The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) is considering legal action against The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) for its recent reports on the Air India flight AI 171 crash, alleging the publication is unfairly targeting pilots.
Pilot Group Objects to ‘Maligning’ Pilots
The FIP, which represents approximately 5,500 pilots, has strongly criticized the WSJ’s coverage of the Air India 171 crash. FIP President CS Randhawa stated that the publication is “maligning” pilots by insinuating deliberate action on their part.
This accusation comes despite the preliminary investigation report not explicitly mentioning pilot error or action. Randhawa confirmed the group is consulting lawyers regarding potential legal action against the US-based publication.
The WSJ’s Controversial Report
The Wall Street Journal’s recent report claimed that details from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) of the ill-fated Boeing 787-8 suggested one of the pilots might have switched off the fuel control switches. The WSJ attributed this information to unnamed “people familiar with US officials’ early assessment of the investigation.”
This specific claim, implying a pilot intentionally cut fuel, is at the core of FIP’s concerns and their threat of legal action.
Official Probe Findings Versus Speculation
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report on the AI 171 crash. It stated that both engines lost power because their fuel control switches transitioned from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ within seconds of each other, right after takeoff.
The CVR data mentioned one pilot asking the other why fuel was cut, to which the other pilot denied doing so. Crucially, the official report did not conclude that either pilot deliberately moved these switches. It only noted that the transition occurred, without assigning blame.
Wider Industry Calls for Caution
Beyond FIP, other major pilot associations, including the Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA) and the Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPA-I), have also expressed concern. They highlight the dangers of speculating about pilot actions at such an early stage of the investigation, especially without definitive proof.
Senior aviation ministry officials and industry experts echo this sentiment. They emphasize that the preliminary report is based on “preliminary facts and evidence” and is clearly marked as “subject to change” as the probe progresses. Rushing to conclusions is deemed inappropriate at this juncture.
The Path Forward for Investigators
Experts suggest that the ongoing investigation should now focus on determining the precise cause behind the fuel control switches transitioning. This includes exploring whether the switches were moved inadvertently by a pilot, or if a technical, mechanical, or software issue triggered the change.
Notably, the preliminary report did not issue any immediate safety recommendations for other Boeing 787-8 operators or its GE engines. This suggests that, at this early stage, investigators do not have reason to believe there was an immediate systemic issue with the aircraft or its engines.
- India’s Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) is threatening legal action against The Wall Street Journal.
- FIP alleges WSJ’s reporting on the Air India 171 crash unfairly targets pilots by implying deliberate action.
- The official preliminary crash report noted fuel control switches moved but did not conclude pilot error.
- Other pilot groups and aviation officials also urge caution against early speculation.
The aviation community awaits the full investigation findings, urging patience and adherence to factual evidence before drawing definitive conclusions about the tragic incident.