By Vimal Sumbly
If the Union Carbide could get away with killing over 5,000 people in the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984, the Boing and the General Electric can also wriggle out after the death of 260 people in a Boeing Dreamliner crash in Ahmedabad on June 12 this year. There are strong indications already that both Boeing and GE will get away as the blame is being put on the pilot(s).
There is nothing clear in the Ahmedabad Air India Dreamliner crash initial probe conducted by the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India except that the entire blame is to be put on the pilots, while the Boeing and the GE are being protected from any technical faults. However, past record suggests that it is too early to issue a clean chit to the two companies on technical grounds.
It is obvious that the pilots, who lost their lives along with 258 others, are no longer there to defend themselves. Most absurd thing being suggested is that it was a “suicidal” incident. Although the probe nowhere suggests it openly that it was a suicide, but the contents of the probe hint at that. Some newspapers like the Times of London even carried a banner headline in bold and large font, suggesting, “sabotage or suicide”.
The intent of the initial probe is not lost on anyone. Pilots across the country are genuinely feeling angry and outraged at how their late colleagues are being subjected to a malicious summary trial posthumously. The very fact that the pilots still managed to veer away the plane towards a relatively open space clearing it of the densely populated area should have been enough proof that the pilot(s) did not want to commit suicide. Anyone keen to commit suicide would not bother about anyone else.
The final probe is likely to take about a year. But the purpose of those who are sought to be protected, has been served already. With these suggestions, which are not actual findings, that it was a pilot error, the Boeing, the manufacturer of the plane, and GE, the manufacturer of the engines, have been provided a breather, rather a safe exit. Even if and when it is established that it was a technical and not a pilot error, by that time, most people who are keenly following the probe right now, may have forgotten about it.
That the initial probe is clearly biased in favour of the Boeing and the General Electric is proved from the point when the report says, there are no recommended actions to the aircraft manufacturer, (the Boeing) and the engine manufacturer (the General Electric). The report apparently rules out any technical error merely on the basis of conjecture that fuel supply to the engines had been 'CUT OFF' by one of the pilots.
It is surprising how the AAIB could conclude that the fuel supply to both the engines had been stopped deliberately by one of the pilots and that it could not stop due to any technical issues.
According to the aviation and legal experts a thorough reading of the initial probe suggests that the pilots were not initially aware of the ‘CUTOFF’ position, which means fuel had been cut off to the engines without their knowledge, which also means it could have been cut off due to some technical failure in the engines or the aircraft. The report also adds that eventually the pilots tried to switch on the supply and turned it to ‘RUN’ position, but by that time it was too late for the engines to generate the thrust again.
The Financial Times quoted Sarah Stewart, a partner in the UK law firm, Stewarts, saying that its reading of the report was that the pilots “were not aware that the fuel had been cut off… the factual information raises a troubling spectre that this accident may have been caused by UNCOMMANDED fuel cut-off, suggesting a possible failure in the Boeing systems.”
Also read: Indian skies echo with 11 Mayday calls in just 17 months
Before seeking to put the entire blame on pilot error, the AAIB of India should have taken note of the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warning to the Boeing way back in 2018 about a “potential disengagement of the locking feature on the fuel switches on some Boeing aircrafts based on reports from 737 operators.” However, the FAA at that time did not deem it as an “unsafe condition” that would require a “mandatory inspection”.
But now, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation in India has advised all the airlines operating the Boeing planes to complete the inspection recommended by the FAA no later than July 21. It is like locking the stable after the horse has bolted.
According to the Guardian newspaper, “the US safety regulator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has had to investigate several concerns over the years, including a mid-air dive on a Latam Airlines flight last year.”
The newspaper said that a whistle-blower, a former engineer, had, in Washington hearings last year, urged Boeing to ground all 787 Dreamliner planes worldwide. Boeing rejected the claims by its former engineer and said it was fully confident about the Dreamliner plane.
Only a month before the Air India 171 crash, Boeing agreed to pay $1.1 billion in a deal with the US Department of Justice to avoid prosecution over the two crashes that together killed 346 people in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
The AABI has clearly rushed through the conclusions even though it says that the final probe may take one year more. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the AABI has based its initial findings on mere assumption and conjecture that one of the pilots may have switched off the fuel supply to both the engines. It is surprising how the bureau has ruled out any technical issues just in the beginning of the probe within a month, when it itself says that the probe will take one year to complete.
The purpose and the intent of the initial probe appear to be obvious to protect the Boeing and the GE and build up a narrative that it was a “pilot error” and not any technical error. Once the narrative is built with a clear intent of creating a particular perception about pilot error, it will be difficult to change even when the truth and the conclusions are established contrary to the initial observations. In fact, these are initial observations and must not be confused as the “conclusive findings”.
At stake is the safety of everyone who flies, as well as the reputation of the pilots who are not around anymore to defend themselves.
Follow us
