AAIB said it will push law to allow pilots in future probes: ALPA

NEw new delhi The Aircraft stroke investigating Bureau (AAIB), which is leading the research into the June 12 break apart of Air India Flight 171, on Friday declined a proposal by the pilots’ association to include external subject matter experts (SMEs) in the probe team, citing legislative “limitations” but assured that future amendments to the law could allow for external participation, pilots’ body said.On June 12, AI-171 carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 229 passengers, all crew members, and 19 people on the ground. Several others sustained serious injuries. AAIB is leading the inquiry into the tragedy, with participation from the US National Transportation Safety Board, the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and Boeing representatives.On Friday, representatives of the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) India held a meeting with AAIB director general GVG Yugandhar in New Delhi. The meeting comes after the body sent a letter to the civil aviation minister to discuss ways of better representing pilots’ stand point and views during the course of the investigation.After the meeting on Friday, ALPA India president Sam Thomas said the ongoing probe into the crash was not discussed. “The DG AAIB made it known to us his limitations as far as including any outside body is concerned that does not belong to the Government of India. This is as per the Act. However, they will do everything to see that when the Act is being amended, there is a provision where outside experts can be involved officially,” he said.He added that the AAIB agreed to hold quarterly meetings with ALPA India to develop a roadmap for future collaboration. “All further accident investigations would also have either ALPA India or its nominees. The final choice of the inclusion of the SMEs in a particular accident would be the absolute choice of the lead investigator.”However, a PIB official said that the government had not been made aware of AAIB’s assurances.An AAIB official aware of the matter said: “It’s a courtesy meet and ALPA presented their role in safety and global presence. AAIB informed that the investigators are conducted as per AAIB rules and ICAO norms.”ALPA India general secretary Anil Rao said the body also suggested a memoranda of understanding (MoUs) between the government and independent organisations, as practised in other countries. “We are glad that they invited us to put forth our concerns. We are the first pilot representative body to be invited to a meeting with a government body. This is a positive step,” Rao said.The demand for external experts was first raised after ALPA India requested that SMEs, including its representatives, be made part of the AI-171 crash probe. The request came after AAIB’s preliminary report, released on July 12, had said that the aircraft’s fuel switches were cut off within a one-second gap immediately after takeoff from Ahmedabad, causing confusion in the cockpit before the aircraft crashed into a building. However, media reports on July 17 cited US officials as suggesting that the cockpit recordings indicated captain Sumeet Sabharwal switched off fuel control switches while first officer Clive Kunder questioned his actions.AAIB had criticised the reports as “selective and unverified”.AAIB’s preliminary report had triggered criticism from several quarters. Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) accused the AAIB of “fundamentally and irrevocably compromising the integrity, impartiality, and legality” of the investigation by selectively leaking information to the media. Pushkaraj Sabharwal, father of pilot Sumeet Sabharwal, who was on board AI-171, also condemned the leak, saying it damaged his late son’s reputation. In a letter to the civil aviation ministry on August 29, he dismissed claims that his son was under psychological stress or suicidal as “absurd” and “deeply damaging.”The NGO Safety Matters Foundation subsequently filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an independent investigation. On September 22, the Supreme Court noted the concerns, called the premature release of the preliminary report “unfortunate,” and sought a response from the DGCA.