Posts about: "ICAO" [Posts: 30 Pages: 2]

Vasco dePilot
June 12, 2025, 21:35:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11899758
Professional Pilots is what the name suggests

Originally Posted by Senior Pilot
Please feel free to start such a thread.

We are flat out trying to keep this one within reason, regardless of your feelings otherwise.
But this thread is full of uninformed speculation.The ICAO accident investigation requires it to be done without apportioning \x93blame or responsibility\x94. PPRUNE should have a separate section for professionals only.
ATC Watcher
June 14, 2025, 17:03:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11901662
Originally Posted by A0283
reported were India AAIB with support from NTSB, earlier report was about UK AAIB ref the 50 plus UK passengers, other report mentioned Boeing and GE supporting.
from the EASA statement yesterday :
The investigation is being led by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India in accordance with ICAO Annex 13. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as the respective State of Design for the aircraft and engines is expected to participate
​​​​​​​No mention of UK
Callisthenes
June 15, 2025, 15:33:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11902561
Originally Posted by Iron Duck
A flight recorder was found 28 hours after the accident, so it's been in the AAIB's possession for nearly 2 days, but not a word has been said about its physical condition. I recall in other recent accidents that the physical condition has been publicised quickly, perhaps not least to manage the public's hunger for information.

This leads me to suspect that it is in good condition, has already been downloaded, what happened (if not why) is clear, and it is embarrassing.
This is assuming too much. There are legal and technical reasons why the CVR may not have been downloaded yet or, if it has, why no information has been released.

In an ICAO Annex 13 investigation, interested states and experts are invited to participate. In this investigation, investigators from the US and UK are participating (there may be others as well), and experts from Boeing (and possibly component manufacturers) have also been invited. The lead investigators will often hold off on recovering data from the CVR and FDR, or examining the data, until there's agreement between the interested parties on how to go about doing it. With the distances involved, travel logistics could easily delay examining the data by a couple of days.

In some cases, the board leading the investigation doesn't have the internal expertise to recover data from the CVR and FDR. In these cases, agreement needs to be reached on which technical experts are going to take the lead on recovery. I don't know if the Indian AAIB has internal expertise or if they need to find external expertise to recover the data.

In some cases the CVR and FDR can be damaged and technical experts need time to come up with a plan to repair the recorders and recover the data.

Annex 13, Article 5.12 prohibits the release of CVRs and analysis/opinions from FDRs, unless the investigators decide that the benefits of the disclosure would outweigh the adverse impact that release would have on future investigations. This rule exists to encourage full cooperation in investigations from participants in the industry, including pilots and operators. India's accident investigation rules are consistent with Annex 13: see section 17 of the Aircraft Investigation of Accidents and Incidents Rules, 2017. So even if the CVR and FDR have been analyzed, it may well be that information isn't being disclosed to the public because they haven't reached any definitive conclusions yet that they're confident will end up in the final report.




WillowRun 6-3
June 15, 2025, 15:52:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11902581
At this time I think whether or not the 787 fleet will be subjected to a grounding order is indeterminate. The recorder units have been available for enough time so that it is reasonable to believe the fundamental "what" of the accident has been identified, even though the "how" and "why" will require more information than will be found in the recorders. I don't think the status of this component of the investigation points one way or the other to a grounding order.

However, the fact that the very highly authoritative poster fdr has anticipated a grounding order, and if I understood the very succinct (adjacent) post by another such authoritative person, PJ2 also anticipates it .... while I do not claim to understand their reasoning or the aeronautical or systems information on which it is based, but despite anything else I'm not going to disagree.

Several prior instances have been referenced. The deferral of a grounding order following Lion Air 610 strikes me as part of the overall MCAS debacle; regulatory capture, "narrative management" by the OEM. This accident has happened in a considerably different context. The previous grounding order that gives some concern is the one issued after American 191.

