AI171 Tragedy: Unraveling the Ahmedabad Crash – An Expert’s Perspective I NISSMAT Podcast

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening ladies and gentlemen. NISSMAT today is honored to have with us a true veteran of the skies, a distinguished expert in aviation safety. Please welcome Air Marshall Yajer Vidi. The Airwise Marshall brings decades of invaluable experience from the Indian Air Force where he has commanded various squadons and held pivotal roles. Crucially for our discussion today, he possesses extensive personal experience flying various Boeing aircraft including the highly advanced 737800 series. He was a principal director of flight safety and a agrade qualified flying instructor.

He has extremely good understanding of aerodynamics and pilot psychology under emergency conditions. Beyond his impressive flying career, Airwise Marshall Jarvei is a respected figure in the field of safety and management, aligning perfectly with this core mission. His insights are not just theoretical. They are forged from practical experience at the highest levels of aviation operations. Today he joins us as our subject matter expert to help us understand the complexity of this aviation incident. We will talk of the possible causes and the process of investigations that are likely to follow.

Air wise marshall, thank you for being here today. But before we start, I'd request you all to please like, subscribe, share and press the bell icon. It would help us to increase our reach and intubate to you as and when this month releases its additional podcast just walk us through the incident how it happened what happened and what in your opinion actually happened on the ground over to you. Thanks.

Thank you very much Pan and it's an honor to be a part of your talk and firstly my heartfelt and deepest condolences to those who died during the AI171 crash. It's a horrible one and very sudden and it has left the state in as much of a shock as probably the pelam incident happened. So right now the only source of information which is reasonably authentic is the video of the aeroplane taking off from Ahmedabad airport which is quite a long runway which is about close to 11,500 ft is longer than the Santa Cruz runway runway 27 I would say. And then we have the video I would like to say is taken from behind that means we do not have a side view of it to be able to understand at what point it lifted off the runway.

So to make any assumptions there on I'll talk about it. So I'm just giving a reference to that. And then thirdly we have a made a call from the pilot. In some channels they're reporting that he said little more than that something about loss of thrust and no power and going down but that is not authenticated. Neither has it been given any official permission from anybody from that nature. Then the statement by the lone survivor of seat number 11A is what is another piece of available source from which we can make sense out of what is going on.

I neither am I a con I like to have any conspiracy theories put out here nor do I want to speculate too much but to get an understanding I was motivated to give this podcast basically because there are lots of videos on the social media which are misinforming the public and I would even go to the extent of saying this information campaign from some quarters. Just to give you an example, just now I read one audio clip looks like a Pakistani airline pilot who was trying to say that the pilot, the commander was an ex Air Force pilot as well as the fact that he took off in a hurry and from intersection not using the full length of the runway blah blah blah. I had to literally close it down. It was a clear case of disinformation. And earlier there is one more report which is being circulated on the social media mainly the WhatsApp which says that the pilot's seat got unlocked and stripped back and he pulled back on the stick and there was the co-pilot was not able to resist it. Well, these are actually very ridiculous.

But what I'm more concerned is some of the western pilots extremely experienced with gray hair and thousands and thousands of I would say about 15,000 hours of experience arriving at some very quick conclusions based on very limited information. One of them being a mixup between gear and a flap and then one captain from I think Australia trying to say that it was a power on stall most probably mishandled by the pilot. So I have seen this kind of coverage even on the TV where people are trying to now bring back some sanity into speculation and say that is there some kind of a campaign going around to malign our systems in the pilot community in particular. I wouldn't like to venture a guess on that but let's keep this more objective. I would simply go through the basics which are available to me and that is firstly the takeoff time which is very much in conformity with the schedule of the takeoff time that means there was absolutely no hurry at all in anybody's the pilots or the staff which was handling the airplane which had come from Delhi and landed at Ahmedabad and was to take off for Gatwick and secondly it was the time of takeoff was a very very comfortable time of takeoff which was around 1:30 and that is when most pilots are most comfortable having got up not too early have had their breakfast and a pre-launch etc wellfed and very very much alive to the situation I would say unlike those who are forced to take off at unearly hours so we call it the circardian time of the night which is something like starting around 12:30 1:30 2:00 in the morning which where you're not at your best I would say.

So the time of takeoff was good. It was took off in time without any hurry whatsoever. Weather was actually very good and there have been some reports saying that it was a quite a hot day. I would say 37° as per the metar with a very mild wind which is coming from 270 taking off from 23 with about 5 to 8 knots or so is a very very good weather I would say.

