Officials Clashed in Investigation of Deadly Air India Crash (wsj.com) 54
The investigation into the June 12 Air India crash that killed 260 people has been marked by tension, suspicion and poor communication between American and Indian officials, including an episode where NTSB chairwoman Jennifer Homendy instructed her black-box specialists not to board a late-night Indian military flight to a remote facility, WSJ reports.
When two American recorder experts landed in New Delhi in late June, they received urgent messages from colleagues telling them not to go with the Indians; Homendy had grown concerned about sending U.S. personnel and equipment to an aerospace lab in the remote town of Korwa amid State Department security warnings about terrorism in the region. She made calls to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and the CEOs of Boeing and GE Aerospace, and the State Department sent embassy officials to intercept the NTSB specialists at the airport.
Homendy eventually delivered an ultimatum: if Indian authorities didn't choose between their Delhi facility and the NTSB's Washington lab within 48 hours, she would withdraw American support from the probe. Indian officials relented. The downloaded data showed someone in the cockpit moved switches that cut off the engines' fuel supply, and India's preliminary report stated one pilot asked the other why he moved the switches while that pilot denied doing so. American government and industry officials now privately believe the captain likely moved the switches deliberately.
When two American recorder experts landed in New Delhi in late June, they received urgent messages from colleagues telling them not to go with the Indians; Homendy had grown concerned about sending U.S. personnel and equipment to an aerospace lab in the remote town of Korwa amid State Department security warnings about terrorism in the region. She made calls to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and the CEOs of Boeing and GE Aerospace, and the State Department sent embassy officials to intercept the NTSB specialists at the airport.
Homendy eventually delivered an ultimatum: if Indian authorities didn't choose between their Delhi facility and the NTSB's Washington lab within 48 hours, she would withdraw American support from the probe. Indian officials relented. The downloaded data showed someone in the cockpit moved switches that cut off the engines' fuel supply, and India's preliminary report stated one pilot asked the other why he moved the switches while that pilot denied doing so. American government and industry officials now privately believe the captain likely moved the switches deliberately.
Re: (Score:2)
You're suggesting The Matrix is the way to go?
Re:We have internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The reasons for not travelling seem questionable though, and you could argue that it wouldn't be safe for Indian staff to travel to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We have internet (Score:4, Informative)
We have internet and can remote easily, why do so many people travel by air still
For the purposes of chain of custody (which may be very important if this ends up being criminal investigation as some point, but also goes to the trust of the entire process), all access to the evidence, when it is not otherwise secured, must be in person, with colleagues and witnesses present, when the evidence is opened and accessed using certified equipment suitable to the task. The 787 uses two EAFRs (a combined flight data and voice recorder), with one in the forward part of the aircraft and one in the rear. One was extensively damaged, and required more extensive data retrieval work.
A leading theory by people who actually know the plane (including pilots) is that this appears to be another EgyptAir Flight 990, which was suicide by plane (with Egypt insisting publicly that their co-pilot would never do that). The preliminary report by the AAIB did not provide any evidence to contradict the suicide by plane theory (and even strengthened it a bit, much to the consternation of the pilots union). It is possible the NTSB and the AAIB will come to different conclusions.
Elect a kakistocracy, expect monkeys (Score:2)
Human (Score:3)
Whether it was a big night in Mumbai the night before or a deliberate suicide move, everything seems to be pointing at the fact that it was a human action that led to the crash.
So just accept it for what it is. Accept that these kind of events are one of those risks related to malicious actors that you are never going to prevent, regardless of what your vetting process is, and if someone wants to crash a plane full of people, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop them. All you can do is put it on the risk register and monitor it, accept when it happens.
Re: Human (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
maybe we can make potentially crash inducing actions in the cockpit of a plane (like shutting off fuel to engines) something that requires input from two pilots.
Is it best to systemize distrust of pilots like that? I know they use two hands to push a the throttle ahead on takeoff, but to start doing that kind of thing to a long list of actions seems like its going to eat at pilots. Conveying the message "we don't trust you regarding intentionally crashing the plane." Wouldn't the best thing would be to make the fuel shutoff warning (and other similar things) easily visible so an opposing "good" pilot at least knows whats happening as its happening (instead of too l
Re: Human (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing we can do? I agree if someone is willing to die, it is difficult to stop them in all cases. But maybe we can make potentially crash inducing actions in the cockpit of a plane (like shutting off fuel to engines) something that requires input from two pilots.
There are plenty of "potentially crash inducing actions " that a pilot can do, forcing two to do them also means in an emergency you are complicating the response nad keeping one from flying the plane while the other coordinates the emergency response.
Re: Human (Score:4, Insightful)
But maybe we can make potentially crash inducing actions in the cockpit of a plane (like shutting off fuel to engines) something that requires input from two pilots.
One of the reasons we have two pilots is for redundancy in the case that a single pilot becomes incapacitated (or during emergencies, overloaded). How would a technology enforced rule that requires two pilots to agree on something work if one of them is incapacitated? Sure, you could have some system where a single pilot could override that rule, but then you are back to a single pilot making the decision. You could have additional monitoring so that if one pilot does something weird, the other is alerted, but in this case the other pilot noticed immediately (the voice recorder caught one pilot asking the other, "why did you do that"?), so additional monitoring would not have helped.
