Investigation Archives - Page 3 of 10

SACAA Preliminary Report Details Cessna 172 Cockpit Fire And Student Pilot’s Escape

Aviation Today News Desk July 14, 2026

Secunda, South Africa: The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) has released its preliminary accident report into the crash of a

Cathay Pacific A350 Tail Strike During Go-Around In Hong Kong Under Investigation

Aviation Today News Desk July 11, 2026

Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong’s Air Accident Investigation Authority (AAIA) is investigating a serious runway contact involving a Cathay Pacific Airbus

NTSB Preliminary Report Finds No Engine Failure In Fatal Missouri Skydiving Plane Crash

Aviation Today News Desk July 9, 2026

Missouri, United States: The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has found no evidence of engine failure or any pre-impact mechanical

Beijing, China: Chinese authorities have concluded that the pilot who deliberately flew a light aircraft into Beijing's tallest skyscraper last week had long struggled with mental health issues and had repeatedly written about "ending his life" in a personal diary, according to findings released on Thursday. The investigation determined that the June 26 crash, which killed the pilot and injured 13 people on the ground, was caused by "personal reasons," ending days of speculation over the rare aviation incident that shook China's tightly controlled capital. The pilot, identified only by his surname Liu, was a 66-year-old Beijing resident. According to a statement issued by Beijing's Chaoyang district government, Liu suffered from chronic insomnia and anxiety, had no fixed employment, was divorced, lived alone, and had made multiple references to ending his life in his diary. Authorities said these findings formed the basis for concluding that the crash stemmed from personal circumstances. Officials said Liu initially conducted a flight with another individual aboard the two-seat training aircraft before taking off alone from a general aviation airport on the outskirts of Beijing. During the solo flight, the aircraft deviated from its approved flight path, after which air traffic controllers lost contact with the pilot. The aircraft subsequently struck the 108-storey CITIC Tower, also known as China Zun, at approximately 5:55 p.m. local time on June 26. The aircraft crashed into the tower's glass façade in Beijing's Central Business District, creating a large hole in the exterior and sending debris onto surrounding streets. Liu, who was the only occupant of the aircraft, died at the scene. Authorities confirmed that 13 people on the ground were injured, although none sustained life-threatening injuries. Officials added that one injured person has already been discharged from hospital. The crash caused limited structural damage to the skyscraper, including shattered glass panels, while emergency services quickly secured the area and launched rescue operations. The crash prompted widespread discussion because such incidents are extremely uncommon in Beijing, where China maintains some of the world's strictest airspace controls. The 528-metre (1,732-foot) CITIC Tower is located roughly 7 kilometres (4.3 miles) east of Zhongnanhai, the heavily protected government compound housing China's top leadership. The aircraft's entry into a restricted urban airspace triggered questions over aviation oversight and security procedures in the capital. Chinese authorities sought to dispel speculation by publicly releasing details of the investigation. Reports also indicated that online discussions and images related to the crash were subject to censorship on Chinese social media platforms. Investigators concluded that the incident resulted from the pilot's personal circumstances rather than mechanical failure or any broader security threat. Authorities stated that Liu had obtained his pilot licence in recent years and that evidence recovered during the investigation including diary entries documenting suicidal thoughts supported their conclusion that the crash was intentional. No indication has been provided that any passengers or additional aircraft were involved.

Beijing Tower Crash Probe: Pilot Deliberately Crashed Aircraft Over Personal Reasons

Aviation Today News Desk July 2, 2026

Beijing, China: Chinese authorities have concluded that the pilot who deliberately flew a light aircraft into Beijing’s tallest skyscraper last week

