AAIB Preliminary Report: Within the wee hours of Saturday, July 12, the Plane Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) quietly launched its preliminary findings into the tragic crash of Air India Flight AI-171 in Ahmedabad.
Whereas the 15-page doc met the 30-day worldwide reporting mandate, it did little to assuage rising unease inside aviation circles.
The deadly June 12 crash of the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner killed all 241 passengers and crew on board, together with 19 folks on the bottom, inflicting a complete of 260 casualties. Opposite to earlier reviews suggesting that the flight knowledge and cockpit voice recorders (CVR) had been despatched abroad for evaluation, investigators confirmed that the black field knowledge was at present being examined in New Delhi.
AAIB preliminary report findings
The AAIB’s findings revealed that each engine gasoline management switches moved from the ‘RUN’ to the ‘CUTOFF’ place inside a second of one another, simply moments after takeoff. The consequence was a catastrophic twin engine shutdown. Though an automated engine relight was initiated, it proved too late to avert catastrophe.
On the centre of the report lay a chilling fragment of cockpit voice recording. One pilot was heard asking: “Why did you narrow the gasoline?” To which the opposite responded: “I didn’t.”
Additionally Learn:Air India Crash: Gasoline cutoff moments after take-off, cockpit confusion, ignored FAA warning—11 key takeaways from AAIB preliminary report
The report neither recognized the audio system nor supplied additional context, leaving room for widespread hypothesis. Nevertheless, aviation specialists urged warning, warning towards drawing conclusions from an remoted alternate, particularly with out the entire CVR transcript or flight knowledge evaluation.
FAA Advisory Ignored: A warning that went unheeded?
One of many key revelations within the preliminary report was the reference to a 2018 FAA Particular Airworthiness Info Bulletin (SAIB)—No. NM-18-33—issued on December 17, 2018. This bulletin flagged considerations concerning the locking mechanism of engine gasoline management switches throughout a number of Boeing plane.
The SAIB famous that some operators had reported that the gasoline switches could possibly be moved with out lifting them—suggesting a degradation within the locking function. Whereas the FAA concluded the difficulty was “not an unsafe situation” requiring a proper Airworthiness Directive (AD), it nonetheless suggested airways to hold out checks.
The switches in query—half quantity 4TL837-3D—had been additionally put in on the B787-8 plane mannequin, together with the ill-fated VT-ANB operated by Air India.
Additionally Learn:Air India Aircraft Crash: ‘We can not say something particular at this level,’ says Minister Murlidhar Mohol on AAIB’s preliminary report
Based on the AAIB, Air India didn’t perform the advisable inspections, citing the advisory nature of the SAIB. Upkeep data confirmed that the throttle management module was changed on VT-ANB in 2019 and 2023, although neither change was linked to the gasoline management swap mechanism. The report additionally confirmed that no defects associated to the gasoline management swap had been reported on the plane since 2023.
Additionally Learn:Air India Aircraft Crash | ‘Every little thing went fallacious’: From configuration error to overloading, specialists decode theories behind India’s worst aviation disaster in many years
FAA’s Ignored Advisory: Non-mandatory, but crucial?
Veteran IAF pilot Captain Ehsan Khalid believed the airline couldn’t be faulted. “FAA Advisory of 2018 was not adopted up by Boeing, GE, or Honeywell for seven years. No upkeep practices had been issued to make this swap safer. So far as Boeing and GE are involved, the gasoline switches had been already as secure as they could possibly be,” he advised Zeebiz.com
Differing Views: Preventive motion might have been taken
However others disagreed. Aviation skilled Vipul Saxena identified that the swap design was almost an identical throughout Boeing plane and stated that ought to have been sufficient for Air India to take preventive steps. “For the reason that swap design is frequent throughout Boeing plane, Air India ought to have carried out no less than some checks to rule out attainable failure.”
Aviation skilled Sanjay Lazar famous that the advisory might not have been obligatory however was actually not meaningless. “If the swap could be moved with out lifting, it implies that the locking function is disengaged and wishes instant alternative.”
Lazar additionally cited a Might 2, 2022, FAA Necessities Bulletin issued after a Boeing advisory which warned of International Object Injury (FOD) dangers. Based on the FAA, FOD might result in uncommanded engine gasoline shutoff or failure of fireside handles, posing critical security hazards.
He additional recalled a 2013 ANA incident in Japan, the place a Dreamliner skilled a floor energy loss attributable to a gasoline shut-off, later traced to a defective engine sensor: “The ANA 787 misplaced energy on the bottom attributable to gasoline shut-off, on January 16, 2013, at Takamatsu Airport in Japan. The investigation discovered a defective engine management sensor as the foundation trigger.”
Was It a Pilot error or system malfunction? ‘Too Early to Conclude’
Amid rising hypothesis, the Plane Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) report stopped in need of assigning blame. Nevertheless, a single line quoted from the cockpit voice recorder with none context sparked debates round pilot error. Aviation specialists cautioned towards leaping to conclusions.
“Quoting a dialog with out context or time can provide deceptive conclusions,” stated Khalid. Lazar echoed the identical concern: “They’ve simply pulled out one sentence from the CVR and never shared its knowledge, when they need to have shared all the readout. Sadly that single sentence has led to a variety of hypothesis.”
However, Saxena supplied technical studying of the incident. In his view, the switches had been operated in response to {an electrical} malfunction, not mistakenly by the crew.
“It appears like gasoline hunger triggered by {an electrical} malfunction. The pilot probably believed the opposite had shut off the gasoline. When denied, he instinctively recycled the swap to reignite. It was the proper response, however there simply wasn’t sufficient time.”
He added that whereas the switches themselves had been mechanical and required deliberate motion, the programs beneath them might have failed. “These are mechanical switches with locks; they don’t transfer on their very own. However the electrical programs beneath might malfunction and set off a warning mild.”
No house for pilots to defend themselves?
All three specialists raised considerations over transparency, particularly given the timing and construction of the preliminary report, which was quietly printed at evening and lacked a date or signature.
“Lifeless pilots don’t have trillions of {dollars} at stake. In the event that they had been responsible, the complete CVR transcript and FDR knowledge would’ve been splashed throughout media with a press convention,” stated Khalid. “Lifeless pilots don’t have any affect to get preliminary report launched in useless of the evening and that too a report which isn’t dated and never signed,” he added.
Saxena questioned the depth of the investigation, stating that the report has been scripted in such a approach that it almost factors to pilot error as the explanation for the disaster. He famous that the report itself says, “Ahead EAFR (Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder) knowledge is being analysed,” which implies that investigation in actual depth is but to be carried out.
Rising hypothesis over transparency
There was additionally disagreement on how clear such investigations must be. Khalid supported involving pilot associations like ALPA-India within the course of. “Sure. Pilots must be represented within the bigger curiosity of Flight Security.”
Saxena, nonetheless, argued for a extra cautious method. “Investigations shouldn’t be public, however conclusions should be backed by proof—which this report lacks.”
With the ultimate AAIB report anticipated in a 12 months, specialists agreed on one factor: dashing to conclusions dangers doing extra hurt than good. “It’s untimely in charge anybody. But this report leans towards blaming the pilots and letting Boeing and GE off the hook—with out adequate proof,” Saxena stated.