So weather is good, time is good and the departure is on time. No hurry at all. And his takeoff is obviously from the beginning of the runway.

So there is no compromise on any safety issues there. Takeoff seems to be absolutely normal to me. Because the takeoff length cannot be assessed because it is video is from rear of the airplane and there is no way we can cross check at what point he lifted off.

Then we have a situation where I would like to bring in here that after the takeoff there's a simple call given by the pilot pilot monitoring which is in this case in all probability could be the first officer who says there's a positive rate which means the aeroplane is climbing at an absolutely normal rate with a positive climb and when that call comes the captain or the pilot flying says put the gear up or the gear up and then the gear is put up and all of this happens sin I would say the instruction to put the gear up comes about 30 to 40 ft above the ground and by about 70 and I would say less than 100 ft the gear really is fully up and this has not happened in this case so most of the some of the experts who are giving their comments on this are trying to say they forgot to put the gear up or they the pilots took the mistook between the flap and the gear Both theories actually do not hold any water whatsoever. I would like to come to one by one in this situation. Firstly, the gear lever is on the front console. That means the front vertical panel of the aeroplane as which means slightly parall to the face I would say for which you have to reach forward a little bit and there's a slot of the in the lever which is slotted and therefore you have to press it and thereafter put the gear up and it's a very very distinctive action. Whereas the flap lever is almost right on the throttle quadrant which is on the let's say the for the pilot on the right side it'll be almost on the left thigh of him and that also needs to be lifted and switched put forward if the flaps have to be selected up so the question of mixing between the flap and the gear is is never going to be a case in my opinion and it's not a possibility at all I'll rule it out straight away and mostly this action is so muscle memory in the pilots that is positive gear up is a very very very standard call which is right now almost in the muscle memory and it never really fails to do the correct action.

So there is no possibility of mixing between the two. So I would say this is I will flag as the first anomaly which is not happened in the way it should have happened and thereafter the aeroplane has actually traveled from the liftoff to the impact point. I would say the crash is just about 32 seconds and aeroplane seems to be climbing reasonably okay. However, with the gear down and therefore the climb rate is bound to be a little lesser than the normal at which stage within about from the liftoff to about 11 seconds or so there seems to be a stoppage of climb and thereafter the aeroplane has gone into a descent.

So almost half the phase of its climbing and other half which is about 15 to 16 seconds or so it's going down and thereafter the nose comes up only towards the end to be able to soften the landing. So I would say in terms of what could have happened now we also have seen some videos which are showing that there is a change in the noise at the when it's descending and that whining is supposed to be the ram air turbine which is a small gadget which just drops off in case of a two engine failure as well as in an electrical failure total electrical failure and this could have happened and this particular if the wine has been recorded because it makes a screeching sound a high frequency sound because of the operation and if this has been recorded in the video then all probability it is only possible to have overpowered the engine noise which was not operating that means the engines are silent. So all indications show that there has been a catastrophic failure either electrical one followed by an engine one or engine which also will give you an electrical failure and this yeah some people are also saying that it is probably a fuel fault in the system or it can be a sabotage or it can be you know something to do with the ground inspection not being done properly or there were some faults which the airline forced the pilot to sort of ignore. Do you think anything like this can also happen?

Okay. So those who are putting up these theories have gone in a reverse engineering manner like when we say there is a dual engine failure. Normally it can happen because of fuel starvation contamination or some kind of a bird hit or a mechanical failure or say compressor blades or both engines breaking at the same time which is absolutely highly improbable in my opinion even in one in billion chances of that thing sort of a thing happening.

So in the all these situation in bird hit normally you would find that because the engines are so far apart that flock wasn't seen of that nature and this is not a migratory season anyway. So that what had happened in this Hudson case, river case is not a comparison in this situation whatsoever in my opinion. And also in most of the cases where I have seen the bird hits have occurred in many times in the in our air force career also there there is invariably some kind of a smoke or streak coming out from behind the engine if because of the nature of the impact as well as the subsequent burnt flesh etc. Which if it's going to be so impact being going to be so so heavy that the engine will quit in such a situation.