Not the order itself. Rather, after the non-U.S. operators had inspected their fleets and were able to report whether or not any engine-attachment structures (I don't want to get it wrong so I'm not specifically referring to "pylon" or "bolt" etc.) were damaged, they sought lifting of the order. The FAA Administrator kept it in place. The non-U.S. operators sued in federal court, arguing (at hopefully only slight over-simplification) that the U.S. was obligated by international convention to accept the airworthiness certificates of the other States in which those operators were legally organized. They won their case, too. . . . .

But at the time British Caledonian among other non-U.S. operators challenged the FAA Admin. to lift the grounding order, were any of those non-U.S. operators aware only of the proper maintenance condition of their engines' attachments, or were they also aware of the change in the aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft resulting from the asymmetric slats caused, in turn, by the severance of the hydraulics? If they did not yet know about the fact that the asymmetric slats caused the stall speed to increase, then their airworthiness certificates should not have been given legal deference. (If anyone knows the state of knowledge of the non-U.S. operators when they first challenged the FAA's grounding order, any information (or reprimand either for my lack of knowledge or thread drift) via PM will be greatly appreciated.)

So if the 787 fleet is in fact subjected to a grounding order, one hopes that the conditions for lifting it will be determined with great clarity. Not to drift over the edge, but the MAX order and its lifting might not give great confidence on this point.

Related to all this is the suggestion, way upthread, that Annex 13 is no longer fit for purpose. Respectfully stated, but I disagree. What would be proposed to update it? Until this tragic accident is resolved, what prospect is there to engage Member States (of ICAO) plus all the credentialed observer organizations in the process to rewrite it? Also, since Sully changed retirement careers the U.S. has not had a Permanent Rep to ICAO (let alone one confirmed by the Senate for Ambassador rank).

What about keeping the investigation process and results insulated from the pressures for drawing into the litigation process? Early disclosures of partial information would tend to erode that insulation - and for what gain?

The phrase by Icarus (post at 09:25) is one I would like to borrow - though giving attribution to an anonymous callsign could get tricky . . . . "narrative management, damage control, and pass the liability parcel."

Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 16th June 2025 at 04:39 .
Icarus2001
June 21, 2025, 01:15:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11907429
so it's not clear who has primacy in the investigation any more.
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.

NEW DELHI, June 15 (Xinhua) -- India's federal civil aviation minister Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu Saturday said keeping in view the utmost seriousness of the incident, another high-level committee has been formed to probe the deadly plane crash in the western state of Gujarat.

The committee, according to Kinjarapu, will be headed by the home secretary and will submit its report in three months.
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.
T28B
June 21, 2025, 14:05:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11907781
Originally Posted by AirScotia
The situation with reading the flight recorders seem increasingly suspicious to me. As of yesterday, they're still dithering about whether to send them to the USA? Is this about India not wanting to reveal their smart new facility can't do the job? Or unwillingness to trust the US/Boeing? Or some other kind of argument? It seems ridiculous to me that no decision has been made about the boxes nine days after the crash and the rapidly discovered recorders.

India to decide on overseas analysis of Air India crash flight recorders
I am not from India, nor associated with this investigation.
Note this excerpt from your linked article:
India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is yet to decide whether flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the Air India flight that crashed last Thursday will be sent overseas for decoding and analysis. {remove crash generalities} Some media outlets reported that the black boxes are being sent abroad, but the ministry of civil aviation clarified that no final decision has been made.The ministry said the AAIB will determine the location for analysis after a "due assessment of technical, safety, and security factors".
I will defend their investigating team, and the release of information time line, based on at least these points:
1. They'd rather do things deliberately, and get it right, than to make a slight rush and get something wrong (even a little bit wrong)
2. The political leadership are sensitive to how the information age, and social media, amplifies even the slightest misstatement.
3. If they can do it in house then why not do it in house? Why add further delay by transferring the recorder and risk accidents in handling during transit?
4. They are under a timeline set by ICAO, not the time line that your, or my, or "the public's" hunger for information and impatience sets.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Last edited by T28B; 21st June 2025 at 14:13 . Reason: punctuation errors
Lonewolf_50
June 28, 2025, 22:49:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11912706
Originally Posted by spornrad
NYT illustrated the story, drawing the same conclusions as this thread so far:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ash-cause.html
Maybe Jeff Guzzetti reads PPRuNe.
Originally Posted by Innaflap
Not to mention the political pressure and Tata involvement
Yeah, that's a concern that one can do nothing about, but I recall Egypt Air 990 having that same sort of obstacle to the investigation (cultural/political). (No, I am not saying that the causes are the same). My point is that each nation's transparency varies, regardless of what ICAO calls for.
Originally Posted by tdracer

