Posts about: "AAIB (India)" [Posts: 50 Pages: 3]

If that were the case I'd certainly concede that we might have a much different story here. But also, if that were the case I think it would reflect extremely poorly on the Indian AAIB (who I currently hold in high regard) and their preliminary report. That would be a truly monumental omission that would cause me to seriously question their motives. I also think it would leak pretty quickly. I know the Indian ALPA wanted observer status in this investigation but I'm not sure if they got it or not.

Here is something I have not seen on this thread. In the UK, as I understand it, an accident investigation is lead by the AAIB, however if evidence is discovered that suggests a criminal act has taken place then the police lead the investigation with the AAIB in a supporting role. Here is the memorandum of understanding [pdf] describing this, sections 3.5 and 3.6 describe the difference.

I assume something of the same happens in India. However, I can not find any evidence online that a criminal investigation has been launched there and it seems AAIB (India) continues to lead the investigation.
This suggests that, with all the evidence gathered by the investigators so far (which is substantial), there are no grounds to conclude that a criminal act had been committed.

In other words, this is an accident and not deliberate.

While IMO the Air India 171 preliminary report ( PR ) in some aspects leaves ample room for speculation rather than soothing it, let’s not loose sight of a straight forward assumption that what is presently known to AAIB India beyond what is explicitly stated in the PR , at least to AAIB India’s judgement (and I presume amongst others NTSB's as well), shouldn’t lead to any significantly different preliminary observations and conclusions than those made in the PR at this stage.

In other words, there shouldn't be at present other major known/established facts based on the EAFR readouts (2000+ parameters!), but for now not published, that could immediately lead to other observations/qualifications than those made in the present PR .

If there would be, this would actually mean the end of authority of air safety incident investigation and reporting around the globe as we have known it for the past decades.

I would assume something similar applies in India, though the UK has suffered a few mishaps through the tensions between public 'mishaps' and criminal investigations since there's not always a clear delineation between accident and intention. It is true (I think) in the EU too, hence the rapid switch in the GermanWings investigation once it became a genuine possibility that the crash may have (and had) criminal culpability.

If there's one factor which strikes me as pertinent to the AI171 prelim report, it's that it may have been written in the form we see, to help hold the question of criminality sufficiently distant that the investigators don't loose control of the investigation.

The difference is that Indian police agencies are often extremely reluctant to take cases unless they have to. There are varous reasons that I won't try to explain but I wouldn't take the fact that the IPS or other agencies haven't publicly taken over the investigation yet as having any meaning. I would hope for more transparency but I would not be shocked if this ends up with the Indian equivalent of what happened with China Eastern 5735. Or perhaps pressure will be applied in a positive direction and they'll take and crack the case.

Or did the F/O call for the gear up, the Captain still looking outside, did an action with his right hand, both pilots felt and heard the engines wind down, The F/O looking down realised what had happened, the Captain looked down and couldn't reconcile his intended action (bringing the gear up) hence the "I didn't do it " comment, then selected the FCO switches back to run but it was to late for the situation to be recovered. The only action they could take that they felt they had some control of was to broadcast a MAYDAY.

For me the prelim report just reveals an unintended consequence of relying on muscle memory to carry out an action that has been performed multiple times without confirmation. It happens a lot but rarely with such a tragic consequence. I have turned the ignition switch to Normal during an engine start when asked to set the park brake during a pushback. There have been multiple occasions where an A320 park brake was set when a flap setting was commanded. On more than one occasion the flaps have been raised when "gear up" was commanded. This may not have been the first time the FCO switches have been selected but definitely the first time it wasn't picked up early enough to reverse the action.

As to the CVR recordings, I will repeat what I have often stated previously. There is no inherent right of the public to receive a full transcript of the CVR in order for them to form their own opinion of what happened. It is up to the Indian AAIB to conduct an investigation under the requirements of Annex 13 and possibly a fuller transcript of the CVR will be published in the Final Report to help the reader gain an understanding of what happened.

My belief is that CVideoRs, with robust protections and legislation around their use, will help accident investigations immensely by answering some of the what questions that the FDR and CVR don't seem able to. It doesn't have to be set up like the many Go-Pro images that are on social media. All that is needed is an image of the center console and the engine display and EICAS/ECAM screens .There would be no need to have images of the pilots faces.

BTW, pondering some of the perhaps slightly ambiguous phrasing in the Preliminary Report, I asked a Hindi-speaking friend to look at the Hindi language version. But it turns out - very much open to correction! - that the Indian AAIB issues its reports only in English (Hindi and English are the two official Indian Govt languages). A clue is that Indian AAIB reports don't have that note you often seen in, eg, French English-language Accident Reports that, in the event of differences, the French language report rules. So, what the AAIB said is what it meant to say.

The French prosecutor wasn't running an Annex 13 investigation. The Indian AAIB is.

Perhaps it follows that Annex 13 investigations aren't the 'be-all-and-end-all' of accident investigations? Are you able to identify any error in the French prosecutor's investigation or how it did damage to anyone that should not have been done?

Yes. It would require evidence that we don't have to dispute that.
I expect the AAIB of India would not want it to be said that they did not look for that evidence as thoroughly as they could.
I also do not expect them to find that evidence.
But I want them to have looked, and then say with certainty that it does not exist.