So it's unlikely to be either of them and as far as the fuel starvation like I'm coming to that point. Now they have reverse engineering is to say that so and so cross feed wall is closed etc etc. All this is absolutely not a possibility because there will be enough indication to the pilot to see the anomaly well in advance when he's doing the checks and therefore in a modern and high-tech aeroplane like the 787 it is not a possibility. This theory has been put up only because he's reversed it because the engine failure has happened because of fuel starvation and fuel starvation can occur because of ABC. It's not a possibility.

Yeah. Yeah. The one of the things that bothers us is what would be contained in the black box and in the recordings that will emerge. What do you think is likely to happen there?

Okay. Okay. Before that I'll also want to give you one more input that is about the Mayday.

Okay. Now mayday mayday call we say it twice mayday mayday mayday and thereafter transmit the nature of the problem and mayday there are two calls one is called a pan pan call is a mayday mayday call. For example, in case of a single engine failure, we give a PAN call indicating that it is not such a grave emergency. Which also goes to show that airlines are so safe that even in case of a single engine failure at the most critical time of a takeoff, the aeroplane is able to either reject the takeoff and stop comfortably on the runway or if it is crossed that reject takeoff speed, then it'll be able to climb comfortably without any problem. And continue on to gain altitude. Thereafter, obviously, he's not going to continue the flight with a single engine.

He's going to recover back to the scene. And therefore coming back to the mayday call, mayday call is normally given in order to announce a very grave emergency like in this case either a total electrical failure or a dual engine failure or a complete loss of thrust where the flight is unable to continue its flight or it has to go down. And it seems to coincide with if this is to be believed to be true that the pilot has also said there are no thrust, no power and we're going down. We're going down. Meaning we're going down. The Mayday call is already always given for two reasons.

One is to prioritize recovery to tell the ATC that I need all the assistance that I can get at this stage of my flight. And normally if a mayday call is received the ATC will stop all other takeoffs as well as recoveries and landings and allow this aeroplane almost a fully free hand to whatever he wishes to do so that he can recover back to the safety normally happens in case of fire on the engine etc. And therefore if the mayday call has been given by the pilot and mayday call always is given after we do something called a memory action in every emergency handling there are something called a memory action and then there's subsequent actions. Memory actions are reserved only for the catastrophic failures in which case you don't refer to the book or to the any page of the emergency book and without that you carry out because it is required all immediately noticing the e nature of the emergency and thereafter we give the mday call. The mayday call itself gives an indication that the pilot has had a problem which is technical in nature and he's unable to continue the flight. Okay then a little bit.

Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. Just carry on. After you finish, I'll ask another question.

Okay. Also, I would like to bring in this new thing which has come up which is called the what is a ram air turbine. As the name suggests, it is runs because of the forward speed of the aeroplane. And the most important thing to remember is the RAD gets deployed either in case of a double engine failure in the two engine failure or electrical total electrical failure and also it takes certain amount of time for it to come down in the Airbus. I believe it takes about 8 to 10 8 odd seconds in the this one take maybe around 12 to 15 seconds. Not sure about the exact timing because I not flown the airplane.

However, the wine is quite audible in this particular case and it also confirms that the pilot has had some kind of a serious catastrophic failures. Yeah. Tell me something. You know the two pilots who were there, one has had something like 8,200 hours of flying experience. The co-pilot had something like 1,100 about 1100 or 1200 hours of flying experience. Do you think the flying experience was adequate for these pilots to sort of be in charge of this aircraft?

Yeah, absolutely. More than more and more than adequate. I would say it's in surplus in nature because normally the first officers get released on an Airbus or on a Boeing also at the range of around 3 to 500 hours on the aeroplane. More importantly, the kind of checks they go through before they are released is amazing. I because I have had a transition from my air force flying to the airline flying and I realized that the checks are extremely stringent and no chances are taken when they release the first officer for his duties. More importantly, the first officer is also can have will may have to act as a commander and the complete charge of the airplane in case of aap incapacitation by the commander himself.

