Airline accountability Archives

Icelandair Probes Pilot After Unauthorised Low Flyover On Final Flight Pre-Retirement

Aviation Today News Desk / April 14, 2026

Vestmannaeyjar, Iceland: Iceland’s flag carrier Icelandair has launched an investigation after one of its senior pilots conducted an unauthorised low-altitude […]

Mexico City, Mexico: In a landmark ruling that reshapes the narrative of one of Cuba’s deadliest aviation disasters, a Mexican court has held charter airline Aerolíneas Damojh (Global Air) responsible for the 2018 crash of a Boeing 737 in Havana, concluding that the aircraft suffered from severe maintenance failures and “should never have flown.” The decision, based on court documents dated March 31 and reviewed by multiple international outlets, marks a significant legal departure from earlier findings that attributed the accident primarily to pilot error. An independent expert assessment presented during proceedings determined that the crash of Cubana de Aviación Flight 0972 was an “institutional accident” caused by systemic maintenance negligence. The report emphasized that the pilots were merely the “final line of defense” and were unable to prevent the catastrophe once critical failures had already developed. The judge accepted these findings and ruled that the aircraft’s operator, Global Air, bore responsibility for placing an unfit aircraft into service. The court ordered Global Air to pay USD 1.5 million in compensation to each of the families of the four Mexican crew members who initiated the lawsuit. Notably, the airline failed to appear in court and was tried in absentia, while the aircraft’s insurer also named in the case was ultimately cleared of financial liability. Legal representatives for the plaintiffs described the ruling as “groundbreaking”, arguing that it validates long-standing concerns about the airline’s maintenance practices and operational standards. The accident occurred on May 18, 2018, when a Boeing 737-200 (registration XA-UHZ) crashed shortly after takeoff from José Martí International Airport in Havana while operating a domestic flight to Holguín. Of the 113 people onboard, 112 were killed, making it one of the deadliest aviation disasters in Cuba in decades. Only one passenger survived. The aircraft was owned and operated by Global Air, a Mexican charter airline, and was leased to Cuba’s state carrier Cubana de Aviación under a wet lease agreement. The Mexican ruling directly contradicts Cuba’s 2019 official investigation, which attributed the crash primarily to pilot error and weight miscalculation, citing deficiencies in crew performance and operational procedures. In contrast, the Mexican court concluded that chronic maintenance deficiencies and systemic oversight failures were the root cause, reframing the accident as a broader organizational failure rather than an isolated human error. Global Air had faced prior operational scrutiny in Mexico, including temporary suspension following the crash as authorities examined its compliance with safety regulations. Reports cited during the case highlighted a history of technical issues and complaints, raising questions about the aircraft’s airworthiness long before the accident occurred. Beyond the initial lawsuit, broader legal proceedings are underway. Lawyers representing victims confirmed that: A class-action civil lawsuit covering all victims is in progress A criminal complaint for homicide has been filed against the airline and responsible parties However, the criminal investigation in Mexico has reportedly stalled due to limited cooperation from Cuban authorities. Samuel González, counsel for the victims’ families, described the judgment as a hard-fought and “groundbreaking” decision for Mexico. He said the ruling reinforces early admissions made in Havana by the airline’s own head of maintenance, who acknowledged to relatives that the aircraft should not have been cleared for operation. “That aircraft operated for nearly a decade without proper maintenance,” González said. “The crash occurred in Cuba, but the risk was universal.” Efforts to reach representatives of the airline for comment were unsuccessful. González also indicated that the carrier may be moving toward bankruptcy proceedings, warning that any attempt to misuse the process would be legally challenged.

