Posts about: "Wall Street Journal" [Posts: 32 Pages: 2]

WSJ reporting black boxes recovered
....
mods please delete if redundant

Yes, but it's clear from context that the WSJ story is referring to the RAT and whatever they may understand from their sources is connected to it.

The story is paywalled, so the link that pops up for me may not work for you, but in case it does:

https://www.wsj.com/business/airline...QPg1BBGQ%3D%3D

So here's what it is known so far. It really narrows it down.

1. Aircraft took off
2. At a few hundred feet AGL all engine power was visibly lost and aircraft crashed.
3. No airworthiness directive was issued for weeks after the crash.
4. Prelim report states that main fuel cuttof switches were moved to the off position immediately after take off, one after the other with one second difference . (YGBFSM)
5. Switches were moved to on position 10 secs after, one by one, but it was too late unfortunatelly.
6. WSJ reported that "there aren’t any recommendations for Boeing, engine-maker GE Aerospace or operators of the aircraft at this stage of the investigation"
https://www.wsj.com/business/airline...ident-2c0b1c3e (paywall)
6. WSJ also reported that "Indian officials have released little information to the public about the investigation, fueling some frustration among American government and industry officials since the June 12 crash, some people familiar with the matter said. U.S. government and industry officials have also been frustrated by what they perceived as the slow pace of downloading, analyzing and sharing the contents of the plane's black boxes, these people said"
https://www.wsj.com/business/airline...article_inline (paywall)

Undoubtedly from someone not authorized to comment, but the WSJ just issued a breaking news piece. As it is behind a paywall, here’s the pertinent excerpt,

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:

Here's an archived copy for easy viewing...

https://archive.ph/2QYNP

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.

​​​​The WSJ phrase according to people familiar with U.S. officials\x92 early assessment of evidence uncovered in the crash investigation

... is not necessarily the same as sources close to the investigation, speaking in condition of anonymity

Later in the article is another phrase according to people familiar with the matter, U.S. pilots and safety experts tracking the probe.

That also isn't necessarily people actually within in the investigation. Both phrases, especially the latter, can sound like descriptions of people expressing opinions after they read the report, like all the explanatory videos, or like some of the chat here. Tracking the probe isn't the same as taking part in it.

The WSJ must be in contact with someone in the investigation or very close to it. A reporter or leaker didn’t make this story up out of the air, there’s factual basis, if possibly some suppositions here. The reporter and the leaker both have strong reasons to keep the IIC off the trail,of the leaker. I think these sentences are just obfuscation to hide the leaker. I’ve been close to people at an OEM any conversation or question of an accredited party was just not done, but the world changes. Obviously, the leaker has knowledge and an agenda for release. In the US, the press won’t be sued for using leaked information.

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).

I just checked the last one that was linked here: https://www.wsj.com/business/airline...crash-148b7e02 / https://archive.is/pembL That's two errors, or at least very misleading statements.

I think everyone agrees that the preliminary report contains sufficient evidence to start a criminal investigation. What this thread is in two minds about is whether the outcome of a criminal investigation is a foregone conclusion.

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)

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.

Can we all just take a moment to acknowledge how absolutely pointless this entire thread was. Those of us Professional Pilots in this chat were banging the drum well before the WSJ article was released, yet the outrageous theories continued\x85 more so our accurate posts were removed.

I feel for the FO, crew and passengers, what a needless tragedy.

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.

I have rebuilt the site that organises these threads by subject here: https://paulross.github.io/pprune-th...171/index.html

Changes:

- Build threads up to July 17, 2025, 13:34:00 (built on July 17, 2025, 14:42:00).
- Subjects added: "Mental Health", "G650 Simulation", "Wall Street Journal" and (reluctantly) "Suicide/Murder."
- Add some links to "Significant Posts" on the landing page.
- Fix issues with 'permalinks'.

Project is here: https://github.com/paulross/pprune-threads
Raise issues here https://github.com/paulross/pprune-threads/issues or PM me.

The only problem with that argument is that (according to the WSJ and other musings), the pilot responsible HAS been identified, quite easily.

And in fact, I would be shocked if the pilot responsible didn't expect that his identity would be knowable in due course in any event - just as many here have supposed. Certainly, no life insurance policy would pay out on a claim until this was settled to the insurance company's satisfaction.

To add: This is pertinent because it really does show that if this were a suicide by pilot, the pilot either knew he would be identified and named, or didn't care.

worse than that it absolutely will erode trust

the AAIB(India) doesn\x92t appear to have tried to play any evasive games and has allowed all stakeholders (OEM, fleeing investigators from multiple countries etc) to be a party the investigation as they are entitled to. That one specific party whether by intent or a lack of ability to keep control of their own personnel has continuously leaked behind the lead investigators and that too not actually providing contrarian views just leaking to present a specific narrative, for reasons we can all surmise, is a genuine concern

I remember many questioning the AAIB(India)\x92s ability to run a competent and neutral investigation well it doesn\x92t seem like the US probe it being run in such a fashion

there were no immediate safety bulletins recommended in the prelim report, the AAIB/Indian government has done nothing to harm the interest of any OEM, why this rush to create this targeted narrative when human factors investigations by their very nature are more complex and convoluted than pure technical ones? Why can\x92t the facts be determined by the lead investigators?

Leaking CVR details is absolutely despicable and I would\x92ve thought a professional pilot\x92s forum would be more outraged by \x91persons familiar with the investigation\x92 mouthing off to the media

It's the last sentence which prompts me to comment further. First, the relevant excerpt from the Journal item:
"An NTSB spokesman said 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.'" (internal quotation as in original)

It's quite unlikely the NTSB spokesman would have said more than Chair Homendy had authorized. The content as to the scope of her review isn't the substantive part, but it does set the context for the quote from Ms. Homendy. Her statement refers to "quickly" making a determination about "immediate safety concerns." I read this as not referring only to the time after the Prelim Rpt was released, but all of NTSB's interactions with AAIB as of July 12.

We know no emergency (or other similar labels) ADs have been issued. Early on, when no such emergency ADs were issued, some people speculated that cover-up could be the reason why. And, recalling back to the first days as of July 12, there was wide recognition that a grounding order would have immense impact and consequences, given the widespread numbers in airline fleets.

But now, the Board Chair provides an attributable on-the-record statement about the need for immediacy, had there been an aircraft or engine problem. What I read as substantive is the confirmation from such an official source that no such problem has been shown to exist. Not a large segment of the "traveling public" let alone the public at large reads Accident Board reports, let alone preliminary editions. So in her giving an attributable statement, I read an intention to reach a wider and more general audience with the message, in effect, that the causal chain of this accident does not stem from an aircraft or engine problem implicating safety of flight.

Are you referring to a different or updated (after 19:00 US EDT 7-16-2025) WSJ article? Because that was the date and time of the piece headlined "New Details in Air India Crash Probe Shift Focus to Senior Pilot" and previously discussed here. This is the entirety of references to Homendy in that article:

Emphasis mine.

Could you share a citation to the article (s) that include the Homendy statements to which you refer, please?