And there have been cases where the captain or the commander has been incapacitated due to some reason. Sometimes due to health reasons, heart attacks have happened and the first officers have been capable enough to recover their opponent whatsoever. So if the first officer himself is of that capability and I don't have to say anything more for a person who is almost about to retire with bags of experience I would say 8,500 hours is more than anybody can expect on an aeroplane like this. The next important point I want to say is between in the entire analysis of the aircraft accidents aeroplane accidents in the airline industry almost 53 to 54% have taken place during the landing and less than 10% just about 8.5% have taken in have taken place in the segment of the takeoff takeoff which essentially says that the takeoff is actually a very very safe phase of flying I would say it's a very safe excepting in situations where you lose both the engines or you lose complete electrical failure or in case of a misbehavior as it happened in the case of the Boeing maxes both the maxes misbehave very badly because of sporious warnings and the pilots were not able to cope with the situation anyway we are not discussing that we coming Back to the 787, the takeoff is actually a very very simple affair and all takeoffs are invariably manual unlike the landings which can also be auto landed in case of poor visibility and some situations where it is safer to do an auto landing out of it. Marshall there has been I've seen two videos based on two whistleblowers who have initiated in who based on whom inquiries have been in initiated against the Boeing aircraft industry saying that there are some snags in the construction part of the aircraft and there are some hairline cracks. In the fuselage or something which the Boeing company refused to acknowledge and one of the whistleblowers has died under mysterious circumstances during the course of the investigation.

You have information on this? Yes, I am aware of this through the internet that in the late '90s Boeing merged with Macdonald Douglas and thereafter a bit of cultural change occurred in the Boeing company in which the test pilots as well as engineers were kind of sidelined but it is not authenticated by any officials. Sources what is available in the internet and there is no validation by anyone. However, it is true that the Boeing company was coerced into admitting a lot of mistakes after the max crashes which obviously lowered their credibility considerably and unfortunately I want to bring in this aspect about when we cover as to what we should do about in our future in our own airlines industry or for that aviation industry is it's all about trust and brand images are extremely important and if there are whistleblowers they would say I would say on one hand there is no smoke without fire at the same time there is no authenticity to I can vouch for it but since if one was to go by this theory about the no smoke without fire and there have been congressional hearings on this subject and also the whistleblowers have come up and the mysterious deaths etc one can only conjecture but it is up to the company now to make sure that there is complete transparency in every incident or even a minor accident so that they build back the trust and especially after this I think the onus would lie on a synerggetic approach of every every player involved in this and I would like maybe I'm putting the card before the horse as to what we need to do but I would like to say it right now to say that it is not just about one party and it's not about them versus us I think Ultimately we are all public servants. Those the institutions are public servants. Whether it's the government, whether it's the regulator, whether it is the operator, all the three and of course the most importantly the OEM that is the aeroplane itself.

These are there has to be synergy between them and it is up to the combination which has to gain the trust of the public which has obviously been quite no I think right now it is a very apprehensive atmosphere which has built up especially because in the last two days we also have two 787s having gone back after taking off because of technical defects. One of course I think happened because of some other reason not a technical defect as such. So this again would create more conspiracy theories.

So to be very frank like you would ask me this question about what does the black box reveal? What does the CVR reveal? Actually they're not so comp as complicated as one can make out. Yes, for a complete investigation, you require to go into the depth of every second and then figure out what is going to happen. But if the there is no damage and we don't hear of any such report from any official as of now that the black box is okay and the CVR seems to be okay in which case it is doesn't require more than two to three days to arrive at some kind of a preliminary understanding of what could have happened at least to the extent that they should allay some apprehension as to which departments are not really we are not looking at whether it is right now everybody's talking about everything Like they're talking about the credibility of the 787 itself, the OEM, the congressional hearings from the west, the whistleblowers.

Now they're talking about the regulator here, the government here and then they talk about the company and then they talk about the pilots. So can we at least have some kind of a preliminary report by which you can say okay it doesn't appear yes there if there is a technical defect then they can say there's a technical defect and there is no harm at all in my opinion to release a few you know understanding of what could have caused all probability and say that with a caveat saying that this could change tomorrow and day after tomorrow get after having gone deeper and I think the public would understand that we cannot cannot have a full investigation. At the same time to deny total you know understanding of the what I mean practically no hint of what could have happened would not be correct. There is also reports in the social media saying that there is pressure from the United States and indirectly from the Boeing not to actually reveal the actual cause of the accident so that the shares of the Boeing company are not impacted and the trust factor in the Boeing is not impacted.

have you heard the same? Yeah. Yeah. And I'm not surprised at all because I think in my opinion broader opinion every organization, every society, every individual for that matter, every country, every company works with one thing called self-interest and everyone protects it. It is it's a common knowledge. To say that it should not be it should be other way around will not be realistic in nature.

