<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
    <channel>
        <title>Aviacionline - Accidents and Incidents</title>
        <link>https://www.aviacionline.com</link>
        <description>Aviacionline es el sitio de aviación en español más leído del mundo. Presenta noticias de aerolíneas, aviones, aeropuertos, y demás.</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2025 12:42:09 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        <docs>https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html</docs>
        <generator>Tadevel</generator>
        <copyright>All rights reserved</copyright>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Haneda Crash Update: Investigators Analyze Pilot Fatigue and HUD Usage]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/english/accidents-and-incidents/haneda-crash-update--investigators-analyze-pilot-fatigue-and-hud-usage_a694dd2057a89b44e00893763</link>
            <guid>694dd2057a89b44e00893763</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 00:25:46 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Procedural errors and the absence of sterile-cockpit rules were key factors in the January 2024 collision at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport. Night-visibility tests conducted by Japanese investigators seek to explain why the JAL crew failed to detect the aircraft occupying the runway.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) released the second progress report on the collision that occurred on January 2, 2024, at Haneda International Airport. The document analyzes factors leading to the crash between a Japan Coast Guard Bombardier DHC-8-315 and a Japan Airlines Airbus A350-941 on Runway 34R. The investigation focuses on crew fatigue, cockpit procedural errors, and technological limitations of surveillance and evacuation systems.

The technical report revealed that the Coast Guard aircraft captain experienced fatigue levels that may have compromised decision-making. Furthermore, the pilot did not operate the DHC-8 model during the 30 days prior to the accident. A fundamental finding is that the co-pilot completed the Before Takeoff Checklist, a procedure only to be initiated after receiving runway entry clearance, even though the controller only instructed the aircraft to taxi to the holding point.

The Coast Guard base at Haneda had not implemented the Sterile Cockpit Rule, allowing the crew's attention to be divided during a critical phase. Additionally, the investigation determined that a visual cross-check to confirm the final approach path was clear before entering the active surface was not performed. These systemic failures explain why the Coast Guard crew misinterpreted air traffic control instructions and occupied the runway improperly.

Haneda air traffic control failed to recognize that the Coast Guard plane invaded and remained on Runway 34R. JTSB analysis noted that the flight monitoring seat in the tower was instructed to monitor Runway A, but there was no equivalent requirement for Runway C. The lack of continuous surveillance by controllers prevented them from noticing the DHC-8 before the arrival of the Japan Airlines flight.

The investigation also questions the effectiveness of runway occupancy alerts. Experts compared this event to previous accidents where alert functions did not operate as intended or where controllers did not receive adequate training to react to these warnings. The report examines whether the safety management system of the aviation authority adequately captured deficiencies reported by operational personnel before the crash.

VISIBILITY EXPERIMENTS AND HUD USAGE

To understand why the Airbus A350 pilots did not see the Coast Guard aircraft, JTSB conducted field tests at Chubu Centrair International Airport in March 2025. Researchers used helicopters and small aircraft to recreate night light conditions and the final approach path on a runway with lighting systems similar to Haneda. The tests analyzed the impact of the DHC-8's white external lights, which tend to blend with runway centerline and touchdown zone lights.

The report also highlights that both Japan Airlines pilots were using the Head Up Display (HUD) at the time of impact. JTSB is studying if this equipment limited the crew's ability to maintain effective external surveillance. Data collected in simulators and test flights aims to determine at what exact point during the approach the stationary aircraft became visually indistinguishable from the runway lighting infrastructure.

EVACUATION CHALLENGES AND COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN

Although the evacuation of all 379 occupants of the Airbus A350 was successful, the report detailed critical failures in emergency equipment. The cabin PA system failed after the collision, forcing crew members to use portable megaphones. Some crew members abandoned these devices as they felt their 2W power was insufficient to overcome the noise of the still-running engines and the chaos in the cabin.

JTSB performed acoustic measurements on aircraft of the same model to evaluate voice instruction propagation under stress and ambient noise. Furthermore, they analyzed the chemical composition of the smoke that filled the cabin just five minutes after the crash, reducing visibility to a few meters and hindering passenger orientation toward emergency exits. The commission will continue analyzing damage to electrical and engine control systems to strengthen future safety protocols.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="54646" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdff12a0ea712e1fb607a6/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Two crew members killed after accidental ejection from a Russian Su-24 or Su-34 inside a reinforced hangar: What we know]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/english/defence/two-crew-members-killed-after-accidental-ejection-from-a-russian-su-24-or-su-34-inside-a-reinforced-hangar--what-we-know_a69382fd71d1c6929ea2397cb</link>
            <guid>69382fd71d1c6929ea2397cb</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 14:18:11 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The accidental ejection threw the crew against the ceiling of the shelter. The case is reminiscent of the fatal accident involving the Tu-22M3 in 2021.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[A serious accident occurred on 7 December at a bomber aviation regiment of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS), when the ejection system of a two-seat Sukhoi activated unintentionally while the aircraft was parked inside a hardened shelter. Both the pilot and the navigator were killed instantly after striking the structure’s reinforced ceiling.

Initial information came from the FighterBomber channel, traditionally linked to the Russian military aviation community. According to its report, the ejection system fired while the crew was still in the cockpit, launching both seats vertically into the hardened roof of the shelter—a configuration increasingly used by the VKS to protect aircraft from drone and missile attacks.

The aircraft type has not yet been confirmed. Sources indicate it was either a Su-24M or a Su-34 Fullback. Both platforms use broadly similar ejection-seat layouts, although the Su-24 has a more problematic history with early versions of its escape systems. The Su-34, being more modern, is equipped with improved variants of the K-36DM seat.




A RARE TYPE OF ACCIDENT, BUT NOT UNPRECEDENTED IN THE VKS

Ejection seats are designed to save aircrew during in-flight emergencies through a sequence involving explosive charges, rockets, and automated steps. On the ground, without the necessary clearance or trajectory, the force of the launch is usually fatal. Accidental activation is extremely rare, but not unheard of.

There is a direct precedent from March 2021, when three crew members of a Tu-22M3 died after an unintended activation of the aircraft’s ejection system during pre-flight preparations at Shaykovka Air Base, in the Kaluga region. In that case, the commander’s seat separated correctly and he survived, while the other three airmen died upon impact with the ground.



That accident prompted a local technical review and a commission from the Russian Ministry of Defence, although no procedural changes or system modifications were made public.


CIRCUMSTANCES STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION

In the recent incident, it also remains unclear whether the aircraft was being prepared for a sortie, undergoing maintenance, or performing system checks. Available reports do not yet clarify whether the activation resulted from human error, mechanical failure, or a fault in the safety sequencing of the seat.