Investigation

Mexican Court Rejects Pilot Error, Blames Maintenance In 2018 Cuba Crash That Killed 112

Aviation Today News Desk / April 13, 2026

Mexico City, Mexico: In a landmark ruling that reshapes the narrative of one of Cuba’s deadliest aviation disasters, a Mexican

Airlines

FAA Proposes $304K Penalty Against Southwest Over Drug And Alcohol Testing Lapses

Aviation Today News Desk / April 7, 2026

Washington, United States: The Federal Aviation Administration has proposed a civil penalty of $304,272 against Southwest Airlines over alleged violations

Washington, United States: A fatal incident lawsuit has been filed against Korean Air following the death of a 33-year-old U.S. Department of Defense employee during a long-haul international flight, with court filings alleging a series of critical failures by cabin crew in responding to an in-flight medical emergency. The incident occurred on March 29, 2024, aboard Korean Air Flight KE94, operating from Washington Dulles International Airport to Incheon International Airport. Approximately 12 hours into the 15-hour journey, passenger Porscha Tynisha Brown, 33, reportedly began experiencing severe distress after returning from the lavatory, prompting a call for medical assistance over the aircraft’s public address system. According to the lawsuit and multiple witness accounts cited in filings, Brown collapsed in the aisle and complained of difficulty breathing, repeatedly stating that she could not breathe. Fellow passengers, including those with medical training, responded to assist as cabin crew attempted to manage the situation using onboard emergency equipment. The complaint alleges that although crew members provided an oxygen mask, it was not connected to a functioning oxygen supply, effectively rendering it useless during a critical period of respiratory distress. The lawsuit further claims that an automated external defibrillator (AED) was brought to the scene but was not properly operated, and passengers assisting Brown were not given clear instructions on how to use the device. Despite indications that a shock may have been required, none was delivered. Attorneys representing the victim’s estate argue that the cabin crew failed to take command of the situation, did not effectively coordinate the emergency response, and delayed communication with the flight deck, which in turn slowed the decision to divert the aircraft. While some emergency medical interventions, including the administration of epinephrine, were reportedly attempted by passengers, Brown’s condition continued to deteriorate. The aircraft eventually diverted to Osaka, where emergency services met the flight upon landing. Brown was transported to a local medical facility and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. The reported cause of death was acute cardiac failure. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, invokes provisions of the Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability in international travel. It alleges negligence, failure to adhere to established safety and emergency protocols, and inadequate training or execution by the airline’s crew. The filing asserts that Brown “likely would have survived” had proper procedures been followed and describes the incident as a “cascade of preventable failures.” Brown, a Maryland resident, worked as a civilian safety specialist with the U.S. Department of Defense at Fort Belvoir. Colleagues and family members describe her as a highly accomplished professional who had recently received an award of excellence and was planning to pursue further academic advancement. Her death has prompted calls for closer scrutiny of in-flight medical response standards and crew preparedness on long-haul international routes. In a statement, Korean Air acknowledged the lawsuit and said it would cooperate with legal proceedings but declined to comment further, citing the ongoing nature of the case.

Incidents

Korean Air Sued Over Alleged In-Flight Medical Lapses After U.S. Defense Employee Death

Aviation Today News Desk / April 6, 2026

Washington, United States: A fatal incident lawsuit has been filed against Korean Air following the death of a 33-year-old U.S.

Safety

EASA Flags Safety Lapses In Air India Aircraft, DGCA Increases Oversight Measures

Aviation Today News Desk / March 17, 2026

New Delhi, India: European aviation regulator EASA has raised concerns over safety and maintenance compliance in aircraft operated by Air

Investigation

Nearly 12 Years On, New Search Fails to Find Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Wreckage

Aviation Today News Desk / March 15, 2026

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Nearly 12 years after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 vanished from radar on 8 March 2014, the latest

India

India Revises Airline Refund Rules, Introduces 48-Hour Free Cancellation Window

Aviation Today News Desk / February 27, 2026

New Delhi, India: The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has formally amended India’s Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) governing airline

Investigation

Taiwan Probes EVA Air Pilots Over Mayday Distress Calls After Taoyuan Runway Closure

Aviation Today News Desk / February 19, 2026

Taoyuan City, Taiwan: Taiwan’s Civil Aviation Administration (CAA) has launched an investigation into two EVA Air flight crews after they

Airlines

DGCA Fines Air India ₹1 Crore For Flying A320 Eight Times Without Valid ARC Permit

