Editorial: Careful with the conclusions

CHENNAI: The preliminary report of the investigation into the crash of an Air India plane in Ahmedabad on June 12 has given scope for a controversy due to its hasty timing and tendentious reporting. There are indications that the investigators were pressured into releasing preliminary findings because Western partners in the probe were threatening to walk out on the pretext of lack of transparency. Whatever the facts and whoever was to blame for the tragedy, the trauma was still too raw for the findings to be accepted without emotion, and therefore, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) should have held off on releasing preliminary findings until inferences could be based on firmer grounds.

The report, released on July 12, came just a month after the crash of flight AI 171 in which 261 people lost their lives. The AAIB’s main preliminary finding is that the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner lost thrust because power to both its engines was cut off. This occurred due to two fuel controls being switched from the "RUN" to the "CUTOFF" position. This could have only been done manually, possibly by the pilots, and could not have occurred accidentally. The report does not say who exactly threw the switches and why. The report also quotes ambiguously from the cockpit voice recording: Without naming the pilots, it says one of them asked the other why the switches were altered and the other replied it wasn’t he. This is a leading presentation of facts: while not apportioning blame, it fuels suspicion.

Given that all other standard pre-flight and takeoff procedures were followed and there were no mechanical issues detected, the preliminary findings give scope to the inference that human factors may have caused or contributed to the crash. Western media have picked up this finding to point a finger at pilot behaviour rather than shortcomings on the part of the manufacturer, Boeing, or its vendors.

The investigators could have done better to ensure that the report facilitated a sober reckoning by stakeholders rather than kickstart a blame game. The findings were leaked to the Wall Street Journal even before the official release of the report in India, which allowed the western media to frame the issue, on the basis of preliminary facts, as a pilot behaviour issue, thus deflecting attention from Boeing. A fair question to ask is whether the findings were shared first with the western partners in the investigation, which included representatives from Boeing, General Electric, and the national transportation safety authorities of the UK, Canada, and the US. If so, why not Indian stakeholders as well?

The Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPA) has strongly objected to the presumption of pilot guilt and criticised the AAIB report for giving scope for speculation. The pilots have a point. Any conclusion of pilot error must be stayed until a thorough, evidence-based investigation is completed. ALPA is justified in demanding more transparency in the investigation, and the inclusion of experienced pilots as observers.

Reports in specialised aviation media suggest that AIAB was under pressure from US and UK investigators over the pace of the probe and access to data from the cockpit voice recorder. There were threats of withdrawal from the investigation. These pressures appear to have accelerated the release of the preliminary report. Whatever the pressure, AIAB should have been more circumspect in its preliminary conclusions.