FighterBomber stated that a state commission is already working at the site. The official findings will depend on the technical investigation, but the episode—now the second known case of its kind in less than five years—once again raises concerns about maintenance practices, ejection-seat certification, and ground-safety procedures across Russian air bases.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="173636" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd4ea0ea712e1fb04c03/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Liaoning's J-15 fighter jet locked its radar onto Japanese F-15s southeast of Okinawa: Tokyo denounces a dangerous provocation]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/english/defence/asia-pacific/liaoning-s-j-15-fighter-jet-locked-its-radar-onto-japanese-f-15s-southeast-of-okinawa--tokyo-denounces-a-dangerous-provocation_a69375d7e1d1c6929ea1267b7</link>
            <guid>69375d7e1d1c6929ea1267b7</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 23:17:17 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Tokyo claims that two Chinese J-15 carrier-based fighter jets used their fire control radar against Japanese F-15s; Beijing denies this and accuses Tokyo of interference. The maneuver reflects a bolder stance by China.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The Japanese Ministry of Defense reported that two J-15 fighter jets operating from the aircraft carrier Liaoning activated their fire-control radars against Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) F-15 aircraft during two consecutive intercepts on December 6, southeast of Okinawa.

Tokyo described the incident as “extremely dangerous,” immediately lodged a diplomatic protest, and demanded assurances that such an episode would not be repeated. Beijing denied the accusation and, in turn, accused Japan of interfering with legitimate naval exercises. While such dynamics are not new, the specific maneuver—radar illumination—marks a delicate threshold in the daily management of aerial friction in the region.




TWO SUCCESSIVE ENCOUNTERS IN A ZONE WHERE EVERY KILOMETER COUNTS

The Japanese statement precisely details the two incidents: the first occurring between 16:32 and 16:35, and the second between 18:37 and 19:08 (local time), both involving J-15s either returning to or departing from the Liaoning, which was conducting carrier strike group operations.

Although no damage or injuries occurred, Japan emphasized that the intensity and the radar mode employed “exceeded what is necessary for flight safety.” For pilots, such radar illumination is functionally equivalent to receiving a warning signal preceding the launch of a radar-guided missile, necessitating immediate defensive posturing.



The location of the incident—southeast of Okinawa—is where most aerial interactions among Chinese, Japanese, and U.S. forces occur. From this area, the Liaoning accesses the western Pacific, and the zone serves as a critical convergence point for military flight routes, maritime surveillance, and patrols tied to Japan’s defense posture and the situation across the Taiwan Strait. Any close encounter here carries political and tactical weight far beyond what a similar encounter elsewhere might entail.


A DELIBERATE STATEMENT OF INTENT

The maneuver carried out by the J-15s appears neither a mere over-approach nor a technical error—it is a signal. China is demonstrating that it no longer passively accepts close-in intercepts by Japan and the United States near its carrier groups, and that it now possesses the confidence to explicitly set boundaries.

Fire-control radar illumination here functions as a warning: a reminder that the Liaoning’s presence should not be treated as that of a peripheral actor. Beijing seeks to ensure that operational distance and treatment afforded to its naval units reflect a new reality—one markedly different from a decade ago—characterized by a more balanced correlation of forces in the western Pacific.



The implicit message is straightforward: stay farther away, acknowledge the protective “bubble” around carrier groups, and accept that China now reserves the right to respond with deterrent actions when it judges Japanese or U.S. surveillance to have crossed its red lines.

Thus, even without escalation, the incident fulfills a political–operational role: demonstrating that Chinese carrier-based aviation can adopt a more assertive posture and employ non-kinetic tools of pressure to carve out and consolidate its own operational space—where every gesture is magnified.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="189988" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68ce0177a0ea712e1fbdddae/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Basler BT-67 LV-VYL goes off the runway in Río Grande (Argentina) and is sidelined for the antartic season: What We Know]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/english/accidents-and-incidents/basler-bt-67-lv-vyl-goes-off-the-runway-in-rio-grande--argentina--and-is-sidelined-for-the-antartic-season--what-we-know_a692dde3b1d1c6929ea05c264</link>
            <guid>692dde3b1d1c6929ea05c264</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 18:22:52 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Significant damage to the propellers and landing gear leaves the BT-67 grounded as investigators review the causes of the incident.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The Basler BT-67, registration LV-VYL, an aircraft recently incorporated by Mirgor for operations under the Voyal brand, suffered a runway excursion on Monday at Río Grande International Airport during a training flight. There were no injuries.



The incident occurred around midday, during the takeoff roll, after a previous rotation from Ushuaia. The aircraft was being operated by civilian crews composed of former Argentine Air Force pilots, as part of the tourist flight program to Antarctica that the company planned to launch this season.



Images shared on social media and in aviation WhatsApp groups and social media show significant material damage, something indirectly confirmed by the aircraft’s final position in the photographs. None of the three occupants were injured.

In a statement, Mirgor confirmed the runway excursion:

The Basler BT-67 aircraft, recently incorporated into the company's operations, suffered a runway excursion in the city of Río Grande during a pilot training flight. No injuries were reported among the crew or outside the aircraft. The causes of the incident will be determined by the Incident Investigation Board, following the protocols established for any aeronautical event.


A MODERNIZED VETERAN

LV-VYL is conversion number 71 completed by Basler Turbo Conversions. Its airframe is that of a Douglas C-47A Skytrain built in 1944 and later modernized with structural reinforcement, PT6A-67R turboprops, and updated avionics, retaining the robustness of the original DC-3 with performance suitable for cold-weather operations.



The aircraft had completed test flights in Oshkosh and, once in Argentina, underwent its first test campaign at FAdeA in October.


A COMPROMISED SEASON START

The runway excursion left the BT-67 out of immediate service, complicating the start of the tourism program to Antarctica. Although the official assessment is still ongoing, the damage to the propellers and landing gear is evident, making it unlikely the aircraft will be used for the remainder of the austral summer.

Until its recoverability is determined, the company will need to evaluate alternatives to sustain its planned operations in the southern region.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="132644" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/692ddb811d1c6929ea0588ab/720.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Airbus issues AOT for A320 Family regarding solar-radiation data corruption]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/english/accidents-and-incidents/airbus-issues-aot-for-a320-family-regarding-solar-radiation-data-corruption_a6929e3d3714f61d9c33687d7</link>
            <guid>6929e3d3714f61d9c33687d7</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 18:06:19 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Airbus warns that intense solar radiation may corrupt A320 flight control data. An EASA Emergency AD follows, likely causing schedule disruptions.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[Intense solar radiation could corrupt data critical to the functioning of A320 Family flight controls, according to a technical analysis following an in-service event. The European manufacturer identified that this atmospheric phenomenon has the potential to compromise the integrity of information processed by onboard computers, prompting urgent precautionary action worldwide.

As reported by Airbus in an official statement, a substantial number of A320 Family aircraft currently in service are susceptible to this anomaly. The situation requires the immediate implementation of software and, in some cases, hardware protections to ensure continued operational safety.


IMMEDIATE REGULATORY ACTION

The manufacturer is working in coordination with aviation authorities to mitigate the risk. As a first step, it issued an Alert Operators Transmission (AOT), a technical document detailing the inspection and rectification procedures that airlines must execute without delay.

