logo
Roshomon effect: AAIB's prelim report teases some info, holds back key details, and opens scope for varying interpretations till final report is in

Roshomon effect: AAIB's prelim report teases some info, holds back key details, and opens scope for varying interpretations till final report is in

Indian Express16-07-2025
A preliminary investigation report into an aircraft accident is generally just that: an initial status report that details the circumstances of the crash and presents bare facts known in the early stage of the probe. This particular 15-page preliminary report on the AI 171 crash goes beyond the mandate by giving some additional details, but selectively. Without the proper context, necessary elaboration, and disclosure of related information, it has lent itself to a great deal of ambiguity by the way details have been worded. Unsurprisingly, there seem to be more questions than answers, and the level of speculation on the causes of the accident—which was expected to moderate after the report's release—has only gone several notches higher. As one expert put it: the report says a lot, but reveals little, and fuels confusion.
There has been no serious attempt on the part of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) before or after the report—uploaded on the AAIB website in the middle of the night—to clarify on genuine and technical questions being raised by experts and explain the evident gaps in information that the report contains. Ever since the crash occurred, official information on the investigation's progress has been scarce, leading to wild speculation on social media and even news media. The Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) has so far held just one briefing on the accident—on June 14, two days after the crash—where no questions were taken. Prior to the release of the official preliminary report, there were just a few press releases on the status of the probe, with no real information on the findings.
In the absence of a regular flow of official information, an information vacuum has been created, which is being filled by wild speculation, misinformation, and even fake news. Add to that an abstruse initial probe. All this is leading to a lot of conjecture and largely uninformed finger-pointing. The dead pilots, Air India, Boeing, GE; pick your target. All this stokes a kind of Rashomon effect — the same data and events being interpreted in multiple different ways, depending on who is reviewing it.
No time stamp
The one statement captured as a paraphrased exchange between the pilots has been presented without full context, in a paraphrased manner, and without timestamps does beg the question: was it relevant to put just this one line out, instead of the full transcript, which the investigators surely have in their possession? From the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data, the report states that one of the pilots asked the other why he cut off the fuel, to which the other pilot responded saying he did not. But what was said before and after that is conspicuous by its absence in the report.
What does this exchange point to? Was it a case of pilot action—inadvertent or deliberate? Or does it show confusion in the cockpit over how and why the fuel supply to engines was cut off? The selective use of this brief exchange has kept experts, industry watchers, and the public at large guessing, with many drawing whatever conclusion they deem fit; whatever they might want to believe.
The CVR is extremely sound-sensitive and generally picks up even the slightest amount of noise, like the drop of a pilot's pen to the cabin floor, even in the high-ambient-noise environment in the cockpit during take-off. So, it is highly probable that any manual fuel switch operation would have been recorded by the CVR, given that it's a spring-loaded switch that makes a distinct metallic click sound when it is pulled up and moved between its two modes—RUN and CUTOFF, multiple people aware of these operations have said.
Then, of course, there is use of the term 'transitioned' to describe the RUN to CUT OFF, which further adds to the ambiguity. The report nowhere states that the switches were physically moved. Yet, just the way it is written and structured, and the use of selective, cherry-picked information has many believing that it implicitly points a finger at the pilots, who are not here to defend themselves. There is also no time stamp mentioned on the brief exchange between the pilots quoted in the report. So, it is not clear at what stage of the 30-odd-second flight did that exchange actually take place, which is critical information required to piece together the chronology of events leading up to the worst aviation disaster involving an Indian airline in four decades.
The question then is: why not just release the full or more detailed parts of the CVR transcript? That could give a clear insight into the cockpit environment and the correspondence between the pilots before and after that brief, paraphrased exchange that has been left hanging in the preliminary report. In the initial report on the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX crash of 2019, Ethiopian authorities had released significant portions of the CVR information. This was the crash that triggered the global grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX jets at the time. If there is indeed any plausible reason for withholding a substantial part of the CVR transcript, then why just release a couple of paraphrased lines that add to the speculation?
