Two months have passed since the Air India Flight 171 in Ahmedabad left 260 dead even as answers elude the families of the victims.
Amid the sullen silence, they approached US-based Beasley Allen Law Firm for justice. As is widely known, Mike Andrews, a 57-year-old lead attorney known for representing victims in the Boeing 737 MAX crashes, has taken up their cause.
In an interview with a national daily, Andrews admitted that the crash report was speculative and incomplete. He said that claims of product defect or negligence should be based solely on hard evidence.
Andrews criticised the report for being incomplete and lacking context. In his view, the report shifts focus on the pilot’s action. He believes it must delve into potential aircraft faults, including known issues with the Boeing 787.
The limited information about fuel switches was misleading, he felt.
He also acknowledged that the report’s emphasis on the pilot was unfair. In his view, the report presented facts in a way that fostered speculation, which could result in inaccurate conclusions. However, the report did not directly place blame on the pilot.
During the interview, he hammered home the point that a selective release of material like this invites speculation. It may not overtly assign blame, but subtly shapes perception, potentially shielding some while casting doubt on others.
The aircraft systems or other possibilities ought to be part of the investigations, he felt.
He claimed that Boeing and the US Federal Aviation Administration had both admitted to issues with the 787 model. Thus, he cautioned against early inferences.
Naturally, he supported a slow, methodical investigation over rushed conclusions, warning against early assumptions. True accountability, he said, rarely comes from within the system; it takes litigation to force change.
Reports are important, he said, but litigation is what truly drives change. Based on his past cases, Andrews believes that lawsuits often have a more lasting impact on regulatory and corporate behaviour than official inquiries ever manage.
He explained that it is unrealistic to expect major industries to effectively self-police or self-regulate. Without external pressure, especially through litigation, accountability often remains out of reach. It is through the legal actions taken by affected families that systemic problems come to light and real change happens. As a result of litigation in the 737 MAX cases, aircraft designs have been changed, setting important precedents for safety.
And so, refusing to criticise the timeline, he backed a methodical approach. He emphasised, for example, that even though the flight was brief, it would take time to analyse the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) deployment and other electrical events because the black box alone collected hundreds of data points. He felt that hurrying might jeopardise accuracy.
He elaborated that the flight data recorder’s full information could determine the true cause of the tragedy. It should provide details of potential aircraft system failure like an electrical short, or issues hidden within maintenance records.
The lawsuit may contain allegations of product responsibility, defects, or even negligent behaviour, he added. It all depended on the investigation’s findings.
He mentioned that the families of the victims were clearly determined to see the investigation through even though they understood its complexity. While they were still nursing deep grief of losing their dear ones, some wanted immediate answers and were angry, the others desired systematic change.
He described a range of emotions: some families were still in deep mourning, some were quietly resolved, while others had begun expressing anger and frustration.
Every family processes grief differently, he said, but they all share one thing, they want to know why.
Over 100 families had reached out to him, largely through word of mouth. His team had posted a video online announcing his visit to Ahmedabad, inviting those with questions to speak with him.
Once he began meeting families, news spread among the community that legal help was available.
He also clarified that his firm was not charging families upfront. Every case they take, he said, starts at no cost. Only if there is a successful recovery is a portion of the compensation claimed. If there’s no recovery, families owe nothing. He felt it would be wrong to burden grieving families with costs just to uncover the truth.
However, he added that the nature and scale of compensation would depend on what the evidence revealed. If the fault lay in maintenance oversights, that would lead to one level of claim. If it turned out to be a known manufacturing or design defect, especially something Boeing had prior knowledge of, the demand for compensation would be higher as a deterrent against future negligence.
Recalling his visits to the crash site, Andrews said he had been there twice. On the first occasion in late June, the area was still under tight police control. However, authorities allowed him in after learning his identity and purpose.
He visited the exact location from where Vishwas, the only survivor, walked away alive. A second visit was for a candlelight memorial service, attended at the invitation of the victims’ families. He explained that seeing crash sites firsthand had always helped him better understand the context, especially in conversations with grieving relatives.
He acknowledged the heavy burden borne by the lone survivor’s family. The family lost a member in the tragedy. Their situation is particularly complex and painful, he said, choosing not to elaborate further due to confidentiality.
The interview touched upon another sensitive issue. Was the investigation shielding someone? Andrews remained guarded. Although conjecture may have been stoked by a lack of transparency, he would prefer to wait for the process to be completed rather than making hurried judgments.
Andrews expressed cautious optimism that the truth regarding Flight AI171 would eventually be revealed.
He believed independent experts could reconstruct the sequence of events if the complete data from the flight recorder were available.
He said that if the AAIB remained independent and evidence-focused, the exact picture would emerge.
No authorities, whether Boeing, Air India, or the Airports Authority of India, had approached his firm since it became involved, he clarified. Andrews said this wasn’t unusual. Such entities typically focus on protecting their interests and are cautious in communication. For now, he did not see the process as adversarial, but rather a mutual effort to uncover the truth.
So, when will a detailed report emerge? It might take a year, he said. And often, he noted, information could leak during such investigations.
He also revealed that his team had requested access to the raw data to allow their own experts to analyse it independently.
Meanwhile, his organisation has invoked the Freedom of Information Act in the US. It has sought access to flight data already shared with the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.
For now, Andrews is unwavering in his objective while bereaved families keep looking for answers. He seems determined to chase the truth to ensure justice prevails.
Also Read: Gujarat Connection Of Company Helming Construction Of New MPs’ Residential Complex In Delhi https://www.vibesofindia.com/gujarat-connection-of-company-helming-construction-of-new-mps-residential-complex-in-delhi/