This technical measure will serve as the basis for an Emergency Airworthiness Directive to be published by the EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency). Such a directive mandates the execution of maintenance tasks before affected aircraft can continue their commercial scheduling.


IMPACT ON SCHEDULING

The nature of these checks implies that several units will need to remain on the ground to receive the necessary upgrades. Airbus acknowledged that these recommendations will lead to "operational disruptions to passengers and customers."

The manufacturer apologized for the inconvenience and assured that safety remains its number one priority as it collaborates with operators to restore normalcy to the global short and medium-haul fleet.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="325931" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd6fa0ea712e1fb14d8f/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Indian Air Force Pilot Dies in HAL Tejas Crash at Dubai Airshow: What We Know]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/english/accidents-and-incidents/indian-air-force-pilot-dies-in-hal-tejas-crash-at-dubai-airshow--what-we-know_a692052e6cc795946a5fc71a7</link>
            <guid>692052e6cc795946a5fc71a7</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 11:57:03 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[An Indian Air Force pilot died today when his HAL Tejas fighter jet crashed during a display at the Dubai Airshow. Authorities have launched an investigation.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[An Indian Air Force (IAF) pilot died this Friday after his combat aircraft, a HAL Tejas, crashed during an aerial demonstration at the closing of the Dubai Airshow. The incident marks a day of mourning for Indian military aviation and casts a shadow over the conclusion of one of the year's most important aerospace events.

The crash occurred at approximately 2:10 p.m. local time at Al Maktoum International Airport (DWC), located in Dubai World Central. Eyewitnesses reported that the aircraft, after performing several passes over the venue, appeared to lose control and entered a dive directly toward the ground within the airfield perimeter.



According to an IAF statement cited by AP, the pilot sustained fatal injuries in the accident. "IAF deeply regrets the loss of life and stands firmly with the bereaved family in this time of grief," the force stated, adding that a court of inquiry is being constituted to ascertain the exact cause of the accident.



Plumes of black smoke rose from the impact zone as emergency crews and sirens deployed across the runway, watched by thousands of spectators attending the final day of the event, which is traditionally open to the general public.


CONTEXT OF THE TEJAS PROGRAM

The HAL Tejas is a single-engine multi-role light combat aircraft, designed and manufactured by state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). This model is the centerpiece of India's strategy to renew its fighter fleet and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, amidst a geopolitical backdrop marked by China's military expansion in South Asia.

The program faces a critical moment of industrial expansion. In September of this year, India's Ministry of Defense signed a contract with HAL to procure 97 additional Tejas jets, with deliveries expected to begin in 2027. Additionally, the Indian government finalized a deal in 2021 for 83 units, although this batch faced scheduling delays due to a shortage of engines, which must be imported from the United States.



Just this Thursday, India's Press Information Bureau debunked social media rumors alleging an oil leak in a display unit, calling them baseless propaganda intended to undermine the fighter's technical reliability. It remains unclear whether the aircraft involved in today's crash is the same one that was the subject of those speculations.


OPERATIONAL HISTORY

This is the second major accident involving the type. The first occurred in March 2024 in Jaisalmer, in the western state of Rajasthan, although in that instance, the pilot ejected safely.

The Dubai Airshow thus ends tragically after a week characterized by intense commercial activity. During the event, major orders were confirmed, including Emirates' purchase of Boeing 777-9s and a historic fleet diversification by FlyDubai, which ordered Airbus A321neo aircraft for the first time.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="210523" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd65a0ea712e1fb10c3a/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[FAA grounds all Boeing MD-11 and MD-11F aircraft due to risk of engine detachment]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/english/accidents-and-incidents/faa-grounds-all-boeing-md-11-and-md-11f-aircraft-due-to-risk-of-engine-detachment_a690fd7f932b2deb5afb9c598</link>
            <guid>690fd7f932b2deb5afb9c598</guid>
            <pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2025 23:58:19 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The global Boeing MD-11 and MD-11F fleet is grounded by an FAA order until a mandatory inspection of the engine pylons is completed]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD), identified as 2025-23-51, ordering the immediate flight prohibition for all Boeing MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This drastic measure, which applies to all aircraft of this model “certificated in any category”, is effective upon receipt, as detailed in the official FAA document.


THE ACCIDENT PROMPTING THE DIRECTIVE

The FAA explains this emergency AD was prompted by an accident where the left-hand engine and pylon detached from the airplane during takeoff. The document explicitly states that the cause of the detachment is currently under investigation.

Despite the root cause being unknown, the agency determined this unsafe condition is severe. The FAA warns this failure could result in loss of continued safe flight and landing and believes it is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

The specific technical area affected is identified under Air Transport Association (ATA) of America code 54, corresponding to nacelles/pylons.


FLIGHT PROHIBITION AND MANDATORY CORRECTIVE ACTION

The central requirement of AD 2025-23-51 is blunt. Effective upon receipt of the directive, further flight is prohibited.The prohibition remains in effect until the airplane is inspected and all applicable corrective actions are performed. The FAA specifies this process cannot be done arbitrarily; it must be done using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA.

The directive also suspends the ability to move the aircraft to maintenance facilities. The document states that special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are not allowed. The only exception would be to obtain specific approval through Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) procedures.


JUSTIFICATION FOR EMERGENCY ACTION

The FAA issued this directive without the usual public notice and comment period, a measure reserved for serious threats. The agency bases its decision on the fact that an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this emergency AD for all known U.S. operators.

The agency determined that the risk to the flying public and safety in air commerce justifies forgoing notice and comment. The FAA concluded that the immediate compliance time is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment, making the standard consultation procedure impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Finally, the FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. This means that as the accident investigation progresses, new findings may emerge. If final action is later identified, the document concludes, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="112090" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/690a98ef7a0fa9948cb5982c/720.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Details of the Ethiopian Airlines flight that flew over Buenos Aires and grabbed headlines]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/details-of-the-ethiopian-airlines-flight-that-flew-over-buenos-aires-and-grabbed-headlines</link>
            <guid>6902677ce4a39c4853b306e6</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2025 23:00:27 GMT</pubDate>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[An Ethiopian Airlines flight became a leading story on major Argentine news portals over the weekend after the aircraft performed low-altitude maneuvers over densely populated areas of Buenos Aires before landing at Ezeiza International Airport (EZE).

The incident, involving a Boeing 777-200LR operating flight ET506 from São Paulo (GRU), was widely covered by local media outlets such as La Nación, Clarin, and other high-traffic news sites. The focus was on the aircraft's unusual flight path, which took it over the municipality of La Matanza, part of the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area, at an altitude of just 700 feet (approximately 213 meters), causing public surprise and quickly going viral on social media.

The reason for the maneuver was a "minimum fuel" emergency declaration made by the crew to air traffic control. According to reports, this situation arose from flight delays associated with a storm affecting the Argentine capital on Saturday night.




THE INCIDENT BEHIND THE NEWS

Flight tracking data, which formed the basis of the media coverage, showed that the flight was extended by nearly an hour beyond its schedule. Following the emergency declaration, air traffic control granted full priority to the Boeing 777, guiding it on its final approach, which included the noteworthy low-altitude flyover.