There is absolutely nothing unusual about the 787 arrangement in this regard.
Unless one is on PPRuNe, a haven for the garden variety Boeing-basher. (Though at times B seem to bring it on themselves...)

From two threads I see this: a sudden loss of thrust was the initiating event after a successful take off - all of this other electronic stuff was a result of that.
What I will be paying close attention to is what information comes out as regards maintenance and ground handling for that particular hull...and what isn't said. (I guess that may be a while in coming - and I do agree in the general sense that giving the benefit of the doubt is a good position to take at this point in time).
TURIN
June 29, 2025, 10:48:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11912945
Originally Posted by MissChief
Can anyone suggest a good reason why the captain should issue a Mayday call at that point? The crew should have been extremely busy with the situation. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate is a mantra we are all familiar with. So why communicate?

Having discussed the accident with experienced pilot colleagues, we have all considered that the Egyptair 990 case offered similarities. Yet this is almost a taboo subject.

And one's suspicions are raised by the fact that Air India/Tata are keeping ICAO out of the post-crash investigation.

Incidentally, I sincerely hope that we are wrong about the possibility of a deliberate dual engine shutdown shortly after rotation.
Please read the thread. It has been discussed several times.
Lonewolf_50
June 29, 2025, 12:57:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11913019
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
As per my training, don't let communicate interfere with aviate. If you can do both simultaneously, go ahead. For me, "communicate" could be taking your mind away from task to formulate and interact in discussion. So yes, we don't allow a complex discussion to preempt flying the plane. For me, pressing a mic switch and calling Mayday is more instinctive and muscle memory, than distracting. If a pilot got a Mayday out, good for them! I can't see it helping much for the doomed flight, other than being a valuable "very soon after the event" indicator that the pilots knew that something very bad was happening. I've known pilots to wrestle control for seconds/minutes in an effort to regain control, before issuing a Mayday. Okay, tasks in priority. But in this case, it appears that a pilot issued a Mayday even before control was actually lost - a valuable timestamp on the order of events for investigation.
I got the idea that with no (or very little) thrust, and with the aircraft falling, the pilot (may have) realized that he was in out of control flight , and falling.
In a pedantic sense: if you make control inputs, and the aircraft won't or can't respond to them, you are in out of control flight .
The whole event happened pretty quickly. How far into "we are doomed" that his senses told him they were can have informed his decision to say something about it. (the human mind is an interesting thing).
There's also the matter of temporal distortion which can happen during stress or high adrenalin events. (I experienced that during the course of an aircraft accident: not on topic for this thread).
As to conformance with ICAO, not all investigations make good on that.
Spoiler
 


I sincerely hope that this one does.

(Note: some of what I refer to as out of control flight seems to be called upset in commercial transport jargon).
87guy
June 29, 2025, 13:20:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11913031
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
I got the idea that with no (or very little) thrust, and with the aircraft falling, the pilot (may have) realized that he was in out of control flight , and falling.
In a pedantic sense: if you make control inputs, and the aircraft won't or can't respond to them, you are in out of control flight .
The whole event happened pretty quickly. How far into "we are doomed" that his senses told him they were can have informed his decision to say something about it. (the human mind is an interesting thing).
There's also the matter of temporal distortion which can happen during stress or high adrenalin events. (I experienced that during the course of an aircraft accident: not on topic for this thread).
As to conformance with ICAO, not all investigations make good on that.
Spoiler
 



I sincerely hope that this one does.

