IronShield
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- May 12, 2025
- Runs
- 1,021
What if the breathalyser test was fake and both pilots had been under the influence? Which might explain the inexplicable monumental mistake.
-
Contact the PP Team
What could have caused Air India Flight AI171 to crash?
- Thread starter BouncerGuy
- Start date
90MPH
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Runs
- 13,966
This theory is totally inconceivable.
There is no way in hell the one of the pilots could have accidentally switched these fuel cut off line because of incompetence. I will explain why.
Firstly the plane could not have taken off if the switch was on the cut off position. The fuel cut off position had occurred seconds after take off.
The most likely scenario is the trainee pilot focused on take off while the captain had discreetly cut off the switch and then played a game of reverse psychology. He then obviously put it on the on position but knew exactly what he was doing as this would have been far too late to gain any lift on a plane that was going down rapidly.
The captain deliberately crashed the plane, there is no other plausible theory around this.
HalBass9
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2024
- Runs
- 4,243
It’s either pilot or a Boeing malfunction. In recent times, Boeing’s track record on safety has definitely raised some eyebrows. That said, mental health is no joke either, it shouldn’t be overlooked as a potential factor.
90MPH
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Runs
- 13,966
I agree that Boeing’s safety record has been very dubious lately but this
particular plane was the Dreamliner that has an impecable record.
Prior to this crash they have been running for 14 years with no fatalities.
So I will heavily rule out a technical malfunction and pilot error is the only other plausible theory but from the preliminary report that looks highly unlikely, again explained above why this doesn’t seem plausible.
I’m afraid it’s a very very likely a pilot suicide induced crash.
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,519
Well, it turns out the captain switched off the fuel supply to the engines as per reports in Reuters. The black box recordings substantiate this.
Money says the Captain was drunk.
Money says the Captain was drunk.
sweep_shot
World Star
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 54,128
Could be a pilot suicide too. Just like that Germanwings pilot (who crashed deliberately in 2015).
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,519
globetrotter
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2023
- Runs
- 3,273
If ppls make such allegation on pilot then onus lies on the ppls to prove the same
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 39,574
Until anything is proven, I think we must not jump to conclusions... INvestigation is going on and so far they are blaming pilots for that engine mess up... Let's see.
Its just the most likely cause. The readouts dont show any engine failures , they spooled down after both the switches were transitioned to CUTOFF and one of the engines came back when the copilot transitioned them back to RUN
gazza619
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Runs
- 14,405
Indian qualified pilots reputation is at an all time low.
PIA’s fake degree pilots could fly better.
PIA’s fake degree pilots could fly better.
IronShield
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- May 12, 2025
- Runs
- 1,021
There are reports of PIA pilots flying under the influence in the past, but luckily none of them managed to turn the engines off during take off.
PIA pilots on aggregate are probably the worst pilots in the world. There are multiple videos of air crash investigations where the pilots have behaved recklessly and unprofessionally leading to the crash. its one thing to make a mistake (or suicide in this crash). Its another to berate your first officer and snatch controls at the last minute and totally ignore the tower.
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,519
Here are the facts.
The black box proves the fuel supply was cut off manually (switch triggered).
The black box proves the captain triggered the switch.
There are now 3 possibilities on why:
1 - The Captain was drunk.
2 - The Captain was incompetent.
3 - The Captain was suicidal.
In either case, Air India, and Indian pilots in general can never be trusted.
Replace AI - Air India with AI - Artificial Intelligence - and you'll have a safer airline.
The black box proves the fuel supply was cut off manually (switch triggered).
The black box proves the captain triggered the switch.
There are now 3 possibilities on why:
1 - The Captain was drunk.
2 - The Captain was incompetent.
3 - The Captain was suicidal.
In either case, Air India, and Indian pilots in general can never be trusted.
Replace AI - Air India with AI - Artificial Intelligence - and you'll have a safer airline.
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,519
We may have the first case of a suicidal hindutva terrorist attack.
aboveandbeyond
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Runs
- 4,017
An initial analysis of the cockpit voice recorder recovered from the Air India flight that crashed last month reveals that the younger co-pilot asked the captain why he had turned off the plane’s fuel-supply switches, according to a US media report.
First officer Clive Kunder had the controls of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner for take-off and at the time of the crash moments later outside Ahmedabad airport, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal citing sources in the investigation, and it was he who asked flight captain Sumeet Sabharwal why he had flipped the switches, starving the engines of fuel.
It represents a potentially important new detail, emerging several days after a preliminary official report in the crash revealed only that the brief interaction had taken place, without naming who said what or quoting them directly.
Air India Flight 171 crashed into a medical college less than a minute after take-off from Ahmedabad in western India heading for London Gatwick, killing 241 people on board and another 19 on the ground. Only one passenger survived the crash.
The preliminary report, issued a month after the crash in line with international regulations, has sparked controversy with a pilots’ association accusing it of trying to place the blame on Sabharwal and Kunder without conclusive evidence.
The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) on Thursday said the 15-page report released lacks comprehensive data and appears to rely selectively on paraphrased cockpit voice recordings to suggest pilot error and question the professional competence and integrity of the flight cr
“Assigning blame before a thorough, transparent and data-driven investigation is both premature and irresponsible. Such speculative commentary undermines the professionalism of highly trained crew members causes undue distress to their families and colleagues,” it added.
The Journal did not say if there was any evidence that Sabharwal did move the switches, beyond the verbal exchange it cited.
But it quoted US pilots who have read the Indian authorities’ report as saying that Kunder, the pilot actively flying, likely would have had his hands full pulling back on the Dreamliner’s controls at that stage of the flight.
