'Earlier, the NTSB was actively flagging technical issues with Boeing. But now, the narrative is shifting toward 'human error'.'
'That term is often misunderstood -- it could mean pilots, engineers, refueling staff -- anyone.'
'This framing ('human error') conveniently steers the conversation away from mechanical or design faults.'
In the concluding part of the interview with Prasanna D Zore/Rediff, a senior aviation expert -- an active pilot himself -- asks why no high-level judicial committee has been appointed, why there is no transparency, and no urgency. He warns that unless public pressure mounts, the narrative may shift toward 'human error,' shielding deeper mechanical or regulatory failures.
So the AAIB has constituted a team without any technical experts on the Boeing 787.
That's what it appears. No type-rated pilot. No certified engineer on this aircraft type. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation.
The black boxes were reportedly sent to DGCA facilities. But isn't AAIB the mandated authority? Doesn't this raise issues about jurisdiction and chain of custody?
The DGCA doesn't even have decoding facilities. It's the AAIB's lab that has the technical capability. The confusion stems from the terminology in the press release. They referred to the black box as part of a 'Crash Prevention Module' -- I've never heard that term used in aviation.
It sounds like it was coined by someone with no technical background, possibly a bureaucrat.
What should the AAIB and the government do now to ensure transparency and credibility?
First, there should be a signed government order -- preferably by the secretary, ministry of civil aviation -- formally constituting the investigation team.
That order should list the DG as the head (if that's the case), and include names of the experts: Aviation medicine specialists, ATC officials, a type-rated pilot, and an engineer familiar with the 787.
It should also list the reference documents like ICAO Annex 13 (external link; International Civil Aviation Organisation), Doc 9756 (external link; ICAO's Doc 9756 guides international standards for aircraft accident investigation, reporting, and safety recommendations), and DGCA protocols.
At this stage, given the way the investigation is being carried out is it fair to ask whether the government wants to get to the root cause of this crash?
It's a valid question. In India, public memory is short.
The news cycle has already moved on -- from the AI 171 crash to geopolitics. This crash has faded from the headlines.
And yet, we lost 260 lives. What's stopping the government from appointing a high-level judicial committee to oversee this investigation?
When there's public outrage -- like in the Nirbhaya rape case -- you'll see the government act swiftly. Why not now?
Has the AAIB made any public appeal for eyewitnesses or footage -- standard practice in major accident investigations?
That's what alarms me most. Even in a routine crime, the police ask for eyewitnesses. In this case, we had a sole survivor in seat 11A. And surely there are people on the ground who witnessed the crash -- many may not have filmed it. But there must have been many, many eyewitness.
Someone might have even seen debris falling off. The AAIB should have issued an open call for such information. Not everything shows up on radar or sensors.
Has the NTSB officially joined the investigation?
Yes, and that's in line with ICAO protocols. The FAA and NTSB, as representatives of the aircraft's state of manufacture (the US), are stakeholders. They can participate as observers and technical consultants. Boeing is also allowed to send experts.
If the investigation points toward a technical defect (in the AI Boeing 787 that crashed), these agencies need to be present to understand and possibly defend their role.
Do you fear the investigation may ultimately pin the blame on the pilot?
That seems likely, given the way things are shaping up.
Earlier, the NTSB was actively flagging technical issues with Boeing. But now, the narrative is shifting toward 'human error.'
That term is often misunderstood -- it could mean pilots, engineers, refueling staff -- anyone. But this framing ('human error') conveniently steers the conversation away from mechanical or design faults.
If a technical flaw is confirmed, it would have global implications for Boeing, especially given the 787's stellar safety record so far.
A human error verdict keeps the aircraft's reputation intact.
Photographs curated by Manisha Kotian/Rediff
