NEW DELHI—The Supreme Court of India has taken strong exception to reports suggesting that "pilot error" was the cause of the recent Air India plane crash, labeling such premature conclusions as "unfortunate" and "irresponsible." In a significant move, the court has issued notices to the Union Government and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on a plea demanding a more transparent and independent investigation into the tragedy.
The Court’s Stance ⚖️
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO, Safety Matters Foundation. The petition raised serious concerns about the preliminary report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), which seemed to attribute the fatal June 12 crash to the pilots. The report pointed to the aircraft's fuel cutoff switches being moved from "run" to "cutoff" shortly after takeoff, implying a lapse on the part of the flight crew.
During the hearing, the court expressed deep dismay over the selective leaking of information from the preliminary report, which fueled a media narrative of pilot fault. Justice Kant observed that such actions were "very irresponsible" and could cause immense suffering to the pilots' families and tarnish their reputations, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the need for confidentiality and dignity until a final, comprehensive report is completed.
Concerns Over the Investigation 🕵️♂️
The PIL, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, highlighted several critical issues with the ongoing investigation:
Conflict of Interest: The petition alleged a potential conflict of interest, as some members of the probe panel were from the aviation regulator itself.
Suppression of Evidence: The plea claimed that the preliminary report deliberately withheld crucial data, including the full Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) output, complete Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcripts with time stamps, and Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording (EAFR) data. The court did not, however, order the release of this data at this stage, citing concerns about potential misuse by rival airlines.
Systemic Failures: The petition argued that the AAIB report downplayed documented systemic anomalies, such as electrical faults in the Bus Power Control Units, anomalies in stabilizer sensors, and the unexplained deployment of the Ram Air Turbine—a device that activates during severe power loss. These findings, the plea contended, support an "electrical disturbance theory" that contradicts the pilot error narrative.
Victim's Account: The plea also noted that the sole survivor of the crash reportedly described lights flickering inside the cabin before the plane "froze in the air," an account that supports the theory of electrical malfunction.
.jpeg)
0 Comments