India's Air Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary report said the fuel switches both switched from “run” to “cutoff”, one second apart from each other, just after takeoff. It does not say how this occurred.
open image in gallery
Wreckage of the Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner plane sits on the open ground, outside Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (REUTERS)
It said an analysis of CCTV footage shows the plane’s backup engine, known as the RAM air turbine, deployed almost immediately after the plane lifted off the ground, indicating a loss of power from the engines.
The London-bound plane began to lose thrust, and after reaching a height of 650 feet, the jet started to sink.
The fuel switches for both engines were turned back to run, and the airplane automatically tried restarting its engines, the report said.
The incident has also rekindled debate over whether planes should have video cameras in the cockpit, a demand that pilots have pushed back against.
Aviation safety expert John Nance said investigators likely would have benefited greatly from having video footage of the cockpit during the Air India flight.
Supporters of cockpit video cameras say they can help fill gaps left by audio and data recorders, while critics argue that privacy concerns and potential misuse outweigh the limited investigative benefits.
www.independent.co.uk
First officer Clive Kunder had the controls of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner for take-off and at the time of the crash moments later outside Ahmedabad airport, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal citing sources in the investigation, and it was he who asked flight captain Sumeet Sabharwal why he had flipped the switches, starving the engines of fuel.
It represents a potentially important new detail, emerging several days after a preliminary official report in the crash revealed only that the brief interaction had taken place, without naming who said what or quoting them directly.
Air India Flight 171 crashed into a medical college less than a minute after take-off from Ahmedabad in western India heading for London Gatwick, killing 241 people on board and another 19 on the ground. Only one passenger survived the crash.
The preliminary report, issued a month after the crash in line with international regulations, has sparked controversy with a pilots’ association accusing it of trying to place the blame on Sabharwal and Kunder without conclusive evidence.
The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) on Thursday said the 15-page report released lacks comprehensive data and appears to rely selectively on paraphrased cockpit voice recordings to suggest pilot error and question the professional competence and integrity of the flight cr
“Assigning blame before a thorough, transparent and data-driven investigation is both premature and irresponsible. Such speculative commentary undermines the professionalism of highly trained crew members causes undue distress to their families and colleagues,” it added.
The Journal did not say if there was any evidence that Sabharwal did move the switches, beyond the verbal exchange it cited.
But it quoted US pilots who have read the Indian authorities’ report as saying that Kunder, the pilot actively flying, likely would have had his hands full pulling back on the Dreamliner’s controls at that stage of the flight.
India's Air Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary report said the fuel switches both switched from “run” to “cutoff”, one second apart from each other, just after takeoff. It does not say how this occurred.
open image in gallery
Wreckage of the Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner plane sits on the open ground, outside Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (REUTERS)
It said an analysis of CCTV footage shows the plane’s backup engine, known as the RAM air turbine, deployed almost immediately after the plane lifted off the ground, indicating a loss of power from the engines.
The London-bound plane began to lose thrust, and after reaching a height of 650 feet, the jet started to sink.
The fuel switches for both engines were turned back to run, and the airplane automatically tried restarting its engines, the report said.
The incident has also rekindled debate over whether planes should have video cameras in the cockpit, a demand that pilots have pushed back against.
Aviation safety expert John Nance said investigators likely would have benefited greatly from having video footage of the cockpit during the Air India flight.
Supporters of cockpit video cameras say they can help fill gaps left by audio and data recorders, while critics argue that privacy concerns and potential misuse outweigh the limited investigative benefits.
Air India cockpit audio ‘shows first officer confronting captain over fuel switches’
Pilots’ association criticises report for selectively relying on paraphrased cockpit voice recordings
www.independent.co.uk
Last edited by a moderator:
IronShield
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- May 12, 2025
- Runs
- 1,021
It seems that the captain either drunk or suicidal turned off the fuel to the engines. The younger pilot tried to redeem the situation but just didn't have enough elevation to get things under control. Really sad.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 23,195
Air India received nine notices for safety violations in six months, Indian minister says
Air India has received nine show cause notices in the last six months, junior civil aviation minister Murlidhar Mohol told lawmakers on Monday, amid heightened scrutiny of the airline in the aftermath of a deadly crash.
The notices were related to five safety violations, Mohol added, without giving any details on the violations.
Air India has come under scrutiny after a Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed in the Indian city of Ahmedabad last month, killing 260 people.
Air India has received nine show cause notices in the last six months, junior civil aviation minister Murlidhar Mohol told lawmakers on Monday, amid heightened scrutiny of the airline in the aftermath of a deadly crash.
The notices were related to five safety violations, Mohol added, without giving any details on the violations.
Air India has come under scrutiny after a Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed in the Indian city of Ahmedabad last month, killing 260 people.
sweep_shot
World Star
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 54,128
The main pilot was experiencing mental health issues. Saw it on the news.
It seems like it was a pilot-suicide or pilot's incompetence.
I expect Indian government to cover things up because that's what they often do.
I think the first officer was shocked by the situation and couldnt comprehend what the pilot had done for a few seconds. Cant blame the FO because this situation must have been totally out of left field for him to even realise that the pilot had just doomed everyone on the plane.
But there were 10 seconds between the switches being turned off and back on. If one engine had been turned on quicker, there was a small chance the engine relighted a bit quicker and the plane gained some thrust back
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,519
FO had about 1000 hours.
This has suicide written all over it.
This has suicide written all over it.
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,519
Funny how the one survivor has completely disappeared!
