AAIB Prelimimary Report: At the time on Saturday, July 12, the Aairsic Accic Accic Accic Accic Accic Accic Accic Accic Accid Investigation Bureau (AAIB) hesitated the preliminary findings of an awesome Air India Flight AI-171 in Ahmedabad.
While the 15-page document met with the 30-day order reporting international reporting, it was very small to prevent growth within the displacement of the aviation circles.
The deadly June 12 crashes in Boeing 787-8 Dreamliners kill all 241 passengers and crews in the land, with 19 people of 260 casualties. In contrast to the previous reports suggesting the flying data and toice toice (CVR) deliverers sent abroad for analysis, the investigators have been confirmed that the Black Box is currently reviewed by New Delhi.
AAIB Prelimimary Report Forthings
The AAIB findings reveal that both AAIB gasoline switches move from ‘Run’ in ‘Cutoff’ position within a second of each other, moments after finishing. The result is a catastrophic destruction of dual engine. Although an automated disobedience is initiated, it proves late to avoid disaster.
At the center of the report put a chilling fragment in the recording of the cockpit. A pilot was heard asking: “Why did you cut fuel?” Where others responded: “I don’t.”
Report does not recognize speakers nor offering additional context, leaving room for massive conjecture. However, aviation experts encourage care, warns against drawing conclusions from a remote exchange, especially without the complete CVR transcript or analysis of flight data.
The FAA Advisory doesn’t care: a warning not heard?
One of the important revelations of the introductory report is to discuss a 2018 FAA Espiripe Airworthining Information Pressultin Persistin (Saib) -No. NM-18-33-issued on December 17, 2018. This bulletin flagged concerns about mechanism of locking fuel controls on the machine to withdraw a lot of aircraft.
SAIB says some operators report that gasoline switches can be transferred without lifting them – suggests a disadvantage of locking feature. While the FAA ends the issue is “not an unsafe condition” requiring a formal directive of airworthiness
Switches in question feature 4tl837-3d-re-installed B787-8 aircraft model, including poor VT-anb run by air india.
According to the AAIB, Air India does not carry the recommended inspection, quoting the advice of Saib. Pressing records show that the throttle control module is replaced by VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023, even if the change linked to mechanism of fuel control mechanism. The report also confirmed that no defects related to the gas control switch reported by the plane since 2023.
The FAA advice reward: not mandatory, but critical?
Veteran IAF Pilot Captain Ehsan Khalid believed that the plane could not be embarrassed. “The 2018 Advisory in 2018 was not followed by Boeing, GE, or Honeywell for seven years. The switches on this switch and GE the switches have been done,” he told Zeebiz.com
Variable views: prevention action can be obtained
But others disagree. Expert explained by aviation Vipul Sakul which the switch design is nearly equal to the entire booming aircraft and says that the air steps should be enough. “Because the switch design is usually across the boeing aircraft, Air India must have been done with fewer checks to rule out possible failure.”
The Aviation Expert Experts Experts Sanjay Lazar not supposed to be mandatory but surely meaningless. “If the switch can be transferred without prompt, it means locking feadengagated and in need of replacement.”
Lazar also quotes one May 2, 2022, the FAA requirements released after an advisory of Boeing warned at risk of foreign damage. According to the FAA, FOD can lead to incomplete shouf of machine gas or failure to fire handles, posting severe safety risk.
He still remembers an incident in Japan in Japan, where a dreamliner experienced a loss of power on the ground because of a japanese coin.
Is this a wrong pilot or bad system? ‘Too early to close’
Among the increasing assumption, reporting to the ASCICETION ASCICETION (AAIB) report has stopped assigning regret. However, a line quoted from the cockpit tooker record without context debates in debates around the pilot error. Aviation experts warn against jumping conclusions.
“Quotation in a conversation with no context or time can bring false conclusions,” Khalid said. Lazar echoed the same concern:
On the other hand, Saxena offers the technical reading of the incident. In his view, the switches run by an answer to an electrical malfunction, not mistake in crew.
“It’s like fuel hunger that is motivated by an electrical malfunction. The pilot may believe that the other closes the fuel. This is the correct answer.”
He added that while the switches themselves were mechanical and needed intentional action, the systems under them failed. “These are mechanical switches with locks; they do not act on themselves. But electrical systems are not harmful to light.”
No space for pilots to protect themselves?
All three experts raise transparency concerns, especially time and structure of initial report, which is quietly published at night and lacking a date or signature.
“Dead pilots do not have trillions of dollars imposed. If they are guilty, the entire CVR transcript and FDR data may change the media in a press conference,” Khalid said. “Dead pilots have no influence to get the initial report released at night and that is also a report not dated and not signed,” he added.
Saxena asked the depth of the investigation, stating that the report was scripted in such a way that it almost points in danger of danger. He explained that the report itself says, “Continue EFR (enhanced the airborne flight recorder) data analysis,” which means the investigation of true depths should be done.
Change to consider transparency
There is also no misunderstanding of what suitable investigations are. Khalid supported involving pilot associations such as harp-India in the process. “Yes. Pilots should be represented by a greater interest in flight safety.”
Saxena, however, argued for a more careful approach. “Investigations are not necessarily public, but conclusions should be backged to evidence – that is lacking this report.”
With the final AAIB report expected in a year, experts agreed to something: hurry to conclusive hazards to make better. “This is the patron to regret anyone. Although this report avoids the eruption of pilots and allowing Boeing and GE from hook that doesn’t have enough proof,” says Saxena.