(Note: some of what I refer to as out of control flight seems to be called upset in commercial transport jargon).
A jet upset is an undesirable aircraft state...ie stall, or severe turbulence causing the aircraft to flip upside down dive etc... Looking at the Air India incident, the aircraft was not in any of those situations... In fact, if you weren't aware, you would think it was landing. This is something else entirely.
island_airphoto
June 29, 2025, 13:29:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11913034
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
I got the idea that with no (or very little) thrust, and with the aircraft falling, the pilot (may have) realized that he was in out of control flight , and falling.
In a pedantic sense: if you make control inputs, and the aircraft won't or can't respond to them, you are in out of control flight .
The whole event happened pretty quickly. How far into "we are doomed" that his senses told him they were can have informed his decision to say something about it. (the human mind is an interesting thing).
There's also the matter of temporal distortion which can happen during stress or high adrenalin events. (I experienced that during the course of an aircraft accident: not on topic for this thread).
As to conformance with ICAO, not all investigations make good on that.
Spoiler
 



I sincerely hope that this one does.

(Note: some of what I refer to as out of control flight seems to be called upset in commercial transport jargon).
They were neither out of control nor upset. They just had little or no power. The plane flew just fine as a glider until it hit a building.
Lonewolf_50
June 29, 2025, 19:00:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11913178
Originally Posted by 87guy
A jet upset is an undesirable aircraft state...ie stall, or severe turbulence causing the aircraft to flip upside down dive etc... Looking at the Air India incident, the aircraft was not in any of those situations... In fact, if you weren't aware, you would think it was landing. This is something else entirely.
They did not set out to fly a glider, and they had intended to takeoff and climb, not glide, nor land outside of an airfield boundary. That said, your pedantry from a different angle is accepted.
Originally Posted by island_airphoto
They just had little or no power. The plane flew just fine as a glider until it hit a building.
True, but what the crew were trying to do was climb after takeoff. Let's get back to basics here: power is a way to control flight.
Back from early flying, when you were first trying it out, your instructor taught you that Power plus attitude equals performance. (While true enough, power plus attitude plus configuration is a more accurate formulation).
That reply to you offered, yes, your response is well put.
(Maybe it's my rotary wing experience that puts "power" into what controls flight, but no matter, we are discussing a 787-8).
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
I distinguish between "upset" and "out of control" for any airplane.
===
It's a fine point, but this event is well into fine point territory!
Yes. I did point out that I was engaging in pedantry. I appreciate all of the responses. Thanks to all.

Glad to hear that the Indian Government has a timeline for a prelim report. If it takes them a bit more time than ICAO wants, with alerts or bulletins issued as various things are confirmed, that probably serves the larger interest.

Mohol also stated that "sabotage" has not yet been ruled out at this stage of the investigation.
It is one thing to not rule it out, it is quite another to find evidence of it.
Spoiler
 

RodH
July 01, 2025, 01:19:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11913974
This story recently released from Reuters If correct sounds a little " fishy " to me !!!
The UN aviation agency, namely the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), has reportedly requested observer status for one of its investigators already present in India. However, Indian authorities have reportedly declined the request. According to Reuters, this is the first time ICAO has requested to be directly involved in an investigation.

The last time ICAO investigators assisted in air accident investigations was during cases like the downing of a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-300ER in 2014 and a Ukrainian International Airlines Boeing 737 in 2020,
Ppaul3
July 01, 2025, 12:24:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11914237
Air India Crash Preliminary Report Next Week, Will Outline Possible Causes

from NDTV

New Delhi:
The preliminary probe report on the Air India crash, in which at least 270 people were killed - including 241 on board the flight - is expected to be released by July 11. The document, which is likely to be four to five pages long, will be crucial because it will provide initial insights into the crash, including the possible causes.

Sources said the report will include details about the aircraft, which was a Boeing Dreamliner 787-8, the crew, conditions at the Ahmedabad airport, and the weather on June 12, when Air India flight 171 crashed, roughly 30 seconds after taking off.