I would say it'll be utopian in nature. So fine when any a person might want to protect his interests and also the reputation of the brand image and especially if it is gone down one theory is to just keep your keep mom don't say anything there'll be one more disaster taking place so the world will go on to the other one and the heat will be less on this one which is not a very good move in my opinion because lots of times the public respects those who come forward and say that Yes, this mistake has been made and this possibly is a reason why it has happened and accept a bit of a loss and build back the trust. I think the trust is the most important thing in every organization and today the giants the companies in fact whether it's Boeing or Airbus whether it's a Google or Amazon etc they all have become mega mega companies basically they built trust with the public with the people and I saying having flown close to about four 4,000 more than 4,500 hours on the Boeing 737800 I had absolutely not a single non-normal situation And I would say oh fantastic the engine is fantastic. It there is something called a vibration meter which gives us the vibration of the engine at all times. And not even once had it exceeded its limits to have come across from aa where we used to fly the Russian fighters and it you know the story about them it's not the best of them and it was really tough time for us especially with the MIGs and the 21 mig 23s and all that kind of a thing. It was a pleasure to fly and today if I hear some A787 who's actually a colleague of mine and XA force pilot he say we love the aeroplane he loves a 787 and it's true and it's a fantastic aeroplane it's it's the people who passengers are very happy with its noise reduction features and it's a very comfortable one very modern it's a very easy to fly and it gives you lots of facilities which otherwise other the lesser aeropanes don't do now if it's all about trust now and they have to do something about getting the trust back and to my mind transparency is the best way and keeping shut and hoping that this you know the heat will die down and now we'll forget about it soon is not a very good way to go forward.

You see, considering the 787s advanced systems, how might data from onboard diagnostics beyond the black box contribute to painting a clearer picture of any system malfunction or anomalies leading up to the crash? Okay. The automated diagnostic systems which are used essentially for the maintenance purposes are very good in the modern aeroplane in the tech aerop high-tech aeroplane even for a mirage 200 have all these particular thing they all have line replacement units unlike the older aeroplanes so it is very very easy to maintain very easy to diagnose and the kind of the softwares they have it's it's a engineers dream to be servicing such aeroplanes.

So looks like some checks have been ordered. It is possible that some information has come through the FDR which makes allows them to do that particular thing or the OEM himself themselves have advised certain checks which have not been made in public because it will only raise apprehension in the minds of the people because of speculation and saying that if they have ordered this so and so check. I would not say that the see when I say transparency transparence should be managed well like in ops indor if you realize there was a synerggetic approach where it the public saw the government the ministries the the armed forces and rest of the official narratives the external affairs ministry etc all coming in one on one page and taking the message forward at the same time they always gave information which was on a need to- know basis so that the entire narrative was controlled in a in a manner to give the information at the same time not create sensation.

So sensationalism is not the heart of transparency. It should not be going that way in my opinion. Now beyond the technical failures which is a possibility what are the human factors that will you know be put up for scrutiny under the investigations especially things like pilot training crew resource management fatigue to the pilots the medical fitness of the pilots. What is your opinion on this part of the Okay.

to make a I will make a very categorical statement in this regard. All of this right now exists in very good measure in the Indian aviation industry. In fact, I would like to say that it is done so in a such a disciplined way and no compromise is there on any of the the checks and balances especially for the pilot training. The pilot training and checks are so stringent in nature and it's almost like we every six to eight six months or so there is a certain check there's a medical check then there is a root check and also there's no immunity for any pilot no matter what his designation is no matter what his qualification is even an examiner is tested and I would like to say to the public who may want to hear this particular podcast that airline safety is one of the best and this is the only skilled skill-based profession which for which the person performing the skill is tested in and out in and out all the time he's being tested. It may be a wrong analogy but for example today a cardiologic a surgeon in the medical profession once he gets the permission to qualification to perform surgery I don't think he's been tested neither has been told to check out whether it'll be ridiculous to say one famous cardiologist carrying out a open heart surgery or any other thing would be ever checked by an examiner to see whether he's doing the right thing or not. It's a skill-based profession.

I would say surgery is like like is a psycho motor skill after all and it doesn't happen but in the in the aviation industry these checks are very good the CRM especially is very good and the kind of like we always joke about that when we come out of a simulator we always come out sweating because the kind of emergencies we are put through it is mindboggling and we are almost sweating all the time to make the requirement and pass the test. So it's very stringent in nature and it's all in good place. Now just moving beyond the air crash, what are the implications that this incident will have on the broader global aviation industry?

