Dead pilots or corporate fat cat? Who's to blame for Air India crash? The answer is blowin' in the wind

First Post

2 days ago

Blaming dead pilots is the easiest thing to do for corporate fat cats, so that they may avoid pesky questions, regulatory scrutiny and evade being dragged to court for compensation. That shouldn't deter the media from free and fair inquiry read more
Following the devastating plane crash on June 12 in Ahmedabad, which killed 242 people on board and 19 on the ground, the Western media's early attempt to give a clean chit to Boeing and point fingers at the deceased pilots is entirely along expected lines. Representational Image: File photo
Mandatory declaration: I am not an aviation expert, not a pilot, nor do I have any domain expertise on airplane crash reports. However, I hope as a free citizen in a democracy, I am allowed to hold an opinion. And it is my considered opinion that the Air India crash report is being deliberately misinterpreted to shift the onus on the pilots who died on the job when data is scant, the report preliminary and the airplane manufacturer in question has a long and dubious history of putting profit before safety, quality, and of blaming the pilots for its own failures.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
What concerns me most, and I hope all right-thinking citizens, is the propensity to jump to conclusions. Aeroplane crash investigations are immeasurably complex, scrupulous, time-consuming and involve multiple stakeholders, sometimes across several nations. What has been published by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is a primary study that is mandatory within 30 days of the incident in accord with international aviation rules.
It is done to give early data on a serious crash so that glaring or critical mistakes in aviation can be avoided, and focuses chiefly on the operational details, initial findings, impact information and sequence of events based on evidence available at this stage, which isn't much except the key details of the accident that occurred on June 12 when Air India's Flight AI-171, bound for London, collapsed almost immediately after takeoff. The Boeing 787 aircraft lost altitude and collided into the dormitory of a medical college, killing all 242 people on board (except one miraculous escape of a passenger) and 19 people on the ground.
While the report indicates loss of engine thrust as a probable cause and focuses on the movement of the aircraft's fuel control switches, there is little beyond basic information including some data from cockpit voice recorder, initial analysis and a factual summary. The report does not assign blame and does not arrive at any sort of conclusion. The full investigation report can take anything between 12 to 18 months to be ready.
Drawing on this alone, it is disconcerting to see a deliberate attempt by western media outlets to apportion the blame on human error and make the pilots – who have more than 18000 hours of flying experience between them – the scapegoats for the tragedy.
To absolve Boeing, the aeroplane manufacturer, or GE, the makers of the engine, of any mechanical failures based on tentative analysis, preliminary evidence and insufficient data, and to imply that the pilot(s) committed murder/suicide is preposterous.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The deceased pilots, who gave their lives in service of the passengers, cannot defend themselves. They can't give an account of their actions in those chilling few seconds before impending death. What we can decipher from the flight data recorder is a fragmented conversation between the two pilots, where one is heard asking the other why did he turn off the switches that provide fuel to the aircraft's twin engines, to which the other pilot replies firmly that he did not do so.
Given the pilot's denial, and until the full investigation concludes, we cannot know for certain what really happened inside the cockpit. Was it a human error, an act of commission or omission, a software glitch involving the aircraft's electronic system or a catastrophic mechanical failure?
While scrutiny has been on the switches regulating fuel to both engines that reportedly entered 'cutoff position' early into the flight leading to twin engine failure, Boeing's locking mechanism for the switches, that are toggled to provide or deny fuel to the engines, has been under previous scanner for reported malfunction.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner switches have an inbuilt locking system to prevent accidental activation, and there have been reports that model 737 variant's 'switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged' (or in other words the fail-safe mechanism, in certain cases, has glitched). This led the US federal aviation authority, the FAA, to issue a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB NM‑18‑33) in December 2018 relating to the switches that are identical across various Boeing models. The models were not recalled or redesigned, however.
The released by the Indian government specifically refers to the US FAA bulletin on the locking mechanism of the fuel control switches, and states that 'the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models including part number 4TL837-3D which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB. As per the information from Air India, the suggested inspections were not carried out as the SAIB was advisory and not mandatory.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In light of this information, a slanted western media narrative stressing on 'crew action' not only injures the memory of the pilots and calls into question their professionalism without any basis, it may also be interpreted as a scurrilous attempt to give an early clean chit to an American conglomerate that has deep pockets, wide economic footprint, wields considerable influence within the US political, regulatory and government ecosystem, shapes global discourse and public perception through its massive PR power, and has a history of deflecting blame to evade responsibility.
It can be asked why the US FAA, in light of the known issue with Boeing's switches, did not issue an 'unsafe condition' notification 'that would warrant airworthiness directive (AD) action under Title14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 39' and force Boeing to take remedial actions across fleets?
The answer is discomfiting.
In the murky world of spending money for influence and government decision-making, Boeing 'spent $275 million on lobbying since 1998 and $15.1 million in 2018, a slight decrease from previous years,' according to data from a 2022 Quartz report. It added that the company 'spent more on lobbying in the last Congressional session than any other company in the defense aerospace industry, ahead of global aerospace defence companies Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The fear is that a symbiotic relationship between the American giant – the largest US exporter and a top defence contractor – and major American media outlets will set the narrative of possible pilot error in a way that Boeing (or even GE) will be under no pressure for their possible role in one of the world's worst aviation disasters and won't be held accountable for the loss of lives.
Speculation in western media, amplified by Indian media that as VS Naipual once observed has developed no independent reporting tradition, has been centred on the theory that one of the pilots moved the fuel control switches manually from 'run' to 'cutoff' position after takeoff, leading to a catastrophic twin engine failure.
