July 17, 2025, 19:38:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924607
Is anyone finding the archived copy impossible to load? I was unable to get at it until I used a VPN to pretend I was in the Netherlands. I could paste the whole thing here if it would help, but it's pretty long. Some people would regard most of it as irrelevant.
July 17, 2025, 20:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924627
Thanks, but no, that's the article that I read yesterday, quoted from and referred to in my question for Willow Run. I haven't yet found the article he quoted.
My access to the WSJ is via my Apple News+ subscription. Sometimes, Apple's presentation of the headlines, in a gallery format, makes it difficult to be sure I've found all of the ones I'm looking for. I have reviewed the three or four WSJ articles on the crash from the past few days and haven't found those quotes yet. I'll keep looking and I expect Williow Run will share the headline from the one he's citing, which will help.
My access to the WSJ is via my Apple News+ subscription. Sometimes, Apple's presentation of the headlines, in a gallery format, makes it difficult to be sure I've found all of the ones I'm looking for. I have reviewed the three or four WSJ articles on the crash from the past few days and haven't found those quotes yet. I'll keep looking and I expect Williow Run will share the headline from the one he's citing, which will help.
July 17, 2025, 20:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924640
I'm close to being confused (but that wouldn't be even R&N).
I didn't open the link to the article archived in that post.... until just before this reply. I read the article last evening (Chicago time) and again this morning. I noted no changes.
I also noted no changes in the print edition article compared to the website.
I marked the quotations from Homendy quite clearly (I thought). I'm not clear what you're referring to. I don't think you're mistaking my comments in the post for statements attributed to Chair Homendy ...(?).
But I appreciate your evident assumption that I would want to correct any error I may have made in citation - I would, yes. It's definitely an over-the-hill lawyer thing.
I didn't open the link to the article archived in that post.... until just before this reply. I read the article last evening (Chicago time) and again this morning. I noted no changes.
I also noted no changes in the print edition article compared to the website.
I marked the quotations from Homendy quite clearly (I thought). I'm not clear what you're referring to. I don't think you're mistaking my comments in the post for statements attributed to Chair Homendy ...(?).
But I appreciate your evident assumption that I would want to correct any error I may have made in citation - I would, yes. It's definitely an over-the-hill lawyer thing.
Am I correct in my understanding that the article at the archive is not the one you read? I assume it's not, because it's the one we were discussing here before your post with the expanded Homendy quotes. It's the one I quoted from, above. If you have perhaps, the headline of the story you have been citing . . .?
In any event, assuming the expanded Homendy quotes are accurate, which I expect is the case, trusting as I do both you and the WSJ to get those right, I think the most interesting question is about the propriety of those statements, at this time. But I'll wait to see what others think.
July 17, 2025, 20:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924646
This is about the WSJ article titled "New Details in Air India Crash Probe Shift Focus to Senior Pilot"
Is anyone finding the archived copy impossible to load? I was unable to get at it until I used a VPN to pretend I was in the Netherlands. I could paste the whole thing here if it would help, but it's pretty long. Some people would regard most of it as irrelevant.
Is anyone finding the archived copy impossible to load? I was unable to get at it until I used a VPN to pretend I was in the Netherlands. I could paste the whole thing here if it would help, but it's pretty long. Some people would regard most of it as irrelevant.
Despite promising 'new details' the article tells us what we already knew: That the FO was flying, the captain monitoring; thus almost certainly the one who operated the switches. It says nothing else of any value, except that it misquotes the report, so can't exactly be trusted to accurately quote other sources too.
It tells us about the two pilots, but reveals no useful background, it also tells us that Air India's chief executive has said not to jump to conclusions and that the investigation is far from over.
It's a masterpiece of space-filling journalism mentioning sources and 'US officials' not disclosed as connected to the accident or investigation and therefore likely to actually know anything, just voicing opinions.
July 17, 2025, 20:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924653
OK, I finally understand, thanks to WillowRun's assistance, that I was wrong — we are indeed referring to the same WSJ report. And my confusion has been because I misunderstood
this
in his original post on the article:
Emphasis mine.
This is the only quote attributed to Homendy in that article:
I thought that WillowRun was referring to a different article or an updated version of the one I read, because I do not, at all, see Homendy's quoted statement as a confirmation that "no such problem has been shown to exist" or as a "message, in effect, that the causal chain of this accident does not stem from an aircraft or engine problem implicating safety of flight." I don't think that understanding proceeds from the plain meaning of the words quoted. It appears to me to arise from inference and interpretation.
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.
This is the only quote attributed to Homendy in that article:
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.”
Last edited by OldnGrounded; 17th July 2025 at 21:00 . Reason: Correct misspelling of two-letter word. ;^(
July 17, 2025, 21:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924691
I had no problem getting access via that link from here (in the US).