Okay. If in if I think what is especially related to the Boeing aircrafts you know because they are the ones under scrutiny right now. Yes, you're right. You're right. Absolutely right.

So there will be some repercussions especially if it is a technical defect and in which case there will be questions asked as to how it could have happened at such a time and these are all very unusual occurrences and if the if they had happened at an altitude of say 10,000 ft and above they wouldn't have mattered at all the pilots would have probably recovered the airplane without any problem. But if it is happened at an awkward place like a takeoff path on the takeoff leg then it is resulted in a catastrophe and that is not something public is going to consider before they get apprehensive. They will not be able to say that okay fine it's a one in a billion chance it is just a coincidence and therefore there will be some repercussions on that in terms of the brand. However, I would like to say that because of the nature of the travel I would being the most the safest and in any case those who have to travel abroad have no choice but to travel by airlines. It is unlikely that they will even now as I in fact I was seeing the program today I think it's true and flight 171 is taking off has taken off today from Ahmedabad again to Gatwick and I'm sure there are passengers on board so it will have a certain effect on a c for a certain amount of time but again people will take it in their stride and will continue there'll be no major I would say repercussions unless we go totally a different way that it has been a sabotage which I do not don't want to go that way right now having no information at all.

No, you see specifically to Air India you know especially I've been flying Air India but and a lot of our family flies Air India and because of patriotic reasons we fly Air India. Yeah. And nationalist reasons we fly Air India but when you step into an Air India flight sometimes the ACs are not working sometimes the in-flight systems are not working and when you see these kind of small malfunctions it gives you the feeling that the larger crash that has occurred this time could be due to the smaller smaller incidents and probably the airline not taking cognissance of these which has led to a major catastrophy Absolutely no doubt at all. Whether it is true technically or not, this perception is something which is very important to make sure it doesn't carry forward and it is important for the operator to make sure the these aspects are taken very very seriously and it is true that nobody would there are people who would obviously say technically speaking just because an entertainment system doesn't work doesn't mean the aeroplane is going to crash. Not at all. But it shows like you rightly said the attitude the approach to this thing and also in the we always been saying as flyers that incidents are precursor to accidents and before the incident comes the lacadasical attitude.

So it shows a certain attitude towards certain things and if this is a pattern which has happened and unless it's an aberration I have no way of confirming that generally the ACs are down and the systems are down but if it is I myself have traveled in an aircraft where the ACs have not been functioning and it's been very hot and humid inside the aircraft and you know my family keeps traveling my children are overseas they're traveling here India back to India and one of things that you know you start considering is whether to tell them to change flight or to Yeah. Yeah. I know I and the very funny part of all this is that an aberration can become be can be perceived as a pattern. For example, when a when I believe in you know about one or two one year back the east of Bangalore was flooded very badly and I got question asked because they said are you safe or not? I said no nothing at all. I don't see any flooding at all in my place.

So an aberration like this can become a perception and nowadays people are putting up with the help of the social media they complain easily and at the drop of a hat but that may not be the pattern. However, it becomes a perception and for every entertainment system which is not working, there will be all rest will be working which is also the truth and ultimately people do choose Air India in my opinion because of the comfort level they find in it and I would simply say that our pilots training the top of the line our pilot training is superb and whether the ground training the rep the testing system the refreshers and the stringency at which I myself may have gone through the mill. I would like to say that when I had to do my command training not a single thing was left out and not a thing I mean I had to really sweat it out to be able to make the grade. It was not easy at all.

No, the pilot training is one aspect but the maintenance the engineering side of the business is entirely different because that is what deres you know passenger comfort and if the passengers are not comfortable because the seats are not comfortable or the seats are not reclining properly or the tray in front which you keep your food slotting to one side and the water keeps swelling. So you know these are the small small issues which tend to sort of give you the feel that you need to be slightly more careful in attending to smaller details so that the major details are also catered to one. Yeah before you say that I would like to say because our engineers are also very good I have had personal interaction with them but like you rightly said there's a dilemma here whether the after of an airline is run through commercial and there is a marketing there is a people on top who will put certain pressures on the engineering as well as the pilot staff and therefore the compromises can be made not otherwise by the these people who work although they are not responsible they would very like to say that if this is not working we should get it right and bundi then take off but sometimes there may be a compromise because it isn't really not affecting flight safety but like you rightly said the perception would be that there's a lack of latitude and that is really not good for the brand image now you see given the extensive ground casualties that have occurred in Ahmedabad what are the lessons for urban planning around the airports and emergency response protocols that should in place you know in and around the airports.

