Travel News
The unanswered questions about Air India crash after preliminary report published - YAHOO NEWS
A preliminary report said the plane's fuel switches were moved to the 'cut-off' position 'immediately' after take-off, stopping fuel supply to the engine.
Freelance news writer, Yahoo UK
The captain of the Air India flight which crashed last month cut off fuel to the plane’s engines seconds after takeoff, US officials believe.
One pilot on the flight was asked why he had cut off the fuel of the Boeing BA.N 787 Dreamliner by another, but "the other pilot responded that he did not do so”.
The London-bound Air India flight lost thrust seconds after taking off on 12 June, crashing into a medical student hostel in Ahmedabad, killing 260 people in total, including 52 Britons.
Investigators did not identify which remarks were made by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and which by First Officer Clive Kunder, who had total flying experience of 15,638 hours and 3,403 hours, respectively.
ADVERTISEMENT
As the probe continues, here are some of the unanswered questions about the crash.
Why were the fuel switches cut off?
The preliminary report said both of the plane's fuel switches moved to the "cut-off" position "immediately" after take-off, stopping fuel supply to the engine.
The report reads: "In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut-off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so."
The switches were then returned to their normal in-flight position, which triggered an automatic engine relight and a thrust recovery procedure. While the engines started to recover, it was already too late, and the plane crashed.
It has raised questions about what happened with the switches. Professor Graham Braithwaite, director of aerospace and aviation at Cranfield University, said these are used at the end of every flight and in emergency scenarios such as a fire.
They are designed so they cannot easily be "accidentally" turned off and pilots would generally run through a checklist before doing so, he told the Press Association.
ADVERTISEMENT
Prof Braithwaite said that if the switch had been moved by a person, that would have been a "very unusual thing to do" at below 1,000 feet (304m).
"It's not the point of flight where you try and call for your coffee, it's a period of flight where your focus is very, very clear, and that first 1,000 feet, it's about keeping the airplane climbing and that's not about clicking switches."
The switches flipped a second apart, the report said, roughly the time it would take to shift one and then the other, US aviation expert John Nance told the Reuters news agency. Like Prof Braithwaite, he said a pilot would never normally turn the switches off in flight, especially as the plane is starting to climb.
What was the role of the pilots?
The fuel switch information has raised questions over the role of the pilots.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bhaval Shah, a family friend of Kinal Mistry, 24, who died in the crash, told The Times: "If these switches can't be turned off easily and if no software glitch could have been responsible, then it is deliberate, isn't it? Then it's sabotage or suicide."
Watch: Fuel cut-off on 787 "can't happen by accident"
But there has been pushback against this narrative given it was only a preliminary report.
India's civil aviation minister Kinjarapu Ram Mohan Naidu told local news channels: "We care for the welfare and the wellbeing of pilots so let's not jump to any conclusions at this stage, let us wait for the final report."
The Indian Commercial Pilots' Association, quoted in the Hindustan Times, also said on Sunday it is "deeply disturbed by speculative narratives emerging in sections of the media and public discourse – particularly the reckless and unfounded insinuation of pilot suicide. Let us be unequivocally clear: there is absolutely no basis for such a claim at this stage."
What was said in the cockpit?
Kunder, who was flying the plane, asked Sabharwal why he moved the fuel switches to the "cutoff" position seconds after lifting off the runway, the Wall Street Journal reported.
ADVERTISEMENT
The preliminary report did not contain a transcript of the pilots' communications in the cockpit. This would have been captured by the cockpit voice recorder, which was recovered from the wreckage.
Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the US National Transportation Safety Board, said "there's likely much more on the cockpit voice recorder than what's been shared".
It comes as families of the victims have demanded transparency.
Relatives of Akeel Nanabawa, his wife Hannaa Vorajee and their four-year-old daughter Sara Nanabawa, who died in the crash, said: "Moving forwards, we require honesty, transparency, and an unwavering commitment to uncovering the full truth."
Ishan Baxi, cousin of sisters Dhir and Heer Baxi, who were meant to be flying home after surprising their grandmother for her birthday, said he was "not satisfied" by the initial report. He told PA: "I just hope the final report brings full clarity on what exactly failed and who’s accountable. It shouldn't hide behind vague terms."
What happens next?
If the final investigation takes more than a year to complete, an interim report will be issued on the anniversary of the crash, Prof Braithwaite said, adding that interim recommendations could be made at any time.
Meanwhile, the preliminary report said investigators have identified “components of interest for further examinations".