Last I read news on him, he is suffering from massive PTSD and getting treatment and therapy for it.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 39,574
I am having doubts on that guy.. No real stuff about that guy is coming now.. Disappeared in thin air
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 39,574
The voices in the cockpit fuelling controversy over Air India crash
When the preliminary report into the crash of Air India Flight 171 - which killed 260 people in June - was released, many hoped it would bring some measure of closure.
Instead, the 15-page report added fuel to a firestorm of speculation. For, despite the measured tone of the report, one detail continues to haunt investigators, aviation analysts and the public alike.
Seconds after take-off, both fuel-control switches on the 12-year-old Boeing 787 abruptly moved to "cut-off", cutting fuel to the engines and causing total power loss - a step normally done only after landing.
The cockpit voice recording captures one pilot asking the other why he "did the cut-off", to which the person replies that he didn't. The recording doesn't clarify who said what. At the time of take-off, the co-pilot was flying the aircraft while the captain was monitoring.
The switches were returned to their normal inflight position, triggering automatic engine relight. At the time of the crash, one engine was regaining thrust while the other had relit but had not yet recovered power. The plane was airborne for less than a minute before crashing into a neighbourhood in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad.
Several speculative theories have emerged since the preliminary report - a full report is expected in a year or so.
The Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency have reported that "new details in the probe of last month's Air India crash are shifting the focus to the senior pilot in the cockpit".
Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera claimed that its sources had told them the first officer repeatedly asked the captain why he "shut off the engines".
Air India plane descending moments before crash
Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, was the captain on the flight, while Clive Kunder, 32, was the co-pilot who was flying the plane. Together, the two pilots had more than 19,000 hours of flight experience - nearly half of it on the Boeing 787. Both had passed all pre-flight health checks before the crash.
Understandably, the wave of speculative leaks has rattled investigators and angered Indian pilots.
Last week, India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the lead investigator, stated in a release that "certain sections of the international media are repeatedly attempting to draw conclusions through selective and unverified reporting". It described these "actions [as] irresponsible, especially while the investigation remains ongoing".
Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the US's National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is assisting the investigation, said on X that the media reports were "premature and speculative" and that “investigations of this magnitude take time".
Back in India, the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association condemned the rush to blame the crew as "reckless" and "deeply insensitive", urging restraint until the final report is out.
Sam Thomas, head of the Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA India), told the BBC that "speculation has triumphed over transparency", emphasising the need to review the aircraft's maintenance history and documentation alongside the cockpit voice recorder data.
At the heart of the controversy is the brief cockpit recording in the report - the full transcript, expected in the final report, should shed clearer light on what truly happened.
A Canada-based air accident investigator, who preferred to remain unnamed, said that the excerpt of the conversation in the report presents at several possibilities.
For example, "if pilot 'B' was the one who operated the switches - and did so unwittingly or unconsciously - it's understandable that they would later deny having done it," the investigator said.
"But if pilot 'A' operated the switches deliberately and with intent, he may have posed the question knowing full well that the cockpit voice recorder would be scrutinised, and with the aim of deflecting attention and avoiding identification as the one responsible.
"Even if the AAIB is eventually able to determine who said what, that doesn't decisively answer the question 'Who turned the fuel off?'".
"We may even never know the answer to that question."
Investigators told the BBC that while there appeared to be strong evidence the fuel switches were manually turned off, it's still important to keep "an open mind".
A glitch in the plane's Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system - which monitors engine health and performance - could, in theory, trigger an automatic shutdown if it receives false signals from sensors, some pilots suggest.
However, if the pilot's exclamation - 'why did you cut-off [the fuel]?' - came after the switches moved to cut-off (as noted in the preliminary report), it would undermine that theory. The final report will likely include time-stamped dialogue and a detailed analysis of engine data to clarify this.
Speculation has been fuelled less by who said what, and more by what wasn't said.
The preliminary report withheld the full cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript, revealing only a single, telling line from the final moments.
This selective disclosure has raised questions: was the investigation team confident about the speakers' identities but chose to withhold the rest out of sensitivity? Or are they still uncertain whose voices they were hearing and needed more time to fully investigate the matter before publishing any conclusions?
Peter Goelz, former NTSB managing director, says the AAIB should release a voice recorder transcript with pilot voices identified.
"If any malfunctions began during take-off, they would be recorded in the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and would likely have triggered alerts in the flight management system - alerts the crew would almost certainly have noticed and, more importantly, discussed."
Investigators are urging restraint in drawing conclusions.
"We have to be cautious because it's easy to assume that if the switches were turned off, it must mean intentional action - pilot error, suicide, or something else. And that's a dangerous path to go down with the limited information we have," Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline accident investigator and aviation expert at Ohio State University, told the BBC.
At the same time, alternative theories continue to circulate.
Indian newspapers including the Indian Express flagged a possible electrical fire in the tail as a key focus. But the preliminary report makes clear: the engines shut down because both fuel switches were moved to cut-off - a fact backed by recorder data. If a tail fire occurred, it likely happened post-impact, triggered by spilled fuel or damaged batteries, an independent investigator said.
Last week, AAIB chief GVG Yugandhar stressed that the preliminary report aims to "provide information about 'WHAT' happened".
"It's too early for definite conclusions," he said, emphasising the investigation is ongoing and the final report will identify "root causes and recommendations". He also pledged to share updates on "technical or public interest matters" as they arise.
Summing up, Mr Pruchnicki said the probe "boils down to two possibilities - either deliberate action or confusion, or an automation-related issue".
"The report doesn't rush to blame human error or intent; there's no proof it was done intentionally," he added.