Despite promising 'new details' the article tells us what we already knew: That the FO was flying, the captain monitoring; thus almost certainly the one who operated the switches. It says nothing else of any value, except that it misquotes the report, so can't exactly be trusted to accurately quote other sources too.
It tells us about the two pilots, but reveals no useful background, it also tells us that Air India's chief executive has said not to jump to conclusions and that the investigation is far from over.
It's a masterpiece of space-filling journalism mentioning sources and 'US officials' not disclosed as connected to the accident or investigation and therefore likely to actually know anything, just voicing opinions.
Despite promising 'new details' the article tells us what we already knew: That the FO was flying, the captain monitoring; thus almost certainly the one who operated the switches. It says nothing else of any value, except that it misquotes the report, so can't exactly be trusted to accurately quote other sources too.
It tells us about the two pilots, but reveals no useful background, it also tells us that Air India's chief executive has said not to jump to conclusions and that the investigation is far from over.
It's a masterpiece of space-filling journalism mentioning sources and 'US officials' not disclosed as connected to the accident or investigation and therefore likely to actually know anything, just voicing opinions.
That article tells us the following new (relative to the Preliminary Report) information:
"The first officer who was flying the Boeing 787 Dreamliner asked the more-experienced captain why he moved the switches to the \x93cutoff\x94 position after it climbed off the runway, these people said. The first officer expressed surprise and then panicked, these people said, while the captain seemed to remain calm."
I would say that information (if true) is significant, especially about the pilots' demeanor. It implies that further words were spoken in the cockpit, beyond what was mentioned in the Preliminary Report. What these unknown words were may be of great significance.
Now you may argue this is "fake news", but I find it hard to believe that the WSJ would publish such information without some reliable source.
July 17, 2025, 21:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924695
Just to be clear, I'm referring to the article at
https://archive.ph/2QYNP
, I assume you are too.
That article tells us the following new (relative to the Preliminary Report) information:
"The first officer who was flying the Boeing 787 Dreamliner asked the more-experienced captain why he moved the switches to the “cutoff” position after it climbed off the runway, these people said. The first officer expressed surprise and then panicked, these people said, while the captain seemed to remain calm."
I would say that information (if true) is significant, especially about the pilots' demeanor. It implies that further words were spoken in the cockpit, beyond what was mentioned in the Preliminary Report. What these unknown words were may be of great significance.
Now you may argue this is "fake news", but I find it hard to believe that the WSJ would publish such information without some reliable source.
That article tells us the following new (relative to the Preliminary Report) information:
"The first officer who was flying the Boeing 787 Dreamliner asked the more-experienced captain why he moved the switches to the “cutoff” position after it climbed off the runway, these people said. The first officer expressed surprise and then panicked, these people said, while the captain seemed to remain calm."
I would say that information (if true) is significant, especially about the pilots' demeanor. It implies that further words were spoken in the cockpit, beyond what was mentioned in the Preliminary Report. What these unknown words were may be of great significance.
Now you may argue this is "fake news", but I find it hard to believe that the WSJ would publish such information without some reliable source.
Inferring meaning into this doesn't actually give it a genuine meaning. And it isn't as if we didn't already know which was actually flying the aircraft and therefore which was operating switches.
What will be new is when the investigation moves from fact gathering to reporting comprehensive findings. I'm not convinced they'll do that via the WSJ, and I must say their rehash of what is known in the guise of new news doesn't do them credit.
To add: You may think all I am doing is defending the indefensible in terms of culpability in this accident, but actually all I am doing is looking at evidence rather than commentary. If the WSJ have evidence via someone leaking the work of the investigation, they should at this stage be ashamed of themselves for undermining the process intended to best provide for airline and passenger safety.
July 17, 2025, 22:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924722
To add: You may think all I am doing is defending the indefensible in terms of culpability in this accident, but actually all I am doing is looking at evidence rather than commentary. If the WSJ have evidence via someone leaking the work of the investigation, they should at this stage be ashamed of themselves for undermining the process intended to best provide for airline and passenger safety.
July 17, 2025, 23:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924745
IF the WSJ leak is correct, it may be because the US investigators are frustrated with the limited information from their Indian counterparts. Or just another way to attract readers and likes. Nobody knows.
Anyway, this is still not a competition on who is right or wrong. It’s a tragedy no matter what caused it. No matter how many \xabI said 500 posts ago\xbb posts that show up, it makes no change.
As far as suicide goes, there are many cases where the suicidal person wants to kill as many people as possible before they go. Most go quietly.
Anyway, this is still not a competition on who is right or wrong. It’s a tragedy no matter what caused it. No matter how many \xabI said 500 posts ago\xbb posts that show up, it makes no change.
