The anniversary of one of the most tragic days of India’s aviation history came and went by almost unnoticed. On June 12th last year, 260 lives were lost in one of the most unfathomable aircraft accidents the world has witnessed.
On June 12th this year, a year after the catastrophe involving Air India Flight 171, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Body (AAIB) issued an interim statement reaffirming its commitment to maintaining the highest standards of “professionalism, transparency and investigative rigour” while working toward a final report on the crash. Yet nobody – aviation industry top managers, commanders, employees, analysts, former and present bureaucrats and policymakers – this writer has spoken to over the past year has expressed a modicum of confidence in AAIB’s abilities to deliver.
The investigation so far has only attracted severe criticism and the credibility and reputation of one of the country’s premier investigating agencies are at an all time low. An increasing number of people in the industry and in government circles say this entire episode has become a national embarrassment, especially since the world is watching it closely. Several foreign citizens lost their lives and the matter has reached US courts just like it has Indian ones.
The organisation itself largely bears the blame for this lack of confidence. A growing number of Indians, both inside and outside the industry, view the investigation as nothing more than a “cover-up” and consider the whole exercise an attempt to pin the blame on somebody rather than to find the root cause. That somebody, by all indications, is likely to be the deceased captain of the ill-fated flight, Sumeet Sabharwal.
Premier pilots body, the Federation of Indian pilots (FIP) has claimed that AAIB is liable for “egregious procedural and ethical breaches” and “unlawful disclosure of protected information and resultant character assassination,” while the Safety Matters Foundation, a not-for-profit body, has dismantled the whole process and approached the Supreme Court. Separately, the father of the now deceased Captain, with the help of a small group of friends and peers, has repeatedly petitioned the court regarding what he sees as a deliberate attempt to hold his son culpable for the tragedy while absolving Boeing, Air India and safety regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation .
So why is the country’s premier investigative body’s reputation in the mud? Why do many people believe the root cause of the crash will remain a mystery? Why should a country of India’s size and stature — one which has sent missions up to space — be unable to win the citizenry’s confidence regarding an aviation accident, something that is not a first in its aviation history?
A large part of this skepticism stems from the organisation’s handling of the investigation so far: the composition and qualifications of the team’s members; the approach followed; and the procedures or lack thereof, that the industry argues has afflicted this process from the start. Moreover, the current structure of AAIB – independent but not autonomous – has rendered the entire exercise superfluous, as almost nobody is willing to vouch for the body’s authenticity, rigour or ability to deliver. Many in the industry argue that while DGCA may be in urgent need of a makeover, AAIB is in worse shape.
Worryingly, these views are echoed in unison not only by the flying public and industry but also by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), the Airline Pilots Association of India (APLA) and the Safety Matters Foundation.
This article will highlight the issues that have plagued this investigation from the beginning — and suggest a way forward.
Red Flag 1: A glaring conflict of interest
The director general (DG) of AAIB – the incumbent is GVG Yugandhar, an IAF engineer on secondment – appointed a five-member committee. This committee includes four DGCA officials led by another IAF officer Sanjay Kumar Singh, who has managed investigations into 15 accidents or serious incidents and has overseen the classification of at least 300 reported occurrences, albeit none of the magnitude of the AI171 crash or involving the Dreamliner.
A petition filed by the Safety Matters foundation in the Supreme Court points out that it is “deeply concerning that in the present case, despite the existence of this specialized independent authority, three out of the five members of the current investigating team are serving DGCA officials.”This petition argues that the appointment effectively undermines the very purpose for which AAIB was established and reintroduces the conflict of interest that a 1997 safety panel set up under justice JK Seth, which suggested setting up an independent body, expressly sought to eliminate. As the petition adds, permitting DGCA officers to participate in the investigation amounts to “permitting the regulator to sit in judgment over itself.” The committee ought to investigate whether DGCA was remiss in its job leading to the accident.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) too advises against this, pointing out in one of its manuals that “this is not an ideal arrangement, in particular because seconded personnel may fear retribution when they return to their normal duties should the civil aviation authority react unfavourably to the findings in the final report of the investigation”.