$Adelaide, Australia: A fractured nose landing gear actuator has emerged as a significant focus of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) investigation into the fatal Diamond DA42 training aircraft crash at Parafield Airport, South Australia, which killed two pilots and injured nine people on the ground. The findings were released on June 23, 2026, in a preliminary report into the April 29 accident involving Diamond DA42 Twin Star aircraft VH-YQP, operated by Flight Training Adelaide (FTA). The ATSB emphasized that the report is preliminary and does not determine the final cause of the accident. The aircraft departed Runway 03 Left at Parafield Airport at approximately 2:08 p.m. local time while conducting a training flight involving simulated engine-failure exercises. On board were a 24-year-old pilot under instruction and 29-year-old flight instructor Robert Hoyle. According to investigators, the aircraft initially climbed normally before CCTV footage showed it deviating left of the runway centerline. The aircraft was briefly realigned before veering left again. During the climb, the main landing gear retracted, but the nose landing gear remained extended. Approximately 27 seconds after takeoff, at about 115 feet above ground level, the instructor transmitted an "engine failure" radio call. No further transmissions were received. The aircraft continued climbing and reached a maximum recorded altitude of approximately 161 feet above ground level before entering a loss-of-control sequence. Investigators said the aircraft subsequently pitched up, rolled left, and descended steeply before colliding with a Flight Training Adelaide classroom and hangar complex. The impact triggered a major fire that destroyed the aircraft and damaged several others on the ground. Both occupants were fatally injured. Nine people on the ground sustained injuries, including several who required hospitalization. A key discovery during the wreckage examination was a fractured nose landing gear actuator rod end. ATSB investigators determined that the component had separated from the landing gear assembly. Preliminary examination found evidence of progressive fatigue cracking before the final fracture occurred. "The circumstances of the accident were consistent with pre-accident fracture of the rod end, resulting in the nose landing gear being observed down while the main gear was retracted," the ATSB stated. Investigators are examining whether the detached actuator may have interfered with the aircraft's steering and rudder control systems. The ATSB noted that Diamond Aircraft Industries had previously identified similar failures and issued mandatory service bulletins in 2013 and 2019 following other nose landing gear actuator fractures in DA42 aircraft. One previously documented occurrence described by the manufacturer involved a fractured actuator moving out of position and interacting with rudder controls, causing an uncommanded left rudder deflection. In that case, the pilot regained control after extending the landing gear. ATSB Chief Commissioner Angus Mitchell highlighted the significance of that earlier event. "In the DA42, re-extending the landing gear after take-off may not be a usual action considered by pilots, but as noted in the manufacturer's service bulletin explanation of a previous incident, this action allowed the pilot to regain aircraft control," Mitchell said. As a result of the findings, the ATSB has issued Safety Advisory Notice AO-2026-074-SAN-001 to alert DA42 operators to the increased risk of uncommanded left rudder deflection following a nose landing gear actuator fracture. The investigation is also focusing on the aircraft's engines. Examination of the wreckage found that the left engine showed no indications of producing power at impact, while the left propeller was found in the feathered position. Investigators have not yet determined whether the engine issue was genuine, simulated as part of the training exercise, or developed during the flight. The ATSB stated that multiple scenarios remain under consideration. The preliminary report also highlighted that Flight Training Adelaide's procedures required simulated engine-failure exercises after takeoff to be conducted no lower than 400 feet above ground level. The accident aircraft never exceeded 161 feet. To date, investigators have examined the wreckage, reviewed maintenance and operational records, obtained air traffic control data, analyzed ADS-B flight tracking information, collected CCTV footage, and interviewed witnesses. Further work will include detailed metallurgical examination of the fractured actuator component, engine analysis, review of recorded data, maintenance documentation, operational procedures, survivability considerations, and comparisons with related occurrences. The ATSB stressed that its role is to improve transport safety rather than assign blame. "The ATSB is also considering other scenarios to explain the accident sequence," the bureau said. The investigation remains active, and a final report is expected following completion of the technical analysis. The ATSB said any critical safety issues identified before then will be communicated immediately to relevant parties so corrective action can be taken.$

ATSB Finds Fractured Landing Gear Component In Fatal DA42 Training Aircraft Crash

Aviation Today News Desk June 23, 2026

Adelaide, Australia: A fractured nose landing gear actuator has emerged as a significant focus of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB)

