A former Pilot on Air India crash report: Foreign media are misleading the public. Wait for the final report
The people of India have a right to know the truth about what happened to Air India Flight 171. The anxiety and confusion among the public following the release of the preliminary report a few days ago are, therefore, understandable. However, it is equally important to remember that the Air India crash report is exactly what it claims to be: Preliminary. Its primary purpose is to establish what happened. The why and how will be addressed in the final report, which is typically released about a year after the incident. While the public's demand for answers is entirely justified, patience remains essential.
There is a rush in certain quarters to blame the pilots. Why should it come as a surprise that blame is already being directed at them? Within just two days of the crash, self-proclaimed aviation 'experts' flooded YouTube — some even donning captain's uniforms — offering detailed theories about the crash without any proximity to the site or access to verifiable information. Unsurprisingly, many of these theories centred on pilot error.
Yes, pilots — like doctors, engineers, or any other professional — are human beings and capable of mistakes. In this case, however, foreign media have jumped the gun. Some agencies have highlighted a section of the report that refers to an exchange between the pilots about the 'cut-off'. But this is a normal inquiry by a pilot in a situation where, during take-off, power fails to build, and there is insufficient thrust. Moreover, all pilots are trained that, in the event of a total engine failure, the correct procedure involves switching the engine off and attempting a restart. According to the report, the pilots attempted exactly that and almost succeeded. There was a relight on one engine. However, by that time, the aircraft was at too low an altitude, which led to it crashing into buildings. It was already too late.
The real question is: Why did both engines fail? The Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) should provide those answers. It is entirely possible for engines to fail without pilot intervention. Modern aircraft rely on computers to calculate fuel flow and engine performance. It is not impossible for the system to malfunction — perhaps due to incorrect fuel ratio calculations — leading to engine failure. These systems are built with safeguards, but like any complex software, they are not infallible. Remember the case of ANA Flight NH985 from Tokyo Haneda to Osaka Itami, which suffered dual engine failure upon landing? Western investigative agencies often default to blaming the pilots, and similar stories are likely to emerge in the coming weeks.
There is no doubt that the preliminary Air India crash report could have offered more clarity; for instance, it would have been helpful if the details from the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) had been made public. I have worked extensively with CVRs and DFDRs, and I know that while data retrieval is one task, proper interpretation is quite another. It takes a team of trained specialists to extract meaning: What time thrust was applied, whether the engine spooled up, how much fuel was injected — every detail can be examined. Interpretation, however, takes time. This is why we must be patient and allow the final Air India crash report to tell the full story. In the meantime, we must continue to ask the right questions.
Having worked with both Boeing and Airbus, including with their production test pilots, I can say with confidence that these professionals are deeply committed to safety. That said, no system is perfect. There is always scope for improvement — and yes, for error. But that's no reason to mislead the public. This is precisely why pilot federations are coming out strongly in defence of the crew, not simply out of solidarity, but because the facts are being selectively interpreted to sensationalise and unfairly suggest pilot error. One such federation is reportedly considering legal action against The Wall Street Journal for its coverage of the crash.
When I transitioned from the Air Force to civil aviation, I was shocked to discover that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had no aviators on its rolls. There may well be brilliant bureaucrats at the helm, but is it too much to ask for a single technical aviation expert? Similarly, there should be certified Boeing 787 pilots on the investigating team. This is one of the key things the Indian aviation ecosystem must urgently address — ensuring that technical expertise is not sidelined.
