A Terrible Month for Aviation! | June News Roundup

- Going into June this year,

many of us thought
that the biggest aviation story

would probably be the Paris Airshow,

along with all of the news
around aircraft orders,

new engines and
maybe even new aircraft

that normally comes there.

Unfortunately though,

that's not what June
2025 will be remembered for.

We did get some
intriguing news out of Paris,

who are definitely worth covering,

but obviously, the tragic crash

of Air India Flight 171
overshadowed everything else,

and the entire aviation industry

now sits waiting to
learn what actually happened.

So today, it's time for another
monthly news roundup,

where I look at the biggest stories

that we haven't covered yet,
things you might have missed,

and smaller stories that are
still worth keeping an eye on.

But we are obviously going
to start with what we know so far

about the accident on the 12th of June

of Air India Flight 171.

(calm music)

In the total tragedy of this story,

at least one positive
bit of recent news

was that the number of victims
has turned out to be smaller

than we previously thought.

A few days after the crash,
the authorities stated

that there were 279 fatalities in total:

all but one of the 242 people on board,

and also 38 people on the ground,

but the number of ground fatalities

has later been revised downwards.

On the 24th of June,
the authorities confirmed

that they had identified all

but one of the victims of the crash,

and that there were 19 ground fatalities,

bringing the
total toll to 260 victims.

That still makes this Air India crash

the worst air disaster
in over a decade.

The last time we had
a higher loss of life

in a single aviation disaster was in 2014

with the shoot-down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.

But even though that is the case,

at the time of this recording,

there has been
very little official news

coming out of India about the crash

and the ongoing investigation.

There was some disturbing
information about threats made

towards the country's investigators,

which meant that
they needed security protection.

And as usual after something like this,

the press has also been covering

a lot of other minor unrelated incidents,

things like air turnbacks
and technical delays,

who just form everyday life
in the aviation industry

and would never have made the news

if it wasn't for this strategy.

But more worryingly,

there have also been
several deliberately fake stories

in the press, including
at least two fabricated,

most likely AI-generated
preliminary accident reports.

And that is, frankly, crazy.

And it just shows us the kind

of threat of misinformation

that will likely be facing
all of us going forward.

Now whatever the motivation
of those doing that was,

as Jon Ostrower pointed
out in the air current,

the reality is that these fake
stories are circulating wildly

because it fits an information void.

Again, because of the
lack of concrete information

from official sources.

Now it is also worth pointing out here

that usually the lack of early news

from the investigation
could actually be a good thing,

especially for the
aircraft manufacturer.

So why is that?

Well, that's because if the
investigators were to find

that there was something
technically wrong with the aircraft,

well then they would pass
that information on very quickly.

In such a scenario, investigators

would immediately inform
the aviation regulators worldwide

and at the same time,
the aircraft manufacturer,

Boeing, in this case,

who already forms part
of the investigation team,

would release a safety
bulletin to its aircraft operators.

After that, regulators
would then release one

or more emergency airworthiness directives

that would either tell airlines
to make specific checks

or, if things were really bad,

could trigger a process
to ground the entire fleet,

like we saw back in 2019

after the second
Boeing 737 MAX crash.

So the relative lack
of news from this investigation

could actually be good
news for that reason,

but it's probably too early

to draw any real conclusions here.

And that's because while
the accident happened on 12th June,

the investigators were
able to download data

from the two black boxes
only on the 26th of June,

which is a full two weeks later.

And that is a little bit strange,

since the first black box
was actually found on the 13th,

just a day after the crash,

and the other one was
recovered three days later.

The Boeing 787
has two black boxes,

but unlike many other aircraft designs,

these aren't simply a
separate cockpit voice recorder

and a flight data recorder,

though both of these boxes
are so-called COMBI units,

or Cockpit Voice and
Flight Data Recorders, CVFDRs.

And that means that
both boxes contain all information,

and that, in subsequent, means

that the investigators only need

to find one working box
in order to access all of the data.

On the Boeing 787,
one of these new CVFDRs

is located in the avionics bay
under the cockpit,

and the other one
sits near the aircraft's tail.

There was some initial
speculation that Indian authorities

would send these boxes
to the United States

to be processed in the
NTSB's lab in Washington DC,

but as it turns out,
both black boxes

are actually being processed

in a new lab in New Delhi,
India's capital.

