India’s Supreme Court cautioned the country’s air accident investigators and the aviation regulator that oversees them over their “irresponsible” handling of the crash of Air India Flight 171, the airline’s worst ever non-terror related accident. File Photo by Hanif Sindh/UP | License Photo
India’s aviation authorities received a stern rebuke from the country’s Supreme Court for suggesting that one of the pilots bore responsibility, through either blunder or intent, for the Air India disaster in June.
The court Monday issued notices to the Air Accident Investigation Bureau and Civil Aviation Directorate General, saying it was “irresponsible” for them to leak the suggestion that pilot error caused the crash, which killed all but one of the 242 passengers and crew and 19 people on the ground.
The case was brought by an aviation safety advocacy group, which is seeking an independent investigation, arguing there are conflict of interest concerns around three members of the AAIB panel investigating the crash because they are from the CADG, the regulator.
The Safety Matters Foundation also alleged that an electrical fault caused the crash, rather than the pilots.
The group is petitioning the court to order authorities to release the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s Flight Data Recorder, Cockpit Voice Recorder transcripts with synchronized timestamps and Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording information.
The AAIB’s July 11 preliminary report stated that fuel switches to both engines on Air India Flight 171 were moved to the “cutoff” position immediately before going down in a heavily populated area of the western city of Ahmedabad, shortly after lift off en route to London.
Investigators also released an audio snippet from the CVR in which one of the pilots is heard asking the other, “Why did he cut off” the fuel supply to the engines, to which the other pilot replies that he did not do so.
The switches were immediately returned to the “run” position, but the aircraft, which reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet, was unable to recover in time.
Prashant Bhushan, counsel for Safety Matters, told the court the government report resulted in everyone pointing the finger at the pilots.
“These were very experienced pilots, yet the story suggested that the pilot was suicidal and had switched the fuel switch.”
Calling the drip-feeding of the findings of the report “selective and piecemeal,” the court demanded the government respond before it ruled on the case.
The two-judge bench called the decision to put out into the public domain suggestions that the pilots purposely shut off the fuel supply “very unfortunate and irresponsible.”
“If tomorrow someone irresponsibly says pilot A or B was at fault, the family will suffer. What happens if the final inquiry report later finds no fault? they said.
Scheduling a full hearing for Oct. 11, the court said that the notices issued to the two agencies were aimed solely at making sure that the investigation into the disaster was impartial, independent and timely.