----------------------------------------

> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
> 
> Why did this flight become such a major news story in Argentina? A low-altitude flyover by a wide-body aircraft over a densely populated urban area is a very rare and visually striking event. This, combined with the emergency declaration, immediately captured the interest of the public and the country's mass media.
> 
> Was the Argentine media coverage accurate? Overall, the coverage was based on factual and verifiable data, such as information from flight tracking portals (like FlightRadar24) and confirmation of the emergency procedure. The reports correctly described the events without resorting to alarmist speculation.
> 
> What does a "minimum fuel" emergency actually mean? It informs air traffic control that any further delay could compromise the aircraft's regulatory final reserve fuel. It does not mean the engines are about to shut down, but it does guarantee absolute priority for an immediate and safe landing.
> 
> Were special measures taken at the airport? Yes. As part of the standard protocol for this type of emergency, Ezeiza Airport closed its operations for 20 minutes to allow the priority and safe landing of the Ethiopian Airlines flight, with emergency ground crews ready to respond.

----------------------------------------

Argentina's National Civil Aviation Administration (ANAC) confirmed the activation of safety protocols. The landing was completed without incident at 8:59 PM local time. Hours later, the same aircraft departed for its return flight to Addis Ababa, operating as ET507, demonstrating that the situation was managed according to procedure without consequences for the aircraft or its occupants.

Ethiopian Airlines operates a daily flight between Addis Ababa and Buenos Aires with a stop in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="60539" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/6902677ce4a39c4853b306e2/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Narco-drone shoots down Colombian National Police helicopter]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/narco-drone-shoots-down-colombian-national-police-helicopter</link>
            <guid>68cdfd5da0ea712e1fb0cfc8</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:52:22 GMT</pubDate>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[A helicopter from the Colombian National Police Air Service crashed in a rural area of the municipality of Amalfi, in the department of Antioquia, after being hit by a drone operated by an illegal armed group, according to police sources cited by regional media. The aircraft was participating in an operation to support ground troops engaged in the manual eradication of coca crops.

Unfortunately, at the time of this publication, the death toll has risen to 10 people.

According to information from preliminary reports, the helicopter, along with another aircraft, had deployed personnel in the area. Upon returning to their base, they received an alert that the ground units were under attack. During the extraction maneuver of the officers, one of the helicopters was struck by the unmanned aerial device, which caused it to go down.

The President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, confirmed the incident and directly linked it to recent actions against drug trafficking in the region. "We managed to seize a ton and a half of cocaine from the 'Clan del Golfo' in Urabá, and their reaction is happening in the area, during the eradication of coca leaf in Amalfi, Antioquia, they managed to shoot down a police helicopter, with so far one technician killed," the president stated.

For his part, the governor of Antioquia, Andrés Julián Rendón, described the event as a painful act for democracy. "In a rural area of Amalfi, they shot down a @PoliciaColombia helicopter that was apparently providing security to officers in manual coca eradication tasks. The police were attacked by a drone," he stated through his social media.

The model of the downed helicopter has not yet been specified, but tribute images from the Colombian National Police show a UH-60L Black Hawk, which has a length of 19.76 meters and can carry 12 equipped individuals.



The region where the events occurred is a strategic corridor for drug trafficking, with a strong presence of FARC dissidents and the 'Clan del Golfo'. Authorities are investigating which of these criminal structures is behind the attack.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="196957" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd5da0ea712e1fb0cf40/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Engine Failure on LOT Boeing 787 Forces Emergency Landing in China]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/engine-failure-on-lot-boeing-787-forces-emergency-landing-in-china</link>
            <guid>68cdfd62a0ea712e1fb0f840</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2025 03:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[A LOT Polish Airlines Boeing 787-9, en route from Tokyo to Warsaw, performed an emergency landing in Ürümqi, China, following a failure of a Rolls-Royce engine.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[A LOT Polish Airlines Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, registration SP-LSA, operating as flight LO80 between Tokyo's Narita International Airport (NRT) and Warsaw Chopin Airport (WAW), diverted to Ürümqi Diwopu International Airport (URC) in western China after experiencing an engine failure.

The aircraft departed from the Japanese capital at 23:07 local time on August 13. The flight proceeded normally, following a trans-Siberian route through Chinese airspace. However, while at a cruising altitude of approximately 36,000 feet (11,000 meters), the flight crew detected a technical issue with one of the two Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines.

Following standard safety procedures, the pilots initiated a controlled descent. They decided to divert to the nearest suitable airport, landing without further complications in Ürümqi approximately 90 minutes after declaring the emergency. The Polish airline reported that passengers were attended to and rerouted on alternative flights to continue their journey to Warsaw.

A Rolls-Royce spokesperson said: “Due to a low oil pressure reading from one of the engines on flight LO-80, the precautionary decision was made to land at Urumqi, with both engines still running.” 

“The issue which led to the low oil pressure reading was quickly identified and fixed. The aircraft has now returned to service.”, the company added. 

> IN SUMMARY
> 
> What happened? A LOT Boeing 787-9 (flight LO80) made an emergency landing.
> 
> Route: Tokyo (NRT) - Warsaw (WAW).
> 
> Landing site: Ürümqi (URC), China.
> 
> Cause: Technical failure in a Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine.
> 
> Aircraft status: Remains grounded in China awaiting repairs.

A HISTORY OF ISSUES FOR THE TRENT 1000

The aircraft involved, SP-LSA, was delivered to LOT Polish Airlines in March 2018 and is part of the carrier's long-haul fleet, which exclusively operates with Rolls-Royce engines. This incident brings the reliability record of the Trent 1000 engine back into focus.

This engine, developed specifically for the Boeing 787 program, has faced several technical challenges throughout its operational life. In 2016, stress corrosion cracking was discovered on the intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) blades of aircraft operated by All Nippon Airways (ANA), triggering a global program of inspections and replacements.

The situation led aviation authorities, including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to issue airworthiness directives in 2018 that restricted ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards) for 787s equipped with certain Trent 1000 variants. The ETOPS certification, which allows twin-engine jets to fly long routes over oceans or remote areas, was temporarily reduced from 330 to 140 minutes, impacting the operations of airlines such as Air New Zealand, British Airways, and Virgin Atlantic.

Rolls-Royce has since worked on solutions, such as the Durability Enhancement Package, to redesign components and extend the engine's service life. Nevertheless, incidents like the one involving the LOT flight demonstrate that vigilance and maintenance of these power units remain a priority for Dreamliner operators. The aircraft SP-LSA remains in Ürümqi awaiting the arrival of a technical team and, most likely, a replacement engine before it can return to service.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="51054" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd62a0ea712e1fb0f747/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[South Korea Halts Release of Jeju Air Crash Report Amid Protests from Victims' Families]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/south-korea-halts-release-of-jeju-air-crash-report-amid-protests-from-victims-families</link>
            <guid>68cdfd7ca0ea712e1fb1a609</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[South Korean authorities have withdrawn a report on the Jeju Air crash following protests from families, who allege it prematurely blames the pilots.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[Aviation authorities in South Korea abruptly canceled the presentation of an intermediate report on the crash of a Jeju Air Boeing 737-800, which occurred last December 29. The decision was made following a tense confrontation with the victims' families, who disrupted a scheduled press conference at Muan International Airport.

