Unfortunate: Supreme Court on speculation of pilot error in Air India 171 crash

The Supreme Court noted that it was “irresponsible” to place the responsibility on pilots based on a preliminary inquiry report in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) calling for an independent, court-monitored investigation into the Air India plane accident.

“If tomorrow someone irresponsibly says pilot A or B was at fault, the family will suffer… What happens if the final inquiry report later finds no fault?” the top court asked on Monday. The court stressed the importance of maintaining confidentiality until the inquiry is complete.

Responding on behalf of the non-governmental organization “Safety Matters Foundation,” Advocate Prashant Bhushan noted that the Wall Street Journal, a US media, had already published an article about the crash investigation before the preliminary report was sent to the Center.

“Then the government officially released the report, and everyone went around saying it was pilot error. These were very experienced pilots, yet the story suggested that the pilot was suicidal and had switched the fuel switch,” Bhushan told the division bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.

“That was unfortunate,” Justice Kant said, calling media reports suggesting that one of the pilots was suicidal a “very irresponsible” kind of reporting.

“Unfortunately, sometimes when such a tragedy happens, the benefit is taken by rival aircraft companies,” the bench further noted, issuing notice to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Civil Aviation over transparent, fair and expeditious investigation.

Orally, the bench noted that aircraft manufacturers such as Airbus or Boeing may claim that the jet was cleared and maintained correctly, therefore they might not be held accountable. Even if the petitioner’s claim for a fair investigation is legitimate, the judge noted that making all of the findings public at this point will inevitably impede the investigation.

According to the petition before the Supreme Court, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s preliminary report, which was released on July 12, essentially suggested a pilot error by attributing the accident to “fuel cutoff switches” being switched from “run” to “cutoff.”

The whole output of the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR), the complete transcripts of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) with time stamps, and the Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording (EAFR) data are among the crucial details that are allegedly missing from the study.

The argument states that these are essential to a clear and impartial comprehension of the catastrophe.