How Institutional Bypass Affects Air Crash Investigations

The haunting silence after a major air crash is never truly silent. It is filled with the urgent, meticulous work of investigators sifting through debris, data, and testimony to answer one sacred question: why? The integrity of this process is the bedrock of aviation safety. It is what turns tragedy into lessons that protect future passengers.

Today, that very integrity is under threat in the investigation into the catastrophic Air India AI171 accident. The threat is not from missing data or damaged components, but from something more insidious: institutional bypass. A formal complaint filed by the Safety Matters Foundation to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) exposes a dangerous precedent where the authority and independence of the crash investigator are being publicly undermined by another wing of the state.

The technical core of the complaint concerns the Fuel Control Switch (FCS) on Boeing 787 aircraft. Following a separate occurrence on an Air India 787 (flight AI132), the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)—the aviation regulator—issued public communications widely perceived as giving the mechanism a “clean chit.” The problem? The AAIB is still actively investigating the AI171 crash, and the FCS system falls squarely within its investigative scope. By publicly pronouncing the system resolved, the regulator has, intentionally or not, staged a preemptive strike on the investigator’s narrative.

This is not a minor bureaucratic squabble. It strikes at the heart of why independent accident investigation bodies exist. Their power is not in punishment, but in unimpeachable credibility. They must follow the evidence wherever it leads, free from political, commercial, or institutional pressure. When another government agency, especially the regulator overseeing the airline and manufacturer involved, publicly closes a line of inquiry, it creates a cascade of risks.

First, it risks the evidence itself. The components from the AI132 incident are potentially material evidence for AI171. They now risk being handled, tested, or returned to service without the forensic, sealed chain-of-custody mandated for a crash investigation. Crucial clues about wear, failure modes, or latent defects could be lost forever.

Second, it contaminates the investigative ecosystem. Witnesses, engineers, and experts hear the message: “The higher-ups have settled this issue.” This can subtly shape recollections, discourage candid testimony, and steer technical focus away from a path declared “closed” by a powerful authority.

Most damningly, it erodes public trust. The flying public must believe that the final report on AI171 is the unvarnished truth, not a conclusion negotiated between agencies or softened to protect reputations. When the regulator appears to pre-judge the investigator’s work, it fuels the darkest suspicions about cover-ups and compromises.

The Safety Matters Foundation’s letter is a crucial intervention. It is not an accusation of causality, but a fierce defence of process. It calls on the AAIB to immediately wield its statutory powers—to seize evidence, issue preservation orders, and publicly reclaim its sole authority over the investigative narrative. The AAIB’s response will be a defining test of its independence. Will it act to secure the integrity of its own investigation, or will it allow its mandate to be diluted?

The stakes extend far beyond one tragic accident. India’s aviation sector is growing at a phenomenal pace. The world watches how it manages safety. Robust, transparent, and fiercely independent accident investigation is not a luxury; it is the cornerstone of a credible safety culture. If the AAIB’s primacy can be bypassed today on AI171, no future investigation will be safe from interference.

The families of those lost in AI171, and every future passenger, deserve a single, unambiguous answer to the question “why?” That answer can only come from an investigation shielded from all influence. The AAIB must now prove it is the guardian of that shield. The truth must be led by evidence, not by institutional prerogative.