It’s been six months since the ill-fated AI171 plane crashed.
As families continue to live with a silence filled by unanswered questions, investigators are looking into possible electrical issues. But six months on, a clear picture continues to elude them, revealed findings by a national newspaper.
A father of a newly married traveller told the newspaper that he still wondered why the aircraft carrying his daughter to a foreign destination crashed.
She was flying to her marital home for the first time after her January wedding.
Her spouse has sought legal steps abroad. The father said his family could not comprehend the sudden loss. He said compensation would not suffice and that it was essential to know how it happened, why it happened, and whose mistake caused it. He earns a living running a sweets shop.
Another family lost a 24-year-old student and budding sportsperson. His older sibling and spouse had prepared to welcome him.
He held a gold medal in a Masters in Artificial Intelligence and had secured a research associate position at a university in northern England.
The sibling and spouse abandoned their plan to settle abroad and returned to their hometown in western India two months earlier. The sibling remains responsible for an education loan of Rs 15 lakh. The sibling said an EMI of Rs 22,000 continued and that the bank offered only a 10% reduction on the principal after repeated requests.
This family is among 130 represented by a visiting aviation attorney. The attorney said emotions were very raw early on but that families now appeared more patient and more resolved to find the truth.
Another household lost a business founder, a spouse, and a younger child. A relative said the elderly parents were told of the loss only two months ago and that the father was hospitalised again last week.
No cause ruled out
While families search for clarity, investigators continue to analyse a chain of technical snags linked to the crash.
Officials said all possible causes were under review. They said a 23-second exchange between the two pilots, after a reported transition of fuel switches to the cut-off mode, had led to speculation. They also said they had not found incriminating evidence to prove pilot error or deliberate action.
A preliminary report released a month after the accident ran 15 pages. It described the crash that killed 260 people, including 19 on the ground.
It stated that the engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF within a second of each other shortly after lift-off. It did not say whether the movement was physical. It noted that one pilot asked why a cut-off had occurred and that the other said he had not done it.
Officials said earlier snags in the days leading up to the crash, including during the incoming flight from the national capital to the departure city on June 12, were also under examination.
The report, citing an official, mentioned that wreckage analysis and flight-data study pointed to a specific electrical fault. The fault appeared to impair critical power distribution and flight systems. The systems affected included cockpit instruments.
The issue was believed to have originated in the aft electrical section.
That section controls hydraulic pumps, the auxiliary power unit, engine power, fuel pumps of the central and main tanks, and nitrogen generation systems.
The official said the failure caused a brief loss of pilot instrumentation. The emergency turbine activated 13 seconds before the Mayday call. The report stated that this turbine deployed during initial climb immediately after lift-off and began generating power about eight seconds after take-off.
The report, attributing the official, said the pilots could not attempt a dual-engine relight earlier because the battery backup did not support it. The pilots continued steering, trying to regain thrust. The engines were relit by cycling the fuel switches one by one in the required order once turbine power returned. There was hardly any altitude or time to recover.
The official confirmed that no improper action by either pilot had been found.
It has emerged that the cabin lights had flickered. This supported the possibility of electrical malfunction as systems shifted between main power, backup generation, and attempted relight within seconds.
The report said the auxiliary unit was recovered intact from its compartment in the tail. It also noted that the crew of the previous flight with the code 423 had logged a defect for a message labelled “STAB POS XDCR.”
A maintenance engineer at the departure city had attempted to troubleshoot that message before clearing the aircraft for the later flight. Investigators were examining whether earlier technical issues could affect the engine-control system known as FADEC, including its Engine Control Unit, which could trigger uncommanded actions. The report also stated that the emergency locator transmitter was inactive after the crash.
Officials associated with the investigation are optimistic about completing it in six months.
They said data was being analysed by investigators, human-psychology specialists, forensic experts, aero-engineers, pilots familiar with the aircraft type, and experts in maintenance and operations of the model.
The investigative authority has not yet released the final report.
Also Read: No Mechanical Issue In AI 171 Crash, Says FAA; Tata, Govt Move To Restore Airline Safety Standards https://www.vibesofindia.com/no-mechanical-issue-in-ai-171-crash-says-faa-tata-govt-move-to-restore-airline-safety-standards/
