A preliminary report on a recent aircraft accident has drawn criticism for being ambiguous and incomplete, fueling widespread speculation rather than providing clear answers.
More Questions Than Answers
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) recently released its preliminary report on the AI 171 crash. While such reports are typically initial status updates, this 15-page document has been criticized for selectively revealing details without crucial context or necessary elaboration.
Experts note that the report has done little to quell speculation about the accident’s causes. Instead, it has led to what some describe as a “Rashomon effect,” where the same limited information is interpreted in multiple, often conflicting, ways.
The Mystery of the Fuel Cut-Off
One of the most debated aspects of the report is a paraphrased exchange from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). It mentions one pilot asking the other why they cut off fuel, with the response being a denial.
Crucially, this exchange lacks a timestamp, making it impossible to know precisely when it occurred during the short flight. The report also omits the full CVR transcript, leaving experts and the public guessing about the broader context and any preceding or subsequent conversations.
The report’s wording, particularly the use of “transitioned” to describe fuel switches moving from RUN to CUTOFF, has added to the ambiguity. This phrasing avoids stating whether the switches were manually moved, leading many to implicitly point fingers at the pilots without direct evidence.
Unexplored Technical Possibilities
The report’s silence on potential technical or systemic issues has also raised concerns. The one-second difference in time between the two fuel control switches changing modes has led some to question if this was a manual action or indicative of an electrical or software glitch.
Modern aircraft like the Boeing 787 rely heavily on complex systems such as FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) and EWIS (Electrical Wiring Interconnect System). While these systems are critical for safety, the preliminary report does not detail their investigation status or potential malfunctions, such as issues with the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) system.
Although the report briefly mentions a 2018 US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) bulletin about potential disengagement of fuel control switch locking mechanisms, it suggests this might not apply due to recent module replacements. However, a deeper dive into backend electronics and signals remains absent from the report.
The Call for Transparency
The lack of regular, clear official information since the crash has created an information vacuum, which has been filled by speculation and misinformation. The AAIB has been criticized for not clarifying genuine technical questions raised by experts or explaining the report’s evident gaps.
Aviation experts globally are urging the Indian civil aviation authorities to provide more transparency. Releasing more detailed CVR transcripts, similar to what was done in the Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX crash investigation, could offer vital insights into the cockpit environment and clarify the sequence of events.
- The preliminary report on the AI 171 crash is ambiguous and incomplete.
- A key pilot exchange about fuel cut-off lacks crucial context and timestamps.
- The report largely omits discussion on potential technical, electrical, or software system failures.
- Lack of transparency from authorities has contributed to widespread speculation and misinformation.
A more comprehensive and transparent final report is essential to address the many unanswered questions and provide clarity regarding this critical aviation incident.
