Analysts slam Air India crash interim report

Civil aviation analysts have slammed the interim report on last year’s Air India (AI) crash, released on the first anniversary of the crash on June 12.

Commenting on the interim report, Captain P.P. Singh, Former Accountable Manager, Jet Airways, said that the interim statement released by the AAIB India “contains a lot of rhetoric and eloquent language, albeit nothing of any substance- in all probability a document prepared by a lawyer.”

He points out that while the preliminary report published in 2025, just one month after the crash, specifically stated that both the engine fuel-control switches transitioned from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ within seconds of each other shortly after lift-off, it did not explain why.

“Surprisingly, an excerpt from the Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript was also included in the report, which only served to confuse the issue further and fuel widespread speculation. At that time industry experts generally felt that the report contained much more information than usually is expected at that early stage, something which led to wild theories and conflicting narratives in the media. It also set a false public expectation of an early conclusion of the investigation.  As per ICAO Annex 13, the state investigating the accident has an obligation to release a Preliminary Report within 30 days, and a Final Report as soon as possible or within a year. If the investigation is not completed within a year, the investigator must publish an update on each anniversary of the event till the Final Report is released.”

In addition, ICAO recommends that any urgent safety issues identified during the course of investigation be addressed through timely ‘Safety Recommendations”, since the stated aim of any accident investigation is improving safety, and not to assign responsibility or blame.

“Unfortunately, the statement does not contain anything at all about which any meaningful comment can be made. The most glaring omission is the absence of even a single Safety Recommendation so far. Are we to believe that no serious safety issues have been identified over the last one year of investigating a fatal crash; unless the probable cause is something unique to this particular flight and has no bearing on any other aviation activity? Timely reporting and sharing of safety-related information is vital to the safety of the entire civil aviation system,” he adds.

The Captain is of the view that while the need for thorough and professional investigation can’t be overlooked, the lack of information and periodic updates vitiate the transparency and effectiveness of the investigation process, and undermine the credibility of the investigators themselves. In my considered opinion, this kind of hollow report containing not even the minimal information on causes being investigated or what has been ruled out is a complete mockery of the international protocols, and has been published with the sole aim of meeting a deadline.

Another senior Indian pilot, who has been part of earlier air accident investigation felt that

the statement is procedurally correct but in terms of what it says, substantively quite thin.

“One year after the accident, the statement essentially tells us that the investigation is ongoing, various aspects such as flight recorders, aircraft systems, engine related components, maintenance records and operational data have been examined, and that the final report will follow ICAO Annex 13 procedures. That is all fair and expected,” he adds stating that what is more interesting is what the statement does not say.

“The most notable omission is the absence of any interim safety recommendations. Under ICAO Annex 13, if investigators identify an immediate safety concern, they are not required to wait for the final report before issuing recommendations. Leading agencies such as the NTSB, UK AAIB etc routinely do so. The fact that no such recommendations have emerged after 12 months suggests either that no actionable safety issue has yet been identified, that any concerns are being addressed quietly through regulatory channels, or that investigators remain uncomfortable drawing conclusions. Not a very reassuring situation” he says

The Captain adds that the statement also provides no indication whatsoever of where the investigation is heading. “By this stage, the investigation team will almost certainly have a strong working hypothesis. Yet the public has not been given even a broad indication of whether the focus is on aircraft systems, engines, maintenance, operational procedures, human factors or a combination of all of these.”

He is of the view that the one potentially significant clue is the specific reference to “engine-related components.” Investigators choose their wording carefully. While this does not prove an engine issue, it does suggest that engine-related evidence remains an important line of inquiry.

“What we already know from the Preliminary Report is that both engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF shortly after take-off, leading to a dual loss of thrust. The critical unanswered question has therefore never been what happened, but why it happened. Was it crew action, inadvertent activation, a mechanical defect, a design issue, a maintenance related issue or something else entirely? The statement sheds no further light on that question” he points out.