The conflict arose after a private briefing where investigators from the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB) presented their preliminary findings to the bereaved. According to the families, the report seemed to prematurely attribute responsibility for the accident, which claimed the lives of 179 of the 181 people on board, to the flight crew and a bird strike.

Pillkyu Hwang, a lawyer representing the families, took the podium intended for the investigators to express the group's discontent, stating that "the families did not get an adequate explanation." In his remarks, the lawyer pointed out that the report, in its current wording, "in fact, depending on how you look at it, it kind of puts all the blame on the dead birds and the dead pilots."

The lawyer, as reported by The New York Times, criticized the lack of caution in the presented conclusions. Hwang added that while that might be the outcome of the investigation, "that requires tremendous rigor and very careful wording. And something came out that wasn’t careful at all."

> Frequently Asked Questions about the Crash
> 
> What happened to the Jeju Air flight? A Boeing 737-800 crashed on December 29, 2024, during its approach to Muan Airport, South Korea, resulting in 179 fatalities.
> 
> Why are the families protesting? They believe the ARAIB's preliminary report is inadequate and hasty in pointing to the pilots and a bird strike as the main causes before a thorough investigation is complete.
> 
> Are bird strikes dangerous? Yes. A bird strike, especially with a flock, can cause severe engine damage, such as a loss of thrust. Managing such an emergency is a critical procedure for flight crews.

The investigation team planned to publicly disclose that the analysis of the aircraft's CFM56-7B engines found no inherent technical faults, which shifts the focus of the investigation toward operational and external factors. However, the families fear that the release of a report with this focus would be interpreted by the media and the public as a final conclusion, stigmatizing the deceased pilots before all variables were thoroughly analyzed.

In a statement, the families' delegation argued that the report's framing could imply a premature closure of the case. An aircraft accident investigation is a complex process consisting of several stages, including data collection, analysis of the black boxes (FDR and CVR), and the evaluation of all contributing factors.

For now, the ARAIB has not announced a new date for the publication of its findings. The investigation continues as the aviation community and those affected await a complete and rigorous analysis to clarify the exact circumstances that led to the tragedy.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="548785" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd64a0ea712e1fb10841/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Iberia's Brand-New A321XLR Suffers Engine Damage After Bird Strike, Returns to Madrid]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/iberias-brand-new-a321xlr-suffers-engine-damage-after-bird-strike-returns-to-madrid</link>
            <guid>68cdfd9ea0ea712e1fb2859b</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2025 22:32:24 GMT</pubDate>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[An Iberia Airbus A321XLR, with registration EC-OOJ and in commercial service for just a few weeks, was forced to return to Madrid-Barajas Airport (MAD) this Sunday, August 3rd, after colliding with a bird minutes after takeoff. The aircraft, operating flight IB579 to Paris-Orly Airport (ORY), sustained visible damage to its nose and one of its engines.

The aircraft, one of the newest in the Spanish airline's fleet and globally, had taken off from the Barajas runway when the impact occurred during the initial climb phase. The bird first struck the radome—the front cone of the fuselage that protects the weather radar—and was subsequently ingested by the left engine, a CFM International LEAP-1A.

Following standard safety procedures for such incidents, the flight crew decided to halt the climb, declare an emergency, and immediately return to Madrid. The landing was completed without any issues approximately 20 minutes after takeoff, ensuring the safety of all passengers and crew on board.

Images and videos captured from the ground and quickly circulated on social media show the extent of the damage. The impact destroyed part of the aircraft's nose, exposing components of the radar. Additionally, damage is visible on multiple fan blades of the left engine, demonstrating the force of the collision.

AirNavRadar data shows the flight path the aircraft made:



> What happens when a bird hits an airplane? A bird strike is a relatively common event in aviation. Aircraft and their engines are designed and certified to withstand such collisions to a certain degree. The standard procedure, especially if engine damage is suspected, is for pilots to return to the airport of origin for a full technical inspection, as happened in this case. The greatest risk occurs during takeoff and landing, where altitude is low and bird concentration is higher.

Iberia became the global launch customer for the Airbus A321XLR, receiving its first unit in late 2024. This model is notable for its ability to operate long-haul routes with a single-aisle aircraft, offering new efficiency for the company's transatlantic network. The involved aircraft, EC-OOJ, was delivered by Airbus in early July and had commenced commercial flights around July 10, 2025, making it one of the most recent units in operation worldwide.

Bird incidents are a known and managed risk in the aviation industry. Airports implement various wildlife control measures to mitigate their presence near runways. Nevertheless, collisions are unavoidable. Jet engine certification includes rigorous bird ingestion tests to ensure that, even after a failure, the engine can be shut down safely without compromising the structural integrity of the wing or the aircraft.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="445941" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd9ea0ea712e1fb284f5/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Near Collision at AICM: Audio Contradicts Official Narrative from Mexican President and AFAC]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/near-collision-at-aicm-audio-contradicts-official-narrative-from-mexican-president-and-afac</link>
            <guid>68cdfd5fa0ea712e1fb0de97</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:26:55 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The official narrative from the Mexican government, which claims "timely alerts" prevented a runway collision at Mexico City's airport, is being directly contradicted by audio evidence.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The official narrative surrounding last Monday's serious incident at Mexico City International Airport (AICM) is under intense scrutiny. Statements from President Claudia Sheinbaum and the Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC) claiming that safety protocols worked correctly are directly contradicted by audio evidence suggesting that a potential tragedy was averted solely by the pilots' actions, without intervention from air traffic controllers.

The official account began to take shape shortly after the July 21 event, where a Delta Air Lines Boeing 737 aborted its takeoff to avoid colliding with an Aeroméxico Connect Embraer approaching the same runway, 05R. AFAC issued a statement asserting that "safety protocols were activated, which worked to prevent an accident."

This version was reinforced by President Claudia Sheinbaum, who stated at her press conference on July 23 that "fortunately, it did not escalate; all alerts were given in time to prevent any accident." However, the president also made a factual error by claiming the Delta aircraft was "parked" when it was actually in its takeoff roll.

The government's version is confronted by a key piece of evidence: a 32-minute audio recording of control tower communications, reported by El Financiero. According to the analysis of the recording, no alert or warning was issued by air traffic control (ATC) to the involved crews. The transcript reveals it was the Delta Air Lines crew that, upon visually noticing the Aeroméxico aircraft on a collision course, made the unilateral decision to abort the takeoff.

This sequence of events is consistent with the airline's statement, in which Delta expressed gratitude for "the crew's actions in maintaining situational awareness and acting swiftly."

