Air India crash report: Pilots' grouping ALPA seeks fair, fact-based probe into AI plane crash
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its preliminary report into the fatal Boeing 787-8 plane crash on June 12 that killed 260 people.
The report has found that the fuel supply to both engines of Air India flight AI171 was cut off within a second of each other, causing confusion in the cockpit and the airplane plummeting back to ground almost immediately after taking off.
The 15-page report says that in the cockpit voice recording, one unidentified pilot asked the other why he had cut off the fuel, which the other denied.
"The tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias towards pilot error... ALPA India categorically rejects this presumption and insists on a fair, fact-based inquiry," Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA) said in a statement.
The association has also demanded that its representatives should be observers in the investigation process to ensure transparency and accountability.
ALPA Indiais a member associate of the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Association (IFALPA).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
8 hours ago
- NDTV
Air India Crash Report Raises Questions, Has No Answers: Global Pilots' Body
The preliminary report into the probe of an Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad last month raises several questions but does not provide any answers, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has said. The global body for pilots also said that any extrapolation of the content of the interim report can only be regarded as guesswork and may hamper the course of investigation. It said it is committed to support the efforts of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) and that the families of the victims deserve "our collective professionalism" as the entire investigation is conducted. The statement, on Monday, came days after the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Sunday released its preliminary probe report that indicated a possible fuel switch as the reason behind the June 12 crash that was one of the deadliest in recent times. The report sparked criticisms and a massive debate over the actions of the pilots, besides raising serious concerns. "As a reminder, a Preliminary Report is merely the means of communication used for the prompt dissemination of data obtained during the early stages of the investigation and only contains factual information and an indication of the progress of the investigation. In accordance with the provisions of ICAO Annex 13, such Reports are published within thirty days of the occurrence," the statement said. "Whilst this preliminary Report by its very nature raises many questions, it does not provide answers, and any extrapolation of its content can only be regarded as guesswork, which is not helpful to the good conduct of the investigation. IFALPA also notes that the Report clearly states that no safety recommendations are being provided at this stage," it added. The association urged all parties to refrain from speculation, allow the investigation to run its full and proper course, and avoid drawing conclusions from the preliminary report. London-bound AI 171 crashed into the residential quarters of BJ Medical College doctors in Meghaninagar area, seconds after taking off from Ahmedabad airport, before going up in flames. Only one of the 242 passengers and crew members onboard survived the accident. The remaining victims were from those in the college and around the premises. Nine students and their relatives from the institute were among those who were killed in the accident on the ground. In its first investigation report, the AAIB said both switches feeding fuel to the two engines of London-bound Air India flight 171 were cut off followed by pilot confusion, before the aircraft crashed seconds after taking off on June 12. It said that one pilot asked why he had shut off the fuel, and the other responded he didn't do it. "The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec," the report said. As per the report, the engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off. "In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so," it said. In the report of the fatal accident, AAIB also said fuel samples taken from bowsers and tanks used to refuel the aircraft were tested at the Directorate General of Civil Aviation laboratory and were found satisfactory. On Sunday, several experts, including AAIB chief Aurobindo Handa, said it will be too premature to draw conclusions on the role of pilots from the preliminary investigation report. Earlier on NDTV, Captain Mohan Ranganathan, one of India's leading aviation experts and an ex-instructor of Boeing 737, made a stunning claim that the crash may have been the result of deliberate human action because the fuel switches can only be moved "manually". Former pilots and aviation experts have, however, strongly opposed this view.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
8 hours ago
- First Post
Air India 171 crash: Why prematurely blaming pilots is reckless and unethical
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.
Mint
9 hours ago
- Mint
AI171 Preliminary Report: Pilots' bodies call for ‘factual' probe, caution against ‘hasty conclusions'. What they say…
The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has cautioned against 'extrapolation, speculation and drawing of conclusions', from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India's Preliminary Report regarding the Air India flight 171 crash. In a statement, the body said it 'cautions against hasty conclusions', reminding that a Preliminary Report is data from the early stages of probe, containing factual information and an indication of the progress of the investigation. '…such Reports are published within 30 days of the occurrence. Whilst this preliminary Report by its very nature raises many questions, it does not provide answers, and any extrapolation of its content can only be regarded as guesswork, which is not helpful to the good conduct of the investigation,' it noted. The IFALPA also referred to the Report itself, which states that no safety recommendations are being provided at this stage and urged all parties to 'refrain from speculation, allow the investigation to run its full and proper course, and avoid drawing conclusions from preliminary information'. 'The victims, including the families of the crew and passengers of Air India 171, deserve our collective professionalism while the full investigation is conducted,' it added. This comes a day after the Indian Pilots Guild, an association of Air India pilots, on July 14 slammed the wording of the preliminary report on Boeing 787-8 plane crash on June 12, saying that the crew of AI171 deserves a thorough, 'fact-driven investigation' and not conjecture or sensationalism, according to a PTI report. In a communication to its members, the managing committee of Air India wide-body aircraft pilots also said that the report that 'omits vital technical explanations and cockpit voice transcripts' opens the door to 'unnecessary' speculation and misinformed narratives in the media. AAIB in its preliminary report on the crash that killed 260 people on June 12 said the fuel switches to the engines were cut off within a gap of 1 second immediately after takeoff and caused confusion in the cockpit of Tata Group-run Air India flight AI 171. Citing cockpit voice recording, the 15-page preliminary report, released on Saturday, said one pilot asked why the switch was cut off and the other pilot responded that he did not do so. 'The Indian Pilots Guild (IPG) expresses deep concern over the preliminary report released on the tragic loss of our flight AI171,' the IPG said. Stating that it acknowledges the 'complexities' of ongoing investigations, the pilots' body said, 'We find the current report incomplete in critical areas-specifically the unexplained dual engine shutdown and absence of detailed cockpit communication.' Prior to this, in a significant move, two other pilots' bodies, Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA) and Airline Pilots Association of India (ALPA-India), also objected to the report. The Preliminary Report is available on the AAIB on its website. ICPA is the narrow-body pilot grouping at Air India while ALPA-India is a member associate of International Federation of Airline Pilots (IFALPA), which claims to have 1 lakh pilots as its members from across 100 countries. Such omissions, according to the pilot's body, not only erode public trust but also 'risk unjustly' undermining the professionalism and conduct of the flight crew involved. 'Let us be clear: premature conclusions based on half-verified data are irresponsible. They harm reputations, delay real safety lessons, and distract from the pursuit of truth… Aviation safety depends on transparency and accuracy-not assumptions,' it said.
