Context

• Aviation safety is founded on the principle that even a single loss of life is unacceptable.
• This conviction underpins the global framework established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which stresses collective responsibility and openness.
• The crash of Air India Flight 171 in June 2025 highlights a disturbing gap between these principles and their implementation in India, raising serious concerns about transparency, regulatory independence, and international credibility.

ICAO Principles and the Centrality of Transparency

• ICAO recognises aviation as an interconnected global system in which a failure in one state affects all others.
• Transparency and the free exchange of safety information are essential to collective action, effective regulation, and public confidence.
• Annex 13 mandates independent, non-punitive accident investigations focused solely on preventing future occurrences.
• India, as an ICAO signatory, is obligated to uphold these standards. However, the handling of the AI 171 investigation reflects a retreat from openness, replacing clarity with delay and ambiguity, thereby weakening trust in the investigative process.

The AI 171 Crash and Troubling Indicators

• AI 171 crashed within a minute of take-off from Ahmedabad, killing 241 passengers and 19 people on the ground.
• The rapid recovery of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR), with assistance from the U.S.
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), underscored the gravity of the event.
• The need for commando protection for the chief investigator further suggested the sensitivity of the findings.
• The preliminary report, released a month later, raised more questions than it answered.
• It confirmed that both engine fuel control switches moved to cut-off seconds after lift-off and recorded a brief cockpit exchange denying intentional action.
• Since these switches require deliberate mechanical movement, the absence of detailed analysis is deeply concerning.
• The CVR and DFDR should conclusively reveal cockpit actions, crew roles, and ambient cues during the critical seconds, particularly with NTSB expertise available.
• The lack of clarity points to reluctance in addressing uncomfortable conclusions.

International Friction and Political Interference

• Serious differences reportedly emerged between Indian authorities and international investigators.
• The NTSB’s strictly technical mandate leaves no room for political influence, and resistance to altering findings appears to have strained cooperation.
• This breakdown has been described by experienced safety officials as unprecedented.
• Such discord undermines assurances of a truthful and transparent investigation.
• In aviation safety, credibility is earned through impartiality and openness, not national defensiveness.
• Political interference compromises both the integrity of the investigation and India’s standing within the global aviation community.

A Pattern of Regulatory Weakness

• The AI 171 case reflects long-standing systemic issues. After the 2010 Mangalore crash, official claims of ICAO compliance were contradicted by later findings of concealed safety violations.
• Following the 2020 Kozhikode crash, promised corrective actions remain largely unimplemented years later.
• The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has repeatedly yielded to political and commercial pressure, delaying enforcement of safety requirements and granting repeated extensions.
• The mishandling of the AI 171 crash site, where evidence was compromised and flights resumed without adequate rescue and fire-fighting services, further illustrates institutional failure and disregard for established safety protocols.

Information Vacuum and Misinformation

• Delayed and ambiguous communication has created fertile ground for misinformation.
• Speculative narratives, particularly on social media, have misrepresented technical systems such as ACARS and Inmarsat, which operate within encrypted and restricted frameworks.
• In the absence of authoritative clarity, such claims gain traction despite lacking factual basis.
• In contrast, Air India’s restraint in avoiding speculative commentary reflects responsible conduct, highlighting the obligation of investigative authorities to provide timely, accurate information.

Lessons from International Best Practices

• International practice demonstrates a stark contrast. Following a UPS MD-11 cargo crash in November 2025, the NTSB conducted daily briefings, rapidly analysed recorder data, and coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
• Within days, the FAA issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive grounding the aircraft type.
• The absence of similar action after AI 171 strongly indicates that international regulators do not believe a systemic defect exists in the Boeing 787.
• This suggests that the probable cause lies elsewhere, knowledge that, if withheld, only deepens suspicion about the investigation’s integrity.

Conclusion

• The tragedy of AI 171 extends beyond the crash itself to its aftermath. Lack of transparency, investigative delays, and the marginalisation of foreign expertise risk isolating India from the global aviation safety community.
• Such isolation undermines diplomatic standing, regulatory credibility, and passenger confidence.
• Aviation safety cannot coexist with secrecy or political interference.
• To honour its responsibilities and restore trust, India must recommit to independent investigation, transparency, and meaningful regulatory reform. Failure to do so risks repeating history at an unacceptable human cost.