Air India crash report: Indian officials slam WSJ for twisting facts to save Boeing, say ‘no evidence of deliberate fuel cut-off’
Top government sources has rubbished the recent report by the Wall Street Journal and told CNN-News18 that there’s no justification for twisting the cockpit conversation in this way. They emphasized that no evidence so far suggests the fuel cutoff was deliberate. They also noted that the senior pilot, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, has a strong aviation background. He was the son of a retired Civil Aviation Ministry official. “There is no basis to suggest he was under any kind of stress.”
The Wall Street Journal’s recent article on the Air India crash on the June 12 crash of Air India flight AI171, which killed 260 people, is again at fault for what many are describing as a “deliberate attempt” to deflect blame from American plane manufacturer Boeing and place it on Indian pilots, even though no new facts have been discovered since the interim investigation report came out.
The Wall Street Journal’s recent article centred on cockpit voice recordings, asserting that it was the senior pilot, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who shut off the fuel controls in mid-air. Yet this assumption is founded on what amounts to speculation rather than any firm facts. India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) never actually identified which pilot flipped off the switches, if indeed it was done at all.
WSJ attempts to twist the narrative
The initial AAIB report did say that one pilot asked the other if the switches had been turned off, and the other pilot said no, but it did not identify these voices with names. The Wall Street Journal took it a step further, reportedly based on “people familiar with U.S. officials’ early assessment”, to identify the calm pilot as the captain and the hysterical one as the co-pilot. This subtle but important turn of events creates the impression that the captain might have either intentionally or accidentally caused the crash, although the official Indian report makes no such inference.
This is not the first time the Wall Street Journal has leapt to Boeing’s defence. It was only a few days since the crash when the Wall Street Journal published an article on 10th June saying, “The probe into last month’s Air India disaster is targeting the behaviour of the jet’s pilots and does not yet indicate a flaw with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.” Once again, they referenced anonymous US officials to imply that the US-made plane had nothing to do with the crash.
WSJ’s pattern of deflection
This seems like a trend in the way the Wall Street Journal covers aeroplane crashes with Boeing. The story tends to shift rapidly towards “pilot error” before thorough data are analysed. In the present instance, both Air India pilots, Captain Sabharwal, who had more than 15,000 hours of flying experience, and First Officer Clive Kunder, who had over 3,400 flying hours, were experienced.
However, rather than dwelling on potential technical defects, design faults, or maintenance issues, the American media is opting to raise doubts regarding the behaviour of the cockpit crew.
What does the report say?
Indian authorities, however, have been more nuanced in their approach. The initial 15-page report by AAIB, released last week, provided an exhaustive technical analysis. It happened that the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner departed from Ahmedabad to London and had only just crossed 180 knots when the two engines lost power instantly. The two engine fuel control switches were toggled from the “RUN” to the “CUTOFF” position one second apart from each other, resulting in full engine shutdown.
Although the switches were turned back on about 10 seconds later, the plane had already started losing altitude and crashed shortly after, killing 260 people, including 19 on the ground. Only one person survived.
The Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which automatically deploys in case of total power loss, was found to be deployed by the report, which further confirms that both engines had failed. Notably, the AAIB report eliminated the possibility of a bird strike or obstruction during takeoff. The engines and important components are currently undergoing detailed scrutiny.
Investigation still in progress, but media trial already underway
Though Indian officials have yet to determine if the switch-off was a technical glitch, pilot mistake, or potentially a design flaw, the WSJ is in a rush to throw fingers. Air India CEO Campbell Wilson has already advised workers and the press against making hasty assumptions. He correctly noted that the investigation is far from over and is still being conducted.
US officials, such as Jennifer Homendy of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), have not made a conclusive statement holding the pilots responsible, either. Homendy stated that the aim is to find out if there is any urgent safety threat to other Boeing 787 flights quickly. No safety notice from Boeing or the FAA has been made so far for the Dreamliner.
Former NTSB official Ben Berman has suggested that the flipping of both fuel switches only a second apart may have appeared intentional, yet even he does not go so far as to call it pilot error. That’s because, before the engines shut off, there were no indications of trouble or distress in the cockpit.
Pilots object to WSJ and US Media reports
Meanwhile, the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) raised concerns about how the preliminary report was interpreted and presented publicly by WSJ and other Western media.
“At the outset, we would like to register our dissatisfaction with the exclusion of pilot representatives from the investigation process… Assigning blame before a thorough, transparent, and data-driven investigation is both premature and irresponsible,” the statement said.
News