Air India 171 crash: Why prematurely blaming pilots is reckless and unethical

First Post

3 days ago

The tail of the Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane that crashed is seen stuck on a building after the incident in Ahmedabad, on June 12, 2025. Reuters
Allegations of human error are 'deeply insensitive,' says the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association (ICPA) after the preliminary report on Air India flight 171 crash was released. In an official statement, the ICPA called the accusations and allegations against the pilots and flight crew a 'gross violation' and 'disservice to the profession'. 'In the aftermath of this incident, we are deeply disturbed by speculative narratives emerging in sections of the media and public discourse—particularly the reckless and unfounded insinuation of pilot suicide,' said ICPA.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'Let us be unequivocally clear: there is absolutely no basis for such a claim at this stage, and invoking such a serious allegation based on incomplete or preliminary information is not only irresponsible, it is deeply insensitive to the individuals and families involved,' it added further. Any mention of pilot error or suicide 'in the absence of verified evidence is a gross violation of ethical reporting and a disservice to the dignity of the profession'. The Association also sought to know how such sensitive investigative details were leaked to a US-based newspaper a few days earlier.
The deadly accident on June 12 had claimed 260 lives, 241 on board and 19 on the ground at the crash site. The sole survivor was a 40-year-old British national named Vishwas Ramesh. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released its 15-page preliminary report on the Air India crash on Saturday, July 12. As per the report, the fuel to both engines was cut off shortly after takeoff. Based on the AAIB report, at about 08:08:42 UTC (1:38 pm, 42 seconds) and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cut-off switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec,' stated the report.
Experts say accidental movement of the switches is not quite possible. The spring-loaded switches have a stop-lock mechanism that requires the pilots to lift the switch up before moving it between either of its two positions, RUN and CUTOFF. 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut-off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so,' the report added further. 'No sane pilot would move the switches during the flight, and that too at such low altitude, unless there was a dual engine failure to be dealt with. The pilots and the former aircraft accident investigator concurred that during the critical takeoff phase of the flight, pilots would have no reason to keep their hands anywhere close to the fuel control switches.
The findings do not make clear how the fuel switches were flipped to the cut-off position during the flight, whether it was deliberate or accidental, or if a technical fault was responsible. It's possible there was a problem with the fuel cut-off system. Unfortunately, the preliminary report has not released a full transcript of the conversation between the two pilots and does not give details of the Cockpit Video Recorder, because that could have clarified this issue.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Don't Jump to Conclusions
As per guidelines from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a United Nations agency that recommends practices for the industry, the investigators must submit a preliminary report within 30 days of an accident. The preliminary report has still left many open-ended positions. A full report is not due for months, and India's Civil Aviation Minister, Ram Mohan Naidu, said, 'Let's not jump to any conclusions at this stage.'
Commercial Interests of Aircraft Manufacturer
The Boeing 737 MAX passenger airliner was grounded worldwide between March 2019 and December 2020, and again during January 2024, after 346 people died in two similar crashes in less than five months: Lion Air Flight 610 on October 29, 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, 2019. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initially affirmed the MAX's continued airworthiness, claiming to have insufficient evidence of accident similarities. But by March 13, the FAA followed behind 51 concerned regulators in deciding to ground the aircraft. All 387 aircraft delivered to airlines were grounded by March 18.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner had been in service since 2011 without a fatal crash. More than 1,100 Dreamliners are in use worldwide, carrying more than 875 million passengers over the last decade, according to Boeing. But the aircraft has had its troubles. The problems began in early 2013, when fires broke out aboard two Dreamliners. Both blazes were traced to overheating of the planes' lithium-ion batteries that power the electrical system. Subsequently, two whistleblowers, former employees, exposed the manufacturing practices of the company.
Boeing is a leading aircraft manufacturer in the world and is a major corporation in the US. The company would do anything to safeguard its design and manufacturing reputation. Will it be in a position to influence the outcome of the AAIB investigation? The question is being asked by some. A technical fault could mean the grounding of a very large fleet and would have commercial implications.
Western Media Bias towards Accident Investigation
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Indian social media is abuzz with netizens calling out Western media for 'biased' reporting on the Air India flight crash report. Many international outlets are focusing on and highlighting cockpit procedures undertaken by pilots and less on the technical cause of the crash. BBC's coverage sparked widespread backlash for its caption on a video report, 'Pilot cut off fuel to engine—no fault with plane'.