In other words, no smoking gun - just an uneasy wait for answers that may never even fully emerge.
BBC
When the preliminary report into the crash of Air India Flight 171 - which killed 260 people in June - was released, many hoped it would bring some measure of closure.
Instead, the 15-page report added fuel to a firestorm of speculation. For, despite the measured tone of the report, one detail continues to haunt investigators, aviation analysts and the public alike.
Seconds after take-off, both fuel-control switches on the 12-year-old Boeing 787 abruptly moved to "cut-off", cutting fuel to the engines and causing total power loss - a step normally done only after landing.
The cockpit voice recording captures one pilot asking the other why he "did the cut-off", to which the person replies that he didn't. The recording doesn't clarify who said what. At the time of take-off, the co-pilot was flying the aircraft while the captain was monitoring.
The switches were returned to their normal inflight position, triggering automatic engine relight. At the time of the crash, one engine was regaining thrust while the other had relit but had not yet recovered power. The plane was airborne for less than a minute before crashing into a neighbourhood in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad.
Several speculative theories have emerged since the preliminary report - a full report is expected in a year or so.
The Wall Street Journal and Reuters news agency have reported that "new details in the probe of last month's Air India crash are shifting the focus to the senior pilot in the cockpit".
Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera claimed that its sources had told them the first officer repeatedly asked the captain why he "shut off the engines".
Air India plane descending moments before crash
Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, was the captain on the flight, while Clive Kunder, 32, was the co-pilot who was flying the plane. Together, the two pilots had more than 19,000 hours of flight experience - nearly half of it on the Boeing 787. Both had passed all pre-flight health checks before the crash.
Understandably, the wave of speculative leaks has rattled investigators and angered Indian pilots.
Last week, India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the lead investigator, stated in a release that "certain sections of the international media are repeatedly attempting to draw conclusions through selective and unverified reporting". It described these "actions [as] irresponsible, especially while the investigation remains ongoing".
Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the US's National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is assisting the investigation, said on X that the media reports were "premature and speculative" and that “investigations of this magnitude take time".
Back in India, the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association condemned the rush to blame the crew as "reckless" and "deeply insensitive", urging restraint until the final report is out.
Sam Thomas, head of the Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA India), told the BBC that "speculation has triumphed over transparency", emphasising the need to review the aircraft's maintenance history and documentation alongside the cockpit voice recorder data.
At the heart of the controversy is the brief cockpit recording in the report - the full transcript, expected in the final report, should shed clearer light on what truly happened.
A Canada-based air accident investigator, who preferred to remain unnamed, said that the excerpt of the conversation in the report presents at several possibilities.
For example, "if pilot 'B' was the one who operated the switches - and did so unwittingly or unconsciously - it's understandable that they would later deny having done it," the investigator said.
"But if pilot 'A' operated the switches deliberately and with intent, he may have posed the question knowing full well that the cockpit voice recorder would be scrutinised, and with the aim of deflecting attention and avoiding identification as the one responsible.
"Even if the AAIB is eventually able to determine who said what, that doesn't decisively answer the question 'Who turned the fuel off?'".
"We may even never know the answer to that question."
Investigators told the BBC that while there appeared to be strong evidence the fuel switches were manually turned off, it's still important to keep "an open mind".
A glitch in the plane's Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system - which monitors engine health and performance - could, in theory, trigger an automatic shutdown if it receives false signals from sensors, some pilots suggest.
However, if the pilot's exclamation - 'why did you cut-off [the fuel]?' - came after the switches moved to cut-off (as noted in the preliminary report), it would undermine that theory. The final report will likely include time-stamped dialogue and a detailed analysis of engine data to clarify this.
Speculation has been fuelled less by who said what, and more by what wasn't said.
The preliminary report withheld the full cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript, revealing only a single, telling line from the final moments.
This selective disclosure has raised questions: was the investigation team confident about the speakers' identities but chose to withhold the rest out of sensitivity? Or are they still uncertain whose voices they were hearing and needed more time to fully investigate the matter before publishing any conclusions?
Peter Goelz, former NTSB managing director, says the AAIB should release a voice recorder transcript with pilot voices identified.
"If any malfunctions began during take-off, they would be recorded in the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and would likely have triggered alerts in the flight management system - alerts the crew would almost certainly have noticed and, more importantly, discussed."
Investigators are urging restraint in drawing conclusions.
"We have to be cautious because it's easy to assume that if the switches were turned off, it must mean intentional action - pilot error, suicide, or something else. And that's a dangerous path to go down with the limited information we have," Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline accident investigator and aviation expert at Ohio State University, told the BBC.
At the same time, alternative theories continue to circulate.
Indian newspapers including the Indian Express flagged a possible electrical fire in the tail as a key focus. But the preliminary report makes clear: the engines shut down because both fuel switches were moved to cut-off - a fact backed by recorder data. If a tail fire occurred, it likely happened post-impact, triggered by spilled fuel or damaged batteries, an independent investigator said.
Last week, AAIB chief GVG Yugandhar stressed that the preliminary report aims to "provide information about 'WHAT' happened".
"It's too early for definite conclusions," he said, emphasising the investigation is ongoing and the final report will identify "root causes and recommendations". He also pledged to share updates on "technical or public interest matters" as they arise.
Summing up, Mr Pruchnicki said the probe "boils down to two possibilities - either deliberate action or confusion, or an automation-related issue".
"The report doesn't rush to blame human error or intent; there's no proof it was done intentionally," he added.
In other words, no smoking gun - just an uneasy wait for answers that may never even fully emerge.
