The furious dispute over what caused Air India flight 171 to crash
The Furious Dispute Over the Cause of Air India Flight 171's Crash
The furious dispute over what caused - Exactly a year prior, Air India flight 171 plummeted less than a minute after departing Ahmedabad airport, located in the western Indian state of Gujarat, bound for London. The disaster claimed the lives of 260 individuals, including 19 on the ground. The official inquiry launched in its aftermath has ignited heated debate, both within India and internationally, with critics alleging potential biases due to conflicts of interest.
On 12 June of the previous year, a hot and arid afternoon, the aircraft left Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Airport with 230 passengers onboard, 53 of whom were British nationals. The cabin crew numbered 10, while the flight deck was occupied by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a veteran pilot, and his younger co-pilot, Clive Kunder. Just 32 seconds after liftoff, the plane crashed, resulting in the deaths of all but one of those aboard.
Flight Footage and the Mystery of the Crash
CCTV clips from the airport and a social media video depict the aircraft ascending smoothly, yet it appears to stall mid-air before slowly descending. The footage shows the plane disappearing behind structures and foliage, followed by a massive plume of flames and black smoke. While the visual evidence confirms the crash's occurrence, it leaves the exact cause shrouded in ambiguity.
"In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the ot"
India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, is tasked with uncovering the crash's cause. According to international guidelines outlined in Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the country where the incident occurred holds primary responsibility for the investigation. Other entities, such as the nation where the aircraft or engines were manufactured, can participate as accredited representatives.
In the case of AI171, the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) joined the AAIB as an accredited representative. This team included Boeing engineers, GE Aerospace specialists, and the Federal Aviation Administration. The guidelines stipulate that investigations should focus solely on safety improvements, not assigning fault or liability. However, the stakes are high for all involved.
Corporate and Public Interests in the Inquiry
Boeing, already grappling with safety controversies over the years, sees the investigation as a chance to defend the 787 Dreamliner, which had previously maintained a strong safety reputation. Air India, a financially struggling airline within the Tata Group, faces the risk of reputational damage if the findings point to operational flaws. Meanwhile, bereaved families demand clarity on how their loved ones perished, fueling the emotional and political tension surrounding the case.
Although the final report remains pending, the AAIB's preliminary findings have already stirred significant controversy. The 15-page document refrained from stating the crash's causes or offering recommendations. Yet, two brief sections ignited widespread criticism. One highlighted that the fuel cutoff switches—typically used to power engines before and after flights—moved to the cutoff position mere seconds after takeoff, according to the flight data recorder. This action would have starved the engines of fuel, leading to a rapid loss of thrust.
Debating the Integrity of Air Crash Investigations
The inquiry, meant to be an impartial learning process, has now become a battleground for contrasting viewpoints. Safety advocates, pilot organizations, and legal representatives for the victims' families have voiced concerns over the investigation's objectivity. Questions about political influence and corporate bias have surfaced, challenging the credibility of national authorities in such high-profile cases.
As the final conclusions await release, the controversy underscores a broader debate about how air crash investigations are conducted. Can national bodies be trusted to remain unbiased, or does the presence of corporate interests compromise the search for truth? The unfolding narrative of AI171 continues to test the principles of accountability and transparency in aviation safety.