India’s pilot community erupted in anger on Saturday over the preliminary Air India Flight 171 crash report, with aviation associations accusing investigators of rushing to insinuate wrongdoing on part of the flight crew for a disaster that killed 260 people. The tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias toward pilot error, said Capt Sam Thomas, president of the Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPA). ALPA India categorically rejects this presumption and insists on a fair, fact-based inquiry. We also renew our request to be included—at the very least, as observers—in the investigation process to ensure transparency and accountability. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary report revealed that cockpit voice recordings captured one pilot asking his colleague why he had cut off fuel to both engines, only to receive a denial in response. Indian experts condemned the selective release of just one paraphrased sentence from what be several minutes of recorded conversations. It is regrettable that the entire CVR transcript was not released by the AAIB, adding more confusion to the situation. Just releasing one sentence out of context was a disservice to the pilots and all passengers and crew of AI-171, said aviation expert Sanjay Lazar. It was almost as though the AAIB was leaving people with a fait accompli to imagine no other circumstance other than pilot deliberate action, which is wrong and rejected, he added. A third expert details can provide context for the cockpit exchange. “They have selectively quoted a few words from the CVR without releasing the full transcript. You can’t draw conclusions from isolated phrases without understanding the full context—like when it was said, why it was said, and what it truly meant,” said a senior pilot requesting anonymity Aviation safety firm CEO Mark D Martin dismissed the preliminary findings entirely, calling them a rushed and manipulated investigation aimed at blaming the pilots who died in the crash. Critics also questioned the investigation team’s composition, noting the absence of experienced Boeing 787 pilots. What is the reason for not including a single trained 787 pilot in the probe? Ideally, such a pilot should have been part of the committee,” Lazar said. Western aviation experts offered sharply contrasting interpretations, focusing on the technical precision required to operate the fuel control switches and the sequential timing captured in flight data. “If they were moved because of a pilot, why?” asked US aviation safety expert Anthony Brickhouse, framing the question around pilot motivation rather than mechanical possibility, in a report by Reuters. The switches moved one second apart, roughly the time it would take to shift one and then the other, another US aviation expert, John Nance, was quoted as saying by the news agency. He emphasised that pilots would normally never turn the switches off during flight, especially during climb phase. There was, however, some convergence between the Indian and western experts. Peter Goelz, former managing director of the US National Transportation Safety Board, called the preliminary findings “very disturbing” and emphasized the need for complete voice recorder analysis.” They haven’t identified the voices yet, which is crucial,” he said, noting that family members typically help investigators match crew voices to recorded statements. ALPA’s Thomas raised additional concerns about the investigation’s scope, questioning whether recommendations from a 2018 Federal Aviation Administration bulletin about fuel control switch locking mechanisms had been implemented before the flight. The advisory addressed potential problems with switch locks becoming disengaged, though Air India had not performed suggested inspections because the bulletin was advisory in nature.He also questioned why the aircraft’s Emergency Locator Transmitter failed to activate during the crash sequence, suggesting additional technical issues requiring investigation. India’s pilot community erupted in anger on Saturday over the preliminary Air India Flight 171 crash report, with aviation associations accusing investigators of rushing to insinuate wrongdoing on part of the flight crew for a disaster that killed 260 people. The tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias toward pilot error, said Capt Sam Thomas, president of the Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPA). ALPA India categorically rejects this presumption and insists on a fair, fact-based inquiry. We also renew our request to be included—at the very least, as observers—in the investigation process to ensure transparency and accountability. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary report revealed that cockpit voice recordings captured one pilot asking his colleague why he had cut off fuel to both engines, only to receive a denial in response. Indian experts condemned the selective release of just one paraphrased sentence from what be several minutes of recorded conversations. It is regrettable that the entire CVR transcript was not released by the AAIB, adding more confusion to the situation. Just releasing one sentence out of context was a disservice to the pilots and all passengers and crew of AI-171, said aviation expert Sanjay Lazar. It was almost as though the AAIB was leaving people with a fait accompli to imagine no other circumstance other than pilot deliberate action, which is wrong and rejected, he added. A third expert details can provide context for the cockpit exchange. “They have selectively quoted a few words from the CVR without releasing the full transcript. You can’t draw conclusions from isolated phrases without understanding the full context—like when it was said, why it was said, and what it truly meant,” said a senior pilot requesting anonymity Aviation safety firm CEO Mark D Martin dismissed the preliminary findings entirely, calling them a rushed and manipulated investigation aimed at blaming the pilots who died in the crash. Critics also questioned the investigation team’s composition, noting the absence of experienced Boeing 787 pilots. What is the reason for not including a single trained 787 pilot in the probe? Ideally, such a pilot should have been part of the committee,” Lazar said. Western aviation experts offered sharply contrasting interpretations, focusing on the technical precision required to operate the fuel control switches and the sequential timing captured in flight data. “If they were moved because of a pilot, why?” asked US aviation safety expert Anthony Brickhouse, framing the question around pilot motivation rather than mechanical possibility, in a report by Reuters. The switches moved one second apart, roughly the time it would take to shift one and then the other, another US aviation expert, John Nance, was quoted as saying by the news agency. He emphasised that pilots would normally never turn the switches off during flight, especially during climb phase. There was, however, some convergence between the Indian and western experts. Peter Goelz, former managing director of the US National Transportation Safety Board, called the preliminary findings “very disturbing” and emphasized the need for complete voice recorder analysis.” They haven’t identified the voices yet, which is crucial,” he said, noting that family members typically help investigators match crew voices to recorded statements. ALPA’s Thomas raised additional concerns about the investigation’s scope, questioning whether recommendations from a 2018 Federal Aviation Administration bulletin about fuel control switch locking mechanisms had been implemented before the flight. The advisory addressed potential problems with switch locks becoming disengaged, though Air India had not performed suggested inspections because the bulletin was advisory in nature.He also questioned why the aircraft’s Emergency Locator Transmitter failed to activate during the crash sequence, suggesting additional technical issues requiring investigation. Submit