Even as the country reels from the loss of 260 lives in the tragic crash of Air India’s flight from Ahmedabad to London on June 12, there is a growing sense of unease over the way the investigation into the accident has been conducted. A quick assessment of recent developments would suggest that such unease and concern have been caused by the authorities’ failure to anticipate the huge consequences and ramifications of this accident and take necessary steps in advance to ensure a competent handling of its investigation and management of the external environment.
Make no mistake about the enormity of the accident that took place within half a minute of Air India 171 taking off from Ahmedabad and crashing into a hostel that housed medical students. This enormity arose not just because of the number of casualties. There were many other factors that perhaps were ignored by the authorities.
Firstly, this was the world’s first major air crash involving a Boeing Dreamliner. Naturally, global attention was focused on the investigation into this accident and its findings. Interest in this investigation was high also because this accident involving a Boeing aircraft came after a few other accidents and malfunctioning reports involving Boeing planes, although of different types. Boeing was interested in the investigation report, perhaps more than anyone else, as passengers’ perception and airlines’ choice of its aircraft would have been influenced by the kind of responsibilities that the findings would have fixed on it.
Secondly, this was the first time the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), a department under the Union ministry of civil aviation, conducted the investigation of a major air crash within India’s shores. Earlier, the cockpit voice record and the flight data record would be sent abroad for retrieval and for eventually arriving at a conclusion. The AAIB had recently acquired domestic capacity to retrieve such records, which was an achievement. Yet, it should have recognised the need for exercising greater vigilance, at least for two reasons. This investigation was its first such exercise and, therefore, would have come under closer scrutiny by global stakeholders in the aviation sector. Equally important, even a remote suggestion that absolved either the aircraft manufacturer or the airline operating it, or the pilots commanding that ill-fated flight would have been inherently controversial.
Thirdly, the crash of Air India 171 was the first such accident that took place after the airline was privatised in January 2022. Since the Tatas took over Air India, its services have been under watch. There were many incidents involving passenger misbehaviour during flights, which could have been handled more maturely and carefully. There were also reports of aircraft-related incidents, which raised questions about how well the planes had been maintained from a safety point of view. Even though Air India was no longer a state-owned enterprise, the responsibility of the civil aviation ministry was no less than before the ownership change.
Finally, the accident took place in Ahmedabad, the capital city of Gujarat. The death of so many people in an aircraft crash in any part of the country would be mourned as a national tragedy. But Gujarat is also the state whose leading politicians are at the helm of the Union government in New Delhi. Indeed, one of the casualties of this accident was a former chief minister of Gujarat, Vijay Rupani. Home Minister Amit Shah visited Ahmedabad the same day of the crash and Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in the city the following day. Beyond the tragic loss of so many lives in the aircraft and on the ground, the political sensitivity of this accident could hardly be underestimated.
Yet, the manner in which the AAIB has handled the investigation would seem to suggest that it was oblivious to the many ramifications of the four factors that made the Ahmedabad air crash uniquely significant. Going by reports, for instance, the composition of the AAIB committee left much to be desired. According to experts, the absence of a pilot knowledgeable about a Dreamliner, which is highly reliant on electronic systems, was quite jarring.
Of course, the AAIB should be complimented for the time-bound manner in which it finalised the preliminary report within one month of the accident. But what was the need for releasing the report late in the evening on a Friday? Apart from meeting a deadline, it served no other purpose. On the contrary, it gave rise to needless speculation over what the report revealed, which the AAIB or the aviation ministry made no effort to scotch through an official briefing. The AAIB report was not even signed by any of the members who were part of the committee that investigated the crash and prepared the preliminary report. Some experts have also indicated that the preliminary report failed to capture critical segments of the conversation the two pilots had in the cockpit. Indeed, they have argued that interpreting the entire 40 minutes of the cockpit voice recorder or the flight data recorder would not have taken more than two hours. So, why wasn’t that task undertaken to lend clarity to what really happened?
Worse, sections of the foreign media seemed to have accessed some segments of the pilots’ conversation to present a different perspective on why the aircraft crashed. In a competitive media environment, such reports have fuelled further speculation over the causes of the crash. To be sure, the AAIB has explained in its report that its objective is not to reach conclusions about the reasons of the crash, but to shed light on what happened during those crucial minutes before the plane went down. Both the AAIB and the National Transportation Safety Board of the US have described those media reports about the probable causes of the crash as premature and speculative, based on selective and unverified reporting. But incalculable damage has already been done to the morale of pilots in the industry and to the confidence of ordinary fliers in the country.
Could the authorities have prevented such unfortunate developments in the wake of the report on the aircraft crash? Perhaps the civil aviation ministry could have recognised the enormity of this crash and prepared the AAIB and its investigating team for its sensitivities. Perhaps senior retired pilots with experience in flying such state-of-the-art aircraft like the Dreamliner could have been inducted into the investigation committee or their expert views obtained before finalising the report. Perhaps, the ministry and the AAIB could have held more frequent and even informal media interactions to explain the intricacies and dimensions of the accident. Keeping them under wraps and promising to reveal them in the final report after a year was not a good idea.
An institutional reform of the AAIB and even the ministry is in order. Undertaking such reforms can be easier if the ministry takes the primary step of filling nearly half the technical posts in its regulatory arm, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. India is not short of technical people or pilots. Having more of these experts on these bodies would only improve their efficacy and enhance their ability to handle such emergency tasks of conducting investigations into an aircraft crash. And there should be no compromise on making communication faster and more effective.
AK Bhattacharya is the Editorial Director, Business Standard. He tweets @AshokAkaybee. Views are personal.