FIP’s president CS Randhawa says that those investigating this crash are not only unqualified but are also the same small group (around eight investigators with as many administrative staff members who together make up AAIB) who are running around trying to investigate and draw up preliminary and final reports for many accidents.
Multiple accidents have taken place in 2026 itself, of which four have resulted in fatalities. This also explains why the team is taking so long to examine 32 seconds (the duration of the AI171 flight). “Despite AI171 being airborne for only 32 seconds—meaning the available material for examination is far less extensive— AAIB only issued a single, interim apology statement that offered nothing beyond the preliminary report,” points out Randhawa.
Industry attributes AAIB’s “ambiguous and selectively worded” preliminary report to the poor composition of the lead investigators; this report was quietly released to the public in the middle of the night instead of in a full-fledged press conference addressed by the DG as it ought to have been. Indeed, the DG has yet to hold a briefing on the accident. Questions to the DG, AAIB, remained unanswered till the time of going to press. Industry also points out, accurately, that the preliminary report for the subsequent Baramati accident, which resulted in five deaths including that of Maharashtra deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, is more detailed than this one which involved a total of 260 lives.
Red Flag 2: Bring on the experts
None of the initial investigation team members were familiar with the aircraft in question, the Dreamliner.
Subsequent action taken by AAIB to strengthen its investigating team’s composition resulted from appeals filed by the two pilot bodies, FIP and ALPA, rather than from its own initiative. “This itself speaks volumes for the competency and intent of the organisation. Why should others have to point out what is needed? The answer is because those in charge are clueless”, says a senior official in the ministry of civil aviation.
Only a little over a month after the initial team was constituted did AAIB relent and ask aircraft and sector experts including Captain R.S. Sandhu, a former Air India commander on the B787 to join it. Although there has since been speculation that other experts, including Dreamliner engineers and B737 pilots, could be co-opted as subject experts, the names and details of these inclusions, if any, have been kept secret, adding to the cloud of mystery that surrounds the investigation. Why should the details of those who are helping in some manner be kept secret? “This defies all logic,” said a senior Air India commander who asked not to be named. In response to a query, AAIB’s DG messaged: “This is internal to the investigation. Not shared with (the) public.”
Not everyone agrees. “Keeping such basic information secret reeks of paranoia,” said a former Cabinet secretary, on the condition of anonymity.
Then, there is the glaring fact that AAIB’s interim statement compares poorly with interim reports issued by other countries in similar accidents. To cite just one single instance, there’s the 104-page interim report for the 2009 A330 Air France crash which killed 232 people (https://bea.aero/fileadmin/documents/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e2.en/pdf/f-cp090601e2.en_03.pdf). “Since the flight was in the air only for such a short duration, one expected a more detailed interim report from AAIB after a full year has elapsed”, argues Sam Thomas, president of ALPA.
Red Flag 3: The push to establish a crime
One allegation plaguing the existing investigation is that it is shrouded in secrecy, and obsessed with finding a crime. Captain Amit Singh, founder of the Safety Matters Foundation says the investigation has approached the incident like a “criminal” one from the beginning with people being called in for “interrogation” instead of conducting an open and transparent inquiry to find the accident’s root cause. “They are trying to pin the blame rather than find the cause,” he argued, reiterating that attributing such a catastrophic engine shutdown sequence to deliberate pilot action while “ignoring manufacturer documented vulnerabilities, is unwarranted and unjust in the absence of incontrovertible evidence”.