Yeah, absolutely. And I really very much needed in Indian airspace. Unfortunately, we have got stuck having airports which are right in the thick of urban areas and especially on the takeoff and the landing leg. Landing part essentially gets taken care of because there is an ILS sometimes and therefore there is a certain amount of area required mandatorily to be cleared. However, the takeoff path often becomes a problem where there is a lot of habitation and we should make a an effort a concerted effort at the highest level to clear up certain areas even if it means evicting those people and relocating them. And this is this is the actually where we have to show a certain amount of willpower and show the rest of the world that in if India it can be done it can be done anywhere else and we should not accept the non-safe cones which are before the landing as well as the takeoff path.

No, you see I'm personally aware of airports where beyond the airports you have slaughter houses. Yes. Beyond the airport you have highrise buildings. Yes. And you know which which are detrimental to feeling safe in while flight. Yes.

And now you know one of the last questions that I have for you is for passengers the sense of security can be deeply shaken by such events. What message of assurance or perspective should the airlines be offering? Okay. To the passengers who are booked on their flights for future.

Yeah. Okay. So coming back to the slaughterhouse is absolutely right and it is a problem and if some reports have come about saying that in Ahmedabad also there have been birds although in this case it is not probably in all probability is not the cause of the accident but it was there are birds in certain areas more than in some other airports and it's a civil administration which actually has to be accountable in such a situation that they have to buck up and clear up these areas. And whether there's a vote bank involved etc should not be the criteria when it comes to safety of the lives and the next one which you are telling me I would like to go back to the tolay the apprehension of the people and more importantly to stop this speculation game as to what could have happened and trying to each one trying to finger point a finger at somebody else. We should have a conference in which probably the government, the operator, the regulator as well as the OEM, they should all have a synergy among themselves and come and sit down and if they do not want to answer any questions, they can say this is what we would like to share at this particular point in time and we want to assure the entire country our in entire world that we're going to take this very seriously. Would take and even it's you see it's not about just putting up a message or giving some okay but no no I have said so I'm going to look after the passengers I'm going to do this particular thing these are not the way we should be able to conduct that's exactly why I would like to say go back and say the way of Sindor public relations was handled by a was really you can take an example out of that and apply it anywhere to any organization they have to they to sit down what's wrong with sitting down and be there face the public.

So much so that if you look at the recent accident which is a very horrible accident in the USA where the helicopter the I think the US marine helicopter collided with one of the passenger aeroplanes even the porters I think he made a remark yeah yeah he was there something like this so what I was trying to say is that we don't have to have the prime minister sitting in the press conference neither in the opsindur area it was not as if the chief of the air staff was sitting in the press conference it was just simple straightforward officials I mean why don't we learn from this example we have given to the every into the entire country it was just a wing commander and a colonel sitting and giving you the press briefs and this is what we' have to say and in the first conference they said we will not accept any questions it is up to the prerogative but you have to win the trust trust is important at the end of the day whether it is the OEM whether it is the whether it is regulator, whether it is the operator, whether it's the government, we all must remember we are public servants. Just be only a public sector unit doesn't become a public servant. Even a private sector is a public servant in my opinion. And the leadership must show its quality at this stage. Head of these institutions must gather together and agree to face the public and the press. After all, for us, they cannot face each and every countrymen.

Press is our the face of the public and they should be able to maybe certainly talk to them and give the information that is available to them to the extent possible without creating any sensation. That's that's you know and this sort of brings us almost to the end of our podcast today. Yeah. And I really thank you for a truly insightful and somber yet incredibly important discussion. Your profound expertise and candid perspective on the complexities of the aviation especially concerning the recent Air India 171 have been invaluable.

Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge with us today. Thank you so much. To our listeners, we thank you for tuning into this crucial conversation. At NISSMAT, our mission is to advance understanding and security, safety management and applied technology and discussion like these are vital to that commitment. We hope this podcast has offered a clearer understanding of the immense efforts going into the aviation safety and the rigorous processes that follow such incidents. We encourage you to visit NISSMAT website for more resources and information on our ongoing initiatives.

I would request you to please like, subscribe and share the pro podcast with your friends. It helps NISSMAT to reach out to the people in more numbers. Thank you very much and till next time stay safe and thank you very much Marshall.

Thank you. Thank you so much.