A report into last month’s fatal Air India crash that sparked furious debate over the actions of the doomed aircraft’s pilots has left the airline and its owner Tata Group facing mounting questions over what went wrong.
The preliminary report released by India’s Air Accident Investigation Bureau at the weekend said cockpit switches that control the flow of fuel to the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner’s engines were turned to the “cut-off” position shortly after take-off.
The report said that in the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other “why did you cut off?” to which the other responded “that he did not do so”.
The findings have prompted international speculation that the crash was caused by pilot error or a deliberate decision to bring down the aircraft — as well as vociferous defences of the flight crew by Indian pilots’ unions.
Aviation experts said a lack of detail in the preliminary report was deepening the damaging uncertainty created by the crash for Air India and its owner Tata Group, which has staked its reputation on revamping the former state-run carrier.
Unlike preliminary reports on crashes involving Boeing aircraft in other countries, the Indian account did not identify the pilots speaking or directly quote their conversation with each other.
“The report is very murky and very inexact,” said Bjorn Fehrm, an aerospace engineer and analyst at aviation consultancy Leeham News and Analysis. “It’s not good for the airline.”
In a memo to staff on Monday, Air India chief executive Campbell Wilson said the report “provided both greater clarity and opened additional questions” that had “triggered a new round of speculation in the media”.
“I urge everyone to avoid drawing premature conclusions as the investigation is far from over,” Wilson wrote in the memo, a copy of which was seen by the Financial Times.
Indian pilot unions criticised what they called a lack of transparency in the investigative process and leaks of preliminary report findings ahead of its release.
“The tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias towards pilot error,” said the Airline Pilots’ Association of India, adding that it rejected this “categorically”. The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association said it was “deeply disturbed” about “reckless and unfounded insinuation of pilot suicide” by some media and members of the public.
Indian commentators have also rushed to defend the flight crew, who were among the 260 people killed in what was India’s deadliest aviation disaster in almost three decades.
“Very well-designed campaign to pin it on the pilots,” Shiv Aroor, a prominent news presenter on broadcaster NDTV, wrote in a social media post on Saturday. “Extremely well played. Far bigger mountains have been moved to save the status quo.”
In his memo to Air India staff, Wilson noted that the preliminary report said both captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who had more than 11,500 hours of flying experience, and first officer Clive Kunder, with more than 3,400 hours, had passed breathalyser tests and presented no medical issues.
It also “found no mechanical or maintenance issues with the aircraft or engines, and that all mandatory maintenance tasks had been completed”, Wilson wrote.
But some observers have suggested the preliminary report raises questions for Boeing.
Sarah Stewart, partner at UK law firm Stewarts, which is advising families with relatives who died in the crash, said on Saturday that its reading of the report was the pilots “were not aware that the fuel had been cut off”.
“The factual information raises a troubling spectre that this accident may have been caused by uncommanded fuel cut-off, suggesting a possible failure in the Boeing systems,” Stewart said in a statement.
In 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration warned of potential disengagement of the locking feature on the fuel switches on some Boeing aircraft, based on reports from 737 operators.
The FAA did not deem this an “unsafe condition” that would require a mandatory inspection, and Air India did not carry out one. In a notice issued after the Indian preliminary report, the US agency told international counterparts the Boeing fuel control switches did not pose a safety issue.
Boeing, which on Saturday said it would “continue to support the investigation and our customers”, did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.
Argument about the preliminary findings has further complicated Tata’s efforts to reassure passengers and press ahead with its overhaul of the tarnished flag carrier, which it bought from the government in 2022 as a debt-laden brand famous for poor service and ageing aircraft.
Mark Martin, chief executive of aviation advisory firm Martin Consulting, said the disaster was likely to hit Air India with third party liabilities and legal and compensation costs, as well as a loss of long-haul passengers because of “credibility” fears.
But the carrier remains in demand given that India’s skies are ruled by a near duopoly and passenger numbers have doubled over the past decade. Air India holds 27 per cent of the domestic market, trailing its main rival IndiGo’s 64 per cent.
After the crash, Air India said it was reducing international services on wide body aircraft by 15 per cent in order to carry out enhanced inspections. Many of its flights remain heavily or fully booked, according to travel agents, because of the drop in supply during a busy season.
“We have a severe aircraft shortage in India — we don’t have the luxury of four or five airlines,” Martin said. “Right after the crash I had to travel a lot. I had to go over to Vienna, I had to go over to Ahmedabad. I flew Air India and all those flights were packed.”
Tata and Air India, which is privately held and does not release regular earnings updates, declined to comment on how the crash had impacted the airline’s business. On Saturday, Air India said it would “continue to fully co-operate with the AAIB and other authorities as their investigation progresses”.
Aviation industry experts believe the full crash probe could take as long as a year. GVG Yugandhar, head of the Indian investigation bureau, told the FT his team was “busy in investigation work” and directed questions to India’s civilian aviation ministry, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
For now, the preliminary findings were allowing “wild interpretation by every man and his dog”, Martin said.