The writer is the founder of the Federation of Indian Pilots and a former Air Force and Air India pilot
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Air India crash report shows an institutional reform of AAIB and aviation ministry is in order
Firstly, this was the world's first major air crash involving a Boeing Dreamliner. Naturally, global attention was focused on the investigation into this accident and its findings. Interest in this investigation was high also because this accident involving a Boeing aircraft came after a few other accidents and malfunctioning reports involving Boeing planes, although of different types. Boeing was interested in the investigation report, perhaps more than anyone else, as passengers' perception and airlines' choice of its aircraft would have been influenced by the kind of responsibilities that the findings would have fixed on it. Make no mistake about the enormity of the accident that took place within half a minute of Air India 171 taking off from Ahmedabad and crashing into a hostel that housed medical students. This enormity arose not just because of the number of casualties. There were many other factors that perhaps were ignored by the authorities. Even as the country reels from the loss of 260 lives in the tragic crash of Air India's flight from Ahmedabad to London on June 12, there is a growing sense of unease over the way the investigation into the accident has been conducted. A quick assessment of recent developments would suggest that such unease and concern have been caused by the authorities' failure to anticipate the huge consequences and ramifications of this accident and take necessary steps in advance to ensure a competent handling of its investigation and management of the external environment. Secondly, this was the first time the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), a department under the Union ministry of civil aviation, conducted the investigation of a major air crash within India's shores. Earlier, the cockpit voice record and the flight data record would be sent abroad for retrieval and for eventually arriving at a conclusion. The AAIB had recently acquired domestic capacity to retrieve such records, which was an achievement. Yet, it should have recognised the need for exercising greater vigilance, at least for two reasons. This investigation was its first such exercise and, therefore, would have come under closer scrutiny by global stakeholders in the aviation sector. Equally important, even a remote suggestion that absolved either the aircraft manufacturer or the airline operating it, or the pilots commanding that ill-fated flight would have been inherently controversial. Thirdly, the crash of Air India 171 was the first such accident that took place after the airline was privatised in January 2022. Since the Tatas took over Air India, its services have been under watch. There were many incidents involving passenger misbehaviour during flights, which could have been handled more maturely and carefully. There were also reports of aircraft-related incidents, which raised questions about how well the planes had been maintained from a safety point of view. Even though Air India was no longer a state-owned enterprise, the responsibility of the civil aviation ministry was no less than before the ownership change. Finally, the accident took place in Ahmedabad, the capital city of Gujarat. The death of so many people in an aircraft crash in any part of the country would be mourned as a national tragedy. But Gujarat is also the state whose leading politicians are at the helm of the Union government in New Delhi. Indeed, one of the casualties of this accident was a former chief minister of Gujarat, Vijay Rupani. Home Minister Amit Shah visited Ahmedabad the same day of the crash and Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in the city the following day. Beyond the tragic loss of so many lives in the aircraft and on the ground, the political sensitivity of this accident could hardly be underestimated. Yet, the manner in which the AAIB has handled the investigation would seem to suggest that it was oblivious to the many ramifications of the four factors that made the Ahmedabad air crash uniquely significant. Going by reports, for instance, the composition of the AAIB committee left much to be desired. According to experts, the absence of a pilot knowledgeable about a Dreamliner, which is highly reliant on electronic systems, was quite jarring. Of course, the AAIB should be complimented for the time-bound manner in which it finalised the preliminary report within one month of the accident. But what was the need for releasing the report late in the evening on a Friday? Apart from meeting a deadline, it served no other purpose. On the contrary, it gave rise to needless speculation over what the report revealed, which the AAIB or the aviation ministry made no effort to scotch through an official briefing. The AAIB report was not even signed by any of the members who were part of the committee that investigated the crash and prepared the preliminary report. Some experts have also indicated that the preliminary report failed to capture critical segments of the conversation the two pilots had in the cockpit. Indeed, they have argued that interpreting the entire 40 minutes of the cockpit voice recorder or the flight data recorder would not have taken more than two hours. So, why wasn't that task undertaken to lend clarity to what really happened? Worse, sections of the foreign media seemed to have accessed some segments of the pilots' conversation to present a different perspective on why the aircraft crashed. In a competitive media environment, such reports have fuelled further speculation over the causes of the crash. To be sure, the AAIB has explained in its report that its objective is not to reach conclusions about the reasons of the crash, but to shed light on what happened during those crucial minutes