New Mexico, United States: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its preliminary findings into the fatal crash of a medevac Beechcraft King Air C90 in New Mexico, revealing that the crew experienced a loss of GPS navigation capability while military GPS jamming operations were active in the region. The accident occurred shortly after midnight on May 14, 2026, near Lincoln, New Mexico. The aircraft, registration N249CP, was operating as an air ambulance flight under Part 135 regulations. The flight was being conducted by Generations Jets on behalf of Trans Aero Medical Services. All four people aboard the aircraft, two pilots and two flight nurses were killed. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. According to the NTSB, the flight departed Roswell Air Center at approximately 11:52 p.m. local time on May 13 and was headed to Sierra Blanca Regional Airport in Ruidoso to pick up a patient for transport to Albuquerque. Investigators found that military GPS jamming activities were underway during the flight and encompassed the route being flown. Shortly after departure, the crew informed Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center that the aircraft had lost GPS capability and requested heading guidance from controllers. The crew initially planned to fly the RNAV (GPS) approach into Ruidoso but later requested the ILS Runway 24 approach after losing satellite-based navigation. During the same period, several other aircraft in the region also reported GPS disruptions, with one pilot requiring additional assistance to identify a ground-based navigation aid. Air traffic controllers contacted military authorities and requested that GPS jamming be suspended. Controllers subsequently provided radar vectors toward the airport. At approximately 12:08 a.m., while about 31 miles northeast of Ruidoso, the flight crew reported that they had the airport area in sight and could proceed visually. Controllers cleared the aircraft for a visual approach and advised that the crew could cancel IFR once established. No further communications were received from the aircraft. Flight tracking data showed the aircraft turning southwest toward Sierra Blanca Regional Airport and beginning its descent. The route crossed the Capitan Mountains, a rugged terrain area with peaks exceeding 10,000 feet. The aircraft descended to roughly 9,400 feet before initiating a slight climb. The final recorded position placed the airplane at about 9,823 feet and traveling approximately 150 knots. Seconds later, the aircraft struck terrain at an elevation of about 9,950 feet near the Capitan Mountains Summit Radio Facility. The impact occurred only a few hundred feet from the aircraft's final recorded position and triggered a post-crash fire that later spread into a forest fire. The preliminary report also revealed that pilots had been provided notices warning of GPS interference before departure. The flight briefing package contained a NOTAM advising that GPS, WAAS, GBAS and ADS-B services could be unavailable across a large area of New Mexico due to military operations. Additional notices indicated that Sierra Blanca Regional Airport's automated weather observation system was out of service. Investigators noted that no METAR or TAF weather reports were available for the airport at the time of the accident. The NTSB emphasized that the report is preliminary and that no probable cause has yet been determined. Investigators continue to examine the role of GPS interference, flight crew actions, navigation challenges, terrain clearance and other operational factors. A final report establishing the probable cause of the accident is expected following completion of the investigation.

NTSB Preliminary Report Details GPS Interference Before Fatal New Mexico Medevac Crash

Aviation Today News Desk June 19, 2026

New Mexico, United States: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its preliminary findings into the fatal crash of a

Paringa, New Zealand: A loose maintenance bolt that detached during flight caused an Airbus AS350BA helicopter to become increasingly difficult to control before it crashed near the Paringa River mouth on New Zealand's West Coast, according to final findings released by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC). The accident occurred on July 20, 2024, while an Amuri Helicopters Airbus AS350BA, registration ZK-HJM, was being flown from Queenstown to Franz Josef following maintenance work performed at Queenstown Aerodrome. The helicopter was carrying a pilot and one passenger. Both occupants sustained minor injuries and were transported to hospital, while the aircraft suffered substantial damage. According to the investigation, engineers from Salus Aviation had swapped the helicopter's left and right hydraulic servo actuators during scheduled maintenance. However, a critical securing bolt on the lower attachment point of the left-hand hydraulic servo actuator was not properly secured before the aircraft was returned to service. Investigators determined that the associated nut had not been tightened to the required torque and that a locking pin was either missing or incorrectly installed. Although the work was subject to a mandatory duplicate inspection by a second engineer, the defect went undetected. Approximately 52 minutes into the flight, the pilot felt a sudden jolt and observed abnormal main rotor blade tracking. Seven minutes later, concerned by the abnormal indications, the pilot initiated a precautionary landing. During the descent, cyclic control forces increased significantly, particularly when attempting left control inputs. As the helicopter descended to between three and seven metres above the ground, it rolled and collided with terrain before coming to rest on its left side. TAIC found that the securing bolt eventually detached completely during the flight, significantly limiting the pilot's control of the helicopter. The investigation identified several human-factor issues that contributed to the maintenance error. The engineer responsible for the task was reportedly distracted by both a customer interaction and a hydraulic fluid spill while performing the work. Investigators also found the engineer was working under time pressure ahead of a planned holiday and did not sufficiently verify the maintenance task before completion. The second engineer responsible for the duplicate safety inspection also failed to identify the improperly secured hardware. The engineer told investigators they could not explain why the defect was missed but acknowledged experiencing broken sleep at the time, which may have affected performance. Following the accident, Salus Aviation conducted an internal investigation and implemented a series of corrective actions. The company temporarily removed the involved engineers from release-to-service inspection duties, introduced additional training, strengthened inspection and documentation procedures, implemented independent post-maintenance inspections, and established regular assurance audits. Measures aimed at reducing workplace distractions and improving engineering oversight were also introduced. TAIC concluded that the maintenance provider had adequately addressed the safety deficiencies identified during the investigation. As a result, the Commission did not issue any formal safety recommendations.