Aviation Today News Desk / February 16, 2026

Delhi, India: India’s civil aviation regulator has penalised Air India with a $110,350 (about ₹1 crore) fine after an Airbus

London, United Kingdom: The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has formally asked Air India to provide a detailed explanation of an incident involving a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that departed London Heathrow Airport on February 1 despite a reported anomaly with a critical aircraft system. The regulator has warned the airline that failure to respond fully within one week could trigger regulatory action affecting its Dreamliner operations. Air India flight AI132, operating a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner registered VT-ANX, departed Heathrow for Bengaluru after pilots noted irregular behaviour with a fuel control switch, a vital cockpit control that regulates fuel flow to the engines. During engine start, one of the two fuel control switches did not remain positively latched in the “RUN” position on the first two attempts before stabilising on the third. The flight continued without in-air issues and landed in Bengaluru. Upon arrival, the crew filed a defect report citing the anomaly, and the aircraft was grounded for inspection on February 2. The UK Civil Aviation Authority has taken the step of demanding a formal response from Air India, including: A comprehensive account of pre-flight maintenance actions taken before departure, A root-cause analysis of the fuel control switch event, A preventive action plan to reduce the risk of recurrence across Air India’s Dreamliner fleet, which comprises 33 aircraft. In official correspondence, the CAA emphasised that regulators routinely seek detailed explanations following incidents affecting safety-critical components, particularly when an aircraft departs with a potential defect. Air India said it conducted precautionary re-inspections of fuel control switches across its Boeing 787 fleet after the incident and reported no issues found during these checks. The airline acknowledged the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) oversight and said it will comply with the regulator’s guidance to circulate Boeing’s recommended operating procedures for the switches to all flight crews. India’s DGCA also issued a clarification, stating that post-flight inspections determined the fuel switches were serviceable and functioning normally. According to the regulator, the switch may move if light pressure is applied in an incorrect direction, but its design does not indicate a defect when used according to approved procedures. The DGCA advised Air India to reinforce correct switch handling among pilots. Fuel control switches are crucial for aircraft safety. They allow pilots to start and shut down engines and are designed with locking mechanisms to prevent unintended movement. This category of component has been under heightened scrutiny following the June 2025 crash of an Air India Boeing 787-8 in Ahmedabad, where preliminary investigation reports indicated fuel control switches played a role in dual-engine power loss shortly after takeoff. That accident, which resulted in significant loss of life, triggered industry-wide inspections and close regulatory observation of Boeing 787 systems. Though the final accident report remains pending, aviation authorities worldwide have been monitoring similar technical aspects, including fuel system controls, in current operations. Air India faces a deadline to submit its response to the UK CAA within one week of the February 4 notice. The airline has stressed safety as its utmost priority and reiterated cooperation with international regulators and Boeing in evaluating the matter.

Airlines

UK CAA Seeks Formal Explanation On Air India 787 Fuel Switch Event; DGCA Finds No Fault

Aviation Today News Desk / February 7, 2026

London, United Kingdom: The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has formally asked Air India to provide a detailed explanation of

Airline accountability

Icelandair Probes Pilot After Unauthorised Low Flyover On Final Flight Pre-Retirement

Mexican Court Rejects Pilot Error, Blames Maintenance In 2018 Cuba Crash That Killed 112

FAA Proposes $304K Penalty Against Southwest Over Drug And Alcohol Testing Lapses

Korean Air Sued Over Alleged In-Flight Medical Lapses After U.S. Defense Employee Death

EASA Flags Safety Lapses In Air India Aircraft, DGCA Increases Oversight Measures

Nearly 12 Years On, New Search Fails to Find Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Wreckage

India Revises Airline Refund Rules, Introduces 48-Hour Free Cancellation Window

Taiwan Probes EVA Air Pilots Over Mayday Distress Calls After Taoyuan Runway Closure

DGCA Fines Air India ₹1 Crore For Flying A320 Eight Times Without Valid ARC Permit

UK CAA Seeks Formal Explanation On Air India 787 Fuel Switch Event; DGCA Finds No Fault

Follow Us

Quick Links

Navigate

General Support

News Desk Support

Follow Us