The latest news is
that the investigators are analyzing

the data in the black boxes,

while still considering
all possible causes.

So from our side,
the important thing now

is just to wait for the analysis

to start bearing results.

Then, hopefully, we will hear
more from the investigators,

so that we, and most importantly,

the families and friends of those lost,

can finally have some
real information,

instead of manufactured
clickbait and speculation.

Our next story is also
about a tragic aircraft crash,

one that happened back in 2022,

and this is an uncomfortable one

for the entire aviation industry.

It happened on the
21st of March, 2022,

involving China Eastern
Airlines Flight 5735,

a Boeing 737-800 that suddenly entered

a nearly vertical dive
from its cruise altitude.

Some initial analysis
by Flightradar24

using ADS-B data indicated

that the aircraft briefly seemed

to recover from its dive,

only to resume it soon afterwards,

and then crashing at high speed,

leaving no survivors
among the 132 passengers

and crew on board.

What makes this story so troublesome

was that about two
months after it happened,

the Wall Street Journal reported

that according to
a US official familiar

with the investigation,

the plane had been
brought down deliberately.

The quote they got was that,

the plane did what it was told to do

by someone in the cockpit.

Now China's investigators,

the Civil Aviation
Administration of China,

or CAAC, did not comment
on the Wall Street Journal article,

although they had
condemned earlier speculation

on what had happened.

They also released
a preliminary report 30 days

after the crash,

and then continued
to release interim reports

with very little information
beyond the fact

that the investigation was ongoing.

But in March this year,

on the 3rd anniversary of the crash,

the CAAC did not
release another report.

And in June,
a Chinese source indicated

that a final report
on the crash may be ready,

but it won't be published.

In response to a
request for more information,

the CAAC reportedly said that

the report on the investigation

of the China Eastern Airlines

Flight 5735 aircraft flight accident

could endanger national security

and social stability if
made public, so it won't be.

Now, we are working
on a Mentour Now! video

on air accident investigations

and how they normally work,

but it should go without saying

that a decision not to publish
a report is not normal.

Aviation is as safe as it is today,

because we have over
a century of experience,

including the mistakes of others,

to study and then learn from,
and I, therefore, really hope

that China's decision in this
matter doesn't become a trend.

Now, learning from past
mistakes depends on access

to accurate information,

and as the fake reporting
and lack of news

around the Air India accident showed,

knowing which source
to trust becomes more critical

with each passing day.

So, my team and
I turn to today's sponsor,

Ground News, as we often do,

and with over 700
articles covering this story,

I am so glad that we did.

Ground News really helps
in cutting through the noise,

and to show you what I mean,

you can follow along
on ground.news/mentour.

Right away, it's clear that
about half the coverage comes

from big media conglomerates,

and only around 6% is government-owned.

And what's really interesting

is how differently the left

and right-wing outlets
cover this same story.

Check this out, the left-leaning
West Hawaii today emphasizes

the human tragedy and loss,

aligning with a compassionate,
victim-centered focus

whilst the right-leaning
MY Northwest headline shifts

the blame to systematic
corporate decline,

reflecting a focus
on institutional failure

and national industry concerns,

rather than on the human costs.

Ground News also shows
how factual each source is,

and lets you filter by the ones you trust,

which is great for stories
as complex as this one.

So if you are tired
of sensational headlines,

you should check out ground.news/mentour

or scan this QR code
to get 40% off the normal price.

That's only $5 per month,

but the deal is only available

for a limited time, so hurry up.

Thank you, Ground News

for sponsoring this news roundup;

we really appreciate it.

Now let's get back to the story.

The next story that we had
in June was about something

that I think the vast majority

of commercial pilots has
some very strong views on.

This is the idea
of having commercial flights

with only one pilot
sitting in the cockpit,

and for several years now,

EASA, Europe's aviation regulator,

has been studying
this idea in detail to see

if such operations
could be performed safely.

Specifically, they have wanted

to see if such operation
could be performed

with the same level of safety

that we have today
using two pilots on board.

EASA identified two possible forms

that such operations could have.

One is called extended minimum
crew operations, or eMCO,

and the other single-pilot
operations, or SiPO.

In extended minimum crew ops,

there would still be
two pilots on board

who would both be in the cockpit

for critical phases of flight,

like take-off, climb,
descent and landing,

but in cruise, the pilots
would then take turns to rest,

leaving only
one pilot in the cockpit.