The time difference of one second between the two fuel control switches changing modes—from RUN to CUTOFF—has also raised the question whether it could be done manually in such rapid succession by a pilot. This has led some pilots to believe that this is more indicative of a deeper issue with the electrical signals or the software that the Boeing 787 is heavily reliant on operationally. But the initial report is completely silent on the status of the investigation when it comes to the electrical and other systems of the aircraft.
Backend electronics and signals
With this silence and in the absence of more information from the CVR, there is now considerable speculation in certain quarters on whether the switches were indeed flicked by one of the pilots—inadvertently or otherwise—or whether the switch transition signal to the system was due to any technical, mechanical, or software issue. The report did not issue any recommendation to other operators of the Boeing 787-8 aircraft and its GE engines, suggesting that at this stage, the investigators do not have a reason to believe that there was any issue with the plane or its engines. Some experts have opined that the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR)—the black box—would most likely record the signal that the switches have transitioned, not the actual physical movement of the switches.
When the fuel control switch is moved, there are multiple micro switches that are triggered, which send signals to different aircraft systems by way of electrical signals. One of these would be the FADEC, or the Full Authority Digital Engine Control. Modern day aero-engines are invariably configured with a FADEC system that takes the input in terms of the thrust demand based on the current state of the engine and the flight conditions, controls the engine so as not to exceed any of the limiting parameters of the engine while at the same time providing the best response. Theoretically, an issue with the FADEC could lead to issues with engine performance. Given that the FADEC is a safety critical system, adequate redundancy is configured into the system to provide the necessary reliability and availability.
Some experts have also opined that the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) system, designed to detect and prevent risks associated with engine thrust malfunctions, should also be looked into. A glitch related to the TCMA, which works with the FADEC, could possibly lead to misreading of the aircraft's position and speed, and initiate thrust reduction without pilot intervention, they said.
Then there is the electrical wiring interconnect system (EWIS), which encompasses all the wires, cables, connectors and related parts that carry electrical power and signals throughout an aircraft. Modern planes like the Boeing 787 rely heavily on electrical systems for functions like avionics, lighting and flight controls. EWIS could potentially face various environmental factors like temperature changes and moisture, which can cause wear and tear over time, especially in older aircraft. Faulty wiring or electrical malfunctions can pose serious safety hazards. Boeing has a somewhat patchy record on this, given that there have been whistleblower allegations about wiring not being properly routed over sharp edges, which could potentially cause some sort of electrical arcing or short circuiting.
Then there are different spar valves, different fuel control valves, all of which make contact once a switch has moved into that RUN position. The final report is likely to look at all this. But the way the information has been documented throughout the preliminary report, there is no real discussion of any potential system faults, other than a vague reference to a 2018 non-mandatory Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about potential disengagement of the locking mechanism on the fuel control switches on certain Boeing aircraft models. But then the report itself goes on to suggest that the issue SAIB might not have a bearing as the ill-fated aircraft's thrust control module—which houses the fuel control switches among other instruments—were replaced in 2019 and 2023.
Aviation experts and commentators, in India as well as overseas, have been critical of the way India has handled information flow so far in the investigation, including the preliminary probe report. It is high time that the AAIB and the country's civil aviation establishment clarify what must be clarified, debunk misinformation, and open channels of regular flow of official information.
Sukalp Sharma is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express and writes on a host of subjects and sectors, notably energy and aviation. He has over 13 years of experience in journalism with a body of work spanning areas like politics, development, equity markets, corporates, trade, and economic policy. He considers himself an above-average photographer, which goes well with his love for travel. ... Read More
Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

AI171 crash: Probe pending in India, new US aviation regulator boss rules out fuel switch glitch
AI171 crash: Probe pending in India, new US aviation regulator boss rules out fuel switch glitch

