Daijiworld Media Network - Mumbai/Ahmedabad

Mumbai/Ahmedabad, Jun 19: The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) on Friday called for a transparent judicial inquiry into the Air India AI-171 Boeing 787 crash that claimed more than 260 lives, arguing that investigators should not prematurely attribute responsibility to the flight crew without conclusive technical evidence.

Addressing a press conference in Mumbai, FIP President Captain C.S. Randhawa said the organisation has approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent investigation and insisted that all possible technical, electrical and systems-related failures must be thoroughly examined.

“Justice must be ensured for all passengers, crew members and families affected by the crash,” the pilots' body said.

The federation strongly objected to what it described as attempts to assign blame to the deceased pilots before the completion of a comprehensive investigation.

A key concern raised by FIP relates to the timeline presented in the preliminary investigation report.

The organisation said independent simulator tests conducted under the supervision of attorney Mike Andrews of the Beasley Allen Law Firm produced results that differed from the sequence outlined in the report.

According to the federation, the preliminary findings suggest that the aircraft's hydraulic system became operational about four seconds after the engine shutdown sequence at 08:08:43.

However, FIP said 10 separate tests conducted on a certified Boeing 787 Level D six-axis simulator, approved by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), indicated that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) would require approximately 18 seconds to deploy and generate hydraulic pressure.

The federation said the process includes around 12 seconds for the aircraft's engines to slow below flight-idle speed, followed by another six seconds for RAT deployment, citing Hamilton Sundstrand technical training documentation.

It argued that this discrepancy should prompt investigators to conduct a transparent simulator validation exercise.

FIP also disputed suggestions that the pilots deliberately moved the aircraft's fuel control switches to the cut-off position.

The organisation pointed out that the preliminary report stated the switches had “transitioned” but did not explicitly conclude that the crew had physically operated them.

The pilots' body urged investigators to explore the possibility of an uncommanded technical or electrical malfunction involving aircraft computer systems, including systems associated with Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) and Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation.

According to FIP, an electrical fault involving shock absorber micro-switches could, in theory, cause the aircraft to revert to ground mode during flight and trigger an automatic fuel cut-off sequence.

As part of its argument, the federation referred to a 2019 incident involving an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 in Osaka, Japan, in which both engines reportedly experienced an uncommanded shutdown linked to air-mode logic following touchdown.

The organisation also highlighted previous technical concerns associated with Boeing 787 aircraft worldwide.

It claimed there have been 31 documented instances globally of uncommanded Ram Air Turbine deployments linked to faulty internal shuttle valves and alleged that 19 Air India Boeing 787 aircraft were operating with earlier versions of those components.

FIP additionally cited an October 2025 incident involving Air India Boeing 787 aircraft VT-ANO on a flight from Amritsar to Birmingham, where an uncommanded RAT deployment reportedly occurred three months after the aircraft underwent servicing.

The federation also raised broader concerns regarding Air India's maintenance and safety systems.

Citing what it described as a whistleblower audit, FIP alleged that more than 357 adverse safety findings had been identified and that technical issues were repeatedly observed across a majority of aircraft examined.

The organisation demanded the complete disclosure and independent examination of all available evidence, including aircraft health-monitoring data, cockpit information, flight recorder data and witness accounts.

It also questioned why 11 maintenance codes transmitted through the Aircraft Health Monitoring System between 07:07:53 and 08:09:00 were reportedly not included in the preliminary report.

According to FIP, those codes can only be decoded by the aircraft manufacturer.

The federation further referred to accounts of unusual sounds and electrical disturbances shortly before the crash.

It cited the sole survivor's statement, which reportedly mentioned hearing a loud explosion from the rear section of the cabin along with flickering lights before impact.

Questions were also raised about the condition of the aircraft's flight data recorders.

FIP claimed the forward Digital Flight Data Recorder was recovered intact but covered in soot, while the rear recorder was reportedly destroyed in an electrical fire despite the tail section and auxiliary power unit doors remaining largely undamaged.

The organisation also pointed to alleged inconsistencies involving recovered personal belongings, including a crew member's uniform and a passenger's mobile phone.

Beyond technical concerns, FIP criticised the composition of the investigation panel.

It argued that the inquiry should include experienced commercial aviation professionals, Boeing 787 examiners, airline pilots, systems specialists and simulator experts.

The federation questioned whether the current six-member Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) panel possessed sufficient Boeing 787-specific expertise.

It also raised concerns over the presence of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) officials on the panel, suggesting that it could create a conflict of interest under international aviation investigation standards.

FIP further alleged that former Director of Operations and Boeing 787 examiner Captain R.S. Sandhu had been excluded from active participation despite initially being assigned to the investigation.

The organisation also urged authorities to safeguard the rights of victims' families.

It alleged that some families had struggled to obtain answers from Air India and Tata Group representatives and cautioned them against signing compensation or settlement documents without proper legal advice.

Referring to provisions under the Montreal Convention, FIP said airlines are subject to strict liability of up to 150,000 Special Drawing Rights, which it estimated at around Rs 1.82 crore, while additional compensation may depend on factors such as age, income and the dependency status of victims.

The federation called on the Central government to establish a judicial inquiry under Rule 12 of the Aircraft Rules to independently examine all technical, operational, regulatory and maintenance-related aspects of the tragedy.

“Pilots do not fly to kill people. The dignity of the deceased pilots and the rights of the victims' families must be protected. We will oppose any attempt to blame pilots without complete technical proof. A transparent, independent and judicial inquiry is necessary so that the truth emerges and justice is delivered to every family that lost a loved one,” the federation said.