I found it interesting, given the fact that American investigators have been aiding the Indian government's probe into the crash, that Wall Street Journal came out with a 'leak' of the report even before it was released in India.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The WSJ report declares, quoting unnamed US officials, that the 'investigation into last month's Air India crash is focusing on the actions of the jet's pilots and doesn't so far point to a problem with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.' The report goes on to add that 'switches controlling fuel flow to the jet's two engines were turned off' and that 'it was unclear whether the move was accidental or intentional, or whether there was an attempt to turn them back on.'
It is evident how the report establishes pilot behaviour as the prime motivation for the crash, immediately clearing Boeing or GE of all culpability. Moreover, the WSJ report draws inferences that are absent in the AAIB report initiated by India's ministry of civil aviation.
The report also mentions that it is unclear whether the pilots attempted to turn the switches on. Whereas the AAIB report clearly states: 'As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN.' And that is how the switch position was found amid the wreckage.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The BBC was more direct. Its report on YouTube carried the headline (subsequently modified) 'pilot cut off fuel to engines – no fault with plane'.
In a report published on its website BBC.com, the British taxpayer-funded outlet quotes a western aviation expert to push the suicide/murder theory. It cites Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the US's NTSB, as saying, 'The finding is very disturbing - that a pilot has shut off the fuel switch within seconds of flying… The new details suggest someone in the cockpit shut those valves. The question is, who, and why? Both switches were turned off and then restarted within seconds'.
The AAIB report does not point to pilot action as the definitive cause for the fuel cutoff. It certainly does not state that one of the pilots tried to switch off the engine. In fact, since both the switches were subsequently turned back to 'ON' position, it is evident that they were attempting to restart the engines (evidence of this is shared by the crash report). While one engine showed signs of restarting, the other didn't and there wasn't enough time for the aircraft to gain 'thrust'. These details are inconsistent with the suicide/murder theory.
Footage of the accident clearly shows the nose of the aeroplane pointing up as it crashed, indicating a desperate attempt to keep it airborne or, at least, manage the landing. It further disproves the suicide theory. If anything, the actions of the pilots are consistent with emergency procedures in the event of a calamitous mechanical/electronic failure.
To the extent there was 'confusion' in the cockpit, it could be also due to an unexpected software glitch that led to an equipment malfunction. Since we already know that in some Boeing models the 'fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged' (refer to the FAA bulletin), such an eventuality cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.
The pilots are heard discussing the issue in the final moments, with one of them firmly denying that he did not cut off the fuel. While the Indian government report carries no clarification on how it may have happened, both pilots appear to be surprised, going by the limited information we have at this stage.
According to M. Matheswaran, retired Air Marshal of the IAF, former deputy chief of the integrated defence staff and also a senior test pilot, 'going by the data in preliminary report and pilots' reactions, it is most likely a failure in the FADEC/TCMA system (Full Authority Digital Engine Control). This should be considered a critical design flaw. Boeing should be held accountable for the loss of lives. The fleet, across the world, should be grounded and major rectification/redesign undertaken. But that will not happen, as commercial interests will override integrity.'
Going by the data in preliminary report and pilots' reactions, it is most likely a failure in the FADEC/TCMA system. This should be considered a critical design flaw. Boeing should be held accountable for the loss of lives. The fleet, across the world, should be grounded and… — Matheswaran (@Warranem) July 13, 2025
To quote veteran pilot Sharath Panicker's reaction to news agency PTI, 'the fuel control switches were discovered in the run position. There's no reason for any pilot to move those switches during the critical phase of flight. At that point, both pilots would have been fully engaged, hands on controls, focused on stabilising the aircraft. The switches would typically only be moved after an engine failure above 400 feet, once the aircraft is stable. Based on the current information, I don't believe this was a deliberate act by the pilot…'
While the US FAA and Boeing have reiterated that fuel switch locks are 'safe' it is worth noting Boeing's 787 Dreamliner's recent performance.
According to media reports, 'a United Airlines flight en route from Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey to Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi was compelled to perform an emergency landing on July 7, 2025, after a significant mechanical fault occurred mid-flight. The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, operating under flight number UA82, safely returned to Newark around 11:15 p.m. after departing at 9:30 p.m. Passengers and crew disembarked without incident, showcasing the airline's rapid response to inflight technical challenges.'
The fault, according to the report, was 'identified via automated maintenance systems, pertained to the electronics cooling system, specifically the EE cooling system that safeguards critical avionics and electronics equipment by maintaining conducive operating temperatures.'
Interesting, right?
Similarly, in March 2024, 'United Airlines (UA) Flight UA830, a Boeing 777-300ER, was forced to return to Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport (SYD) after takeoff due to a suspected hydraulic system failure. That aircraft, bound for San Francisco International Airport (SFO), declared an emergency minutes into the flight and safely landed back in Sydney (SYD).'
Note also an incident that occurred in 2019 in Osaka, Japan, when 'an ANA All Nippon Airways Boeing 787-8, registration JA825A performing flight NH-985 from Tokyo Haneda to Osaka Itami (Japan) with 109 passengers and 9 crew, landed on Itami's runway 32L, touched down, the crew deployed the thrust reversers when both engines (Trent 1000) rolled back and shut down.'
The Aviation Herald report states that 'the aircraft rolled out without further incident, came to a stop about 2450 meters/8030 feet down the runway and was disabled. The aircraft was towed off the runway about 40 minutes after landing… The airline is investigating the cause of both engines shutting down unexpectedly.' Note the 'unexpected shutdown of engines'.
Blaming dead pilots is the easiest thing to do for corporate fat cats, so that they may avoid pesky questions, regulatory scrutiny and evade being dragged to court for compensation. That shouldn't deter the media from free and fair inquiry. A mechanical or design flaw is as much a possibility, perhaps more given the circumstances, as human action. The victims of the crash deserve a fair probe.
The writer is Deputy Executive Editor, Firstpost. He tweets as @sreemoytalukdar. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.