Supreme Court Calls Pilot’s Fuel Remark “Unfortunate”
Aviation safety NGO Safety Matters Foundation has filed a Public Interest Litigation, claiming the preliminary crash report conceals crucial facts. The NGO argues that withholding such details undermines transparency, accountability, and passenger safety, demanding immediate judicial scrutiny and corrective measures.
New Delhi:
“unfortunate.”* The court has now sought detailed responses from the Centre, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) to a petition demanding an independent probe into the disaster.
The AI 171 crash, which occurred earlier this year, claimed the lives of 265 people, including passengers, crew members, and individuals on the ground. The sheer scale of the tragedy shocked the nation and reignited debates over aviation safety, transparency in investigations, and accountability within regulatory systems. Families of the victims, still reeling from their loss, have been pressing for answers that go beyond official statements.
What the Preliminary Report SaidIn July, the AAIB published a preliminary report, providing its first findings on what might have caused the catastrophe. According to the report, cockpit voice recordings captured a chilling exchange between Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kundar. The other responded, “I didn’t.”
This conversation led to widespread speculation that the pilots may have accidentally cut off fuel supply, directly contributing to the crash. Almost immediately, media narratives and public discussions began circling around the idea of “pilot error.” For many, this explanation seemed simple and direct. But for others, particularly aviation safety experts and grieving families, it appeared premature and incomplete.
Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by aviation safety NGO Safety Matters Foundation, the Supreme Court questioned why the report so quickly pointed towards pilot error without addressing broader systemic concerns. The court described such attribution as “unfortunate,” underlining the need for a deeper, more independent inquiry.
The petitioners argued that the report not only withholds critical information but also risks violating citizens’ fundamental rights to life, equality, and access to truthful information. By limiting the scope of responsibility to human error in the cockpit, the report could obscure deeper flaws—ranging from technical defects to lapses in regulatory oversight—that may have contributed to the crash.
The apex court has now asked the Centre, DGCA, and AAIB to file their responses. The case is likely to determine whether a fresh, independent probe will be conducted.
The PIL strongly criticises the preliminary findings for allegedly downplaying possible mechanical and systemic issues. According to the petition:
- Fuel switch defects and electrical faults had been flagged in earlier technical assessments but received little attention in the report.
- The immediate focus on pilot conversation risks simplifying a complex situation, ignoring whether cockpit systems were functioning as intended.
- Families of victims deserve clarity and accountability, not a rushed narrative that could stigmatise the pilots without conclusive evidence.
The NGO has emphasised that aviation accidents are rarely caused by a single factor. Instead, they are often the result of a “chain of failures,” including technical malfunctions, human decisions, and lapses in oversight.
Families Still Waiting for AnswersFor the relatives of the 265 people who perished, the crash is more than a statistic—it is a personal tragedy etched forever into their lives. Many family members feel the preliminary report is a disservice to their grief, offering an incomplete picture and leaving questions unanswered.
Some have spoken of the indignity of watching blame placed so quickly on the pilots, both of whom also died in the crash and are unable to defend themselves. Others want to ensure that systemic safety flaws, if any, are addressed so that such a tragedy never happens again.
A father who lost his 28-year-old daughter on the flight said outside court, “My daughter had dreams of working abroad. She was full of life. Now they say it was a mistake by the pilots. Is it so easy to blame them? We want the full truth.”
The Larger Debate on Aviation SafetyThis case also shines a spotlight on the state of aviation safety and oversight in India. While India has one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation markets, experts argue that regulatory capacity and safety culture have not always kept pace.
Critics have long raised concerns about underfunded watchdogs, insufficient training, and limited transparency in accident investigations. Each tragedy, from the Mangalore crash in 2010 to the AI 171 disaster now, revives these questions but often without systemic reform.
The Supreme Court’s sharp remarks could mark a turning point. By describing the “pilot error” narrative as unfortunate, the court has signalled that accountability cannot stop with frontline staff but must extend to regulators, manufacturers, and policymakers.
The responses from the Centre, DGCA, and AAIB will be closely watched. If the court is not satisfied, it may order the formation of an independent investigation panel or a court-monitored probe. Such a move could set a precedent for greater transparency in aviation accident inquiries.
For now, the families of the victims wait—hoping that justice will not be reduced to a line in a report but will mean a genuine effort to uncover the truth and prevent such tragedies in the future.
As one grieving relative put it, “We cannot bring them back. But we can make sure this never happens again.”