As others have noted, ultimately you have to trust the pilots as there are lots of ways a pilot desiring to do so could crash a plane.
Re: Human (Score:2)
You'd need 3 pilots and 2 would be needed to make a decision. It's exactly how plane systems work, too. They have 3 independent computers. 2 are required to be agreed on the subject to make a decision.
Re: (Score:2)
As it turns out, there are times when you really want to shut down the engines
(that also includes while they're in the air)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to be able to shut off the engines with 1 single pilot, but you don't want 1 pilot to do it if another pilot countermands them (i guess there's a weakness too, but less of one)
I do feel like we can do better, but I don't feel like there's any way to make it perfectly safe. At the end of the day- the guy is piloting the plane- there are a near infinite ways he can crash i
Re: Human (Score:2, Interesting)
My take is that the weather at the time was very hot, around 40 degrees C, that in itself could lead to brain overheating and failed logic reasoning. So the pilot might have been thinking about raising the landing gears but instead cut the fuel because the thought got crosswired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not always the case, because it's only needed on the ground but at an altitude you only need to heat the air (The Concorde was an exception though).
If you have entered an aircraft during summer heat you probably have experienced that it's not very comfortable until you are up in the air. This is also India, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was even hotter in the aircraft than outside.
The older you are the more sensitive to heat you get.
Don't blame the pilot prematurely (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
When the investigative bodies break their own rules and behave suspiciously, it behooves us to understand that there can be many players with reasons to want to shift the blame to the pilots, which the investigators did by releasing incomplete fragments of the CVR, and not directly transcribed, not verbatim, but paraphrased, and none of the words attributed to a specific individual.
The uniqueness of good analytical journalism is that the value cannot be appreciated until the journalism is consumed -- in this case, listening to a few of the episodes. Many experts in relevant fields have contributed to their reporting.
The key alternative hypothesis, and one supported by maintenance records, aircraft documentation and air worthiness directives from Boeing is this: If the data stream to the FADEC that conveys the cockpit throttle control position data is interrupted, the control software is designed to shut down the engines. When the data stream resumes, the engines will automatically restart. If such an event happens during take off (which seems likely here, all evidence considered) the only action the pilots could take are the actions they did take on an uncommanded shutdown, the actions they are trained to take, and that is to toggle the fuel control switches.
In fact, the engines did restart, but because of the low altitude, there wasn't enough time to spin up to a sufficient speed to regain thrust. That the engines did restart and were not merely shut down and left off suggests the actions in the cockpit were intended to save the aircraft, not to crash it.
That's the TL;DR spoiler, but you owe it yourselves -- if you care about this story -- if you respect the families of the passengers and the flight crew who died -- to examine the events further, rather than flock like lemmings to draw conclusions based on a couple sound bites from parties potentially having an agenda to advance, which we have reason to believe is that of occluding their posteriors.
Re:Don't blame the pilot prematurely (Score:5, Insightful)
It's far from indisputable. Indeed, it's hotly disputed within the aviation industry. That does NOT mean that it was a short-circuit (although that is a theory that is under investigation), it merely means that "indisputable" is not the correct term to use here. You can argue probabilities or reasonableness, but you CANNOT argue "indisputable" when specialists in the field in question say that it is, in fact, disputed.
If you were to argue that the most probable cause was manual, then I think I could accept that. If you were to argue that Occam's Razor required that this be considered H0 and therefore a theory that must be falsified before others are considered, I'd not be quite so comfortable but would accept that you've got to have some sort of rigorous methodology and that's probably the sensible one.
But "indisputable"? No, we are not at that stage yet. We might reach that stage, but we're not there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
But disputed is as well.
We're currently in the throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall phase of coping with what happened.
Some people are very personally invested in that pilot not having cratered that plane.
The disputes become less credible every passing day, and their credibility was strained to begin with.
Re: (Score:1)
Mods, this should not have been rated -1 flamebait! Totally inappropriate mod.
I deeply respect Captain Steeeve and his videos are great. Any nervous flyer should watch his videos (except the Air India ones!). And indeed Captain Steeeve's summary of the report is accurate. And his videos about the cutoff switches are accurate too. The chance of those switches being flipped inadvertently or on their own from mechanical wear and vibration is zero. And indeed the computer shows that inputs from those swit
Re: (Score:2)
Engines shut down. That's why data streams are evaluated for why.
This shutdown was manual- accidental or otherwise.
All of the conspiracy theorizing about ways the engines both could have shut off are all based on ignoring one fundamental fact- that the switches were were moved to cutoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Your proposed sequence of events:
Engines shut off.
Pilot flips fuel switches to cutoff.
Copilot asks pilot if he cut the engines.
Pilot says they didn't.
Someone then flips the fuel switches back to run.
Makes a whole lot of fucking sense. No, seriously. I bet you're the best fry cook in town.