BBC
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 23,195
Air India crash victim's son says he received 'other' remains
The son of a woman killed in the Air India plane crash has told the BBC "other remains" were found in her casket after her body was returned to the UK.
Miten Patel, whose father also died in the crash, said the coroner identified the mixed-up remains and left him to worry: "How many others are in there?"
The Daily Mail reported on Wednesday that the wrong bodies were being sent to loved ones following the crash which killed 260 people shortly after take-off in early June.
All remains were handled with "utmost professionalism" and dignity, India's foreign ministry said, and that it was working with UK officials to address concerns.
A spokesperson for the UK government said: "Formal identification of bodies is a matter for the Indian authorities.
"We continue to liaise with the Government of Gujarat and the Government of India on behalf of the Inner West London Senior Coroner to support the coronial process."
Ashok and Shobhana Patel were travelling home to visit their sons and grandchildren on 12 June. After the Gatwick-bound plane crashed in Ahmedabad, western India, they were among the first victims to be returned home.
Their son, Miten, said the mix-up was "obviously very upsetting," even though he acknowledged that mistakes happen.
"People were tired and there was a lot of pressure. But there has to be a level of responsibility that you're sending the right bodies to the UK.
"How do I know there aren't other remains in the casket with her?"
The Daily Mail reported two cases in which the wrong remains were allegedly returned to loved ones in the UK.
One apparently saw a family receive the wrong body entirely, while another was said to involve the remains of several people placed in the same casket.
India's foreign ministry said that they were aware of the report "and have been working closely with the UK side from the moment these concerns and issues were brought to our attention".
The statement continued: "In the wake of the tragic crash, the concerned authorities had carried out identification of victims as per established protocols and technical requirements.
www.bbc.com
The son of a woman killed in the Air India plane crash has told the BBC "other remains" were found in her casket after her body was returned to the UK.
Miten Patel, whose father also died in the crash, said the coroner identified the mixed-up remains and left him to worry: "How many others are in there?"
The Daily Mail reported on Wednesday that the wrong bodies were being sent to loved ones following the crash which killed 260 people shortly after take-off in early June.
All remains were handled with "utmost professionalism" and dignity, India's foreign ministry said, and that it was working with UK officials to address concerns.
A spokesperson for the UK government said: "Formal identification of bodies is a matter for the Indian authorities.
"We continue to liaise with the Government of Gujarat and the Government of India on behalf of the Inner West London Senior Coroner to support the coronial process."
Ashok and Shobhana Patel were travelling home to visit their sons and grandchildren on 12 June. After the Gatwick-bound plane crashed in Ahmedabad, western India, they were among the first victims to be returned home.
Their son, Miten, said the mix-up was "obviously very upsetting," even though he acknowledged that mistakes happen.
"People were tired and there was a lot of pressure. But there has to be a level of responsibility that you're sending the right bodies to the UK.
"How do I know there aren't other remains in the casket with her?"
The Daily Mail reported two cases in which the wrong remains were allegedly returned to loved ones in the UK.
One apparently saw a family receive the wrong body entirely, while another was said to involve the remains of several people placed in the same casket.
India's foreign ministry said that they were aware of the report "and have been working closely with the UK side from the moment these concerns and issues were brought to our attention".
The statement continued: "In the wake of the tragic crash, the concerned authorities had carried out identification of victims as per established protocols and technical requirements.
Air India crash victims' son says he received 'other' remains
India's foreign ministry said all remains were treated with dignity.
www.bbc.com
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 23,195
Air India crash aftermath handled 'irresponsibly', says court
The highest court in India has strongly criticised the country's aviation authorities for their handling of the aftermath of the Air India plane crash that killed 261 people in June.
Leaving only one survivor, the flight bound for Gatwick airport from Ahmedabad crashed shortly after taking off, killing 242 passengers on board and 19 others on the ground.
The court said it was "irresponsible" for the aviation authority to suggest, through leaks to the media, that pilot error had caused the disaster.
It called on Indian prime minister Narendra Modi for the government's response before it rules on a case filed by activists demanding an independent investigation.
The court said the way the aviation body released its preliminary report in to the Boeing Dreamliner's crash was "selective and piecemeal".
The preliminary report, published by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) in July, said fuel supply to the engines was cut off just seconds after take-off.
The report also said one of the pilots was heard asking the other "why did he cut off" in a cockpit voice recording, with another pilot responding that he did not do so.
The recording doesn't clarify who said what. At the time of take-off, the co-pilot was flying the aircraft while the captain was monitoring.
But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.
In a court hearing overseeing the aviation safety group's petition, one of India's Supreme Court judges said that suggestions that the pilots deliberately shut off fuel supply were "very unfortunate and irresponsible".
The crash has left many questioning the safety of India's airspace.
The chief of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) has defended the safety record of the country, telling the BBC in July that "India's skies have always been safe".
That same month, the DGCA uncovered 51 safety violations at Air India in the preceding year, as part of its annual audit of the country's airlines.
The families of four passengers who died on the plane filed a lawsuit in the US against planemaker Boeing and aircraft parts maker Honeywell, accusing the companies of negligence.
The lawsuit accused the companies of doing "nothing" despite being aware of the risks of the aircraft's design.
www.bbc.com
The highest court in India has strongly criticised the country's aviation authorities for their handling of the aftermath of the Air India plane crash that killed 261 people in June.
Leaving only one survivor, the flight bound for Gatwick airport from Ahmedabad crashed shortly after taking off, killing 242 passengers on board and 19 others on the ground.
The court said it was "irresponsible" for the aviation authority to suggest, through leaks to the media, that pilot error had caused the disaster.
