welt.de
Air India Crash: Pilot-Induced Fuel Cutoff Kills 260
An Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crashed in Ahmedabad on June 12th, killing 260 people, after a pilot intentionally shut off fuel supply immediately after takeoff; one pilot survived.
- What caused the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad on June 12th, resulting in the death of 260 people?
- On June 12th, Air India flight crashed in Ahmedabad, killing 260 people. Aviation expert Heinrich Großbongardt believes a pilot intentionally shut down fuel supply, causing the crash. Initial reports suggest one pilot questioned the other about the fuel cutoff, but the second pilot denied involvement.
- What safety features are in place to prevent accidental fuel shutoff, and why did they fail to prevent this crash?
- The incident occurred immediately after takeoff when the aircraft needed maximum thrust. The fuel cutoff, done sequentially within a second, was deemed intentional due to multiple safety features preventing accidental shutoff, as stated by Großbongardt. A preliminary report indicates that after the fuel was cut, the engines lost power and the plane rapidly lost altitude.
- What systemic issues within the aviation industry might this incident reveal, and what changes are needed to improve safety protocols?
- This deliberate act highlights critical flaws in pilot-screening processes or potential stress factors within the aviation industry. Further investigation into the pilots' backgrounds and potential motives is crucial to prevent future occurrences. The incident underscores the need for enhanced safety measures to counter intentional actions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article strongly suggests pilot suicide as the cause of the crash. The headline (not provided but inferred from the text) likely emphasized the pilot's actions. The article leads with the expert's conclusion and repeatedly highlights details supporting this theory, such as the timing of the fuel cutoff. This prioritization of a single interpretation without sufficient consideration of alternatives creates a biased narrative.
Language Bias
The article uses language that leans towards supporting the pilot suicide theory. Phrases like "Alles deutet darauf hin, dass es ein Suizid war" (Everything points to it being a suicide) and descriptions of the actions as deliberate strongly influence the reader. While quotes are used, the selection and emphasis given to those quotes contribute to the biased tone. More neutral phrasing would improve objectivity, such as presenting the expert's opinion without such strong declarative statements.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the expert's opinion suggesting pilot suicide, but omits other potential explanations for the crash, such as mechanical failure despite mentioning that a technical defect is 'highly improbable'. While a preliminary report is mentioned, the full details and alternative theories are not presented, limiting the reader's ability to form a comprehensive understanding. The article also doesn't mention if any further investigations are ongoing, or what those investigations might entail.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by primarily focusing on the pilot suicide theory, while downplaying or omitting other possibilities. It emphasizes the expert's view, presenting it as a strong and almost conclusive indication of intentional action, without acknowledging uncertainty or the complexities of aviation accident investigations. This framing limits the reader's consideration of alternative explanations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The intentional act of causing a plane crash resulting in the death of 260 people represents a significant threat to public safety and justice. A thorough investigation is crucial to ensure accountability and prevent future occurrences. The incident undermines public trust in air travel safety and regulatory frameworks.