As the theories are spinning about the Air India accident, key details remain unknown

While the previous report that caused the Air India 171 flight loss last month, gave some answers, it also provoked a wave of speculation about her business.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed into the building less than a minute after takeoff from Ahmedabad on Western India on the way to London, killed 241 people aboard and 19 on the ground. One passenger survived.

The information contained in the report on India’s air accidents, the first official report on what happened, raised questions about the role of pilots.

However, the experts under the aviation industry claim that the investigators were very selective in what they decided to say.

According to international protocols, the state investigating air accidents is designed to issue a preliminary report within 30 days. A 15-page document published by the Bureau for an Investigation of Aerial Catastrophe in India (AAIB) Saturday fulfills this requirement.

Although AAIB is investigating, US interests are also presented because Boeing, aircraft manufacturer and Ge aerospace, engine manufacturer.

The report did not outline any conclusions regarding the cause of the accident. However, this caused a significant dispute.

In his or her emergency flight, AAIB claims that the two fuel switches were moved from the “launch” to the “cut” position after takeoff.

This deprived the fuel engines and made them lose their cravings. Despite the fact that the data from the recorder show indicates that the engines were further restarted, it was too late to prevent the collapse.

Usually, these switches are only used to turn the engines before the flight and then. They have a lock mechanism, which means that they need to be pulling out before turning over, the system designed to prevent accidental deployment.

The report also states that one pilot asks another “why he compartment” and his colleague “replied that he did not.”

However, it does not give any direct transcript of the conversation that the cabin recorder (CVR) would be taken. He also does not determine which pilot asked this question.

It should be remembered that previous reports are not intended to offer a complete picture of what has happened or draw firm conclusions. They should be the actual supply of information obtained in the early stages of what can be a long investigation.

The investigation management is also not obliged to submit its previous reports to publicly available.

The information published so far has encouraged a number of commentators to say that the media and the crash were the result of intentional and intentional actions of one of the pilots.

This is the opinion that attracted an angry reaction of the Association of Indian Commercial Pilots, which warned that “an appeal to such a serious accusation based on incomplete or preliminary information, not only irresponsibly – is deeply insensitive to people and families.”

It adds that “accidentally assume that the suicide pilot in the absence of proven evidence is a gross violation of ethical reporting.”

In a note with employees, the head of Air India made a similar note. Campbell Wilson warned against drawing “premature conclusions”.

Ever since the report has been issued, the BBC talked to different people in the industry, including pilots, accidents and engineers. Although theories have actually different, the dominant opinion is that important information is currently missing.

“They told us that they wanted us to know at the moment, and deprived them that they did not want us to know,” one pilot explained to him to identify. “This is not a complete report.”

One of the main criticisms is the lack of transcript from the voice recorder of the cabin, which would allow the conversation between the pilots about the fuel shutdown in the context.

Bjorn Fehrm, Aviation analyst at Leeham News consultants said it was “completely unacceptable”.

“They have all these technical details. Then you have this link to the dialogue, but it doesn’t even tell you who is talking,” he said.

Mr. FEHRM was also concerned that there was no link to what happened in the cabin between the switches that rolled off the launch to the cut off, and the first switch was pushed back to the position to move the first engine after 10 seconds.

“It’s someone trying to hide something,” he said.

Meanwhile, an engineering source said the report was “very selective” and had no detailed information that the engines were doing just before switching. The document states that the engine speed began to decline from the rise “because the fuel to the engines was disabled.”

This, according to them, was important – because the switching switches to the compartment and the back was that the pilot would be prepared to restart the engine that is already losing power.

Tim Atkinson, Aviation Consultant and a former Investigator in the UK, said: “It is very disappointed to read a report, which gives some notable facts, leaves many more questions.”

Another element of the report that caused disputes is a link to the security newsletter – known as a special newsletter on good faith – published by the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States (FAA) in 2018.

This was used to prevent the aviation community that the operators about some Boeing 737 models reported the cases where fuel switch offs were installed with the shutdown of the lock – potentially allowing to switch accidentally.

At the time, FAA called it “a problem that is stored on the air” but stated that it was “not a dangerous condition” that would require mandatory actions through what is known as the Aerial Directive.

The operators of a number of different Boeing models equipped with similar switch, including 787s, are recommended for simple checks.

The investigation report states that Air India did not conduct these inspections – which caused the assumption that the accident could be caused by faulty switches that have turned over.

However, In the internal note that BBC sawFAA has since confirmed its opinion that the issue has not raised security.

Engineering sources also noted that the report states that the model of control of the throttle on the broken plane was replaced twice, two years before the accident. It would also envisage the replacement of the switch.

According to Bjorn Fehrm with Leeham News, the FAA tips contained in the report were “completely insignificant” in the context of the accident.

However, the CEO of the Civil Aviation of India asked the operators of all aircraft covered by the original FAA ballot to conduct checks until July 21.

For former investigator Tim Atkinson, the uncertainty of the report can be intentional – to offer an explanation of the accident, avoiding too obvious.

“The worst reports are written for reading” between lines “, and if it is what we have here, it does not deserve investigators,” he said.

Meanwhile, those seeking firm answers to what happened in the flight 171 may have to wait.

International protocols suggest that the final report should be published within a year after the accident. However, in practice, this can take much longer.