> THE CONTROVERSY: TWO OPPOSING VERSIONS
> 
> Official Version (Government/AFAC): Control tower alerts and safety protocols functioned correctly, preventing the accident.
> 
> Evidence-Based Version (Audio): There were no alerts from the control tower. The Delta crew identified the danger and acted on their own, avoiding a collision thanks to their own skill.
> 
> What's at stake? The credibility of Mexico's aviation safety oversight and the transparency of its authorities.

The discrepancy between the official account and the available evidence puts the spotlight on Mexico's Air Navigation Services (SENEAM), the entity that manages the controllers. While the president defended AFAC, the incident points to operational failures within SENEAM, an agency that, according to industry experts, faces a shortage of technical personnel and challenges from outdated communication equipment in a saturated airspace like AICM's.

The ongoing investigation by AFAC now has a dual task: it must not only clarify the chain of errors that led to the runway incursion but also address the serious contradiction between its initial version and the facts that the audio evidence appears to demonstrate.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="528546" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd5fa0ea712e1fb0de0d/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Angara Airlines An-24 crash in Russia: What we know]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/angara-airlines-an-24-crash-in-russia-what-we-know</link>
            <guid>68cdfd60a0ea712e1fb0e4ab</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 10:27:49 GMT</pubDate>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[An Antonov An-24RV passenger plane belonging to the Russian airline Angara Airlines crashed this Thursday in a mountainous area of the Amur region, in the Russian Far East. The wreckage of the aircraft was located about 15 kilometers from the airport in the city of Tynda, its final destination. According to preliminary reports from emergency services, none of the 49 occupants survived the impact.

The aircraft, with almost 50 years of service, was flying a domestic route that originated in Khabarovsk, with a stopover in Blagoveshchensk, before heading to Tynda.



Communication with the crew was lost as the aircraft was making a second approach attempt to the airport in low visibility conditions, according to the Russian news agency Interfax.

The governor of the Amur region, Vasily Orlov, confirmed that 43 passengers, including five children, and six crew members were on board.

A Mi-8 helicopter from the rescue teams located the burning wreckage of the An-24 on a mountainside, in an area of dense forest and difficult access, which complicates recovery efforts.



Angara Airlines operates a fleet of 31 aircraft with an average age of 41 years:

 * 12 Antonov An-24RV
 * 3 Antonov An-26 100
 * 12 Mi-8 T helicopters
 * 3 Mi-8 AMT helicopters
 * One Mi-8 AMT helicopter

From its base at Irkutsk International Airport, it serves a network of five destinations in the Amur region.

The Antonov An-24 is a Soviet-era turboprop of which 1,300 aircraft were built between 1959 and 1979. 

According to data obtained by Aviacionline through Cirium Fleet Analyzer, there are currently 77 Antonov An-24s in service, the vast majority with Russian airlines, with only a dozen distributed among North Korea, Cuba, Yemen, Kazakhstan, Somalia, and Ukraine.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="81992" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd59a0ea712e1fb0af1b/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Argentine Government Suspects Political Sabotage Behind Airport Bomb Threats]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/argentine-government-suspects-political-sabotage-behind-airport-bomb-threats</link>
            <guid>68cdfd61a0ea712e1fb0eee1</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 02:24:07 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Authorities are investigating whether anonymous calls that disrupted operations at Ezeiza and Aeroparque are linked to recent labor disputes in the aviation sector.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[Wednesday night was disrupted at Argentina's main airports after two bomb threats put authorities on high alert, affecting normal operations during the peak winter holiday season. The incidents involved one Aerolíneas Argentinas flight and another from FlyBondi.

The threats, made through anonymous calls to the 911 emergency service, specifically targeted Aerolíneas Argentinas flight AR 1411, operating from Mendoza (MDZ) to Ezeiza International Airport (EZE), and a service by low-cost carrier FlyBondi flying from Salta (SLA) to Aeroparque Jorge Newbery (AEP).

As a result of the alert concerning flight AR 1411, Ezeiza Airport was closed for approximately 20 minutes. This forced at least one international flight to divert to Carrasco Airport (MVD) in Montevideo, Uruguay. Other aircraft had to enter holding patterns until the terminal reopened.

The Airport Security Police (PSA) immediately activated emergency protocols at both air terminals. The affected aircraft were moved to remote safety positions for thorough inspection by bomb disposal squads. Following the procedures, PSA sources confirmed that both threats were false alarms, as no suspicious devices were found.

> Snippet: What Happens in Case of a Bomb Threat? When a threat is received, the National Civil Aviation Administration (ANAC) and the Argentine Air Navigation Company (EANA) activate an emergency protocol. The PSA is immediately involved to isolate the aircraft, inspect it with specialized teams and equipment, and secure the perimeter until the danger is completely ruled out.

While air operations began to normalize after 10:00 PM, the focus has now shifted to the origin of the threats. Unofficial sources close to the Secretariat of Transport indicated that they are not ruling out a connection between the calls and recent labor disputes. "They come after the repeated failures of aviation unions to carry out their intended strikes," a source noted, suggesting the threats could be aimed at "disrupting operations, which are running very smoothly during the winter holidays."

Both ANAC and EANA have confirmed they will file the corresponding criminal complaints for the justice system to investigate the origin of the calls and determine responsibility for a crime that carries severe penalties and, in this case, caused a significant disruption to the air transport system during a high-demand period.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="909914" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd50a0ea712e1fb05cc7/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Incident at Mexico City: Delta A320 Aborts Takeoff as Aeroméxico E190 Lands on the Same Runway]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/incident-at-mexico-city-delta-a320-aborts-takeoff-as-aeromexico-e190-lands-on-the-same-runway</link>
            <guid>68cdfd64a0ea712e1fb10426</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:07:18 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[AFAC investigators are analyzing communications and data from an event that once again exposed the stress on air traffic control in Mexico.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[Mexico's Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC) is investigating a serious incident that occurred at Mexico City International Airport (AICM) on the morning of July 21, when a Delta Air Lines aircraft was forced to execute a rejected takeoff upon detecting an Aeroméxico Connect aircraft landing on the same runway.

The event involved Delta flight DL590, an Airbus A320 that was beginning its takeoff roll on runway 05R bound for Atlanta (ATL), and Aeroméxico Connect flight AM1631, an Embraer E190, which was on its final approach.

Communications between the Delta flight deck and the control tower captured the U.S. crew's shock. "Wow," the pilot is heard exclaiming, followed by "increíble" (incredible) in Spanish, highlighting the proximity of the conflict.

Delta Air Lines confirmed the event in a statement, informing that it is cooperating with authorities in the investigation and adding that "we appreciate the crew's actions to maintain situational awareness and act quickly, as a result of the extensive training Delta provides."

> Key Incident Information
> 
> What happened: A runway incursion and near-collision.
> 
> Aircraft: A departing Delta (Airbus A320) and a landing Aeroméxico Connect (Embraer E190).
> 
> Location: Runway 05R at Mexico City International Airport (AICM).
> 
> Evasive Action: The Delta flight performed a high-speed rejected takeoff. The Aeroméxico aircraft landed, overflying the Delta jet.
> 
> Preliminary Cause: Air traffic control error in clearing two incompatible operations on the same runway.

