Posts about: "DGCA" [Posts: 35 Pages: 2]

It was surely a worthwhile exercise, whatever the outcome. It hasn\x92t come up trumps but it was at least possible that inspecting the other aircraft might have thrown up a clue to the crash.

It would be interesting to know whether the crashed aircraft was used for parts around the Covid slowdown and whether this was exceptional or whether other inspected aircraft were similarly treated.

I have been able to access the video. Salient points from the CEO:

"This (particular) aircraft has a clean history."

"Right engine was a new engine, put in March 2025."

"Left engine last serviced in 2023." Due for servicing at end of 2025 [unclear/misspoke].

"Both the engine histories are clean."

"Both the pilots are exceptional pilots. The Captain...has more than 11,500h. FO has more than 3,400h."

No preliminary investigation by Air India. Must wait for the DGCA to investigate.

I will offer the audio . The safety & technical aspects are addressed from approx. 12 minutes in.

Here's a source to (hopefully) put the 5G speculations to rest: Source: https://simpleflying.com/indian-auth...eter-upgrades/ (and others)

The Ministry of Civil Aviation has denied reports that the black boxes from the Air India plane crash are being sent overseas. The \x93Black Box Lab\x94 under India\x92s Civil Aviation Ministry is currently analysing the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder retrieved from the wreckage of the ill-fated Air India AI-171 flight. ( This must be the Rs 90 million allegedly state-of-the-art facility at Udaan Bhawan [ with the assistance of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited ], New Delhi which was ready on 9th April 2025 - shouldn't it be more appropriate for DGCA / MoCA to get needed expertise, if at all, to their Delhi facility ASAP ? ).

Source: business today June 19th

I am not sure that is the case.

Under ICAO rules the AAIB has lead on this. It was an Indian registered aircraft that crashed in India, how could they not be?

The aviation minister ordered a “high level” investigation in to the accident. This is politics only.

This will make the minister feel he has control of the investigation and the narrative, in reality the EAFR data will be leaked by whichever party is in the clear.
If the aviation minister understood his portfolio he would know that the AAIB and DGCA are the accountable and responsible agencies here.

Watch carefully.

Please delete if already posted. This is from Reuters.

"India's aviation watchdog has issued a warning to Air India for "repeated and serious violations" related to pilot duty scheduling and oversight, according to government directives reviewed by Reuters on Saturday.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed Air India to remove three company executives from crew scheduling roles - a divisional vice president, a chief manager of crew scheduling and one planning executive - for lapses linked to flights from Bengaluru to London on May 16 and May 17 that exceeded the stipulated pilot flight time limit of 10 hours."

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/...gs-2025-06-21/

Constructing ever more unlikely cascading failures to fit the very few known facts is unproductive.

Of more interest to me is the lack of word on the plan to interrogate the EAFR units. Where and when?

Also that the DGCA wants THREE managers removed from their positions at Air India. Unconnected to this accident however.


Imagine Qantas being told by CASA to do a similar thing, or BA by the CAA, amazing stuff.

It's either 2 things....
1. That happens from time to time and its the way things are done in India and it's only newsworthy now by association (not causation), or
2. The DGCA need to be seen to be doing something, and that's some low hanging fruit in an otherwise vacuum of information.

3. The AAIB looked into crew rostering; this is a routine part of air accident investigations (maybe not in India? but they have NTSB and UK AAIB sitting in this time). The AAIB found irregularities; this is a safety issue, so they notified the DGCA. The DGCA would've told Air India, "we can pull your operator license over this, but we won't if you fire those responsible".

It's a speculation, but I'd be surprised if it didn't fit the facts.
Also, we can't draw any conclusions about the accident crew; the discovery could've been incidental, or the accident crew might be affected, but the investigation is ongoing, so that's not public yet. It will be in the report, perhaps in the preliminary report even. (I expect NTSB and UK AAIB insist on a preliminary report, but who knows.)

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.

​​​​​​​[End of quotation, w/o any alterations]

With apologies if this drifts too far from the current exchanges on the thread.

If you think everything is said...

Breaking News:
On Jul 14th 2025 India's DGCA instructed airlines to check the fuel switches on the Boeing 787 and Boeing 737 aircraft as used by Air India Group, Indigo and Spicejet for possible disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature according to the SAIB released by the FAA on Dec 17th 2018. The checks have to be completed by Jul 21st 2025.

Source: Avherald.com

Interesting.

FWIW I don't think everything is said, and further elements may be uncovered - I just think the investigators have laid out pretty clearly areas they think are (and are not) likely causes when you read between the lines.

Incidentally the above smacks of optics to me following it being shared that air India had not performed these checks, and the associated speculation of cause, but that's just a theory 😉

I have been hesitating to ask, but I'd like to check whether something I spotted is significant. (I think it is probably NOT significant, but it does no harm to confirm this whilst there is little in the way of new information to discuss).

I believe all three sources are reliable and verified.

1. Aviation Daily, June 25: "the DGCA carried out surveillance... 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.

\x93The 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."

The order was issued on June 19, a week after AI171, and could feasibly have been informed by initial findings from the investigation (though not from anything on the EAFRs, which were not downloaded until much later). However, the timeframe is so tight that I'm inclined to think the assessment was either (a) a complete coincidence, or (b) a reassurance exercise.

Question : is it standard to include a review of pre-flight medical evaluations in such an exercise? (I don't see why it wouldn't be).

2. PIB press release from the Ministry of Civil Aviation on 26 JUN 2025 1:17PM: "The [investigation] team, constituted as per international protocol, is led by DG AAIB, and includes an aviation medicine specialist , an ATC officer, and representatives from NTSB."

The very first team member mentioned is an aviation medicine specialist. This could be coincidence or due to any number of trivial reasons, e.g. alphabetical order by surname. Still, I remember raising an eyebrow at the time (several weeks ago, to be clear).

The Preliminary Report ( PR ) includes a much longer list of team members on page 5, whereas the aforementioned press release singles out three in particular. Relevant?

3. The PR implies that the Aviation Medicine Specialist and an Aviation Psychologist were both drafted in as supplementary Subject Matter Experts (alongside several others I should add) at some point after the original team had been established.

I expect this is a common occurrence, but is it universal ? Question: At what stage of an investigation would one typically pick up the phone to these particular SMEs (automatically on day one or as deemed necessary)?

Individually, the above observations seem mostly routine to me. Together, they strike me as little more than a coincidence, but still... Do those with experience of such investigations have a view on the drafting-in, and the disclosure, of these two SMEs within the first two weeks of an investigation?

Disclaimer: By setting out my sources and thought process in some detail, it may create the impression that I am pushing an agenda. I assure you I am not. I am merely trying to be unambiguous about the facts I am asking you to opine on.

This also could be in the sake of thoroughness from the governing body, and frankly its low intrusiveness to the operation and can at least rule out random theorized possibilities. I would probably advise the same.

Realize this is a pilots forum, and its always easier to blame the engineers (me), but I'm surprised at the amount of people grasping at (at least what I think) straws to try and make this not a case of pilot error (either intentional or unintentional). I get lots of parts frequently break and pilots do frequently see things on MEL etc. I know our partner airline engineering teams would love to see increased reliability of certain components, but the certification scrutiny of flight critical items is very intense including isolation from each other.

The likelihood of two flight critical components which are isolated from each other failing instantaneously is so small its basically impossible. Especially when you consider they also turn back on 10 secs later.

A bit late to check them now, but I don't expect anything will be found on the 787s. They are just doing this to cover themselves, I think.