Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AI Flight Crew Grounded After Turbulence Cover Up  
User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Posted (2 years 3 days ago) and read 21181 times:

Extremely unprofessional behaviour, if true. I wonder what the status of the a/c involved is- does anyone have any other details? The ones provided in the link are sketchy at best.

Link (fixed)

[Edited 2012-07-26 01:32:02]

[Edited 2012-07-26 01:39:46]

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 21063 times:

Quoting trav110 (Thread starter):
Extremely unprofessional behaviour.

You are surely joking. What exactly is unprofessional about what the pilots did?

Quoting trav110 (Thread starter):
I wonder what the status of the a/c involved is- does anyone have any other details?

It returned to service almost 3 weeks ago...



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 20930 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 2):
What exactly is unprofessional about what the pilots did?

According to the article, the pilot didn't report the incident properly or declare an emergency when he found out he had injured passengers. If true, that's pretty unprofessional; however I think the details from that article are a little sketchy.


User currently offlineaffirmative From France, joined Jul 2009, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20280 times:

According to ICAO regulations if any passenger need medical treatment within 48h after an occurrence in flight or in or around the airplane is considered an accident and needs to be treated as such by the PIC. This means a full report needs to be filed and the crew needs to be properly briefed and the PIC and the company needs to file a report to the Civil aviation authority in which airspace the accident occurred. India is a member of ICAO and have signed to these rules and thus need to follow them. AI enjoys a AOC signed by the DGCA and has to obey by the rules stipulated by the DGCA and thus ICAO..

This is extremely unprofessional and should, if true, render a suspension of the licenses of the PIC and the SIC.



I love the smell of Jet-A1 in the morning...
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20194 times:

It's a rare occurrence that the article attempts to cover both sides of the story. While I will not toot AI's horn, I feel obliged to point out that all the parties mentioned in the article, i.e. DGCA, AI, and AI CMD, have a history of being clueless. Having undergone the hassle of getting a pilot's license from the DGCA and having seen the way they manage documents, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Captain Suri had indeed filed a report and the DGCA and AI management weren't aware of its existence. Having said that, I believe the likely story is that the pilot was being unprofessional.


'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 19846 times:

AI ops conducted an investigation immediately after the flight, and grounded the aircraft until interiors could be fixed. This means that the airline was definitely notified some way or another...

Knowing how disorganized DGCA is, documents getting lost is not a particularly uncommon occurrence.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlinesq_ek_freak From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 1633 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19527 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 1):
You are surely joking. What exactly is unprofessional about what the pilots did?

If the pilot did indeed not file a report after what seems like 18 injured pax and crew (out of 66 mind you) were injured and "bleeding" after turbulence, then he broke protocol and for that he was unprofessional. The decision to continue to Shanghai or not is his to make and not the passengers' however.

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 6):
AI ops conducted an investigation immediately after the flight, and grounded the aircraft until interiors could be fixed. This means that the airline was definitely notified some way or another...

Knowing how disorganized DGCA is, documents getting lost is not a particularly uncommon occurrence.

That may well be, and this is why I am not taking the story at pure face value.

Too early to say definitely who's at fault here, one way or another.



Keep Discovering
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 17080 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 6):
AI ops conducted an investigation immediately after the flight, and grounded the aircraft until interiors could be fixed.

Apart from the Captain's statement that the matter was reported to the airline and DGCA, the article provides no independent confirmation of an investigation having taken place. Similarly, apart from statements from (understandably) anonymous FAs, there is no independent confirmation that a grounding of the A330 has taken place. Is your claim based on taking the newspaper at face value? or have you been able to verify this independently or refer to someone who has? The Mid-Day, which is behind the original investigation that IBN picked up, isn't exactly known for serious journalism.



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlinepeachair From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 365 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16345 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 1):
You are surely joking. What exactly is unprofessional about what the pilots did?

Back in 1987, at LAX a B767-200, Shortly after departing, both engines were inadvertently shut off during climb at about 2,000 feet. The crew was able to restart the engines at about 500 feet and continued to their original destination of Cincinnati.

Both pilots were terminated for continuing to the destination after having declared a ditch emergency

Another 500ft and they would have been in the Pacific Ocean

No one was injured (physically anyway).

My point is, the airline viewed this incident as unprofessional - and that was without injury. The AI incident was much more serious in that you had some injured passengers.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trav110 (Reply 2):
Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 2):
What exactly is unprofessional about what the pilots did?

According to the article, the pilot didn't report the incident properly or declare an emergency when he found out he had injured passengers. If true, that's pretty unprofessional; however I think the details from that article are a little sketchy.

Secondly, he LIED!!! Said he reported it properly but did not, and kept the rest of the crew from telling anyone...what is questionable about this?

When you hit severe turbulence and don't report it, the aircraft may not get inspected properly and could cause further problems in the future.

Plus, no matter why...people needed medical attention and he ignored the requests from the passengers and his own crew to land somewhere close to get them the attention they needed.