Loose Bolt Left Undetected During Inspection Caused New Zealand Airbus AS350 Crash

Aviation Today News Desk June 19, 2026

Paringa, New Zealand: A loose maintenance bolt that detached during flight caused an Airbus AS350BA helicopter to become increasingly difficult to

Bhiwani, India: India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its final investigation report into the accident involving Tecnam P2006T aircraft VT-VDB operated by FSTC Flying School at Bhiwani Airfield, Haryana, on May 12, 2022, concluding that fuel vapor lock in the left engine, combined with crew handling deficiencies and limited experience on type, led to the crash during a training flight. The twin-engine Tecnam P2006T was conducting a routine training sortie at Chaudhary Bansi Lal Airport, Bhiwani, with a flight instructor and a student pilot on board. The exercise involved six circuit-and-landing maneuvers and was the second training sortie of the day. According to the investigation, the aircraft completed its first circuit and performed a normal touch-and-go landing on Runway 30. Shortly after becoming airborne again, the crew experienced rough running and a loss of power in the left engine. The instructor took control and initiated asymmetric-flight procedures to maintain directional control. While the aircraft was still climbing at approximately 100 feet above ground level, the crew reported roughness and a reduction in power from the right engine as well. As the aircraft’s airspeed decayed, it was unable to sustain the climb. The crew elected to conduct a forced landing within the airfield boundary. The aircraft touched down heavily, sustaining substantial damage before coming to rest near the perimeter wall. Both occupants evacuated safely. No fatalities, serious injuries, fire, or damage to third parties were reported. The accident aircraft was a 2019-built Tecnam P2006T, serial number 269, powered by two Rotax 912 S3 engines. Records examined by investigators showed the aircraft held valid airworthiness documentation and had been maintained in accordance with DGCA-approved maintenance programs. The 34-year-old flight instructor held a valid Commercial Pilot Licence and had accumulated approximately 1,589 flight hours. However, he had only around 28 hours of experience on the Tecnam P2006T type. The 20-year-old student pilot had logged approximately 182 flight hours, most of them on Cessna 172 aircraft. Prior to the accident, he had accumulated only about 1 hour and 15 minutes on the Tecnam P2006T. Investigators found both crew members were properly licensed, medically fit, adequately rested, and had not consumed alcohol. A central focus of the investigation was determining whether an engine malfunction had caused the accident. AAIB investigators conducted extensive examinations and operational testing of both Rotax engines and associated fuel, ignition, and electrical systems. The report concluded that neither engine suffered a technical malfunction and both were capable of producing power. Investigators also noted that the aircraft’s Garmin avionics system had the capability to record engine and flight parameters. However, no SD card had been installed in the data-logging slot, meaning no flight data was recorded. Subsequent attempts by the U.S. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to recover information from the units' internal memory was unsuccessful. Weather conditions at Bhiwani played a significant role in the occurrence. Meteorological data recorded temperatures of approximately 44°C at the time of the flight, while a weather station measured 46°C immediately after the accident. The aircraft type is approved for operations up to 50°C. Investigators determined that the combination of extreme ambient temperatures, elevated runway surface temperatures, and the use of automotive gasoline (MOGAS) created conditions favorable for vapor lock formation. Vapor lock occurs when fuel vaporizes within fuel lines, disrupting the continuous supply of liquid fuel to the engine. The report noted that FSTC operated its Tecnam