As far as suicide goes, there are many cases where the suicidal person wants to kill as many people as possible before they go. Most go quietly.
July 17, 2025, 23:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924759
Exceptions to confidentiality are not untypically 'home' country investigation boards, so AAIB members may feed back to AAIB seniors, NTSB to the NTSB chairperson for example, but it's really rare for it go further. Reporters on the other hand want to get paid, and that means selling stories.
So yes, I think we do know.
July 17, 2025, 23:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11924766
I thought that WillowRun was referring to a different article or an updated version of the one I read, because I do not, at all, see Homendy's quoted statement as a confirmation that "no such problem has been shown to exist" or as a "message, in effect, that the causal chain of this accident does not stem from an aircraft or engine problem implicating safety of flight." I don't think that understanding proceeds from the plain meaning of the words quoted. It appears to me to arise from inference and interpretation.
The NTSB spokesman said the Chair had reviewed everything. Her statement - on the not large assumption it was made after the Prelim Rpt was released (though the reporting doesn't say when) - refers to her, in her official role, wanting to determine quickly if any safety concerns had to be addressed immediately.
When no emergency ADs or other urgent safety messages were forthcoming in the first days after June 12 (other than the Air India inspection order) there was fairly extensive debate on-thread about whether the absence of such urgent safety bulletins could be taken to mean that neither the aircraft nor engines had been implicated as having caused the accident. Several posters pointed out that if there were an aircraft or engine problem there would already have been bulletins issued. Others argued, not necessarily, maybe it was too soon to tell.
Reading the WSJ reporting, and the words quoted from the Board Chair, now after the Prelim Rpt, and after the reporting by The Air Current prior to the Prelim Rpt release was proven accurate, I'm inferring her statement to communicate that, by now , if an aircraft or engine problem was present, it would have been discovered.... and Emergency ADs flying out of FAA etc.
Of course, it can be said that it's still too soon, but that's not how I see the pieces fitting together. And I apologize for allowing my earlier post to be read as if my inferential reasoning was instead part of Ms. Homendy's statement.
[ By the way, to za9ra22, as the head of the NTSB and the U.S. as the State of manufacture, she is hardly just some random federal official, as post 1411 implies. ]
July 20, 2025, 18:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11925921
The full Flight Global article; those here who chose to put PPRuNe and themselves at risk of legal action by their accusations and emotive language may like to reflect and be more accurate in their contributions to this professional pilots forum in future.
US safety chief supports India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau in urging media to avoid ‘premature narratives’ about the 12 June disaster that killed 260 people
The head of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has criticised recent news stories about the 12 June crash of an Air India Boeing 787-8, aligning with a statement from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB).
“Recent media reports on the Air India 171 crash are premature and speculative,” NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy said on 18 July. “India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau just released its preliminary report. Investigations of this magnitude take time.”
Homendy does not specify which media reports she takes issue with.
In recent days, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, citing unnamed sources familiar with US officials’ assessment of evidence, reported that audio from the crashed jet’s cockpit voice recorder indicates the captain had moved the fuel control switches to the “CUTOFF” position. The reports said that the first officer was the pilot who asked why the switches had been moved.
A source who is also familiar with aspects of the investigation confirms that information to FlightGlobal.
Investigators have not released information to support such a scenario.
NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy warns against “speculative” media reports
The 787-8 was operating flight 171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick airport. It crashed shortly after taking off, killing 241 of 242 people aboard and 19 people on the ground.
The AAIB’s 11 July preliminary report said that about 3s after taking off, the two cockpit fuel control switches – each controls fuel to one of the jet’s two GE Aerospace GEnx turbofans – were switched to the “CUTOFF” position. The switch for the left-side engine moved first, with the right-side switch moving within about 1s.
The turbofans then lost thrust. One of the two pilots – the report did not specify which – asked the other why he moved the switch; the other then denied doing so.
Starting 10s after the switches were set to “CUTOFF”, both were switched back to “RUN”, causing the turbofans to begin restarting, but not in time to prevent the jet from crashing.
The 787’s flight data recorder noted the moment the actual physical switch moved to the “CUTOFF” position and then when it moved back to the “RUN” position, a source tells FlightGlobal. Those moments were plotted on a graph showing engine thrust falling off after the switches were moved to “CUTOFF”, and then returning after they were moved to “RUN”.
Because that data reflects the physical movement of the switch, a loss of fuel caused by another problem elsewhere in the 787’s electrical system is unlikely, the source says.
The Federal Aviation Administration on 11 July issued a Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community (CANIC) saying that the AAIB’s “investigation to date has found no urgent safety concerns related to the engines or airplane systems of the Boeing Model 787-8”.