before the plane went down. Both the AAIB and the National Transportation Safety Board of the US have described those media reports about the probable causes of the crash as premature and speculative, based on selective and unverified reporting. But incalculable damage has already been done to the morale of pilots in the industry and to the confidence of ordinary fliers in the country. Could the authorities have prevented such unfortunate developments in the wake of the report on the aircraft crash? Perhaps the civil aviation ministry could have recognised the enormity of this crash and prepared the AAIB and its investigating team for its sensitivities. Perhaps senior retired pilots with experience in flying such state-of-the-art aircraft like the Dreamliner could have been inducted into the investigation committee or their expert views obtained before finalising the report. Perhaps, the ministry and the AAIB could have held more frequent and even informal media interactions to explain the intricacies and dimensions of the accident. Keeping them under wraps and promising to reveal them in the final report after a year was not a good idea. An institutional reform of the AAIB and even the ministry is in order. Undertaking such reforms can be easier if the ministry takes the primary step of filling nearly half the technical posts in its regulatory arm, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. India is not short of technical people or pilots. Having more of these experts on these bodies would only improve their efficacy and enhance their ability to handle such emergency tasks of conducting investigations into an aircraft crash. And there should be no compromise on making communication faster and more effective. AK Bhattacharya is the Editorial Director, Business Standard. He tweets @AshokAkaybee. Views are personal.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Air India Flight AI 315 safe after auxiliary power unit fire at Delhi Airport
Advt An Air India A321 plane's auxiliary power unit caught fire after landing at the Delhi airport on Tuesday afternoon, and all passengers and crew members are safe."Flight AI 315, operating from Hong Kong to Delhi on 22 July 2025, experienced an auxiliary power unit (APU) fire shortly after it had landed and parked at the gate. The incident occurred while passengers had begun disembarking, and the APU was automatically shut down as per system design," an airline spokesperson said in a spokesperson said there was some damage to the aircraft, while passengers and crew members disembarked normally and are safe. "The aircraft has been grounded for further investigations and the regulator has been duly notified," the spokesperson added.>
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Air India says no issues in locking mechanism of fuel control switches in Boeing fleet
NEW DELHI (AP) — Air India said Tuesday that preliminary inspections found no issues in the locking mechanism of fuel control switches for select Boeing aircrafts. The announcement followed a preliminary investigation into last month's Air India plane crash that the switches shifted and flipped within seconds, starving both engines of fuel. Air India operates a fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners for long-distance operations, while subsidiary and low-cost unit Air India Express operates the Boeing 737 jets for short-haul flights. The airline inspected its entire fleet of both types of aircraft. 'In the inspections, no issues were found with the said locking mechanism,' the airline's statement said. The investigation by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau into the London-bound plane that crashed in the northwestern city of Ahmedabad on June 12, killing 260 people, is centered around the fuel control switches on the Boeing 787 jetliner. One person survived the crash. Last week, India's aviation regulator ordered all airlines operating several Boeing models to examine fuel control switches and submit their findings to the regulator by July 21. Air India has 33 Dreamliners in its fleet, and Air India Express operates 75 Boeing 737 jets. In the past few weeks, the airline has faced disruptions in services amid heightened scrutiny and additional safety inspections, leading to flight delays, cancellations and growing passenger anxiety. On Monday, an Air India Airbus 320 flight veered off the runway as it landed during heavy rainfall at Mumbai International Airport, partially damaging the underside of one of the plane's engines and leading to a temporary runway closure. The flight had flown from Kochi in the southern state of Kerala. The airline said in a statement that all passengers and crew members disembarked safely and the aircraft was grounded for checks. In another incident, an Air India flight from Hong Kong had a fire in its auxiliary power unit Tuesday while passengers were exiting the aircraft after it landed in New Delhi. 'The auxiliary power unit was automatically shut down as per system design. There was some damage to the aircraft, however, passengers and crew members disembarked normally, and are safe,' the airline said. Its statement added the aircraft was grounded for investigation and the aviation safety regulator notified. Indian conglomerate Tata Sons took over Air India in 2022, returning the debt-saddled national carrier to private ownership after decades of government control. The $2.4 billion deal was seen as the government's effort to sell off a loss-making, state-run businesses. It also was in some ways a homecoming for Air India, which was launched by the Tata family in 1932. Since the takeover, Air India has ordered hundreds of new planes worth more than $70 billion, redesigned its branding and livery and absorbed smaller airlines that Tata held stakes in. The company additionally has committed millions of dollars to digital overhauls of aircrafts and refurbishing interiors of more than five dozen legacy planes.