It called on Indian prime minister Narendra Modi for the government's response before it rules on a case filed by activists demanding an independent investigation.
The court said the way the aviation body released its preliminary report in to the Boeing Dreamliner's crash was "selective and piecemeal".
The preliminary report, published by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) in July, said fuel supply to the engines was cut off just seconds after take-off.
The report also said one of the pilots was heard asking the other "why did he cut off" in a cockpit voice recording, with another pilot responding that he did not do so.
The recording doesn't clarify who said what. At the time of take-off, the co-pilot was flying the aircraft while the captain was monitoring.
But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.
In a court hearing overseeing the aviation safety group's petition, one of India's Supreme Court judges said that suggestions that the pilots deliberately shut off fuel supply were "very unfortunate and irresponsible".
The crash has left many questioning the safety of India's airspace.
The chief of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) has defended the safety record of the country, telling the BBC in July that "India's skies have always been safe".
That same month, the DGCA uncovered 51 safety violations at Air India in the preceding year, as part of its annual audit of the country's airlines.
The families of four passengers who died on the plane filed a lawsuit in the US against planemaker Boeing and aircraft parts maker Honeywell, accusing the companies of negligence.
The lawsuit accused the companies of doing "nothing" despite being aware of the risks of the aircraft's design.
Air India crash aftermath handled 'irresponsibly', says court
Judges say India's aviation body was irresponsible to suggest through leaks to the media that pilot error had caused the disaster.
www.bbc.com
sweep_shot
World Star
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 54,128
Air India crash aftermath handled 'irresponsibly', says court
The highest court in India has strongly criticised the country's aviation authorities for their handling of the aftermath of the Air India plane crash that killed 261 people in June.
Leaving only one survivor, the flight bound for Gatwick airport from Ahmedabad crashed shortly after taking off, killing 242 passengers on board and 19 others on the ground.
The court said it was "irresponsible" for the aviation authority to suggest, through leaks to the media, that pilot error had caused the disaster.
It called on Indian prime minister Narendra Modi for the government's response before it rules on a case filed by activists demanding an independent investigation.
The court said the way the aviation body released its preliminary report in to the Boeing Dreamliner's crash was "selective and piecemeal".
The preliminary report, published by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) in July, said fuel supply to the engines was cut off just seconds after take-off.
The report also said one of the pilots was heard asking the other "why did he cut off" in a cockpit voice recording, with another pilot responding that he did not do so.
The recording doesn't clarify who said what. At the time of take-off, the co-pilot was flying the aircraft while the captain was monitoring.
But the findings of the report have been challenged by aviation safety group Safety Matters Foundation, which is calling for an independent investigation into the crash.
In a court hearing overseeing the aviation safety group's petition, one of India's Supreme Court judges said that suggestions that the pilots deliberately shut off fuel supply were "very unfortunate and irresponsible".
The crash has left many questioning the safety of India's airspace.
The chief of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC) has defended the safety record of the country, telling the BBC in July that "India's skies have always been safe".
That same month, the DGCA uncovered 51 safety violations at Air India in the preceding year, as part of its annual audit of the country's airlines.
The families of four passengers who died on the plane filed a lawsuit in the US against planemaker Boeing and aircraft parts maker Honeywell, accusing the companies of negligence.
The lawsuit accused the companies of doing "nothing" despite being aware of the risks of the aircraft's design.
Air India crash aftermath handled 'irresponsibly', says court
Judges say India's aviation body was irresponsible to suggest through leaks to the media that pilot error had caused the disaster.
Not surprised at all.
Ever since chaiwala came to power, competency went out of the window. Their aviation authorities are incompetent just like their air force.
Wouldnt put it past them though
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2015
- Runs
- 2,873
- Post of the Week
- 2
Do we have a public detailed report as to what actually happened?
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,519
Where is that so called shill of a survivor?
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 15,519
The facts : Air India Captain was a suicide captain.
The cult trying to delay the report but its clear as daylight, the cult have their own suicide pilots.
The cult trying to delay the report but its clear as daylight, the cult have their own suicide pilots.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 39,574
Blame game over Air India crash goes on
Nearly five months after a plane crash in India which killed 260 people, the investigation has become mired in controversy – with the country's Supreme Court the latest to weigh in.
Flight 171 was en route to London from Ahmedabad in western India on 12 June. It crashed into a building just 32 seconds after taking off.
An interim report was released in July, but critics argue it unfairly focused on the actions of the pilots, diverting attention away from a possible fault with the aircraft.
On Friday, a judge in India's Supreme Court insisted that nobody could blame the aircraft's captain.
His comments came a week after the airline's boss insisted there was no problem with the aircraft.
During a panel discussion at the Aviation India 2025 summit in New Delhi in late October, Air India's chief executive Campbell Wilson admitted that the accident had been "absolutely devastating for the people involved, for the families of those involved, and the staff".
But he stressed that initial investigations by Indian officials, summed up in a preliminary report, had "indicated that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, the engines or the operation of the airline".
He added although Air India was working with investigators it was not involved directly.
Because the accident happened in India, the investigation is being led by the country's Air Accident investigation Bureau (AAIB). However, because the aircraft and its engines were designed and built in America, US officials are also taking part.
A month after the accident, the AAIB published a preliminary report. This is standard procedure in major accident investigations and is meant to provide a summary of the known facts at the time of publication.
The report will typically draw on information gleaned from examination of the crash site, for example, as well as basic material downloaded from the flight data recorder. It will not normally make firm conclusions about the cause of the accident.