He was already being "watched" by the airline, and with his un-apologetic and condescending attitude, along with damaging a widebody acft...he should be grounded!

[Edited 2012-07-26 10:46:58]

User currently offlineYakflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14235 times:

Quoting peachair (Reply 8):
Both pilots were terminated for continuing to the destination after having declared a ditch emergency

You are mistaken. The captain was allowed to retire and the first officer (who was a hero and saved the day getting the engines restarted while the captain was frozen in shock and disbelief) continued his career.

As an aside I was operating from the adjoining gate at CVG that night when the flight arrived. After that incident the EEC switches were moved from being on the pedestal and close to the fuel shut off switches to the overhead panel to help prevent the same mistake form occurring again.


User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13405 times:

The first part that caught my eye was "Top AI sources said that the Airbus 330 aircraft, which was used for the journey, has now been decommissioned due to serious internal damages". What is the probability of structural damage?.

The second is surely with that many injuries, surely a report would be required.

Finally, only 66 passengers on an A330?.


User currently offlineflyiguy From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12796 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 11):
Finally, only 66 passengers on an A330?.

This flabergasts me too...No wonder they are not making money. 11 crew, 2 pilots and 9 FA's for 66 pax is 1 FA per 7 passengers....thats like all getting first class attention...lol

Fly



The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
User currently offlinepeachair From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 365 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12178 times:

Quoting Yakflyer (Reply 10):
You are mistaken. The captain was allowed to retire and the first officer (who was a hero and saved the day getting the engines restarted while the captain was frozen in shock and disbelief) continued his career.

Thanks for correcting me, I think I may have gotten this mixed up with the 1141 incident at DFW (I mean the terminating part)


User currently offline9lflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10744 times:

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 12):
This flabergasts me too...No wonder they are not making money. 11 crew, 2 pilots and 9 FA's for 66 pax is 1 FA per 7 passengers....thats like all getting first class attention...lol


The number of F/As is determined by seat count, no by PAX count. Even on the Q400 here at Colgan with two pax we still have two F/As.

Sec. 121.391 Flight attendants.

(a) Each certificate holder shall provide at least the following flight attendants on each passenger- carrying airplane used:
(1) For airplanes having a maximum payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds and having a seating capacity of more than 9 but less than 51 passengers--one flight attendant.
(2) For airplanes having a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less and having a seating capacity of more than 19 but less than 51 passengers-- one flight attendant.
(3) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 50 but less than 101 passengers--two flight attendants.
(4) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 100 passengers-- two flight attendants plus one additional flight attendant for each unit (or part of a unit) of 50 passenger seats above a seating capacity of 100 passengers.
(b) If, in conducting the emergency evacuation demonstration required under Sec. 121.291 (a) or (b), the certificate holder used more flight attendants than is required under paragraph (a) of this section for the maximum seating capacity of the airplane used in the demonstration, he may not, thereafter, take off that airplane--
(1) In its maximum seating capacity configuration with fewer flight attendants than the number used during the emergency evacuation demonstration; or
(2) In any reduced seating capacity configuration with fewer flight attendants than the number required by paragraph (a) of this section for that seating capacity plus the number of flight attendants used during the emergency evacuation demonstration that were in excess of those required under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The number of flight attendants approved under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications.
(d) During takeoff and landing, flight attendants required by this section shall be located as near as practicable to required floor level exists and shall be uniformly distributed throughout the airplane in order to provide the most effective egress of passengers in event of an emergency evacuation. During taxi, flight attendants required by this section must remain at their duty stations with safety belts and shoulder harnesses fastened except to perform duties related to the safety of the airplane and its occupants.
(e) [Reserved]

[Edited 2012-07-26 16:14:01]

[Edited 2012-07-26 16:15:08]


My opinions do not represent the opinions of my company. They are solely the opinion of the poster.
User currently offlineflyiguy From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10538 times:

Quoting 9lflyguy (Reply 14):
The number of F/As is determined by seat count, no by PAX count. Even on the Q400 here at Colgan with two pax we still have two F/As.

Exactly, What im trying to say is they had alot of empty seats...

Fly



The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3610 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10538 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 11):
"Top AI sources said that the Airbus 330 aircraft, which was used for the journey, has now been decommissioned due to serious internal damages".
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 11):
What is the probability of structural damage?.

Low, and it certainly seems unlikely it would be bad enough for the plane to be "decommissioned". A writeoff due to turbulence? Surely that would have been talked about here, as it would be a major story. Not that turbulence has never caused damage that severe, but you could count the number of times on one hand over the past several decades.

Something must be lost in translation, or the article's being sensationalist, or both.

My guess is that the cabin had some cosmetic panels or things of that nature get cracked (it says "internal damages", not "structural" damages), and the plane was temporarily taken out of service to have those things fixed.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineDeltaB717 From Australia, joined Jun 2012, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7156 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 12):
This flabergasts me too

What's so shocking about this? QF operates a morning MEL-CBR-MEL (0725-0830, 0910-1020) rotation Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of most weeks using a B763... I've been on this flight in one direction or the other several times and can tell you the return to MEL is generally around 30-40 pax. Out of more than 220. But the outbound flight from MEL is full to brimming almost every day, hence justifying using a B763 instead of sending two B737s.