Details about the wreckage will also be part of the report, as will the name of the investigator in charge. The document will chart the progress of the probe, outline the next steps that need to be taken and highlight areas that need further investigation.

As per International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) guidelines, India is required to file a preliminary report within 30 days of the crash.
artee
July 09, 2025, 07:04:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918167
Air India jet's fuel switches in focus, as crash preliminary report nears

From Reuters

Summary
  • Air India crash probe focuses on engine fuel control switches - source
  • Preliminary report expected by Friday - sources
  • Report could provide early details into world's worst aviation disaster in a decade
  • Probe has been dogged by questions over lack of information
  • India reversed course and now allowing UN specialist observer status - sources
July 8 (Reuters) - A preliminary report into the deadly crash of an Air India jetliner in June is expected to be released by Friday, three sources with knowledge of the matter said, with one adding the probe had narrowed its focus to the movement of the plane's fuel control switches.

The London-bound Boeing (BA.N) 787 Dreamliner, which started losing height after reaching an altitude of 650 feet, crashed moments after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and the rest on the ground.

The investigation into the Air India crash is focusing on the movement of the engine fuel control switches following an analysis of the 787's flight and voice data recorders, along with a simulation by Boeing of the aircraft's final moments, one of the sources said.

The investigation has not raised any immediate concerns over mechanical failure, the source said, and there has been no bulletin to airlines recommending changes to 787 operations . Boeing declined to comment.

Aviation industry publication the Air Current first reported the focus on the fuel switches that help power the plane's two engines.

It was not clear what specific actions involving the fuel switches are being looked at by investigators. Sources told the Air Current that the available information on the black boxes could not rule in or out improper, inadvertent or intentional actions that preceded or followed the apparent loss of thrust before the aircraft crashed.

U.S. aviation safety expert John Cox said a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches that feed the engines. "You can't bump them and they move," he said.

Cox added that if a switch was shut off, the effect would be almost immediate, cutting off engine power.

Most air crashes are caused by multiple factors. The investigation is focusing at least partly on engine thrust , Reuters reported last month.

While the report from Indian investigators could be made public on Friday, the three sources cautioned to Reuters that plans could change and there was no clarity on how much information would be available in the document, which comes about 30 days after the June 12 tragedy.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to media.

India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, which is leading the probe under international rules , did not respond immediately to a request for comment outside normal business hours.

INFORMATION RELEASE

The probe has been dogged by questions over lack of information, after investigators took about two weeks to download flight recorder data after the crash. The Indian government held only one press conference on the incident, and no questions were taken.

However, India reversed course on an earlier decision reported by Reuters to prevent a U.N. aviation investigator from joining the probe, two senior sources said.

A specialist from the U.N.'s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was granted observer status, following an unusual request by the agency to offer its support.

ICAO declined to comment, adding in a statement that any public discussion of "cooperative arrangements," would require authorisation by the state.

The crash is challenging the Tata Group's ambitious campaign to restore Air India's reputation and revamp its fleet, after taking the carrier over from the government in 2022.

India is banking on a boom in aviation to support wider development goals, with New Delhi saying it wants India to be a job-creating global aviation hub along the lines of Dubai, which currently handles much of the country's international traffic.

A panel of Indian lawmakers will review safety in the country's civil aviation sector and has invited several industry and government officials to answer questions on Wednesday, with topics set to include the recent plane crash.

Reporting by Allison Lampert in Montreal and David Shepardson in Washington; Additional reporting by Dan Catchpole in Seattle and Kanjyik Ghosh in Bengaluru; Editing by Jamie Freed

Musician
July 09, 2025, 14:58:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918444
Originally Posted by Magplug
Given the iron-grip that the government appears to have over the media, one wonders how the truth will ever surface?
What are you talking about? Sources have already leaked information. NTSB (USA), AAIB (UK) and ICAO have sent people who have access, not to mention the aircraft and engine manufacturers. There's going to be a final report in about a year, and when that's out you can complain. (There has been precedent for a national accident board making a release about an investigation when the official report came up short, but I don't remember the details.) The ICAO-prescribed process is designed to produce this kind of participation, because air safety can't be a political issue.
Gino230
July 09, 2025, 15:13:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918455
Originally Posted by za9ra22
Nonsense.