However, the 15-page report into Air India 171 has proved controversial. This is largely due to the contents of two short paragraphs.
First, it notes that seconds after takeoff, the fuel cutoff switches - normally used when starting the engines before a flight and shutting them down afterwards – had been moved from the "run" to the cutoff position.
This would have deprived the engines of fuel, causing them to lose thrust rapidly. The switches were moved back to restart the engines, but too late to prevent the disaster.
It then says: "In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so."
What the fuel switches would have looked like inside a Boeing 787 Dreamliner cockpit
That indirectly-reported exchange sparked intense speculation about the role of the two pilots, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and his first officer Clive Kunder, who was flying the plane at the time.
A former chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, Robert Sumwalt, claimed the report showed "this was not a problem with the airplane or the engines".
"Did somebody deliberately shut down the fuel, or was it somehow or another a slip that they inadvertently shut off the fuel?" he said during an interview with the US network CBS.
Indian aviation safety consultant Capt. Mohan Ranganathan strongly implied that pilot suicide could have caused the accident, in an interview with the country's NDTV channel.
"I don't want to use the word. I've heard the pilot had some medical history and... it can happen," he said.
Mike Andrews, a lawyer acting on behalf of victims' families, thinks the way in which information has been released has "led people unfairly and inappropriately to blame those pilots without all the information".
"An aircraft like this - that is so complex - has so many things that could go wrong," he explains.
"To seize upon those two very small, decontextualised pieces of information, and automatically blame pilots for suicide and mass murder... is unfair and wrong."
That view is echoed by Capt. Amit Singh, founder of the Safety Matters Foundation, an organisation based in India that works to promote a safety culture in aviation.
He has produced a report which claims the available evidence "strongly supports the theory of an electrical disturbance as the primary cause of the engine shutdown" that led to the disaster.
He believes an electrical fault may have caused the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), a computerised system which manages the engines, to trigger a shutdown by cutting off the fuel supply.
Meanwhile the flight data recorder, he suggests, may have registered the command to shut off the fuel supply, rather than any physical movement of the cutoff switches in the cockpit.
In other words, the switches themselves may not have been touched at all, until the pilots tried to restart the engines.
Capt. Singh has also challenged the way in which the investigation has been carried out in India's Supreme Court.
He told the BBC the way in which the preliminary report was framed was biased because it "appears to suggest pilot error, without disclosing all the technical anomalies that occurred during the flight".
Meanwhile the Supreme Court itself has already commented on the issue.
It has been considering a petition filed by Pushkarraj Sabharwal, the father of Capt. Sumeet Sabharwal. The 91-year-old has been seeking an independent judicial inquiry into the tragedy.
"It's extremely unfortunate, this crash, but you should not carry this burden that your son is being blamed. Nobody can blame him for anything," Justice Surya Kant told him.
A further hearing is expected on 10 November.
'Flat out wrong'
The theory that an electrical fault could have caused the accident is supported by the US-based Foundation for Aviation Safety (FAS).
Its founder is Ed Pierson, a former senior manager at Boeing, who has previously been highly critical of safety standards at the US aerospace giant.
He believes the preliminary report was "woefully inadequate... embarrassingly inadequate".
His organisation has spent time examining reports of electrical issues on board 787s. They include water leaks into wiring bays, which have previously been noted by the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Authority. Concerns have also been voiced in some other quarters.
"There were so many of what we consider electrical oddities on that plane, that for them to come out and to all intents and purposes direct the blame to the pilots without exhaustively going through and examining potential system failures, we just thought was flat out wrong," he says.
He believes there was a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the plane and on to the pilots.
The FAS has called for wholesale reform of current international air accident investigation procedures, citing "outdated protocols, conflicts of interest and systemic failures that endanger public trust and delay life-saving safety improvements".
'Keeping an open mind'
Mary Schiavo, an attorney and former inspector general at the US Department of Transportation, disagrees that the pilots have been deliberately put under the spotlight.
She thinks the preliminary report was flawed, but only because investigators were under intense pressure to provide information, with worldwide attention focused on them.
"I think they were just in a hurry, because this was a horrific accident and the whole world was watching. They were just in a hurry to push something out," she says.
"Then, in my opinion, the whole world jumped to conclusions and right away was saying, 'this is pilot suicide, this was intentional'.
"If they had to do it over again, I don't think they would have put those little snippets from the cockpit voice recording in," she says.
Her own view is that "a computer or mechanical failure... is the most likely scenario".
International rules for air accident investigations stipulate that a final report should appear within 12 months of the event, but this is not always adhered to. However, until it is published, the true causes of the accident will remain unknown.
A former air accident investigator who spoke to the BBC emphasised the importance of "keeping an open mind", until the process has been completed.
Boeing has always maintained that the 787 is a safe aircraft – and it does have a strong record.
The company told the BBC it would defer to India's AAIB to provide information about the investigation.
BBC
Nearly five months after a plane crash in India which killed 260 people, the investigation has become mired in controversy – with the country's Supreme Court the latest to weigh in.
Flight 171 was en route to London from Ahmedabad in western India on 12 June. It crashed into a building just 32 seconds after taking off.
An interim report was released in July, but critics argue it unfairly focused on the actions of the pilots, diverting attention away from a possible fault with the aircraft.
On Friday, a judge in India's Supreme Court insisted that nobody could blame the aircraft's captain.
His comments came a week after the airline's boss insisted there was no problem with the aircraft.
During a panel discussion at the Aviation India 2025 summit in New Delhi in late October, Air India's chief executive Campbell Wilson admitted that the accident had been "absolutely devastating for the people involved, for the families of those involved, and the staff".