First Post

time2 days ago

  • First Post

AI171 crash: Probe pending in India, new US aviation regulator boss rules out fuel switch glitch

Commenting on the devastating Air India plane crash, the new head of the US's Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), Bryan Bedford, dismissed the possibility of an inadvertent movement of the aircraft's fuel control switch. read more The wreckage of the Air India plane that crashed moments after taking off from the Ahmedabad airport, lies on a building, in Ahmedabad. Both switches feeding fuel to the two engines of Air India flight 171 were cut off followed before the plane crashed in Ahmedabad, seconds after taking off, the first investigation report into the crash has revealed. PTI As the investigation into the Air India 171 plane crash continues, the new head of the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ruled out mechanical issues as the cause behind the crash in Ahmedabad. The new FAA boss went on to suggest that the fuel control switches on the doomed AI 171 were manually moved, hinting at a pilot error. In a statement on the matter, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford dismissed the possibility of an inadvertent movement of the aircraft's fuel control switch. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We can say with a high level of confidence it doesn't appear to be a mechanical issue with the Boeing fuel control unit. We feel very comfortable that this isn't an issue with inadvertent manipulation of fuel control,' Reuters quoted FAA administrator Bryan Bedford as saying. Meanwhile, Indian authorities, who are currently investigating the matter, requested patience for the final report. They urged both the public and experts to refrain from drawing conclusions and did not comment on Bedford's recent remarks. The matter is still under investigation As per the preliminary report released by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner's fuel supply to engines had been cut off, causing it to crash. While it is not concluded what caused the fuel switches' position to change, soon after the report was released, Western media started alluding to a pilot error. In the report, it was also mentioned that the cockpit voice recording revealed that one pilot asked the other why he had moved the switches, to which the latter replied he hadn't. In light of this, several Western news outlets started speculating about the mental health of the pilots and started to report more about their personal lives. Amid the chaos, Boeing is maintaining a cautious stance on the matter. Reacting to Bedford's statement, Boeing said: 'We'll defer to the FAA for any comments on this.' According to Reuters, the FAA chief made the remarks while he was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of an air show in Wisconsin. In support of this assertion, Bedford cited an evaluation conducted by FAA employees who had 'taken the units out, tested them and had inspectors get on aircraft and review them'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD

Air India crash: How to spin-doctor and peddle narratives, the Western way
Air India crash: How to spin-doctor and peddle narratives, the Western way