The repeated references to ICAO Annex 13 are understandable, but Annex 13 establishes minimum standards, not maximum transparency. The world’s leading accident investigation agencies generally provide more meaningful interim updates, particularly in accidents of this magnitude involving a modern widebody aircraft.

“Overall, I would describe the statement as cautious, defensive and institutionally conservative. It protects the integrity of the investigation, which is important, but it does little to improve public understanding or confidence. For an accident of this significance, the global aviation community would reasonably have expected more substantive interim insight after 12 months than a reminder that the investigation is still in progress. The interim report/statement by the AAIB can best be summed up as standby to standby,” he added pointing out that it focused solely on process and in doing so has missed the human element.

Satyendra Pandey, Managing Partner, Aairavat Technology & Transport Ventures Private Ltd, feels that the interim report/statement by the AAIB can best be summed up as “standby to standby.”

“It focuses solely on process and in doing so has missed the human element. The call for restraint against premature conclusions while the investigation is on-going is entirely correct. However, by not providing a tentative date of conclusion, it does not help folks seeking closure or at the very least a point in the future by which they might find closure” he adds.

What the interim report says

On the first anniversary of the crash of the AI Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) had said that over the past year, the investigation team has undertaken an extensive and rigorous examination of all relevant technical, operational, organizational, and human factors associated with the accident. The AAIB issued an interim statement on the accident on Friday. (Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau)

The crash last year resulted in 260 fatalities in the crash, including those on board the aircraft and on the ground. There were 242 passengers and crew on the ill-fated aircraft, of whom only one person survived the crash. The flight was from the Western Indian city of Ahmedabad to London Gatwick.

The Bureau added that this effort has been supported by accredited representatives, technical advisers, and subject matter experts from relevant organizations. Significant progress has been made in the examination and analysis of aircraft systems, flight recorder data, engine-related components, maintenance and operational records, and other evidence relevant to the investigation, it added.

“The evidence gathered and the results of various examinations are currently being analysed in a comprehensive and integrated manner. Additional technical evaluations and specialist examinations, wherever considered necessary, will continue to be undertaken to ensure that all findings and conclusions are supported by verified evidence and sound scientific analysis,” the statement said.

Air India to put aircraft acquisition on hold

Bloomberg on Friday reported that Tata Group, which owns Air India, directed that the airline look at cutting down losses. “The downsizing will involve a variety of efforts to reduce costs. Air India is in discussions with Airbus SE and Boeing Co. to slow down deliveries of as many as 500 planes previously ordered, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.”

The losses, $ 2.8 billion for the year ended March 31, 2026, that the Indian carrier has run up was reported by it’s partner Singapore Airlines, which has a 25.1 percent stake in AI. (Air India posts $2.8 Billion loss for fiscal year | AirInsight)

Air India denies Bloomberg story/Aircraft manufacturers refuse comment

An Air India spokesperson said the Bloomberg queries were highly speculative, and the carrier remains committed to modernizing its fleet and carrying out its long-term transformation plan.

Tata and Airbus didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Boeing spokesperson declined to comment.

Pilot quits probe

In the run-up to the anniversary, Indian media have been full of stories on the status of the crash probe. On Thursday, the Economic Times, the largest-circulating English-language economic daily in India, ran a story reporting that Captain R. S. Sandhu, an expert pilot, had quit the probe, citing a lack of transparency. (Subject expert exits Air India Ahmedabad crash probe over differences – The Economic Times) However, when contacted, the Captain refused to comment. 

Engine issue delaying report

On Thursday, the Hindustan Times, another English-language daily, reported that the GE Engine review is delaying the final report on the crash. The English daily quoted three unnamed officials “familiar with the matter” as saying that the GE Engine had been sent to the GE facility in Ohio for a detailed examination, and that the final report cannot be released until the analysis is complete.

Views: 143

About The Author