But he stressed that initial investigations by Indian officials, summed up in a preliminary report, had "indicated that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, the engines or the operation of the airline".
He added although Air India was working with investigators it was not involved directly.
Because the accident happened in India, the investigation is being led by the country's Air Accident investigation Bureau (AAIB). However, because the aircraft and its engines were designed and built in America, US officials are also taking part.
A month after the accident, the AAIB published a preliminary report. This is standard procedure in major accident investigations and is meant to provide a summary of the known facts at the time of publication.
The report will typically draw on information gleaned from examination of the crash site, for example, as well as basic material downloaded from the flight data recorder. It will not normally make firm conclusions about the cause of the accident.
However, the 15-page report into Air India 171 has proved controversial. This is largely due to the contents of two short paragraphs.
First, it notes that seconds after takeoff, the fuel cutoff switches - normally used when starting the engines before a flight and shutting them down afterwards – had been moved from the "run" to the cutoff position.
This would have deprived the engines of fuel, causing them to lose thrust rapidly. The switches were moved back to restart the engines, but too late to prevent the disaster.
It then says: "In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so."
What the fuel switches would have looked like inside a Boeing 787 Dreamliner cockpit
That indirectly-reported exchange sparked intense speculation about the role of the two pilots, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and his first officer Clive Kunder, who was flying the plane at the time.
A former chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, Robert Sumwalt, claimed the report showed "this was not a problem with the airplane or the engines".
"Did somebody deliberately shut down the fuel, or was it somehow or another a slip that they inadvertently shut off the fuel?" he said during an interview with the US network CBS.
Indian aviation safety consultant Capt. Mohan Ranganathan strongly implied that pilot suicide could have caused the accident, in an interview with the country's NDTV channel.
"I don't want to use the word. I've heard the pilot had some medical history and... it can happen," he said.
Mike Andrews, a lawyer acting on behalf of victims' families, thinks the way in which information has been released has "led people unfairly and inappropriately to blame those pilots without all the information".
"An aircraft like this - that is so complex - has so many things that could go wrong," he explains.
"To seize upon those two very small, decontextualised pieces of information, and automatically blame pilots for suicide and mass murder... is unfair and wrong."
That view is echoed by Capt. Amit Singh, founder of the Safety Matters Foundation, an organisation based in India that works to promote a safety culture in aviation.
He has produced a report which claims the available evidence "strongly supports the theory of an electrical disturbance as the primary cause of the engine shutdown" that led to the disaster.
He believes an electrical fault may have caused the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), a computerised system which manages the engines, to trigger a shutdown by cutting off the fuel supply.
Meanwhile the flight data recorder, he suggests, may have registered the command to shut off the fuel supply, rather than any physical movement of the cutoff switches in the cockpit.
In other words, the switches themselves may not have been touched at all, until the pilots tried to restart the engines.
Capt. Singh has also challenged the way in which the investigation has been carried out in India's Supreme Court.
He told the BBC the way in which the preliminary report was framed was biased because it "appears to suggest pilot error, without disclosing all the technical anomalies that occurred during the flight".
Meanwhile the Supreme Court itself has already commented on the issue.
It has been considering a petition filed by Pushkarraj Sabharwal, the father of Capt. Sumeet Sabharwal. The 91-year-old has been seeking an independent judicial inquiry into the tragedy.
"It's extremely unfortunate, this crash, but you should not carry this burden that your son is being blamed. Nobody can blame him for anything," Justice Surya Kant told him.
A further hearing is expected on 10 November.
'Flat out wrong'
The theory that an electrical fault could have caused the accident is supported by the US-based Foundation for Aviation Safety (FAS).
Its founder is Ed Pierson, a former senior manager at Boeing, who has previously been highly critical of safety standards at the US aerospace giant.
He believes the preliminary report was "woefully inadequate... embarrassingly inadequate".
His organisation has spent time examining reports of electrical issues on board 787s. They include water leaks into wiring bays, which have previously been noted by the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Authority. Concerns have also been voiced in some other quarters.
"There were so many of what we consider electrical oddities on that plane, that for them to come out and to all intents and purposes direct the blame to the pilots without exhaustively going through and examining potential system failures, we just thought was flat out wrong," he says.
He believes there was a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the plane and on to the pilots.
The FAS has called for wholesale reform of current international air accident investigation procedures, citing "outdated protocols, conflicts of interest and systemic failures that endanger public trust and delay life-saving safety improvements".
'Keeping an open mind'
Mary Schiavo, an attorney and former inspector general at the US Department of Transportation, disagrees that the pilots have been deliberately put under the spotlight.
She thinks the preliminary report was flawed, but only because investigators were under intense pressure to provide information, with worldwide attention focused on them.
"I think they were just in a hurry, because this was a horrific accident and the whole world was watching. They were just in a hurry to push something out," she says.
"Then, in my opinion, the whole world jumped to conclusions and right away was saying, 'this is pilot suicide, this was intentional'.
"If they had to do it over again, I don't think they would have put those little snippets from the cockpit voice recording in," she says.
Her own view is that "a computer or mechanical failure... is the most likely scenario".
International rules for air accident investigations stipulate that a final report should appear within 12 months of the event, but this is not always adhered to. However, until it is published, the true causes of the accident will remain unknown.
A former air accident investigator who spoke to the BBC emphasised the importance of "keeping an open mind", until the process has been completed.
Boeing has always maintained that the 787 is a safe aircraft – and it does have a strong record.
The company told the BBC it would defer to India's AAIB to provide information about the investigation.
BBC
Similar threads