First Post

time3 days ago

  • First Post

Air India crash: How to spin-doctor and peddle narratives, the Western way

Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore used to terrorise villainous Western media by suing them in his courts. They learned to toe the line read more There has been a virtual masterclass lately in the creation and dissemination of biased narratives. Not only in the case of the ill-fated Air India 171 (Boeing 787, June 12, 2025) that crashed, but also in some other, unrelated instances. The age-old practices of 'truth by repeated assertion' and 'dubious circular references' as well as 'strategic silence' have all been deployed in full force. The bottom line with the Air India flight: there is reasonable doubt about whether there was mechanical/software failure and/or sabotage or possible pilot error. Any or all of these caused both engines to turn off in flight. But the way the spin-doctors have spun it, it is now 'official' that the commanding pilot was suicidal and turned off the fuel switch. Boeing, the plane maker, and General Electric, the engine maker, are blameless. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This is, alas, not surprising. It is in the interests of Western MNCs to limit reputational damage and monetary loss related to their products. They do massive marketing by unleashing their PR agencies. We also saw how they protect themselves in other instances. A leaked Pfizer contract for their Covid vaccine insisted that if anything happened, it was the user's problem, not Pfizer's: there was no indemnity. Incidentally, a report on July 19 said that the Pfizer Covid vaccine can lead to severe vision problems. Oh, sorry, no indemnity. What is deplorable in the Air India case is that the AAIB, the Indian entity investigating the disaster, chose to release a half-baked preliminary report with enough ambiguity that a case could be (and definitely was) built up against the poor dead pilots. Any marketing person could have read the report and told them that it would be used to blame the pilots and absolve the manufacturers. Besides, the AAIB report was released late night on a Friday, India time, which meant that the Western media had all of one working day to do the spin-doctoring, which they did with remarkable gusto. Meanwhile, the Indian media slept. Whose decision was this? Clearly, Indian babus need a remedial course in public relations if this was mere incompetence. Of course, if it was intentional, that would be even worse. There is a pattern. In earlier air accidents, such as the Jeju Air crash involving a Boeing 737-800 in South Korea in December, the pilots were blamed. In accidents involving Lion Air (Boeing 737 Max 8, 2018), China Airlines (737-200, 1989), Flydubai (737-800, 2016), ditto. I am beginning to believe that a lot of Asian pilots are poorly trained and/or suicidal. Ditto with the F-35 that fell into the ocean off Japan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Truth by repeated assertion is a powerful force for gaslighting the gullible. I wonder what excuses we'll hear about the Delta Airlines Boeing 767 whose engine caught fire in the air after take-off from LAX on July 20. The pilots didn't die, so they will speak up. Besides, they were Westerners. I am eagerly awaiting the spin on this. I also noticed with grim amusement how the BBC, WSJ, Bloomberg, and Reuters, and so on were busy quoting each other to validate their assertions. This is a standard tactic that India's 'distorians' (see Utpal Kumar's powerful book Eminent Distorians) have perfected: B will quote third-hand hearsay from A, then C will quote B, D will quote C, and before you know it, the hearsay has become the truth. But if you wind it back from D to C to B to A it becomes, 'I hear someone told someone that xyz happened.' Out of thin air, then. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There is also the lovely tactic of strategic silence. It has been used to un-person people who ask inconvenient questions. It has also been used to defenestrate inconvenient news. Just days ago, under the Deep State-installed new regime in Syria, hundreds of minority Druze were brutally massacred. There was video on X of armed men in uniform forcing Druze men to jump off tall buildings, and desecrating their shrines. Similarly, there is a brutal reign of terror, rape, murder, and thuggery against Hindus, Buddhists, and others under the Deep State-blessed regime of Mohammed Yunus in Bangladesh: a clear genocide. Neither Syria nor Bangladesh gets any headlines. There are no loud human-rights protests as in the case of Gaza. This is not news. It is un-news. 'Manufacturing Consent' all the way. India is particularly vulnerable to this gaslighting because Indians consume a lot of English-language 'news.' Scholars have long noted how the US public has been maintained in a state of ignorance so they could be easily manipulated. The same is true of the Indian middle class. So, there is yet another reason to do less in English. Fooling, say, the Chinese or Japanese public is a lot more difficult. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The fact is that even though Indians may be literate in English, they do not understand the context and the subtext of what is fed to them by the likes of The Economist, NPR, The Financial Times, The New York Times, etc. The best way I can explain this is the 100+5 analogy in the Mahabharata: they may fight with each other on domestic matters, but Anglosphere and Deep State are in cahoots when it comes to international matters. Things are both getting better and getting worse. On the one hand, social media and its imprint on generative AI mean that it is ever easier to propagate fake news (in addition to deepfake audio and video, of course). On the other hand, despite the problem of charlatans and paid agents provocateurs getting lots of eyeballs, the large number of Indians on social media may push back against the worst kinds of blood libel against India and Indians, of which there's plenty these days, often created by bots from 'friendly' countries. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This is a serious matter indeed. One solution is to do a version of the Great Chinese Firewall and ban wholesale the worst offenders. Indeed, a few of the vilest handles have been ejected from X. However, the pusillanimity with which notorious Pakistani handles were unbanned, then re-banned after outrage, shows there's something rotten in the Information Ministry. Almost exactly the same as the unbanning of Pakistani cricketers, then rebanning after outrage. Is there anybody in charge? Information warfare is insidious. Going back to the Air India case, I think the families of the maligned pilots should sue for gigantic sums for libel and defamation. The sad state of the Indian judiciary may mean that, unfortunately, this will not go far. However, there is precedent: Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore used to terrorise villainous Western media by suing them in his courts. They learned to toe the line. If this tactic does not work, India should eject the hostile media. The Indian market is increasingly important to Western media (not vice versa) because soon there will be more English-reading consumers in India than in the Five Eyes Anglosphere. I should say that in quotes because as I said above, most Indians are blissfully unaware of the hidden agendas, and naively believe them. But 'Judeo-Christian' culture is very different from dharmic. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD I keep getting emails from The New York Times with tempting offers to subscribe to them for something really cheap like Rs. 25 a month. They need Indian readers. I have been shouting from the rooftops for years that one of these charlatan media houses needs to be kicked out, harshly, with 24 hours' notice to wind up and leave. As in the Asian proverb, 'Kill the chicken to scare the monkeys.' The monkeys will notice, and behave. Otherwise, the information warfare is just going to get worse. The writer has been a conservative columnist for over 25 years. His academic interest is innovation. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

