The preliminary report of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) probing the Air India flight 171 crash has answered only a few of the many questions. The objectivity and credibility of the report is already being questioned, thereby casting a shadow over what should have been an impartial and transparent investigation into one of India’s worst aviation accidents in recent years. The AAIB has clearly stated that information in the report is “preliminary and subject to change,” and this disclaimer is crucial. It reflects the nature of aviation accident investigations, which often require months of meticulous data gathering, expert analysis, and testing before definitive conclusions can be drawn. Nevertheless, given the high public interest and the gravity of the crash, many had hoped that the preliminary report would at least offer a coherent narrative of what could have happened in the cockpit in the moments leading up to the disaster. One of the most significant findings in the report is the observation that both engine fuel cutoff switches “transitioned from run to cutoff position one after another with a time gap of one second.”

This is a vital piece of evidence, as it essentially indicates that both engines stopped receiving fuel in rapid succession, leading to a total loss of thrust. However, the report stops short of explaining why this happened. Did the transition occur due to manual pilot input or a mechanical failure? This critical question remains unanswered, leaving a major gap in understanding the sequence of events that led to the crash. The report rules out a range of common contributing factors such as adverse weather conditions, bird strikes, incorrect aircraft configuration, contaminated fuel, and pre-existing issues with the engines that were known earlier on. This narrows the potential causes to a few possibilities, but without pinpointing whether human error or technical malfunction was responsible for the fuel cutoff, the report leaves a crucial ambiguity unresolved. The response of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) India to the preliminary report has only served to deepen skepticism. ALPA has publicly criticised the findings, stating that the report hints at “the guilt of pilots.” This response reflects a broader concern within the aviation community: that the preliminary report, while ostensibly factual, may contain implications that are neither proven nor fair.

In the absence of definitive evidence, implying pilot culpability—whether through omission or ambiguity—will not only damage reputations but also derail the broader safety learning that should be the primary outcome of any such investigation. It is essential that investigations focus on establishing fact-based causes and not stray into speculative territory. Aviation safety experts have also pointed out that investigations should aim not just at identifying the causes and those responsible but at preventing future occurrences. From this perspective, the preliminary report would have been more helpful had it provided a clearer roadmap of the investigative steps ahead, especially regarding the analysis of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), flight data recorder (FDR), and the potential examination of the aircraft’s electronic and mechanical systems. What remains now is the hope that the final report will bring greater clarity, accountability, and closure. For the families of the victims, the aviation industry, and the traveling public, the credibility of the AAIB’s conclusions is of utmost importance. A transparent, technically sound, and impartial investigation is a sine qua non of institutional responsibility.