The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) on Friday, 19 June demanded a transparent judicial enquiry into the Air India AI-171 Boeing 787 crash that killed more than 260 people, asserting that independent technical evidence fundamentally contradicts the preliminary investigation's implied narrative that pilot actions caused the disaster. The federation has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking an independent probe.

The Core Challenge to the Preliminary Report

At a press conference in Mumbai, FIP President Captain C.S. Randhawa said the organisation's central objection concerns a critical timeline discrepancy. According to FIP, the preliminary report states the aircraft's hydraulic system became active approximately four seconds after the engine shutdown sequence at 08:08:43.

However, 10 independent test runs on a certified Boeing 787 Level D six-axis simulator — accredited by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and conducted under the supervision of attorney Mike Andrews of Beasley Allen Law Firm — reportedly showed that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) requires approximately 18 seconds to deploy and generate hydraulic pressure. The FIP cited Hamilton Sundstrand technical training documents, stating the process involves roughly 12 seconds for engines to spool down below flight idle and a further 6 seconds for RAT deployment. The federation argued this discrepancy alone warrants a transparent simulator validation exercise by investigators.

Disputed Fuel Switch Narrative

The federation also challenged suggestions that the pilots deliberately moved the aircraft's fuel control switches to the cut-off position. FIP noted that the preliminary report itself used the word 'transitioned' rather than concluding the switches were physically moved by the crew.

The organisation urged investigators to examine the possibility of an uncommanded technical or electrical failure involving Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) and Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation systems. It further argued that an electrical fault affecting shock absorber micro-switches could theoretically return the aircraft to ground mode mid-flight, triggering a computer-driven fuel cut-off — a scenario, it contends, that has not been ruled out.

Prior Boeing 787 Technical Incidents Cited

To support its argument, FIP referenced a 2019 incident involving an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 in Osaka, Japan, where both engines reportedly experienced an uncommanded shutdown linked to air-mode logic after touchdown. The federation also cited 31 documented instances globally of uncommanded RAT deployment linked to faulty internal shuttle valves, and alleged that 19 Air India Boeing 787 aircraft were operating with unmodified versions of those components at the time.

Additionally, FIP pointed to an October 2025 incident involving Air India Boeing 787 aircraft VT-ANO on a flight from Amritsar to Birmingham, in which an uncommanded RAT deployment reportedly occurred just three months after the aircraft had been serviced.

The federation also cited what it described as 'an official whistleblower audit' that identified more than 357 adverse safety findings and reported repeated technical snags affecting seven out of every 10 airframes reviewed.

Questions Over Investigation Structure and Evidence

FIP questioned why 11 system maintenance codes transmitted through the Aircraft Health Monitoring System between 07:07:53 and 08:09:00 were not included in the preliminary report, noting those codes could only be decoded by the aircraft manufacturer.

The federation also referred to testimony from the crash's sole survivor, who reportedly described hearing a 'big bang' from the rear of the cabin accompanied by flickering lights shortly before impact. It further claimed the forward Digital Flight Data Recorder was recovered covered in soot but undamaged, while the rear recorder was reportedly destroyed by an electrical fire despite the tail section and auxiliary power unit doors remaining intact.

Regarding the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) panel, FIP alleged the six-member body lacked Boeing 787-specific expertise, noting that the Director General heading the panel previously served in the Air Force with a background in missile defence systems. The federation also raised a potential conflict of interest over the participation of two serving Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) officials on the enquiry panel, which it argued could violate international civil aviation investigation standards. It further alleged that experienced Boeing 787 examiner and former Director of Operations Captain R.S. Sandhu had been sidelined from the active investigation despite initially being assigned to the panel.

Victims' Families and Compensation Concerns

The FIP also voiced concern over the treatment of victims' families, alleging some had difficulty obtaining responses from Air India and Tata Group management after raising questions about the crash. It warned families against signing settlement or release documents without independent legal advice.

Citing the Montreal Convention, the federation noted airlines face strict liability up to 150,000 Special Drawing Rights — estimated at approximately ₹1.82 crore — and alleged some legal representatives were linking ex gratia payments to broad liability waivers.

The FIP has urged the Central Government to constitute a judicial enquiry under Rule 12 of the Aircraft Rules, calling for full disclosure and independent examination of all crash evidence, including aircraft health-monitoring data, cockpit information, flight recorder material, and witness testimony. The Supreme Court petition is pending.