'Serious' safety violations: DGCA issues 4 show cause notices to Air India
'Serious' safety violations: DGCA issues 4 show cause notices to Air India

Business Standard

time3 days ago

  • Business Standard

'Serious' safety violations: DGCA issues 4 show cause notices to Air India

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on Wednesday (July 23) issued four show-cause notices to Air India over repeated violations of cabin crew deployment, training lapses, rest regulations, and operational oversight that compromise flight safety. The regulator has held multiple senior executives accountable, and asked the airline to explain why enforcement action should not be initiated. The DGCA has given the airline 14-15 days to respond. The regulator will proceed with enforcement action based on available evidence if Air India fails to reply to the notices. The enforcement action comes weeks after the AI171 crash in Ahmedabad on June 12, wherein 260 people were killed. One of the notices was based on Air India's voluntary disclosure dated June 20, which revealed that the airline operated four ultra long-range flights in April and May, with fewer cabin crew members than the regulatory minimum of 15. On flights AI126 and AI188 on April 27, only 12 and 14 crew members were deployed, respectively. On April 28, AI190 had 14 crew, and on May 2, AI126 flew with only 12. These flights violated rules the deal with crew's fatigue risk management. The DGCA held the airline's Director of Cabin Safety responsible for these. 'Such non-compliance represents a serious breach and raises concerns about the safety management and operational oversight,' the DGCA stated in the first notice. A second notice, based on a disclosure dated June 21, flagged three separate violations involving cabin crew operating flights without valid competency cards. One crew member flew on April 10 and 11 despite a lapsed certification, while another served on multiple flights between February and May under similar conditions, and a third operated a flight on December 1, 2024, after deploying an emergency slide, which disqualifies them from flying without undergoing a requalification process. The regulator held the Chief of Safety and Training Management accountable. When asked about these notices, Air India spokesperson said, "We acknowledge receipt of these notices related to certain voluntary disclosures that were made over the last one year. We will respond to the said notices within the stipulated period. We remain committed to the safety of our crew and passengers." The third notice from the DGCA listed 19 instances of training-related lapses involving pilots. These included a 114-day gap between simulator training and a release check, premature release of pilots before completing required sessions, and multiple violations of night operations clearance. The Director of Training was called out for failing to ensure compliance with training oversight mechanisms. The fourth notice related to three instances of crew duty and weekly rest requirements, reported by the airline itself on June 20. Two of the breaches occurred on June 24, 2024, and one on June 13, 2025. These were found to contravene regulation that governs crew fatigue and scheduling. 'Despite repeated warning and enforcement action of non-compliance in the past, systemic issues related to compliance monitoring, crew planning, and training governance (remain) unresolved,' the fourth notice mentioned. The Director of Flight Operations, Pankul Mathur, was held responsible.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store