Sources with knowledge of the operation, cited by media outlets like El Financiero, described the event as "more serious than the Volaris incident" of May 2022, given that on this occasion, the Aeroméxico aircraft completed its landing while the Delta jet was on the runway. In the 2022 incident, the approaching aircraft performed a go-around.

The event occurred under complex operational circumstances. Minutes prior, the parallel runway 05L was temporarily closed due to a bird strike involving an Avianca aircraft. This concentrated all traffic onto runway 05R, likely increasing the workload for the personnel of Mexican Air Navigation Services (SENEAM).

This incident again places a spotlight on the working conditions of air traffic controllers in Mexico. In a December 2024 letter, the controllers' union held the Secretariat of Infrastructure, Communications, and Transport (SICT) responsible for any consequences arising from the failure to address the shortage of trained technical personnel and overwork—issues that industry sources say persist.

As of the writing of this article, neither AICM nor SENEAM have issued public comments on the incident.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="644774" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd64a0ea712e1fb1034b/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Dozens Killed as a Bangladesh Air Force Fighter Chinese-Built Jet Crashes Over School]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/dozens-killed-as-a-bangladesh-air-force-fighter-chinese-built-jet-crashes-over-school</link>
            <guid>68cdfd68a0ea712e1fb11f8e</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 19:33:09 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[A Bangladesh Air Force F-7BGI fighter jet crashes into a Dhaka school, causing dozens of casualties. The investigation into the incident is underway.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[A F-7BGI combat trainer jet belonging to the Bangladesh Air Force (BAF) crashed today over an educational institution in a densely populated area of the capital, Dhaka, causing the deaths of at least 19 people and injuring over 160 others.

The accident occurred at approximately 13:06 local time. The aircraft struck the Milestone School and College building in the Uttara neighborhood shortly after taking off from the nearby Kurmitola Air Base. The impact triggered a major fire, complicating rescue efforts.

Many of the injured were students who were attending classes or taking exams at the time of the tragedy. Eyewitnesses described chaotic scenes, with emergency teams and civilians using all available means, including traditional rickshaws, to evacuate victims to the nearest hospitals.

> Frequently Asked Questions about the Dhaka Crash
> 
> What plane crashed in Dhaka? A Chengdu F-7BGI fighter trainer from the Bangladesh Air Force.
> 
> How many casualties were there in the accident? Initial reports confirm at least 19 fatalities and over 160 injuries.
> 
> What is the origin of the F-7BGI? It is a Chinese-made aircraft, derived from the Soviet MiG-21 fighter.

The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) directorate confirmed in a statement that the aircraft's pilot is among the deceased and that a committee of inquiry has been formed to determine the causes of the crash. Authorities have not yet released the official list of victims.

The Chengdu F-7BGI is a modernized variant for Bangladesh of the Chinese J-7 fighter, which is itself a copy of the iconic Soviet MiG-21. The BAF uses these aircraft for airspace defense and as an advanced training platform for its fighter pilots. Bangladesh's F-7 fleet has already recorded several accidents in recent years, raising questions about the operational status of these older generation aerial systems.

This event is the deadliest aviation accident in the city of Dhaka in recent memory, according to reports from local media, and it highlights the dangers associated with military air operations in proximity to large urban centers. The government of Bangladesh is considering declaring a day of national mourning.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="100375" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd68a0ea712e1fb11f23/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[AAIB Urges Caution in Air India B787 Investigation, Criticizes International Media for "Irresponsible" Reporting]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/aaib-urges-caution-in-air-india-b787-investigation-criticizes-international-media-for-irresponsible-reporting</link>
            <guid>68cdfd73a0ea712e1fb16bc9</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:18:48 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) issued a direct appeal to the media and the public, calling for a halt to speculation on the investigation into the crash of an Air India Boeing 787-8. The agency criticized certain international media for "irresponsible" and "selective and unverified reporting".]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India has issued a statement urging the public and the media to refrain from spreading premature narratives regarding the crash of the Air India Boeing 787-8, registration VT-ANB. The agency described attempts by certain international media outlets to conclude as "irresponsible."

The Director-General of the AAIB, GVG Yugandhar, emphasized that the investigation into what is considered "the most devastating accident in recent aviation history" is being conducted rigorously and professionally. In the appeal, Yugandhar stated that "this is not the time to create public anxiety or angst towards safety of Indian Aviation Industry, particularly based on unfounded facts."

The investigation is proceeding following the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017. It fulfills the Government of India's obligations under Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Since its inception in 2012, the AAIB has a flawless record of investigating 92 accidents and 111 serious incidents.

> What is ICAO Annex 13? Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation establishes the standards and recommended practices for aircraft accident and incident investigation. Its sole objective is the prevention of future accidents, not the apportionment of blame or liability. The State in which the event occurs is responsible for initiating the investigation.

The AAIB clarified that the purpose of the preliminary report is solely to provide information about 'WHAT' happened and that it is too early to reach any definite conclusions. "The Final Investigation Report will come out with root causes and recommendations," the document specifies.

The agency appealed to all concerned to respect the sensitivity of the loss faced by the family members of deceased passengers, the aircraft's crew, and other persons deceased on the ground.

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau will also publish updates as and when required which have technical and public interest, while awaiting the publication of the final investigation report.

The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner is a centerpiece of Air India's long-haul fleet. The airline operates a substantial fleet of this model, which is used on international routes.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="121022" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd73a0ea712e1fb16b41/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Recommended versus Mandatory: The Potential Link Between an FAA Bulletin and the Air India Disaster]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/recommended-versus-mandatory-the-potential-link-between-an-faa-bulletin-and-the-air-india-disaster</link>
            <guid>68cdfd84a0ea712e1fb1da36</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 22:51:45 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The crash of AI171 could illustrate the grave implications of not addressing non-mandatory bulletins, such as the FAA's SAIB on fuel switches.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The crash of Air India flight AI171 in Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, could be shaping up to be a critical case study in risk management in commercial aviation. The preliminary investigation by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is reportedly directing attention toward a systemic issue: the interpretation and weight that airlines give to the various safety communications issued by regulatory authorities.

A 2018 FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), which warned of a vulnerability in the fuel control switches, is now a central piece of the investigation. The fact that its recommendations had not been implemented on the crashed aircraft raises fundamental questions about safety-related decision-making processes.

Flight recorder data from the Boeing 787-8 (VT-ANB) suggests an alarming sequence of events. Seconds after a normal takeoff, both engines reportedly lost power almost simultaneously. The EAFR (Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder) analysis showed that the fuel control switches moved from "RUN" to "CUTOFF."

The conversation in the cockpit would indicate that this action was inadvertent, with the pilots showing surprise. This raises a fundamental question: if it was not a deliberate action, what could have caused such a critical control to move? The answer could lie in a document issued by the FAA almost seven years earlier.