Perhaps the AI aircraft being discussed in this thread was flying with 66 pax to get the aircraft in position for or following a full flight, the same as the QF service I mentioned...


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6042 times:

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 7):

Apart from the Captain's statement that the matter was reported to the airline and DGCA, the article provides no independent confirmation of an investigation having taken place. Similarly, apart from statements from (understandably) anonymous FAs, there is no independent confirmation that a grounding of the A330 has taken place. Is your claim based on taking the newspaper at face value? or have you been able to verify this independently or refer to someone who has?

I know that this aircraft was taken offline for almost 12 hours that day, and that it resulted in 2 flight cancellations... I cannot verify that the pilot actually reported the incident to DGCA, but ops definitely knew about it.

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 7):
The Mid-Day, which is behind the original investigation that IBN picked up, isn't exactly known for serious journalism.

Understatement of the day  

This article is a hodge-podge of grasping at straws with a couple facts thrown in (an aircraft flew through turbulence) and some worthless quotes from a couple generally clueless officials. Not exactly the kind of thing I'd be inclined to take at face value...

If the pilots didn't report the incident, it is of course very unprofessional. But I haven't seen any serious evidence that the incident wasn't reported.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 9):
Secondly, he LIED!!! Said he reported it properly but did not, and kept the rest of the crew from telling anyone...what is questionable about this?

The article claims this. I have not seen any evidence which suggests which he did not report - in fact, evidence seems to be to the contrary:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 9):

When you hit severe turbulence and don't report it, the aircraft may not get inspected properly and could cause further problems in the future.

The aircraft was inspected after landing, and was taken out of service for some time.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 9):

Plus, no matter why...people needed medical attention and he ignored the requests from the passengers and his own crew to land somewhere close to get them the attention they needed.

This was a decision made by the Captain and the airline - the article talks about some bleeding... If some pax had some cuts or bruises, only first aid (cabin crew responsibility) needs to be done immediately. Continuing onto the destination has many advantages (not messing up schedules, crew rotation, aircraft placement) which may outweigh getting pax to the ground a little while earlier in the case of minor injuries.

I don't know the nature of the injuries or the thought process of the crew/airline, but I'm inclined to think that they thought it through...

Quoting 135mech (Reply 9):
He was already being "watched" by the airline, and with his un-apologetic and condescending attitude, along with damaging a widebody acft...he should be grounded!

Considering that Capt Suri is GM of Operations, I seriously doubt that he will be grounding himself any time soon.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 18):
Quoting 135mech (Reply 9):
He was already being "watched" by the airline, and with his un-apologetic and condescending attitude, along with damaging a widebody acft...he should be grounded!

Considering that Capt Suri is GM of Operations, I seriously doubt that he will be grounding himself any time soon.

He does have a boss/someone to report to, so there's always accountability.


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5082 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 19):
He does have a boss/someone to report to, so there's always accountability.

There is definitely accountability in theory... In practice, I'm not so sure about that.

Regardless, the DGCA will probably ground him if it turns out that he didn't submit a report (which I'm still not convinced about).



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlinegoacom From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

There is very little accountability in the operations of Air India. The unfortunate fact is that this heavily unionized public sector entity almost guarantees life time employment and benefits for its staff. This results in the staff not really paying serious attention to the needs of the passengers or the proper functioning of the airline itself. Obviously it does not help that AI was recently late in paying salaries to its staff. Given AI's ongoing financial problems and legendary unreliable service, people should avoid flying AI if they have a choice. The same also applies to Kingfisher Airlines.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AI Operates 1st Flight With All-Women Flight Crew posted Mon Mar 8 2004 21:25:06 by Jaysit
Crying Flight Crew Leads To Panic posted Tue Jul 10 2012 09:20:53 by Cush
TSA Cover-up At PHX posted Sat Feb 4 2012 00:03:25 by kgrb
BA Flight Crew Taken Ill On LHR-GLA Flight posted Sun Jan 8 2012 15:42:17 by ScottishDavie
Jet Airways - Women Flight Crew posted Tue Jan 3 2012 05:39:54 by Kaiarahi
ANA 787 Was Grounded After Being Hit By Lightning posted Sat Oct 22 2011 23:38:42 by MadameConcorde
AI Flight Stranded At LGW posted Sun Oct 16 2011 09:16:02 by LondonCity
Air Canada Flight Crew Accommodations In Winnipeg posted Sat Oct 1 2011 18:50:04 by AirCanada787
QF A380 Cabin Crew Grounded Too? posted Sun Nov 14 2010 07:51:51 by marchie
What Will The Flight Crew Trip For DL's CMH-LAX Be posted Wed May 12 2010 09:02:25 by LHCVG