter factuals (as with the China Eastern 737)

The French prosecutor wasn't running an Annex 13 investigation. The Indian AAIB is.

I can fully understand and appreciate the leaking. I have been studying the bull!!!! reporting by India media about the cause of this crash. Former senior pilots, some who flew the B787, tell complete utter nonsense about possible technical issues. Like the engines failed and that was the reason to set both switches to cutoff.

It is important to know who asked ' why did you cutoff'. Because it confirms that captain, who had both hands free, set both switches to CUTOFF for no reason.

Previously, I posted the content of a Reuters article about FAA (as well as Boeing) having issued notices to operators prompted by the reference in the AAIB Prelim Rpt w/r/t the SAIB about fuel switches in certain 737 aircraft (Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin No. NM-18-33, December 17, 2018).

Through a LinkedIn timeline I happened to discover the actual document the Reuters report was based on. It is entitled "Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community", issued by the FAA Aircraft Certification Service, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, dated July 11, 2025. As reported by Reuters, the FAA Notification document specifically references the fact that the AAIB Prelim Rpt made reference to the 2018 SAIB w/r/t the fuel switches.

The social media platform makes it difficult to transfer content off of it. Interested people may access the document in a LinkedIn post by former NTSB Chair Robert L. Sumwalt, NTSB Chair 2017-2014. (A search of the thread did not turn up the document; apologies if it's already here and I slipped up and missed it.)

Perhaps it follows that Annex 13 investigations aren't the 'be-all-and-end-all' of accident investigations? Are you able to identify any error in the French prosecutor's investigation or how it did damage to anyone that should not have been done?

has the Indian media cited the AAIB as a reference? A lot of people have spouted nonsense on this subject regardless of nationality- the most popular aviation influencers/commentators have changed their stories about 3-4 times already and amplified outright Misinformation

im not sure how that justifies those with privileged information clearly on the US side leaking undermining the official investigation that is being run with international observers from multiple countries and in line with ICAO guidance

I\x92m not saying it is but it gives off more fuel to idea that Boeing has deep sway inside the US elites and institutions

your last paragraph is conjecture, we can speculate but the job of the investigators is to be 100% accurate, it\x92s easy for us to sit on the sidelines and throw out whatever theories we like but their responsibility is much higher

if US entities aren\x92t happy with the tone/substance of the preliminary report their is a mechanism for them to provide there own findings at a later date, this cloak and dagger selective leaking stuff really is uncalled for

Your argument goes like this:
1) There was a switch failure on a 737 that disabled the gate mechanism.
2) The switch on the 787 is of similar construction (edit: that's why it was included in the SAIB) .
3) Therefore, it is impossible that the accident 787 had a switch issue.

Do you understand that this is not logical?

And then you go on to cajole people who look forward to the AAIB thoroughly examining the switches they have in front of them, to generate actual evidence on whether these specific switches have an issue or not.
I agree that it is unlikely that the switches have an issue, but I still want the AAIB to look, so they can state it as a fact, instead of relying on guesswork.

No that is not what I mean,
The faulty switch on same Boeing 737 aircraft is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the Boeing 787. This aircraft has a different type of switch (see partnumber). There is not a single issue ever reported. There was not a single issue found after the crash.

It is extremely clear both switches were set to CUTOFF by someone in the cockpit. At the worst possible moment just after liftoff. While there was no reason at all to touch these switches.
There was thrust, there was no engine failure, there was no agreement between both pilots to set both switches to CUTOFF. Because why would one of the pilots ask why the other set to cutoff.

Quite right. The NTSB upbraided, warned and sanctioned Boeing over unauthorized release of information (with a somewhat self-defensive spin) in the Alaska 1282 investigation just last year.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...lines-blowout/

I'm sure that the WSJ believes that its sources are qualified and knowledgeable and that the sources probably believe what they are leaking, but it's a terrible and damaging practice in accident investigations, in this case serving no purpose other than clickbait taking advantage of public curiosity. And there really is nothing new in the "breaking news" story, at least nothing of substance.

Assumed: a pilot moved both fuel switches to CUTOFF, and that caused the accident.

Argument against intent:
1. The CVR, taken at face value, reveals that neither pilot was aware he had moved the switch himself
2. On a G650 simulator, CUTOFF after 10 seconds (then RUN after 10 more seconds) was barely recoverable. ( See upthread. ) This suggests the "unrecoverability" window on the 787 was quite short, making a suicide plan risky.
3. Similar accidents were survivable (someone said upthread).
4. Typically, pilot suicides start with the pilot alone in the cockpit at cruise altitude.
5. "Shut down both engines" is an action that often occurs after a flight, and could thus be learned as "muscle memory", and be subject to an action slip.
6. The airline stated that the captain's medical records were found "unremarkable".

Argument for intent:
1. It's the simplest explanation.
2. "I can't believe any pilot would do this unintentionally, and neither should you."
3. Pilot took 10 seconds to correct his "mistake"
4. Uncorroborated reporting has it that the captain did not sound panicked on the CVR.

Did I miss any points?

To be clear, given the facts in the preliminary report, I could not decide this question today.
Whatever happened in Ahmedabad is not affected by the outcome of our discussion.
I hope that the AAIB and the public prosecutor will gather as much evidence as possible, and then the question can hopefully be resolved from facts.

Yes. It would require evidence that we don't have to dispute that.
I expect the AAIB of India would not want it to be said that they did not look for that evidence as thoroughly as they could.
I also do not expect them to find that evidence.
But I want them to have looked, and then say with certainty that it does not exist.

You need to do that, even if it it's just to confirm the switches are ok, and what position they were in, in impact. And if the contacts work correctly , and any sign of degradation from in use. If you do not and there is a crash in a few months time .....

It's how they do air crash investigations.