Western Media Blaming Pilots For Air India Crash Justifies, Sadly, What Gul Panag Told NDTV 10 Days Ago
Ten days ago, actor and hobby pilot Gul Panag expressed concern that the pilots of the ill-fated Air India flight AI171 might be unfairly blamed for the crash, which took place on June 12.
Her fear, shared in an interview with NDTV's Managing Editor Shiv Aroor, now appears to be coming true as several Western media outlets have begun pointing fingers at the pilots, despite an incomplete investigation and a preliminary report that is 'still' under review.
What Happened On June 12?
On June 12, 2025, an Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner travelling from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick crashed shortly after take-off.
The flight was carrying 242 people - 230 passengers, 10 crew members and 2 pilots. Only one person, the passenger seated in 11A, survived the crash. A total of 260 people, including 19 on the ground, lost their lives.
What The Preliminary Report Said
According to the 15-page preliminary report released by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), both engines failed seconds after the aircraft reached a speed of 180 knots.
The Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches moved from "RUN" to "CUTOFF" within a second of each other, shutting off fuel supply to the engines.
Though the engines showed brief signs of recovery, they failed to stabilise. The aircraft lost altitude quickly and crashed into a densely populated area just beyond the airport's boundary wall.
The Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup device deployed in case of total power loss, activated automatically, confirming that the aircraft had lost all engine and electrical power. The AAIB also ruled out a bird strike, citing no recorded bird activity during the takeoff.
Inspections, drone footage and component isolations are currently underway, and both engines have been moved to a secure hangar for further examination.
Western Media Blames Pilots (No Suprises There)
Despite the technical nature of the AAIB's findings and the absence of definitive conclusions, several international media outlets, including BBC, Reuters, The Guardian and Daily Mail among others, picked selective portions of the report and suggested pilot error.
The Western media have published reports highlighting the movement of the fuel switches to the "CUTOFF" position, subtly implying that the pilots may have been responsible.
BBC reported that cockpit fuel switches were turned off during takeoff, a step meant only for emergency landings. It mentioned recorded cockpit confusion, with one pilot asking the other why the fuel had been switched off. The report does not confirm who gave the command or why the switches moved.
The Guardian also pointed to the switches being turned off moments after takeoff, while omitting to mention that the AAIB has not confirmed whether it was due to pilot error or a technical malfunction.
The Internet believes this selective interpretation of the preliminary report could be an attempt to "deflect blame" from Boeing, which is under global scrutiny for issues related to its commercial aircraft.
Gul Panag Saw It Coming
In her interview with NDTV, Gul Panag, who holds a Private Pilot's License since 2016, voiced her concerns about premature blame being pinned on pilots in aviation disasters.
"The sad thing is, till the more is revealed, I suspect, and tragically so... The gut instinct says that it will eventually come down to or it will be made to look like pilot error and that's what every pilot fears because they are not there to defend themselves," she said, adding, "I hope it's not that. Every single incident that we have had in recent times is unfortunately put down as that."
Referencing the Boeing 737 Max crashes, Panag added: "In the case of the 737 Max, other facts revealed themselves later. But the initial report just puts it out like, 'This could have been handled better', even if there were failures and could be attributed to other things, there will be a pilot error aspect as a contributing factor."
She also highlighted that pilot training covers emergency procedures, such as engine failure, extensively. "Engine failure and take-off are memory items and how to address that is also something that is drilled into your head from the time you go to flying school," she explained. "Whether engines failed or they didn't fail, all of that will be revealed once the final report is out," she added.
Discussing the mayday call made by the pilot, Panag said, "It demonstrates complete and total coherence. He hadn't given into panic. All of the people I'm in touch with by virtue of belonging to the aviation ecosystem, that's a very critical thing."
Panag, whose husband Rishi Attari is also a pilot, added: "Given how advanced the machines are today, it is the only variable because the machine flies itself... If you step back and look back, the human element is the only variable in the bigger picture. So, we'll have to wait till the results come out."
A Deja Vu Moment
The Air India flight had 242 people onboard - 230 passengers, 10 cabin crew and two pilots: Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kundar.
Only one passenger, seated in 11A, survived. The crash killed 260 people in total, including those on the ground. The final report is still awaited.
