One year after the tragic crash of Air India's AI 171, which resulted in 260 fatalities, an interim report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau placed blame on pilot error for cutting fuel to the engines during takeoff, a conclusion many find suspicious given the timing and potential influence of Boeing, the manufacturer of the 787 Dreamliner. Conspiracy theories persist, fueled by ongoing concerns about the Dreamliner's computer systems and a history of engineering issues, mirroring past incidents like the Boeing 737 MAX crashes where systemic flaws were downplayed. Critics suggest the interim report's swift release and focus on pilots aimed to protect Boeing and avoid costly recalls or reputational damage, with potential implications for India-US bilateral relations and the determination of true responsibility among the airline, manufacturer, and engine provider.

One year after the tragic crash of Air India's AI 171, which resulted in 260 fatalities, an interim report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau placed blame on pilot error for cutting fuel to the engines during takeoff, a conclusion many find suspicious given the timing and potential influence of Boeing, the manufacturer of the 787 Dreamliner. Conspiracy theories persist, fueled by ongoing concerns about the Dreamliner's computer systems and a history of engineering issues, mirroring past incidents like the Boeing 737 MAX crashes where systemic flaws were downplayed. Critics suggest the interim report's swift release and focus on pilots aimed to protect Boeing and avoid costly recalls or reputational damage, with potential implications for India-US bilateral relations and the determination of true responsibility among the airline, manufacturer, and engine provider.

One year after the tragic crash of Air India's AI 171, which resulted in 260 fatalities, an interim report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau placed blame on pilot error for cutting fuel to the engines during takeoff, a conclusion many find suspicious given the timing and potential influence of Boeing, the manufacturer of the 787 Dreamliner. Conspiracy theories persist, fueled by ongoing concerns about the Dreamliner's computer systems and a history of engineering issues, mirroring past incidents like the Boeing 737 MAX crashes where systemic flaws were downplayed. Critics suggest the interim report's swift release and focus on pilots aimed to protect Boeing and avoid costly recalls or reputational damage, with potential implications for India-US bilateral relations and the determination of true responsibility among the airline, manufacturer, and engine provider.

Friday, June 12, marks one year since the shortest flight in Indian history, and one the country will never forget, but for the wrong reason. Air India’s AI 171 took off from Ahmedabad for London, but came down in 32 seconds over a medical college hostel outside Ahmedabad’s airport limits, leaving 260 dead, including 19 on the ground.

One year on, international aviation rules stipulate that the investigating body should come out with its findings within a year – if not a conclusive one, at least an interim one. No matter what that would or would not be, what is more likely is that the conspiracy theories will continue on, thanks mainly to the initial interim report, which came out one month after the crash, as well as the many purported angles and allegations that have popped up since then. Here is a look at some of the theories swirling around, and likely to swirl around, forever.

The interim report

India’s not-so-established Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau burned the midnight oil, literally, by coming out with its interim report one month after the crash at the unholy time of 1 am. While some wondered whether it was to escape the Indian newscycles, some have alleged it was done at the behest of Boeing and Western powers to set the narrative against the pilots involved and not attribute it to any issue with the plane model, the 787 Dreamliner, itself. The insinuation in the report was that one of the pilots cut off fuel to the engines just as the plane was taking off, the action leading to the plane crashing as it happened at the crucial moment of take-off. Neat, tidy, conclusive, and the media gets its happily-ever-after, except of course, for 260 lost souls, including two reputations thrown to the dogs.

Dream to nightmare

Of course, the world has not sat still, with arguments and conspiracies discussed threadbare on socials. The theory gaining the strongest traction was that of Boeing’s role in the whole issue. Dreamliner, anyway, has had complaints dogging its computer systems and functioning for years. Boeing’s recent woes, including its safety track record and whistleblower allegations, all make it suspect number one.

At the centre of many of these theories is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner itself. The aircraft was grounded worldwide for a period more than a decade ago, and concerns about its engineering and manufacturing standards have continued to surface in US Senate hearings and other investigations. Among the issues raised are reports of on-board computer systems rebooting unexpectedly and questions over whether flight systems could have issued commands to cut fuel supply without any manual action by the pilots.

Life after death

It is a reality of aviation that pilot error causes most mishaps. It is a harsher reality that pilots make the easiest scapegoats. Blaming an airline for its safety procedures or the plane’s manufacturer for engineering or manufacturing deficiencies would be catastrophic for both entities – entire systems will have to be rebooted, flights may have to be cancelled, and aircraft taken off from service. Remember how Boeing 737 MAX planes were taken out of service all around the world after two back-to-back crashes involving the then-new model. Investigations later revealed how a faulty MCAS system overrode pilot commands and pointed the plane’s nose down, leading to a deadly dive. Worse? Boeing not only hid this feature from pilot manuals and training, but it was a faulty system depending on one single sensor, without any other contingency procedures, which the company allegedly lobbied with regulators to release into the market in haste.

Switch to AI 171, the doubts are the same. Is Boeing taking an inordinate interest in ensuring that no systematic faults are discovered with the 787 model? Any such conclusion will not just be costly – there are over 12,00,787 Dreamliners in operation around the world—but would be damning as far as Boeing’s already rock-bottom credibility goes.

India-US bilateral relations could also be under a cloud here, with allegations already online that the ongoing Bilateral Treaty talks conclusion could well depend on the outcome of the eventual findings – Boeing employs about 1.5 lakh Americans across all the 50 states and is one of the biggest corporate giants in America. And India’s pilots also will not let go if the blame is placed squarely on the pilots, letting Air India, Boeing or even General Electric, for that matter, which made the engines, completely off the hook.

TAGS