fleet on MOGAS containing 10% ethanol. Although the fuel met all approved specifications and manufacturer requirements, investigators found that its volatility increased the likelihood of vapor formation under very hot operating conditions. According to the report, the student pilot switched off the aircraft’s electric fuel pumps after leveling at circuit altitude, following normal procedures. As the aircraft entered the circuit pattern and later prepared for the touch-and-go maneuver, engine power settings were reduced, resulting in lower fuel flow and reduced cooling airflow through the engine compartments. Following touchdown and the subsequent takeoff, investigators believe heat accumulated within the engine cowling area, allowing fuel vapor to form in the fuel lines supplying the left engine. The resulting vapor lock interrupted fuel flow, causing rough running and loss of power in the left engine. The right engine later experienced a reduction in performance under similar environmental conditions, though investigators found evidence indicating it continued producing power throughout the forced landing sequence. While acknowledging the instructor initially applied correct asymmetric-flight techniques after the left-engine power loss, the report found several critical procedures outlined in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) were not followed. Investigators determined that the failed left-engine propeller was not feathered, creating additional aerodynamic drag. The landing gear also remained extended, further degrading aircraft performance. The report additionally concluded that the instructor did not lower the aircraft’s pitch attitude sufficiently to preserve airspeed after the initial engine failure. As a result, airspeed decayed below the aircraft’s minimum control speed (VMCA), reducing controllability and climb capability. AAIB stated that the crew likely interpreted the right engine’s reduced performance as a complete engine failure, although evidence suggested the engine was still producing power. The investigation further noted that neither a left-engine failure call nor a Mayday transmission was made to air traffic personnel. AAIB also identified several organizational shortcomings at the flying school. Investigators found that FSTC had reduced local circuit altitude from the DGCA-approved 1,500 feet to 700 feet without formally amending its Training and Procedures Manual or obtaining regulatory approval. The investigation additionally criticized the emergency checklist carried onboard, describing it as a small single-page document that did not clearly describe actions required during various emergency situations. Another finding noted that the school did not utilize the aircraft’s built-in Garmin data-recording capability, despite the system being available. The report concluded that the aircraft was airworthy, properly maintained, loaded within limits, and carrying sufficient fuel. AAIB determined that the ambient temperature was close to the aircraft’s operational limit and conducive to vapor lock formation. Investigators also found that both crew members had comparatively limited experience on the Tecnam P2006T and that emergency procedures were not followed precisely after the initial engine power loss. The final probable cause stated that the accident occurred when the left engine encountered vapor lock and the right engine suffered a slight loss of power while operating in temperatures near the aircraft’s operational limit. The aircraft subsequently impacted the ground during a forced landing. Contributing factors identified by AAIB included non-adherence to Aircraft Flight Manual procedures and the pairing of two crew members with limited experience handling emergency situations on the aircraft type.

AAIB Final Report: Vapor Lock And Crew Actions Led To FSTC Tecnam P2006T Crash In 2022

Aviation Today News Desk June 7, 2026

Bhiwani, India: India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its final investigation report into the accident involving Tecnam P2006T aircraft

