Where the buck stops

The public release of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary report on the tragic AI 171 crash, which claimed 261 lives, has ignited a firestorm of speculation. While the report points to twin-engine failure due to fuel starvation as the immediate cause, the underlying reasons remain shrouded in doubt, sparking intense debate and misdirected accusations especially in the western media. The focus on suspected pilot error, fueled by the report’s mention of fuel control switches found in the “cutoff” position, appears premature and dangerously simplistic. This unfortunate yet subtle implications are designed to insulate Boeing company from accountability. It must be remembered that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal with over 15,000 flying hours and Co-pilot Clive Kunder with over 3000 flying hours were experienced pilots with impeccable flying records. Their desperate attempts to restart the engines in their final moments demonstrate a commitment to saving lives, not a disregard for them. The preliminary report omits crucial cockpit conversations, further muddying the waters. The Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA) and the Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPA India) have rightly rejected claims of human error, decrying “speculative narratives” and “reckless insinuations.” Aviation experts corroborate this skepticism, emphasizing the unlikelihood of accidentally manipulating these critical switches. Instead of rushing to judgment against the deceased pilots, a more troubling possibility should be noted- systemic failure. The report itself hints at this, referencing a 2018 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) bulletin regarding a potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature in Boeing aircraft, including the 787 model involved in the crash. Given this context, it is imperative to investigate whether a defective system, rather than human error, contributed to the AI 171 disaster. The AAIB report itself mentions the “Potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature” Disturbingly, Air India maintenance, according to the report, failed to conduct the suggested inspections, deeming the bulletin merely advisory. This bureaucratic lethargy, a blatant disregard for flight safety, demands immediate scrutiny. Furthermore, the AI 171 tragedy cannot be divorced from Boeing’s increasingly alarming safety record. The 737 MAX disasters, the Alaska Airlines door plug incident, and numerous whistleblower allegations paint a disturbing picture of a company prioritizing profits over passenger safety. The relentless cost-cutting measures following Boeing’s 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas, coupled with a compromised relationship with the FAA, have fostered a culture where safety concerns are allegedly sidelined. John Barnett, a former Boeing quality control manager, made serious charges against Boeing, even saying that under-pressure workers had been deliberately fitting substandard parts to aircraft on the production line. Barnet died under mysterious circumstances and his death was concluded as due to suicide. Another former Boeing Engineer Sam Salehpour reported that he was harassed and threatened after raising concerns about the safety of Boeing’s planes. Another former Boeing employee also alleged that out of 11 defective planes six were sold to Air India. A high level investigation must delve into this aspect as well Boeing’s safety culture, its manufacturing processes, and its relationship with regulatory bodies. It must also examine Air India’s maintenance practices and its response to safety advisories. The truth must be out and there should be no consideration on Indo-US relations. Only then can there be hope to uncover the truth behind the AI 171 tragedy and prevent future disasters as the lives of millions who fly on Boeing aircraft depend on it.