The voices in the cockpit fuelling controversy over Air India crash

Air India Flight 171, who killed 260 people in June, hoped for the Crash of Crash Flight 171, many of them would bring some closure.

Instead, 15 -page report More stocked speculation. Because, despite the measured tone of the report, a detail continues to visit researchers, aviation analysts and public.

A few seconds after the departure, the 12-year-old Boeing 787 suddenly switched to “cutting”, cut the fuel to the engines, and caused total loss of power-a step made only after landing.

The cockpit sound recording asks one pilot why the other “cut,” he answers that the person does not answer. Registration does not clarify who says what. During the departure, the auxiliary pilot plane was watching the captain.

The switches were returned to normal flying positions by triggering the automatic motor. During the accident, one motor gained pushing, while the other had relative, but he hadn’t gained the power yet. The aircraft was flying up sooner than a minute before hitting a neighborhood in the West Indian city Ahmedabad.

A few speculative theories have emerged since the preliminary report – a complete report is expected in a year.

Wall Street Journal And Reuters News Agency, “last month Air India Crash’s new details in the focus of the focus on the cockpit, the senior pilot shifted,” he said.

Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera He claimed that his sources asked them why the first officer was repeatedly “closed the engines”.

The 56 -year -old Sumeet Sabharwal was captain on the flight, 32 -year -old Clive Kunder was a joint pilot who flys the plane. Together, two pilots had more than 19,000 flight experiences – almost half of the Boeing 787. Both had passed health checks before all flights before the accident.

Conceptly, the wave of speculative leaks shook researchers and angered Indian pilots.

Last week, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) Chief Investigator said, “Certain parts of international media have been trying to draw conclusions many times. selective and unconfirmed reportingDescribed “. This” actions [as] Irresponsible, especially while the investigation continues “.

Jennifer Homendy, President of the US National Transportation Security Council (NTSB), who helped the investigation, “Early and speculative” And “it takes time to investigate this size”.

In India, the Indian Commercial Pilots Association condemned the crew as “reckless” and “deeply insensitive” and called for restrictions until the last report ended.

The President of the Indian Airline Pilots Association (Alpa India) President Sam Thomas said to the BBC that “the speculation has won the victory of transparency” and stressed the need to review the maintenance history and documentation of the aircraft as well as cockpit audio -recorder data.

At the center of the debate, there is a short cockpit record in the report – the full transcript expected in the last report should shed a more clear light on what really happens.

A Canadian -based air accident researcher who prefers to remain unnamed, said the quote of the speech in the report offers various possibilities.

For example, if the “pilot ‘B’ switches were running and without realizing it unconsciously, it can be understood that they would deny that they did it later.”

“But if the pilot ‘A’ switches deliberately and intention, the cockpit may have already known the question in order to deflect the audio recorder and to deflect attention and to avoid identity responsible for identity.

“Aaib, even if he can finally determine who says what, who’s closing this fuel? ‘ He does not answer the question determinedly.

“We may never know the answer to this question.”

Although the inspectors seem to be a strong evidence that fuel switches are manually closed, it is still important to hold a “open mind”.

Some pilots may trigger the theoretically, theoretically automatic closure, theoretically, theoretically, a disruption that monitors motor health and performance in the full authority digital motor control (FADEC) system of the aircraft.

However, the pilot’s exclamation – ‘Why did you cut it? [the fuel]? ‘ – after the switches moved to cutting (as stated in the preliminary report), it would weaken this theory. The final report will probably include time stamped dialogue and a detailed analysis of motor data to clarify it.

Speculation is less fed by who said what and not.

The preliminary report stored the full cockpit audio recorder (CVR) transcript and told only one, a line from the last moments.

This selective explanation raised the questions: Did the investigation team rely on the identities of the speakers, but did the rest choose to keep the rest away from sensitivity? Or aren’t they sure who heard their voices before publishing any results and need more time to fully investigate the issue?

Former NTSB General Manager Peter Goelz said that AAIB should publish a sound -recorder transcript with pilot sounds.

“If any malfunction began during the departure, the flight data recorder (FDR) would be saved and probably triggered warnings in the flight management system – warnings that the crew would almost notice and more importantly be discussed.”

Inspectors call on restricting conclusions.

“We must be careful because if the switches are closed, it is easy to assume that the pilot should mean that it should mean something else,” this is a dangerous way to go down with limited information, “said Shawn Pruchnicki, an old airline accident inspector and aviation expert at the University of State. He said.

At the same time, alternative theories continue to circulate.

Indian newspapers including Indian Express pointed out electric fever in the queue as an important focal point. However, the preliminary report clearly demonstrates: the engines are closing because both fuel switch has been moved to cutting – a fact supported by recorder data. An independent researcher said that if a tail fever occurs, the effect triggered by the spilled fuel or damaged batteries.

Last week, AAIB Chief GVG Yugandhar stressed that the preliminary report aims to “give information about what is happening”.

“Very early for exact results,” he said that the investigation continued and the final report would determine “root causes and suggestions”. He also promised to share updates as “technical or public interests” as it appeared.

In summary, Mr. Pruchnicki said the investigation is “boiling two possibilities, which are a problem with deliberate action or confusion or automation.”

“The report does not rush to blame human error or intention, there is no evidence that it is deliberately done.”

In other words, there is no cigarette weapon – a restless waiting for the answers that cannot be fully revealed.