Re: Don't blame the pilot prematurely (Score:3)
Captain Steve was also the first and loudest one screaming the flaps weren't deployed and was quickly proven wrong, indisputedly. I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't watch pilots on YouTube.
Re: (Score:1)
If such an event happens during take off (which seems likely here, all evidence considered) the only action the pilots could take are the actions they did take on an uncommanded shutdown, the actions they are trained to take, and that is to toggle the fuel control switches.
Let's assume that this speculative theory is correct for a moment. How did the pilots know that the engines had been shut down, so they in turn would have toggled the fuel switches manually?
The switches were manually toggled, and one pilot questioned the other why that had been done (which does not fit the narrative that it was done as part of troubleshooting an issue they knew about). In order for them to attempt an incredibly risky engine restart at this point in flight they had to have concrete knowledg
Re:Don't blame the pilot prematurely (Score:5, Informative)
I recall very early in the conversation, the transcription included a "why did you turn those off?"
Are you saying nobody said that?
I agree with you in principle: the open Internet, distributed expertise, and solid investigative journalism CAN reveal the true story when official sources are covering it up due to an agenda.
OTOH, the internet is *also* a being ground for paranoid conspiracy theories, tinfoil hatters, and cranks cherry picking data to drive their pet theories.
How does an amateur tell the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Those words were said, definitely. and the other guy responded, "I did not."
I don't know anything about what conspiracy theories are going around on the Internet, but I do know there among some professional pilots there is skepticism. There are no pilots at Air India who knew well these two pilots who believe they were simply suicidal. Plus there was at least one other incident this year with a 787 where both engines shut down during landing. The investigation has certainly been fraught with political te
Re:Don't blame the pilot prematurely (Score:5, Informative)
Godfrey is notorious for making all kinds of assertions that are provably wrong. In his root cause analysis of AI 171, he directly quotes an FAA Advisory Circular that is publicly available, except when you read it, the cited text doesn't exist. Total fabrication. Thomas, who by his own admission is technically illiterate, nevertheless slaps Godfrey on the back and says, "Good work Richard!" Total balderdash.
One easy way to tell if research is bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
It's available only on YouTube.
Real research is published in written form, so that it can be reviewed and inspected, and sources and methods examined.
I'm sure there's some good, well-researched material on YouTube. But I have yet to see a case where good, well-researched material is *only* available on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
suggests the actions in the cockpit were intended to save the aircraft, not to crash it.
There were two people in the cockpit. Possibly with different agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
The engines were turned back on- by the copilot- to save the craft.
The engines did not shut down due to an interruption in throttle control- it was recorded as going to off.
Both Geoffrey Thomas and Richard Godfrey have been consistently wrong, to the point where I no longer watch any pilots on YouTube, since listening to how wrong they end up being is starting to erode my trust in their ability to pilot aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Initially, there was an intense media flood-the-zone campaign blaming pilot incompetence when the Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines 302 went down due to the faulty MCAS system on the 737 Max. So much so that I was talking to a casual observer who said it was the pilots' fault.
Big corporations (and lobbying associations) do two things for media: 1) make their jobs easier by giving them pre-written stories (now we have AI generated) making generating content easier; and 2) paying them via advertising. Most
Directly monitored switches? (Score:2)
Is the black box recording that the switches were physically moved or that a signal from the switches was received?
Or (if the switches directly controlled shutoff valves) is the black box recording that the valves were closed and therefore assumes the switches must have been moved?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the central question - and in the absence of a factual answer, the most politically convenient facts will be adopted.
Unfortunately there is a history of this in aviation accident investigation where every aircraft manufacturer is a "national champion"
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the black box can only record what the computer tells it is the state of the switches. There's no camera looking at the switches to confirm they actually were moved. No doubt the switches are wired such that a short or an open circuit will not fool the computer into thinking the switch was moved and shut the engines down. But if something caused the computer to think (pardon the expression) the switches had changed state, it would shut the engines down and the flight recorder would dutifully rec
Re: (Score:2)
There's no camera looking at the switches to confirm they actually were moved.
One recommendation from the NTSB a number of years ago was to add cockpit cameras to assist with their investigations. As I recall, the pilots unions, on behalf of their members, strenuously objected (and the airlines were not keen on the additional expense either). Neither the FAA (nor other regulatory bodies) added regulations to require cockpit cameras. Perhaps this incident will be the one that forces the recommendation over the regulatory line.
Re: (Score:1)
In regard to intermittent wiring problems I'll point to the Dali where a single mis-inserted wire eventually triggered a series of events which resulted in 6 deaths and the destruction of the Key bridge.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).
Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt that is (part of) what the experts were called on to answer. They just didn't want to get stuck in a remote facility until their answer was deemed "correct".
Re: (Score:2)
Suicidal pilots would not have restarted the engines!
The "did you do that?" comment had no indication of what "that" was that has been published. It is pretty clear that multiple actors are engaged i
Yes, the truth will come out (Score:2)
Yes, the truth will come out when some American citizens get killed on a flight.
See the saga of the 737 Max and the "foreign pilots".
Trump in person had to ground the 737 Max because the FAA was so captive to the industry that they didn't do it on their own.
Same for Canadians in America too (Score:2)