But with single pilot ops or SiPO,

we would really just
have one pilot on board,

possibly with ground assistance

or some other means necessary

to maintain the same levels of safety.

Now, I have done videos
before on this channel,

explaining how automation

and autonomy have been driving
this discussion for some time,

so I'm not going
to go into a lot of details

about these concepts here.

But the point here is
that an aircraft would need

to be equipped with the right avionics

and other technologies like
general artificial intelligence

in order to make this possible,

because one pilot
basically means no pilot.

Right now, if anything happens

to one of the two pilots
up in the flight deck,

the other pilot can safely

land the plane without a problem,

but that would still be considered
a full-blown emergency,

with air traffic control giving

the aircraft every assistance possible,

and that's because the aircraft

would be down to only
one essential component,

the remaining pilot.

But with just one pilot,

even if another pilot is resting
a few meters away,

an incapacitation, for example,

would mean that there
would be nobody in control,

and while a really
clever aircraft could detect

that something is wrong

and then maybe
wake up the other pilot,

we all know that when
you're awakened suddenly,

you need a few minutes
before you're fully up

and ready to get back into business,

and that's due to something
known as sleep inertia,

so that's no good.

Now Airbus in particular
has demonstrated several concepts

and technologies that they hope

will one day make
these operations a practical option.

The aircraft would have the ability

to detect an issue with the pilot,

then look at a possible diversion,

airports to check weather,
select a suitable alternate

and then set up for
an approach and ultimately land.

Again, I have looked at
this in a previous video,

and Ben and I have spent a lot of time

discussing this
in our new podcast,

Captains Speaking,

which I really hope that
you have already subscribed to.

In there, we really speak
our minds completely unscripted,

especially on subjects that
we have strong views on,

obviously like this one,
and it can become quite spicy.

Now you won't be that surprised

to hear that several pilot unions,

actually all pilot unions,

have rejected any kind
of single-pilot operations outright.

But the question is,

can such operations
really become a reality

whilst maintaining
the same level of safety

that we have now with two pilots?

Well, that's the question that EASA

has been trying to
answer in the past few years,

and their verdict
came late in June.

No, we can't.

In its report, EASA concluded

that with the current cockpit design,

taken as a reference,
and within the limits of the research,

it was identified
that an equivalent level

of safety between extended
minimum crew operations

and the current two-crew operations

cannot be sufficiently demonstrated.

EASA even identified the
areas in which it needs

to see more work done

before they could
even reconsider this,

and that included
pilot incapacitation monitoring,

fatigue and drowsiness,
sleep inertia, cross checks,

which we need two
people to perform today,

and sociological needs,

because that lonely
pilot up there will still be human

and therefore, need
to occasionally go to the toilet.

Frankly, in my opinion,
just because we went

from three people to two

when we replaced
the flight engineer

with the flight management computers,

that doesn't mean that we
can eliminate the redundancy

of a second competent
pilot in the cockpit,

and I am super happy
to hear that EASA

has officially realized that as well.

Now, there is a lot
more to say about this,

which is why we spent
so long talking about it

in our first ever podcast,
but I'll end it here

with two more points
that we want to make.

Firstly, we're talking here

about introducing
a lot of new technology,

the kind of technology
that would almost certainly require

an all-new aircraft type to be certified,

which is super expensive,

and all of that would
be to simply eliminate

the first officer salary,

who basically earns, in a week,

more or less as much as it costs

to change an aircraft tire.

Secondly, Ben pointed out

that we can't
actually train human pilots

to handle every conceivable
combination of problems.

We have to rely on them to be creative,

if something out
of the ordinary happens,

so how can we hope

to train autonomous
systems to do the same?

Food for thought.

Our next story contains
some disappointing

but not entirely unexpected
news for Boeing.

Despite the company's
progress in stabilizing

and accelerating
its aircraft production,

the acting head of
the FAA announced early in June

that the agency still will
not consider allowing Boeing

to make more than 38 737s
per month, at least not yet.

Now if you missed it,
the very unusual decision

to cap Boeing 737 MAX production came

in the aftermath of the
blowout of a door plug

on an Alaska Airlines
737 MAX 9 flight

in January of 2024,

which also triggered wide-ranging

management changes at Boeing.

But as I have covered before,

things at Boeing are now
looking much more encouraging.