Until then, Gul Panag's prediction that pilots may be blamed before the facts are clear, now feels like a chilling deja vu.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
AI171 crash: Boeing 787 had similar fuel switch issue in 2019, says expert
The preliminary report on the Air India Flight 171 crash, released by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), has brought fresh scrutiny on the Boeing 787's fuel system. The report highlighted a critical issue: The fuel switch on the aircraft transitioned from 'Run' to 'Cutoff' shortly before the crash, though it was recovered in the 'Run' position from the Ahmedabad crash site. However, this is not the first time a Boeing 787 Dreamliner has experienced such an issue. A similar case of unintended fuel switch transition was reported in a previous incident involving the same aircraft model. Not the first time Boeing 787 experienced such a failure: US expert In an exclusive comment to Financial Express, US aviation expert Mary Schiavo pointed out that this is not the first time such a failure has occurred on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. She cited a 2019 incident involving an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight in Japan, where the fuel switch transitioned on its own, without any pilot input, while the aircraft was on final approach. Software glitch caused ANA engine failure Schiavo told Financial Express that an investigation into the ANA incident revealed a software glitch had led to the transition of the fuel switch. The software issue caused the aircraft to mistakenly interpret that it was on the ground, prompting the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) system to shut off fuel to the engines, even though the pilots had not activated the fuel cut-off themselves. The ANA flight, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner flying from Tokyo to Osaka with 109 passengers and nine crew members, experienced a dual engine flameout after the pilot deployed the thrust reversers for landing. The aircraft had to be towed from the runway, but no injuries were reported. Cockpit conversation casts doubt on AI171 pilot error theory The AAIB report also paraphrased a critical exchange between Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder. One of the pilots asked why the other had cut off fuel supply to the engine, and the response was that he had not. Moments later, a Mayday call was issued, and AI171 crashed into a hostel for medical students just 15 seconds later. Mary Schiavo rejected suggestions that the crash was caused by pilot error, suicide, or sabotage. Speaking to Financial Express, she said there was no indication of intentional action by the crew and emphasised the need for a thorough analysis of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). She added that releasing the full CVR transcript would help prevent misinterpretation based on paraphrased excerpts. Both engines of AI171 failed, leaving pilots with no chance of recovery Schiavo told Financial Express that while the Boeing 787 is designed to operate on a single engine, the AI171 crash was more severe, as both engines reportedly lost fuel supply at the same time. This simultaneous failure left the pilots with neither the altitude nor the time required to attempt an engine restart or recover sufficient thrust to keep the aircraft airborne. When asked why the second engine could not be restarted and why the RAM Air Turbine (RAT) failed to provide enough lift or control, Schiavo explained that the window between engine deceleration and impact was extremely narrow. According to her, the aircraft began losing altitude even before it cleared the airport perimeter wall. She pointed out that in-flight engine restarts can take several seconds, some requiring a diving manoeuvre — and the crew simply did not have that kind of time. AI171 went down less than two minutes after it was cleared for take-off. Explaining the RAT's limited capacity, Schiavo said it is intended only to power essential systems like hydraulics and provide minimal electrical support, just enough to steer the aircraft. Boeing 787 software flaw must be investigated, says expert Schiavo urged investigators to examine known issues with the Throttle Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) software in Boeing 787 aircraft, reported Financial Express. She pointed out that similar incidents have occurred in the past and that many 787s are of a similar vintage. A key question, she said, is whether the AI171 aircraft had been inspected for those specific software flaws. No action recommended against Boeing, yet Despite the concerns, the AAIB report stated 'no recommended actions' for Boeing or its 787-8 Dreamliner aircraft. It said that no directives had been issued for the aircraft, engine operators, or manufacturers at this stage of the investigation.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Pre-Crash Tech Snag On AI-171, Capable of Causing Fuel Cutoff Signal, Under Scanner: Report
AI-171 crash initial report mentioned brief exchange between pilots regarding fuel control switch turning to "cutoff". Officials are probing if tech snag could have triggered it. As the initial report on the Air India-171 crash drew criticism, the investigators are probing whether the Stabilizer Position Transducer malfunction – detected and dealt with hours before the crash – led to multiple sensor failure which possibly triggered 'un-commanded" actions in the aircraft, according to a report. Hours before the Ahmedabad to London Gatwick flight took off on June 12, a pilot flying the same plane from Delhi to Ahmedabad noted in the technical log a 'Stabilizer Position Transducer Defect', an official told The Indian Express. The Stabilizer Position Transducer is a sensor that helps control the airplane's pitch — the up and down movement of the nose. It sends electrical signals to the flight control system to ensure that the aircraft responds correctly to the pilot's commands. The official said that the malfunction was checked, and the engineer did the troubleshooting according to Boeing's procedures. 'The malfunction is a critical issue as it can trigger incorrect responses in flight control, including unintended fuel cut-off signal," the official said, adding that the Stabilizer Position Transducer malfunction did not cause this crash, 'but the question is whether it led to multiple sensor failure". The flight had crashed seconds after takeoff on June 12, killing 241 people on board. The initial report published by the AAIB suggested the dual-engine shutdown as the cause of the crash, as per which, the fuel control switch was moved from 'Run' to 'Cutoff' position within a span of one second. The 'Run' position was reinstated by the pilots; however, the aircraft crashed seconds later. More to follow… view comments First Published: July 17, 2025, 08:44 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
'Assigning blame before ...' : Pilots' body raises red flag over Air India 171 crash report; calls it 'premature'
Air India 171 crash NEW DELHI: The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) on Wednesday raised serious concerns over the preliminary findings and public commentary surrounding the crash of Air India Flight AI171, which went down in Ahmedabad shortly after takeoff en route to London. In an official statement, the FIP said, "We register our dissatisfaction with the exclusion of pilot representatives from the investigation process. We also firmly object to how the preliminary report has been interpreted and presented publicly." The federation criticised the report for lacking comprehensive data and relying heavily on "selectively paraphrased cockpit voice recordings" that appear to imply pilot error and question the competence of the flight crew. "This approach is neither objective nor complete," the FIP said, urging members and the public not to draw conclusions prematurely. "Assigning blame before a thorough, transparent, and data-driven investigation is both premature and irresponsible. Such speculative commentary undermines the professionalism of highly trained crew members and causes undue distress to their families and colleagues," the statement added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cardiologists Recommend: Eat 1 Teaspoon Tonight – Wake Up With a Flatter Stomach Hollywood News | USA Click Here Undo The 15-page preliminary report, released a month after the crash, outlines initial findings from the accident that claimed 240 lives out of the 241 people on board. The London-bound Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crashed into a medical hostel complex shortly after takeoff. According to the report, the incident involved mid-air engine shutdowns, cockpit confusion, and failed recovery attempts just seconds into the flight. However, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) stressed that key parts of the investigation -- including wreckage analysis, post-mortem reports, and component inspections, are still under way. At this stage, the AAIB has not issued any safety recommendations for Boeing 787-8 aircraft or its GE GEnx-1B engines. Air India stated it is cooperating fully with investigators. Boeing also said it will defer to the AAIB for updates, in line with international aviation protocols under ICAO's Annex 13.
