Air India Flight 171 crash investigation: Disturbing, unanswered questions

On June 12, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed seconds after departing Ahmedabad for London Gatwick, claiming 260 lives. The preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) attributes the disaster to pilot error, specifically the fuel control switches being moved to “CUTOFF” post-takeoff. Scepticism from families, experts, and pilot unions has cast doubt on these findings, demanding a deeper investigation.

Dismissing wild conspiracy theories, let’s probe whether the report might shield Boeing to protect its global market. With the pilots dead, fairness remains a critical issue.

The tragedy has gripped India, sparking debates on aviation safety. Social media platforms like X reflect public outrage, with calls for answers growing louder. The investigation’s outcome could shape trust in air travel for years.

Doubts about the investigation’s findings

The AAIB report’s claim of pilot error lacks clarity on who moved the fuel switches or why. Cockpit voice recordings reveal one pilot questioning, “Why did you cut off?” while the other denies responsibility, yet unidentified voices and an unreleased transcript fuel doubts. Retired Air Marshal Sanjeev Kapoor has called the report “incomplete”, urging a thorough technical probe.

A 2018 FAA advisory highlighted issues with fuel switch locking mechanisms on Boeing 737s, similar to those in the 787-8. Air India did not inspect these switches, as it was not mandatory, raising questions about mechanical defects. Aviation expert Marco Chan suggests a chip malfunction could have triggered the cutoff, a possibility the report barely addresses.

The report’s focus on human error overlooks potential software glitches in the Boeing 787’s complex electrical systems. Such systems, critical to the Dreamliner’s operation, have faced scrutiny in past incidents. The AAIB’s silence on this aspect frustrates experts seeking a balanced inquiry.

Aviation analyst Terry Tozer finds the idea of accidental switch movement “absolutely bizarre.” Fuel switches have mechanical locks to prevent unintended operation. This anomaly suggests deeper issues that the investigation must explore.

Did Boeing influence the probe?

Boeing’s involvement in the investigation, standard for aircraft manufacturers, has sparked concerns about bias. The preliminary report makes no recommendations for Boeing or GE Aerospace, despite past fuel switch concerns, leading to questions about market-driven influences. Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi has suggested the focus on pilot error might deflect blame from Boeing.

The report’s leak to Western media, such as The Wall Street Journal, before India’s official release, has intensified suspicions. While no concrete evidence proves Boeing influenced the AAIB, the absence of scrutiny on the manufacturer’s design fuels mistrust. The Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPA) demands inclusion as observers to ensure impartiality.

Boeing’s global market dominance adds weight to these concerns. A finding against the 787-8 could impact airline contracts worldwide. The lack of recommended actions for Boeing raises eyebrows among industry watchers.

The 2018 FAA bulletin on fuel switches, though advisory, points to a history of design concerns. Air India’s decision not to act on it highlights regulatory gaps. This oversight demands scrutiny in the ongoing investigation.

Fairness for the deceased pilots

The pilots, who perished in the crash, cannot defend themselves against accusations of error, raising fairness concerns. Cockpit recordings indicate confusion, not deliberate action, yet the lack of a full transcript or cockpit video leaves critical gaps. Both pilots passed pre-flight breathalyser tests, with no medical issues noted, making the rush to blame them troubling.

ALPA India and the Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association have called the accusations “deeply insensitive.” They note the pilots attempted to relight the engines, but the low altitude offered no time. The absence of cockpit video recorders, which could clarify actions, underscores the investigation’s limitations.

The pilots’ training records show no prior issues, adding to the controversy. Blaming them without conclusive evidence risks tarnishing their legacy. Families of the crew have joined calls for a fairer probe.

The lack of cockpit video, standard in some modern aircraft, highlights a technological gap. Such footage could have shown whether the switches were physically moved. This absence complicates efforts to ascertain the truth.

Public and expert reactions

Public reaction on platforms like X has been intense, with users demanding the full cockpit voice transcript. Posts highlight frustration over the report’s perceived bias towards pilot error. Families of victims have shared heartfelt pleas for transparency, amplifying the call for answers.

Experts like Marco Chan argue that the investigation must prioritise mechanical analysis. The 787-8’s reliance on electrical systems warrants deeper scrutiny, they say. Sanjeev Kapoor has urged international collaboration to ensure impartiality.

Indian pilots’ unions have organised press conferences to voice their concerns. They argue the investigation’s tone undermines the aviation community’s trust. Their push for observer status reflects a broader demand for accountability.

The media’s role in shaping perceptions has also come under scrutiny. Leaks to Western outlets have fuelled speculation of external pressures. A transparent final report is critical to restoring public confidence.

The Air India Flight 171 crash investigation remains mired in credible doubts, from unexplored mechanical issues to concerns about Boeing’s influence. The focus on pilot error, without conclusive evidence, feels premature, especially with the pilots unable to respond. The AAIB must prioritise transparency to honour the 260 victims.

The final report, expected within a year, should address these gaps rigorously. Including pilot unions and investigating probable aircraft defects are essential steps. Only a fact-based probe can ensure such a tragedy never recurs.