On 17 July, the AAIB issued an “Appeal”, saying, “It has come to our attention that certain sections of the international media are repeatedly attempting to draw conclusions through selective and unverified reporting”.
“Such actions are irresponsible… We urge both the public and the media to refrain from spreading premature narratives that risk undermining the integrity of the investigative process,” it adds. “The AAIB appeals to all concerned to await publication of the final investigation report.”
Citing that document, the NTSB’s Homendy said on 18 July, “We fully support the AAIB’s public appeal… and will continue to support its ongoing investigation”.
The AAIB’s preliminary report also notes that the FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin in December 2018 about a “locking feature” within fuel control switches on several Boeing models, including 787s. The locking feature is a safety device that requires the switches be lifted before being transitioned. It involves raised nubs that the switch must transition over.
A fuel control switch similar to that found on Boeing 787s, showing that the switch must transition over raised bumps
That 2018 bulletin warned about potential “disengagement” of the locking feature, which could allow the switches to “be moved between the two positions without lifting”, potentially causing “inadvertent” engine shutdown.
Though the FAA recommended inspections, its bulletin concluded that issue was “not an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive”.
The FAA reiterated that position in its 11 July CANIC, saying the fuel control switch design does not pose “an unsafe condition”.
Though the AAIB’s report cited the issue, it drew no link between it and the crash
The head of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has criticised recent news stories about the 12 June crash of an Air India Boeing 787-8, aligning with a statement from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB).
“Recent media reports on the Air India 171 crash are premature and speculative,” NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy said on 18 July. “India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau just released its preliminary report. Investigations of this magnitude take time.”
Homendy does not specify which media reports she takes issue with.
In recent days, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, citing unnamed sources familiar with US officials’ assessment of evidence, reported that audio from the crashed jet’s cockpit voice recorder indicates the captain had moved the fuel control switches to the “CUTOFF” position. The reports said that the first officer was the pilot who asked why the switches had been moved.
A source who is also familiar with aspects of the investigation confirms that information to FlightGlobal.
Investigators have not released information to support such a scenario.
NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy warns against “speculative” media reports
The 787-8 was operating flight 171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick airport. It crashed shortly after taking off, killing 241 of 242 people aboard and 19 people on the ground.
The AAIB’s 11 July preliminary report said that about 3s after taking off, the two cockpit fuel control switches – each controls fuel to one of the jet’s two GE Aerospace GEnx turbofans – were switched to the “CUTOFF” position. The switch for the left-side engine moved first, with the right-side switch moving within about 1s.
The turbofans then lost thrust. One of the two pilots – the report did not specify which – asked the other why he moved the switch; the other then denied doing so.
Starting 10s after the switches were set to “CUTOFF”, both were switched back to “RUN”, causing the turbofans to begin restarting, but not in time to prevent the jet from crashing.
The 787’s flight data recorder noted the moment the actual physical switch moved to the “CUTOFF” position and then when it moved back to the “RUN” position, a source tells FlightGlobal. Those moments were plotted on a graph showing engine thrust falling off after the switches were moved to “CUTOFF”, and then returning after they were moved to “RUN”.
Because that data reflects the physical movement of the switch, a loss of fuel caused by another problem elsewhere in the 787’s electrical system is unlikely, the source says.
The Federal Aviation Administration on 11 July issued a Continued Airworthiness Notification to the International Community (CANIC) saying that the AAIB’s “investigation to date has found no urgent safety concerns related to the engines or airplane systems of the Boeing Model 787-8”.
On 17 July, the AAIB issued an “Appeal”, saying, “It has come to our attention that certain sections of the international media are repeatedly attempting to draw conclusions through selective and unverified reporting”.
“Such actions are irresponsible… We urge both the public and the media to refrain from spreading premature narratives that risk undermining the integrity of the investigative process,” it adds. “The AAIB appeals to all concerned to await publication of the final investigation report.”
Citing that document, the NTSB’s Homendy said on 18 July, “We fully support the AAIB’s public appeal… and will continue to support its ongoing investigation”.
The AAIB’s preliminary report also notes that the FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin in December 2018 about a “locking feature” within fuel control switches on several Boeing models, including 787s. The locking feature is a safety device that requires the switches be lifted before being transitioned. It involves raised nubs that the switch must transition over.
A fuel control switch similar to that found on Boeing 787s, showing that the switch must transition over raised bumps
That 2018 bulletin warned about potential “disengagement” of the locking feature, which could allow the switches to “be moved between the two positions without lifting”, potentially causing “inadvertent” engine shutdown.
Though the FAA recommended inspections, its bulletin concluded that issue was “not an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive”.
The FAA reiterated that position in its 11 July CANIC, saying the fuel control switch design does not pose “an unsafe condition”.
Though the AAIB’s report cited the issue, it drew no link between it and the crash