Popular YouTuber and former pilot Gaurav Taneja, 'Flying Beast', accused BBC of prematurely absolving Boeing. The framing suggested pilot error without acknowledging the full context of the AAIB's findings, including a 2018 FAA bulletin warning about potential malfunction of the fuel control switch locking mechanism. Writer and stand-up comedian Varun Grover also slammed the reportage and wrote, 'White man will always stand with the white man. Shame.' Senior journalist Barkha Dutt called the BBC's reporting 'scurrilous'. 'Why would you not consider a fuel switch malfunction given the documented FAA advisory?' she questioned on X.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Some in the West are quoting selective parts of the preliminary report to blame the pilots and implying that Boeing and engine manufacturers were not culpable. Metro UK went further, placing apparent blame on the crew with its headline, 'Air India plane crash investigation focuses on 'mistake' made by pilots.' Also there is mention that 'inspections were not carried out' and the 2018 FAA fuel control switch advisory (albeit not mandatory) was 'ignored by Air India'. It had flagged 'potential for disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature' in certain Boeing aircraft, including the 787-8. Air India has chosen to maintain silence. Prematurely blaming pilots could irreparably damage the airline's reputation. Serious allegations based on incomplete or preliminary information are not only irresponsible, they are also deeply insensitive to the individuals and families involved.
Human Error vs Aviation Automation
Statistically, human error causes more than half of all aviation accidents. The human could be the aircrew, aircraft or system designer, maintenance technician, air traffic and radar controller, or even some others closely involved in aviation. Human error could be because of lack of situational awareness, poor skills, overall experience, and health issues, among others. Habit interference when changing over from one aircraft to another, violation of existing orders and instructions, and supervisory inadequacy could also be the reasons. Crew Resource Management (CRM) is another area of human factors. Pilots are not superhuman beings. Pilot's actions do not take place in a vacuum. Human error could also be caused by organisational reasons.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The fuel shutoff switches are not wire-locked. They are locked mechanically in that they have to be lifted before operation. The actual locking is done electronically by the Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC) and/or Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA). It is all computer controlled. The TCMA controls the FADEC and can override the pilot's controls. It can even shut down the engine without the pilot knowing about it. On January 17, 2019, an ANA Boeing 787 Dreamliner suffered a simultaneous dual engine failure on landing at Osaka Itami (ITM). Boeing had earlier issued a bulletin addressing a problem with the TCMA system. Technology has overtaken the man on the machine.
The evidence in the Preliminary Report points to a possible malfunction in the TCMA/FADEC system whereby it shut down both engines just after takeoff. It was done even though the pilots' fuel control switches were in the RUN position. Investigators have confirmed that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a last-resort emergency power system, was deployed seconds after the ill-fated Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner lifted off. Was it before or after the fuel shutoff? Could there have been an all-electrical failure or all-electrical shutdown for some reason leading to the accident? How come the Emergency Locator Beacon has not worked? Can such a situation be duplicated on the ground?
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Such uncommanded engine shutoffs have happened in the past. But this is the first time it has happened at a critical time. Has automation gone too far? Were the pilots and the cockpit switches out of the loop in the final decision-making? Can automation shut down the engines WITHOUT the switches being physically moved from the RUN position? Should we take the pilot so much 'out of the loop'?
Why so much automation? Because in many accidents it came out that humans continued to be the weak link in the man-machine dynamics of aviation. Advances made in the design and reliability of avionics have reduced technical system failure. Although there has been a significant improvement in the training of the aircrew to prevent human error accidents, human error continued to be a leading factor in many fatal aircraft accidents. The entire design philosophy requires a revisit.
Accidents Related to Automation Failure
Cockpit automation systems, which were developed for the purpose of enhancing aviation safety and decreasing the workload of pilots, have increasingly become the cause of accidents. Air France Flight 447 (2009) from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Paris, France, resulting in the loss of 228 lives, involved a combination of automation issues and pilot responses. Inconsistent airspeed indications and miscommunication led to the pilots inadvertently stalling the Airbus A330. The pilots struggled to regain control after the autopilot disengaged due to icing, in part because their manual flying skills had degraded from over-reliance on automation.
The Boeing 737 MAX airliner was repeatedly grounded after 346 people died in two similar crashes in less than five months: Lion Air Flight 610 on October 29, 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, 2019. Boeing confirmed that the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) had been activated in both accidents. Engineering reviews uncovered other design problems, unrelated to MCAS, in the flight computers and cockpit displays. Even last year, on January 5, a 737 Max—Alaska Airlines Flight 1282—suffered a mid-flight blowout of a plug filling an unused emergency exit, causing rapid decompression of the aircraft.
To Summarise
An aircraft is an extremely sophisticated and complex machine. Flying is a very demanding field. The aircrew have to take a large number of sequential actions and operate many switches and systems. Unlike a surface vehicle, they cannot stop mid-air to review actions or seek external help from a mechanic. Take-off and landing remain very crucial, high demand phases of flight.
Aircraft automation, while desirable to relieve the aircrew of increased cockpit load, and improve safety, has its own attendant complexities. Will artificial Intelligence (AI) take over and dictate humanity is being asked. Should automation be limited to support and not total control? Should the aircrew have the final over-ride for every automation? Do aircrew need to enhance training in an automation denied environment? The answer is a loud 'Yes'.
It is presumed that the AAIB investigation will be free of all biases. That the large number of aircraft company representatives assisting the investigation would not try to water down technical issues and divert the blame on aircrew. Commercial considerations will not overtake technical flaws and flight safety deliberations. It will be unethical to push the blame on aircrew who are not here to defend themselves.
The writer is former Director General, Centre for Air Power Studies. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.