THE REGULATORY ECOSYSTEM: UNDERSTANDING SAIB, AD, AND EAD

To understand the context of the operator's decision, it is essential to differentiate the tools the FAA uses to communicate airworthiness issues.

Airworthiness Directive (AD): This is a legally binding order issued when the FAA determines that an "unsafe condition" exists. Compliance is not optional.

Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD): This is an AD with immediate effect to correct an extreme risk that cannot wait.

Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB): This occupies a different space. It is issued to alert and recommend action on a concern that does not cross the legal threshold for an AD.

SAIB NM-18-33, in particular, warned about the risk that the locking mechanism of the fuel switches could be inoperative. While it recommended a specific part replacement for certain Boeing 737s, the warning about the design was relevant to the Boeing 787 (with part P/N 4TL837-3D).

What is an Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD)? It is an order from the FAA for immediate compliance to correct a safety risk so serious that it cannot wait for the usual processes of a standard AD.

Why would the FAA issue an SAIB instead of an AD? The FAA would do so when it identifies a safety concern but determines that it does not meet the legal threshold to be classified as an "unsafe condition," which is the requirement for an AD. The SAIB serves to recommend and inform, not to compel.

What questions does this case raise about SAIBs? It raises how operators should assess the risks of an SAIB and what the expected standard of care is, even if the recommendations are not legally mandatory.


THE REGULATORY GAP: "NOT MANDATORY" DOES NOT MEAN "NO RISK"

The FAA's decision to issue an SAIB instead of an AD was reportedly based on the problem "not being an unsafe condition that would justify airworthiness directive action." This stance, in practice, transfers the burden of risk assessment to the operator. This is where a complex "gray area" of responsibility and safety management arises.

Ignoring such a warning, however, would entail several risks that go beyond simple regulatory compliance. First, it would open the door to enormous civil liability. In a post-accident court scenario, a plaintiff could argue that the airline, having been notified by the FAA through an SAIB, was aware of the risk and had a simple and low-cost mitigation available. The argument would not be whether the action was mandatory, but whether a "reasonably prudent operator," with knowledge of the danger, would have acted.

Second, and perhaps more importantly from an operational safety perspective, it would represent a potential failure of the company's Safety Management System (SMS). A robust SMS, a pillar of modern aviation, is designed to treat an SAIB as a formally identified hazard that requires an internal risk analysis, regardless of its regulatory status. The process would dictate that the hazard (a faulty fuel switch) be evaluated in a risk matrix. The consequence (a dual engine shutdown on takeoff) would always be catastrophic, so even a low probability would result in a level of risk that would, most likely, demand mitigating action.


THE NECESSARY DEBATE ON THE LIMITS OF THE NON-MANDATORY

The preliminary report from the AAIB, by indicating that the suggested inspection was not performed due to its "advisory and non-mandatory" nature, not only points to a decision but opens a profound debate for the industry:

How should a Safety Management System (SMS) process, document, and act on a risk identified in an SAIB?

What criteria would an operator use to determine that the risk described in a bulletin is acceptable and does not require the recommended action? Would this risk analysis be formally documented for future reviews and audits?

If a non-mandatory recommendation could have been a factor in preventing an accident, where would the ultimate responsibility for managing that risk lie?

Regardless of the final outcome of the investigation, the crash of flight AI171 must be the start of an urgent and honest conversation about the philosophy of safety. The debate would not just be about a switch, but about how the industry ensures that a "recommendation" from a safety authority receives the weight it deserves to prevent future tragedies.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="157583" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd80a0ea712e1fb1bc53/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Air India Flight AI171 Preliminary Report: A Dual Engine Shutdown Caused the Tragedy in Ahmedabad]]></title>
            <link>https://www.aviacionline.com/air-india-flight-ai171-preliminary-report-a-dual-engine-shutdown-caused-the-tragedy-in-ahmedabad</link>
            <guid>68cdfd84a0ea712e1fb1dd29</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 20:42:45 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Flight recorders from the crashed Air India Boeing 787 in Ahmedabad reveal that the fuel switches were moved to the cutoff position seconds after takeoff.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has published its preliminary report on the crash of Air India Flight AI171 , which occurred on June 12. Data recovered from the flight recorder (EAFR) of the Boeing 787-8, registration VT-ANB , indicates that the catastrophic sequence began when the fuel cutoff switches for both engines were moved from the "RUN" to the "CUTOFF" position just three seconds after the aircraft took off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (VAAH).

The flight, bound for London's Gatwick Airport (EGKK), was carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members. The aircraft crashed at approximately 08:09 UTC in a residential area 0.9 nautical miles from the end of runway 23 , resulting in the deaths of all crew members, 229 passengers, and 19 people on the ground. Only one passenger survived with serious injuries.

According to the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) data, the aircraft lifted off at 08:08:39 UTC. Three seconds later, upon reaching a speed of 180 knots, the fuel switches for the GEnx-1B engines were moved to the cutoff position, interrupting the fuel flow.

The cockpit voice recording captured a crucial exchange between the pilots. One of them asked the other why he had cut off the engines, to which the second pilot replied that he had not done it. This conversation suggests the action was unexpected and unintentional by the crew.

As a direct consequence of the loss of power from both engines, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) automatically deployed to supply emergency hydraulic power, a fact confirmed by both flight data and airport security camera footage.


> WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR
> 
> What was the main cause of the Flight AI171 accident? The preliminary report indicates that the fuel switches for both engines were moved to the "CUTOFF" position seconds after takeoff, causing a dual engine shutdown.
> 
> Was it an intentional action by the pilots? The cockpit voice recording suggests it was not. One pilot expressed surprise, and the other denied having moved the switches.
> 
> Was there a known issue with the aircraft? A 2018 FAA bulletin warned of a potential problem with the locking feature of the fuel control switches on this aircraft model. The recommended inspections were advisory and had not been performed on the aircraft.

Twelve seconds after the initial cutoff, the crew attempted a relight by moving the switches back to the "RUN" position. Engine 1 showed signs of recovery, but Engine 2 failed to regain its core speed before the aircraft impacted several buildings of the BJ Medical College complex. The crew transmitted a "MAYDAY" call at 08:09:05 UTC, seconds before the recording stopped.

The report also highlights a relevant contextual factor. In December 2018, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) NM-18-33. This document warned of the "potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature" on several Boeing models, including the 787. A disengaged locking feature could make the switches more susceptible to accidental movement.

Air India confirmed to investigators that the inspections suggested in the SAIB were not carried out on VT-ANB because the bulletin was advisory and not a mandatory airworthiness directive.

The investigation, led by India's AAIB, includes collaboration with the U.S. NTSB, as well as technical advisors from Boeing, GE Aviation, and the FAA. The team of investigators continues to analyze the evidence and, at this stage, has not issued safety recommendations for operators of Boeing 787 aircraft or GEnx-1B engines.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure length="231533" type="image/jpeg" url="https://flex-assets.tadevel-cdn.com/68cdfd59a0ea712e1fb0acd6/image.jpg"/>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>