‍DALLAS — The crash of Air India (AI) Flight 171 continues to generate significant questions about aviation safety oversight in India. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has remained notably silent about preliminary findings, raising concerns among industry observers. Under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 guidelines, preliminary investigation reports must be published within 30 days of any accident.

While the AAIB still has several days to meet this deadline and is under no obligation to report beforehand, the lack of early communication has sparked a degree of unease. With many speculating that the Boeing 787 suffered a loss of thrust soon after rotation, many hold the view that if catastrophic mechanical issues were discovered at this elementary phase, the AAIB should announce these findings immediately. Perhaps the lack of information could potentially discount such an outcome. Still, the silence has led some to question whether the investigative body might be selective in releasing information, especially if it could implicate the airline or India's aviation regulator.

The investigation's pace may also be hampered by staffing shortages that have plagued the AAIB in recent years. A 2020 Air India Express (IX) runway overrun investigation revealed significant manpower deficiencies, with several investigator positions unfilled by full-time staff. Should these staffing issues persist today, this complex investigation may encounter substantial delays and resource constraints unless the Indian government embraces support from overseas.

Regulatory Oversight Under Fire

Recent inspections by India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) that occurred after the accident have revealed alarming safety deficiencies across multiple Indian carriers. The country’s aviation ministry’s press release highlighted instances where aircraft defects went unrecorded and, when documented, repeatedly occurred without proper corrective action. These findings suggest inadequate monitoring and ineffective rectification procedures throughout the industry in India.

Perhaps most concerning were discoveries of improperly secured life vests and a lack of adherence to defect repair procedures as laid down by the manufacturer. This raises fundamental questions about regulatory effectiveness and carrier compliance. The timing of these inspections, following the AI171 crash, appears to be reactive rather than proactive safety management.

The DGCA's sudden increase in operational inspections has also uncovered irregularities in flight time limitations at Air India. Such interventions by the regulator represent too little, too late, especially given the tragic loss of life. The pattern suggests systemic oversight failures that may have contributed to what is quickly turning into an aviation safety crisis in India.

Air India's Critical Juncture

The AI171 accident comes at a particularly challenging time for Air India's transformation under new private ownership. After decades of state control and mediocre performance, the airline finally has the opportunity to compete effectively and establish itself as a major international player. The new corporate identity and investment strategy represent a clear break from the airline's troubled past.

However, this tragic accident threatens to undermine Air India's rebranding efforts and growth ambitions. The airline's ability to expand internationally depends heavily on maintaining strong safety credentials and regulatory compliance. Any perception of compromised safety standards could significantly impact the carrier's expansion plans and passenger credibility.

The investigation's outcome will likely determine whether Air India can successfully navigate this transition period. A thorough, transparent investigation that addresses systemic issues could actually strengthen the airline's position if relevant findings were acted upon and implemented. Conversely, a flawed or incomplete investigation could damage both the airline's reputation and India's aviation sector credibility.

Implications for India's Aviation Future

The relationship between the AAIB and the DGCA, as government entities, creates potential conflicts of interest in the investigation process. Any investigation should be free of influence or favoritism, but this will be undermined if there is a desire to balance transparency with protecting India's aviation industry reputation. The AAIB's previous work, including the comprehensive Kozhikode (CCJ) runway overrun report, demonstrates the capability for thorough, critical analysis even when findings reflect poorly on industry stakeholders.

However, the current investigation's scale and international attention create unprecedented pressure on the Indian government to limit reputational damage. The outcome will have a significant impact on the country's standing in the global aviation community and may influence international regulatory responses. A weak or compromised investigation could result in restricted operations or enhanced oversight from foreign aviation authorities. On the other hand, a detailed investigation that uncovers embarrassing home truths could also hamper future growth.

The implications not only affect Air India but also the entire aviation sector in India, which has seen significant growth in recent years. If significant regulatory weaknesses are uncovered, the country could face measures that would restrict the operational scope for its carriers. For instance, the FAA's designation of India with Category 2 rating restrictions could hinder Air India's expansion to both existing and new US destinations.

Such measures are never taken lightly. However, in this case, it would likely unravel into a tit-for-tat skirmish, one that could see the same punitive restrictions being placed on US operators flying to India. In the face of high demand outstripping capacity, ticket prices would undoubtedly soar. The only winners in this battle would likely be the Gulf carriers, who would be ready to charge a premium to mop up the unfolding debacle.

The AAIB must balance domestic influences on one side with the impartial expectations of the wider industry. It remains to be seen which side the investigative body will ultimately tip towards.