Context

• In a country where every life lost in an aircraft accident should lead to truth, justice, and reform, India’s aviation safety apparatus has repeatedly failed its citizens.
• Despite the veneer of institutional structure, the system is plagued by opacity, conflicts of interest, and a deeply ingrained reluctance to confront inconvenient truths.
• Therefore, it is important to examine the flaws in India’s aircraft accident investigation framework and proposes concrete reforms to restore integrity, transparency, and accountability.

The Flaws in India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Framework

• An Illusion of Autonomy
  • India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), on paper, appears to be an autonomous body.
  • In reality, it operates under the control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), the very authority that oversees airlines, regulates the aviation sector via the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and appoints top officials in both regulatory and investigative arms.
  • This setup presents a glaring conflict of interest, where the regulator and the investigator are ultimately accountable to the same entity.
  • Unlike the functional independence afforded to railway safety investigations, aviation investigations in India remain institutionally compromised.
• A System in Reactive Mode
  • The June 2025 aircraft accident in Ahmedabad should serve as a wake-up call.
  • It is only the latest in a series of troubling incidents, ranging from helicopter crashes and flying school mishaps to ground handling failures and weather-related emergencies.
  • These events expose the system’s reactive tendencies. India continues to firefight rather than anticipate and prevent risks.
  • The country’s increasing aviation sector has far outgrown the current National Civil Aviation Policy (NCAP), and the regulatory apparatus has not kept pace.

Lessons Ignored: The Seth Committee Report

• India has ignored valuable lessons from its past.
• The 1997 Air Marshal J.K. Seth Committee Report was a bold attempt to highlight the aviation sector’s structural deficiencies, fragmented oversight, lack of independence, poor training, and regulatory capture.
• But because it spoke uncomfortable truths, it was effectively buried.
• The issues it flagged remain unresolved, perpetuating a cycle of superficial reviews and ineffective reforms.

Some Other Flaws in India’s Accident Investigation Framework

• The Culture of Contradictions
  • Too many accident reports suffer from contradictions and omissions.
  • In one case from 2001 involving the death of a former Union Minister, the official cause cited cloud entry, though meteorological data confirmed clear skies.
  • Overloading in the 1993 Aurangabad crash was evident but diluted in the final report.
  • Requests for data in the 2018 Air India Express incident have been stonewalled.
  • These lapses suggest more than administrative error, they point to a systemic impulse to obscure uncomfortable facts.
• Distortion of Investigative Purpose
  • Under the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017, investigations aim to enhance safety, not assign legal blame.
  • Yet, law enforcement and courts routinely misuse AAIB findings for prosecutions, distorting their original purpose.
  • Police, lacking aviation expertise, treat these findings as conclusive verdicts. Judges, constrained by legal protocols, often fail to appreciate the technical nuances of aviation investigations.
  • This results in a disproportionate focus on pilot error, a convenient scapegoat that simplifies insurance payouts and shields larger institutional failures from scrutiny.
• Institutional Evasion and Public Betrayal
  • Too often, investigations are shaped not to uncover the truth, but to protect powerful institutions.
  • The MoCA retains overwhelming control, over policy, regulation, appointments, and investigations.
  • This concentration of power eliminates meaningful accountability. Victims’ families receive contradictory reports and no real answers.
  • The public trust is broken, as the system appears designed more to manage optics than to deliver justice.
  • Despite the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) State Safety Briefing claiming zero fatal accidents in recent years, India witnessed the tragic Kozhikode crash in 2020 that killed 21 people.
  • Recommendations from the investigation remain unimplemented. The silence around systemic change is deafening.

Reform Agenda: From Silence to Integrity

• Institutional Independence: Move the AAIB and DGCA out of the MoCA and make them report directly to Parliament.
• No Parallel Committees: Stop appointing ad hoc committees that dilute or bypass existing investigative mechanisms.
• Legal Safeguards: Prevent the misuse of AAIB findings in criminal trials unless independently validated by aviation experts.
• Rule Reform: Amend Rule 19(3) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, to uphold a no-blame culture and protect pilots from punitive action unless gross negligence is proven.
• Oversight Mechanism: Appoint an independent ombudsman to examine past reports and ensure future accountability. 

Conclusion

• India has the expertise, the tools, and the institutional framework to become a global leader in aviation safety.
• What it lacks is the political and bureaucratic will to tell the truth.
• Aircraft accident investigation should be about more than paperwork and posturing, it should be a solemn act of honouring the lives lost.
• By choosing truth over image, India can begin to rebuild faith in its skies, and in its institutions.