New Delhi, India: India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its preliminary findings into the serious incident involving a Swiss International Air Lines Airbus A330-343 that suffered a left-engine failure during takeoff at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport, forcing the crew to reject takeoff and conduct an emergency evacuation. The incident occurred shortly after 1:27 a.m. local time on April 26, 2026, when Swiss flight LX147 was preparing to depart Delhi for Zurich with 245 people onboard, including 232 passengers and 13 crew members. According to the AAIB report, the aircraft involved was a 2012-built Airbus A330-343, registered HB-JHK, powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 772B-60 engines. The aircraft had arrived in Delhi earlier that day, operating flight LX146 from Zurich. Investigators noted that the inbound Zurich–Delhi flight was uneventful. While seven maintenance complaints were logged after arrival, all were described as routine and unrelated to the aircraft's engines, flight controls, serviceability, or controllability. The reported issues were addressed before the aircraft was cleared for the return flight to Switzerland. No abnormalities were detected during pre-flight inspections before LX147's departure from Delhi. The aircraft, parked at Stand A14, received pushback and startup clearance before taxiing to Runway 28 via taxiway J6. At 01:25:56 IST, air traffic control cleared the flight for takeoff with light winds reported from 210 degrees at one knot. Moments later, during the takeoff roll, the aircraft accelerated to approximately 106 knots. According to cockpit reports cited by investigators, the crew heard a loud bang as the No. 1 engine experienced a failure. Pilots reported seeing a large flame projecting forward from the left engine and observed the aircraft veering left. The crew immediately rejected the takeoff and brought the aircraft to a stop on Runway 28 between taxiways G1 and G2. After stopping, the flight crew informed air traffic controllers of the engine failure and requested emergency services. Communications recorded by investigators show that airport vehicles and crash fire tenders responded rapidly. Initially, responders observed smoke around the aircraft. As emergency personnel continued assessing the situation, reports indicated smoke near the left landing gear and subsequently fire near the right landing gear area. Fire crews began firefighting operations while coordinating with air traffic controllers and the flight crew. At approximately 01:35 IST, a full airport emergency was declared. Following confirmation of smoke and fire indications, both engines were shut down. Emergency evacuation procedures were initiated directly on the runway. Seven of the aircraft's eight evacuation slides were deployed and used to evacuate passengers and crew. All occupants successfully exited the aircraft. Four passengers sustained injuries during the evacuation and were transported for medical treatment. Airport responders reported that the fire had been completely extinguished by approximately 01:50 IST. The aircraft was later towed from the runway and parked at a remote stand. The airport terminated the full emergency status at 04:50 IST. Data obtained from the aircraft's post-flight report showed the first recorded warning was an "ENG 1 Stall" message at 01:27 IST during the takeoff roll. This was followed by multiple system messages including "ENG 1 FAIL," "AIR PACK 1+2 FAULT," "F/CTL RUD TRIM 1 FAULT," and "ENG 1 REV UNLOCKED." An "ENG 1 SHUTDOWN" message was subsequently recorded after the aircraft came to a stop. Investigators conducted an external inspection of the aircraft and found metallic debris near the exhaust section of the left engine along with soot and burn marks on the engine pylon behind the exhaust area. Notably, no damage was observed on the engine fan blades, and investigators reported no significant structural damage to the aircraft apart from minor dents likely caused during emergency slide deployment. A borescope inspection of the failed engine revealed extensive internal damage. Investigators discovered broken bolts and spacers from the high-pressure/intermediate-pressure bearing support assembly within the thrust reverser ducts. High-pressure bleed valves were also partially blocked by debris. Further examination identified significant damage to components within the engine core, including the High Pressure Turbine, Intermediate Pressure Turbine, Low Pressure Turbine, and High Pressure Compressor sections. Both the high-pressure and intermediate-pressure shafts were seized, preventing complete inspection. The AAIB stated that although severe internal engine damage was identified, investigators were unable to determine the precise cause of the engine failure during the initial borescope examination because the engine's rotating assemblies could not be fully inspected. Importantly, investigators found no evidence of an uncontained engine failure. The failed Rolls-Royce Trent 772B-60 engine was manufactured in 2009 and had accumulated more than 75,500 operating hours and 11,369 flight cycles. Records show the engine's last overhaul occurred in May 2016. Since that overhaul, it had accumulated nearly 40,000 additional flight hours before the incident. Both cockpit crew members were appropriately licensed and qualified on the Airbus A330. The captain had more than 18,600 total flight hours, while the first officer had accumulated more than 2,170 hours. AAIB investigators have removed and downloaded data from both the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder. Analysis of the recorded information is ongoing. The bureau said the damaged engine will be removed from the aircraft for a detailed examination aimed at identifying the root cause of the failure. Investigators are also reviewing maintenance records, operational documentation, air traffic control recordings, and witness statements. The investigation includes participation from international authorities and technical experts. France's Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA), Airbus, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Germany's BFU, the United Kingdom's AAIB, and Rolls-Royce representatives are assisting the Indian investigation under the provisions of ICAO Annex 13. The AAIB emphasized that the findings released so far are preliminary and subject to change as the investigation progresses. No interim safety recommendations have been issued at this stage.

