Page Links: Index Page
| WillowRun 6-3
2025-06-28T01:56:00 permalink Post: 11912280 |
The June 30, 2025 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology (reviewed from an email with "Editors' Picks" sent to subscribers) includes an article dated June 27 by Sean Broderick, about the investigation of Air India 171. It relates some new facts or factual infomration (as well as coverage of many facts in the public domain for some time already).
One theme of the article is that the timing of release of information, in general about the investigation and specifically about data discovered in the recorder(s), appears inconsistent with other facts about the investigation. In support of this theme, the AW&ST article quotes a former NTSB investigator (with specific aircraft accident investigation experience). The article also refers to the progress of work at the accident site (including an estimate of the number of workers involved) and the presence of aircraft accident investigation professionals from highly experienced authorities and entities (U.S. NTSB, U.K. AIB, Boieng, GE). It is pointed out - certainly with respect and diplomatic tone - that the aircraft accident investigation authority of India has relatively less experience in such matters. And that the presence of more experienced participants in the investigation (as accredited representatives, if I hopefully recall study of Annex 13 correctly) would suggest that guidance to the India authority has been available. As the foregoing suggests the article asserts, in a thematic sense, that the timing of information release is not consistent with factual information about the investigation. (It also generally suggests that information typically is released by investigation authorities earlier within the initial 30-day time period provided for by Annex 13 .... but that generalization, while true in some cases, isn't backed up with anything specific of a factual nature.) Mods, I hope this adds to the thread and if not please don't miss the bin when it gets tossed. Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 28th Jun 2025 at 02:16 . 10 users liked this post. |
| WillowRun 6-3
2025-06-28T02:58:00 permalink Post: 11912300 |
Regarding benefit of the doubt being warranted: While I agree, the more important point is the AW&ST writer probably would also agree. The message the article centers upon is that the relevance of, or need for, giving benefit of the doubt appears substantial. In that sense, the writer makes the same point as "This is probably the first 'really big' accident investigation they have done that has achieved so much international attention" - and citing that there have been three "fatal airline accident[s] in the country since 2000".
Among other facts supporting both the theme of article and the propriety of allowing benefit of the doubt, as the article notes, "Unlike their counterparts from Europe and the U.S., AAIB experts are not regularly dispatched as technical advisors in foreign investigations involving products built and certified at home." |
| WillowRun 6-3
2025-06-30T16:43:00 permalink Post: 11913762 |
Considering the difficulties so far in determining cause(s) of this accident and the relatively scant infromation released by the investigating authorities, this news item about actions by the DGCA, which could turn out to be relevant, caught my eye. It was published in Aviation Daily, June 25, with a by-line of a senior air transport editor at AW&ST.
Indian aviation authorities have discovered a list of discrepancies while conducting an assessment of safety measures in the Indian aviation industry.
Two teams from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) carried out surveillance during night and early morning hours at major airports, including those in Delhi and Mumbai. The surveillance order was issued on June 19, and the DGCA summarized its findings in a June 24 statement. The assessment covered a wide range of areas such as flight operations, airworthiness, ramp safety, air traffic control, pre-flight medical evaluations and communication, navigation and surveillance systems. As part of this process, “ground activities and aircraft movements were closely monitored to check the compliance [with] regulatory requirements and to identify weak areas for improvement,” the DGCA said. In one of the more notable findings, the DGCA observed multiple cases where “reported defects reappeared many times on the aircraft indicating the ineffective monitoring and inadequate rectification action.” However, the DGCA did not reveal details of the incidents, or the airline or aircraft involved. Maintenance regulations or procedures were not followed correctly in some instances. Airport issues involved runway markings and lighting, ground vehicles and obstruction data. All of the findings have been communicated to the operators concerned, and they must take corrective actions within seven days, the DGCA said. “This process of comprehensive surveillance will continue in the future to detect hazards in the system,” the agency said. With apologies if this drifts too far from the current exchanges on the thread. Last edited by S.o.S.; 30th Jun 2025 at 16:54 . Reason: Clarify the quote. |
Page Links: Index Page