Air India Crash: We're All Terrified Of Flying Now, Thanks To Conspiracy Theories

NDTV

5 days ago

The investigation into the tragic crash of Air India flight AI 171 last month has become a subject of intense speculation, memes and long posts on social media. It has also quickly eroded public trust in the investigator as well as the process of investigation. This is a sad state of affairs and also a bit scary, since erosion of trust has triggered apprehensions among the travelling public about air travel. I know of many erstwhile frequent fliers, who thought nothing before taking a flight for work or leisure, now hesitating before making the next flight booking. Some have been barred from flying by families, others remain confused over which aircraft type to fly and whether to risk a long-haul flight, weighing the option of postponing the flight altogether.
Took a flight today and the panic post Air India is real
- My neighbour was like what's the smoke when they initially spray the disinfectant (I think)
- People were extremely attentive to the instructions sitting at the exit door
- The air hostess had to literally explain why…
— Kirtan A Shah, CFP® (@KirtanShahCFP) June 20, 2025
Speculation Abounds
A million theories of what went wrong had already been circulated when the buzz reached a crescendo last week, after the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report. In a poorly worded and somewhat verbose report, the AAIB indicated that the cockpit crew could be responsible for the tragic accident, while seemingly absolving the aircraft manufacturer and other stakeholders.
Two specific words or phrases in the report are telling. One, the use of the word "transitioned" in reference to fuel cutoff switches. Second, the report has quoted a part of the conversation between the two pilots, in which one is heard asking the other whether he "cut off".
The report says the aircraft "achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec". What does "transitioned" mean? Were they moved, or did the switches malfunction? Unless the AAIB was prepared to go further and clarify this, either way, what was the crying need to even mention the 'transitioning' of fuel switches in a preliminary report?
The Cost Of Dilly-Dallying
As per ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) guidelines, a preliminary report of any accident should ideally be released within 30 days, and the investigator is expected to share "critical initial facts" to enable immediate safety actions globally. The 30-day deadline is meant to compel investigators to prioritise the collection and reporting of readily available, verified factual and circumstantial information, rather than waiting for exhaustive analysis. Obviously, then, the deadline is not meant to encourage speculation, which the AAIB seems to have encouraged, knowingly or unknowingly, by using vague terms like fuel switch transition.
Besides, experts have pointed out that while the ICAO norms encourage a preliminary report within 30 days, the AAIB charter has no such requirement, and in at least one previous air crash, the AAIB did not release any preliminary report at all. So, the agency actually had the option of not going through the paces and releasing anything at all. That it chose to do so on the 30th day, past midnight, points to myriad pressures on the investigating team. The Western media thereafter made matters worse by speculating further on pilot suicide theories, quoting unnamed sources.
Then, the second word or phrase which stands out in the preliminary report is the mention of a part of the conversation in the cockpit. The AAIB has chosen to reveal that one pilot asked the other about why he "cut off," and the latter replied he did not. Without spelling out which pilot posed the question and which one answered, a Pandora's box has been opened. Not only does providing just a sentence of the conversation in the cockpit fail to give the full picture of what transpired, but there is no clarity on what the pilots were actually talking about.
Questions With No Answers
Was this conversation about fuel cutoff or something else? If it was about fuel cutoff, which pilot posed the question? AAIB has itself said that it recovered two hours of audio from the flight data recorders. The words "cut off" could have referred to anything - engine, instruments, etc, not necessarily fuel switches.
What the preliminary report has also done is this: it has provided a virtual clean chit to Boeing & Co. The report says that at this stage of the investigation, "there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers".
No one wants to fly Air India anymore. For years, people tolerated bad service, delays, rats and broken TV systems etc, but now it's about existential threat to life.
Brand is badly damaged. Tata took it easy and focused on bells & whistles changes instead of improving customer…
— Rajesh Sawhney 🇮🇳 (@rajeshsawhney) June 15, 2025
Again, a mere preliminary report need not have been in such undue haste to absolve either Boeing or any other stakeholder of negligence or faults. The report should have stuck to facts. It should have given out the sequence of events; details of the number of crew involved and their experience (without identifying them); number of casualties and number of injured; and the fact that both aircraft engines flamed out. Nothing else was needed in the preliminary report.
Flaws are emerging even in the constitution of the probe team. Until recently, no senior pilot had been included in the team, since only Air India has a fleet of Dreamliners, and the AAIB probably wanted to avoid allegations of any bias. Then, despite more than a month having elapsed, the AAIB has not found the time to launch an appeal for the public to depose with any evidence about the crash.
The Buzz In Parliament
As the buzz about the crash and the AAIB's insinuations gets louder, Union Civil Aviation Minister Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu has had to assert in Parliament that the AAIB is unbiased and has been conducting a probe based on rules and regulations. His comments follow an appeal by the AAIB itself, urging the media and the public to refrain from "spreading premature narratives that risk undermining the integrity of the investigative process".
There are really only two options now to mend the situation: either AAIB release further details of the cockpit conversation and reasons for the crash, or it follow the dictum of 'Mum's the Word' and carry out further investigation out of public glare. Rebuilding public trust in the probe - and Indian aviation- itself is the need of the hour.