Two incidents that have occurred since the crash began have lent credence to what FIP, ALPA and Safety Matters claim, resulting in more questions being asked of how AAIB is handling the investigation. One, on August 30 last year, two officials, both doctors, from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) visited 91-year-old Pushkaraj Sabharwal, father of late Air India Flight AI 171 Captain. Sumeet Sabharwal. Ostensibly there to offer condolences, the investigators instead made damaging insinuations that his son deliberately cut the fuel to the plane’s engines post-takeoff. The basis and authority for this visit was subsequently challenged in court and AAIB denied any involvement, stating that no such order existed, but this occurred only after AAIB received a notice from the court. “If AAIB did not ask these two to visit the late Captain’s home, how did they end up there?””, asks a colleague and friend of the Captain who asked not to be named. He alleges that the whole episode reeks of insensitive and unprofessional handling.
The second, more recent incident involves a summons delivered through Air India in January to the late Captain’s nephew, who is also a pilot, requiring him to appear before AAIB regarding the probe. FIP also challenged this through a legal notice sent on January 11 to the DG and to Sanjay Singh, the lead investigator. The notice argued that the summons does not disclose the statutory provision, purpose or relevance under which the nephew, Captain Varun Anand was summoned, nor does it specify the capacity in which his presence is required. It points out that Anand has no association whatsoever with the aircraft, the flight in question, its planning, dispatch, operation, maintenance, certification, airworthiness clearance or crew composition. He was not present at the accident site and possesses no factual, technical or operational knowledge regarding the circumstances of the accident.
On October 21 last year, the deceased Captain’s father sent an RTI application to AAIB, posing six questions. The response, dated March 18 this year (a copy of which this writer has seen), either directs him to either their website or denies the information on the grounds that information sought is “internal” and exempt from disclosure. It also denies issuing an order that sent two doctors to the late Captain’s house.
Red Flag 4: Independent, but not autonomous
People say there is no reason India’s minister of civil aviation (K Rammohan Naidu) should be answering queries relating to the crash or the final report when AAIB has an independent director general (GVG Yugandhar). “In fact we have not seen the DG of AAIB in either this or the Calicut accident and it is the minister — who should not be privy to what is happening if the investigation is independent — who is briefing media and fielding all queries”, says Captain Amit Singh, founder of Safety Matters Foundation.
In similar accidents in most countries, frequent and repeated open press conferences address queries raised by victims’ families or any vested or interested party. “In both the Calicut accident and this, we are yet to physically see the DG, AAIB. Can someone explain why,” he adds. His larger point is that the fact that AAIB is independent but not autonomous (all financial decisions and appointments are made by the ministry) means that the ministry (and the government) are calling all the shots.
Queries to the MOCA secretary did not receive a response till the time of going to print.
Course Correction: A new investigation
Safety Matters foundation has put forth the demand for scrapping the present investigation, or at the least, ordering a new court of inquiry in parallel in its plea to the SC.
The petition argues that the Aircraft Accident/Incident Investigation Procedure Manual, issued by AAIB itself mandates that a court of inquiry will investigate any major, catastrophic accident involving fatalities. “It is clear that a court of inquiry will be the mode of investigation involving a large aircraft and usually involving fatalities” whereas a committee of inquiry will carry out investigation into an incident where causes are known and the incident or accident is of repetitive nature It is only the investigation reports for accidents or incidents involving small aircraft will be prepared by a committee of AAIB officers.
In light of all of the above, industry insiders and several outside observers believe the current AAIB-led investigation into the catastrophe’s cause should be scrapped. They suggest setting up a new court of inquiry — under a judge acceptable to all and known for uncompromising moral and ethical probity—or allowing both proceedings to advance simultaneously. “If both probes arrive at the same conclusion independently, all those doubting AAIB’s intent and abilities will be silenced ”, argues a former civil aviation secretary, who asked not to be named.
Singh, founder, Safety Matters Foundation argues that AAIB is choosing to ignore its own mandate and points to a long list of past precedents where all the large aircraft accidents were under a court of inquiry. In the case of the accident involving the former Punjab governor in a Beechcraft 200 Super King Air in 1994 (that killed him and 12 others), while an in-house closed door investigation was initially conducted by AAIB, a court of inquiry was later set up. He argues that the same needs to be done in this case.
Anjuli Bhargava writes on governance, infrastructure, and the social sector. The views expressed are personal.