There isn't anything of a factual nature to tell us that the investigation is suffering 'political interference', or that there is any issue in the use of the new lab to extract data from the flight recorders. There's unsubstantiated and improbable speculation in the guise of reporting that the data recorders might get sent elsewhere, but no credible sign this was ever planned.

Plus... 'flag carrier'? Air India is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata, not an organ of state. And prior to it's purchase by them, the Indian government didn't seem overly concerned about the airline or its future. Hard to see why they would now.

The only thing well founded will be found in the accident report.
Paraphrasing from the article above-
They originally refused to allow UN and ICAO observers as part of the investigation, but have now reversed course.
They gave one press conference in the last 30 days and no questions were taken.
They took almost 2 weeks to read out the boxes.
UN stated that it is up to the Country leading the investigation on wether to release the report at all- a frightening thought.

They are not being transparent, for whatever reason. I don't really care as I'm more concerned with the technical details of what went wrong or who did what that led to the accident.
za9ra22
July 09, 2025, 15:28:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918463
Originally Posted by Gino230
Paraphrasing from the article above-
They originally refused to allow UN and ICAO observers as part of the investigation, but have now reversed course.
They gave one press conference in the last 30 days and no questions were taken.
They took almost 2 weeks to read out the boxes.
UN stated that it is up to the Country leading the investigation on wether to release the report at all- a frightening thought.

They are not being transparent, for whatever reason. I don't really care as I'm more concerned with the technical details of what went wrong or who did what that led to the accident.
My point is that there is a great deal of paraphrasing, and zero in the way of original statements provided by the investigating team. Their job is not to be transparent, but to find the cause of the accident. Nothing I have seen suggests they are not doing exactly that, but the report when released will go some way to tell us.

As to all the other assertions made, they may, or may not, be true or accurate, but are not authoritative.
Musician
July 09, 2025, 15:37:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918467
Originally Posted by Gino230
UN stated that it is up to the Country leading the investigation on wether to release the report at all- a frightening thought.
I'm fairly certain that's a misquote. Annex 13 requires ICAO countries to produce a preliminary report in 30 days\x97which India's AAIB seems to be doing\x97and a final report in a year.

I've seen a quote saying, "In accordance with international protocols, release of information on the air crash probe rests solely with the Indian authorities." This means that while there are other parties to the investigation, India's AAIB has the final say over what goes in these reports, in accordance with Annex 13. But ICAO would not say that India has the option not to release a report.

grizzled
July 09, 2025, 16:26:00 GMT
permalink
Post: 11918499
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3
The first accident involving this type, and the different design fundamentals of the type (heavier use of electrical systems), would make any investigation authority especially careful not to issue incorrect statements. Perhaps the AAIB in India could be credited with understanding the high regard in which Annex 13 is held, and wanting, ..... perhaps desperately wanting, not to screw this up, not only in general terms but especially given the context. And add in the seemingly mystifying answers to what happened to Flight 171. If Annex 13 had a sentient presence, I'm convinced (mere SLF and attorney as I am) that it would concur with a "be careful, be very careful" approach to anything outside the tight circle of confidentiality within which the investigation occurs.
If this thread was a private discussion between experienced accident investigators, all participants would understand and agree with WillowRun's point above. But, his post would likely have been unnecessary on such a thread / forum, as it was in response to assertions about the Indian investigation process and agenda that are uninformed, and seemingly "Western" biased.

I am a "Western" born and raised former aircraft accident investigator who, later in life, lived and worked in India (and a dozen other "non-Western" countries). The allusions to lack of transparency, experience or professionalism on the part of the AAIB of India are uncalled for. They also show a lack of understanding of Indian rules and regulations as well as ICAO SARPS.

Enough said