AAIB Preliminary Report Finds No Evidence Of Uncontained Failure In Swiss A330 Engine Incident

Aviation Today News Desk June 1, 2026

New Delhi, India: India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its preliminary findings into the serious incident involving a Swiss

New Delhi, India: Indian investigators are preparing an interim report into last year’s fatal Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner crash instead of a final report, as authorities continue examining one of the deadliest aviation disasters. According to Reuters, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is expected to issue the interim findings ahead of the first anniversary of the June 12, 2025 crash involving Air India Flight AI171, which was operating from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick. The accident killed 260 people after the Boeing 787-8 lost thrust moments after takeoff and crashed into a medical college hostel near the airport. The interim document will be “more comprehensive” than the 15-page preliminary report released in July 2025 and is expected to examine possible primary causes and contributing factors behind the crash. However, investigators said the final report is still not ready because of the complexity of the inquiry and the time required for additional analysis. The preliminary AAIB report found that the aircraft’s engine fuel control switches moved almost simultaneously from the “RUN” to “CUTOFF” position shortly after takeoff, starving both engines of fuel. Cockpit recordings reviewed during the investigation indicated confusion between the pilots over the movement of the switches. The early assessment by U.S. officials reviewing cockpit voice recordings supported the view that the captain may have cut fuel flow to the engines. Indian investigators, however, said at the time that it was “too early to reach any definite conclusions.” The ongoing investigation involves multiple international agencies because the aircraft was designed and manufactured in the United States. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is participating in the probe, while Boeing is assisting as a technical adviser. By issuing an interim report instead of a final one, Indian authorities will not be required to circulate draft findings in advance to the NTSB for review and comment. Under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules, draft final reports are generally shared with participating states for consultation before publication. The investigation has gained renewed attention following a separate Air India Boeing 787 incident earlier this year involving fuel control switches. In February 2026, pilots operating a Dreamliner flight from London to Bengaluru reported that the fuel switches did not remain fixed in the “RUN” position during engine start attempts before stabilizing on a third attempt. Indian aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) officials are expected to travel to Boeing facilities in Seattle in June to observe testing of the fuel switch panel from that aircraft. Under international aviation standards, a final accident report is generally expected within one year of a crash. If the investigation remains incomplete, authorities are required to issue an interim statement outlining progress in the inquiry. Investigators said work on the final report is continuing and no timeline has been confirmed for its release.

Report: India Preparing Interim Report On Fatal Air India Boeing 787 Crash Investigation

Aviation Today News Desk May 28, 2026

New Delhi, India: Indian investigators are preparing an interim report into last year’s fatal Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner crash instead

Investigation

SACAA Preliminary Report Details Cessna 172 Cockpit Fire And Student Pilot’s Escape

Cathay Pacific A350 Tail Strike During Go-Around In Hong Kong Under Investigation

NTSB Preliminary Report Finds No Engine Failure In Fatal Missouri Skydiving Plane Crash

Beijing Tower Crash Probe: Pilot Deliberately Crashed Aircraft Over Personal Reasons

ATSB Finds Fractured Landing Gear Component In Fatal DA42 Training Aircraft Crash

NTSB Preliminary Report Details GPS Interference Before Fatal New Mexico Medevac Crash

Loose Bolt Left Undetected During Inspection Caused New Zealand Airbus AS350 Crash

AAIB Final Report: Vapor Lock And Crew Actions Led To FSTC Tecnam P2006T Crash In 2022

AAIB Preliminary Report Finds No Evidence Of Uncontained Failure In Swiss A330 Engine Incident

Report: India Preparing Interim Report On Fatal Air India Boeing 787 Crash Investigation

Quick Links

Navigate

General Support

News Desk Support