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.