The deceased pilot, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal of Air India, has not been blamed in the AAIB’s preliminary report into the June 12 plane crash that claimed 260 lives, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Thursday.
Air India’s Boeing 787-8 flight AI171 en route to London’s Gatwick airport was operated by pilot-in-command Captain Sabharwal and co-pilot Captain Clive Kunder, who lost their lives in the crash after taking off from Ahmedabad. The horrific incident killed 260 people, including 241 passengers and crew on board.
The Supreme Court had issued notice to the Centre and the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on a plea of Pushkaraj Sabharwal, the father of deceased pilot Captain Sumeet Sabharwal.
Pushkaraj Sabharwal and the Federation of Indian Pilots moved the Supreme Court for a court-monitored inquiry headed by a former Supreme Court judge into the crash of Air India flight AI171 in Ahmedabad.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) probe team into the plane crash was formed under the international regime and there was a statutory provision for it.
“There is an international convention. There’s an international civil aviation organisation. They have prepared mandatory steps to be taken in case of an investigation into air crashes.
There is a regime in place. “Some foreigners are also victims. Those countries also send their representatives in the investigation. I understand the feelings of the father but there is no blame attributed to anyone in the interim report,” Mehta said.
He added that blame has not been attributed to anyone in the preliminary report of AAIB and stated there was some misconception about the pilot’s error after the release of an interim report.
“The Ministry of Civil Aviation has issued a press note saying that blame was not attributable to anyone. There is no question of blaming anyone in the report,” he submitted.
Justice Bagchi said, “The AAIB inquiry is not for apportioning blame on anyone. It is only to clarify the cause so that the same does not happen again.” The Supreme Court was hearing three petitions filed by an NGO, a law student and the father of the deceased pilot seeking an independent, court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight near Ahmedabad. Among the 241 dead were 169 Indians, 52 Britons, seven Portuguese nationals, one Canadian and 12 crew members.
The lone survivor of the crash was Vishwashkumar Ramesh, a British national.
On November 7, the Supreme Court said no one blamed the chief pilot of the Air India Dreamliner for the June 12 crash, which claimed 260 lives, and asked his 91-year-old father not to carry any emotional burden.
“There is no insinuation against him even in the preliminary report,” the Supreme Court had said while emphasising that, if necessary, the court will clarify that the pilot is not to be blamed for the “unfortunate” plane crash.
During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an NGO ‘Safety Matters Foundation’, said that a parallel inquiry should be done like a court of inquiry into the accident of such a major scale.
Bhushan submitted that serious accidents require a court of enquiry and not just an investigation by AAIB.
“It is very alarming. There have been many system failures in these 787s. Everybody flying in these aircraft is at risk. The pilots’ association has said that these aircraft need to be grounded immediately,” he said.
He said that a pilot federation has stated that these aeroplanes cannot be trusted and there is a huge risk to people flying in their aircraft.
Justice Kant said these proceedings should not become a fight between one airline and another and asked Mehta to file the response to the plea filed by the father of the deceased.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the deceased pilot’s father, said that rules for a fair probe were not being followed.
“The regime that Mr Mehta has mentioned has not been followed. That’s the problem. It has not been properly followed,” Sankaranarayanan submitted and urged the court to ask the Centre to file their replies to the petition of the deceased pilot’s 91-year-old father.
The bench adjourned the matter for further hearing after two weeks as it clarified that it was not interested in hearing a plea of the law graduate on the issue.
The plea of the deceased pilot Captain Sumeet Sabharwal’s father seeks directions for the constitution of an independent committee, also comprising aviation and technical experts, to probe the crash.
The approach of the investigation has failed to adequately examine, or rule out, other more plausible technical and procedural factors relating to Boeing that could have contributed to the tragic incident, the plea said.
The probe team is dominated by officers from DGCA and the state aviation authorities whose procedures, oversight and possible lapses are directly implicated in the investigation, it added.
The plea filed by the NGO alleged that the official probe violates citizens’ fundamental rights to life, equality and access to truthful information.
The plea says the AAIB issued its preliminary report on July 12, attributing the accident to “fuel cutoff switches” being moved from “run” to “cutoff”, effectively suggesting a pilot error.
On September 22, while entertaining the plea of the NGO, the Supreme Court termed as “unfortunate and irresponsible” the selective publication of a preliminary report on the June 12 Air India crash which outlined lapses on the part of pilots and paved the way for a “media narrative”.