It's been a year and a half
since that blowout happened,

and much has happened since then,

which their customers
are now also noticing.

First, Boeing went through
a strike last autumn,

and then they kept most of
their aircraft production

on hold for a month after the strike

in order to sort out their production

and get their house in order,

and that seems
to have really worked.

Even though Boeing has been limited

to making no more
than 38 737s per month,

they never actually came close

to reaching that number
in the months that followed.

That is until May this year,

and the original plan was
to get to a stable monthly rate

of 38 by the end of 2025,

so a little bit ahead of schedule.

Boeing would like then try

to reach 42 737s per month
sometime early next year,

which is still slower than
the rate that they had before

the 737 MAX was grounded in 2019.

But while the FAA notes that Boeing

has made a lot of improvements,

they're still not ready to
give them the full green light.

Right now, and for
the past several decades,

Boeing has been making 737s

in its Renton facility,
while Everett has been

where wide-bodied jets came together.

But among Boeing's
recent preparations

is a new 737 production line,

their fourth, utilizing the space
that was previously used

to build the mighty Boeing 747.

Now, there is a lot of work involved

in opening a new line like this,

but it can't go through
until the FAA allows Boeing

to make 737s faster, so that
is worth keeping an eye on,

because it will really be
vital for Boeing when it comes.

But before this,

there is also another
bit of news about Boeing.

As we are recording this,
the NTSB are getting ready

to publish their final report

on the doorplug blowout of
the 737 MAX 9 in January of 2024,

and they might
actually have released it

by the time that you see this.

But the NTSB has already
published an executive summary

of that final report, which includes

their findings, the probable cause,

and their safety recommendations.

Those showed a lot of criticism

towards Boeing's safety culture

when the aircraft was being assembled,

but they also target the
FAA for its ineffective oversight

of Boeing on issues that the
FAA should have been aware of.

But to be honest, that's things

that we largely already knew,

and I actually made a video
about that over a year ago.

Moving on, we have the Paris Air Show,

which my team and I
have been eagerly waiting for.

Now, as I said in the beginning,

it was completely overshadowed

by the Air India crash,
and Boeing's CEO,

as well as other executives,

actually cancelled
their presence at the show

as a mark of respect and to focus

their attention on the accident.

But even before the Air India disaster,

it was already known that Boeing

wouldn't be bringing any jets to the show,

because they are still busy
working on the certification

of the Boeing 777X
and the remaining MAX variants.

Now unsurprisingly,
a rumoured order

for narrow-body jets by Air India
at the show didn't happen,

but under the circumstances,

and given the
uncertainty around tariffs

and world trade in general,

the show still saw a respectable amount

of orders from both Boeing and Airbus.

Now when it comes to technology news,

the Paris Air Show
has given us a bit of a dilemma

when it comes to this news roundup,

because many of those
stories are actually things

that definitely requires their own
video here on Mentour Now.

But there are a few topics

that can keep you intrigued
until those videos come.

For example, Boeing asked
engine makers for information

on new engines for an all-new aircraft,

while Airbus and ATR
are making plans of their own.

Also, engine-makers
are floating a lot of ideas around,

and they're even doing
a bit of trash talking, which is…

interesting.

Finally, leaving the Paris Air Show

and on a slightly lighter note,

right at the end of May,
after our previous news roundup,

a family of raccoons invaded

an Airbus A220 assembly
line in Mirabel, Canada.

This probably wasn't one

of the most important aviation stories

in the past few weeks,
but after everything else

that we've seen,
including flight disruptions

from wars that I haven't
even had time to talk about,

I thought that the vision

of Airbus technicians
chasing raccoons

in an Airbus A220 fuselage

would be a good image to end on.

I hope you liked this video,
and please let me know

in the comments here below

if you saw something else
this month that you would

like to hear more about.

And when we're talking about news,

we have now curated
a special Mentour segment

with our sponsor, Ground News,

and you can check it out using

the link in the description.

Now, over on the Mentour Pilot channel,

we're laying the finishing touches

to our latest incident documentary,

and if you're a Patreon member,

it is already available
for you to preview right now.

So if you want to see it,

and you're not a Patreon
member already,

then use this QR code

or go to patreon.com/join/mentourpilot

to sign up.

My name is Petter Hörnfeldt,
and you're watching Mentour Now!

Have an absolutely fantastic day,

and I'll see you next time.

Bye-bye.