AHMEDABAD, India — A tragic event unfolded on June 12 when Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed shortly after taking off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, resulting in the loss of 260 lives, including 52 British nationals. The sole survivor, a Leicester resident named Vishwashkumar Ramesh, described a chilling sequence of events that unfolded within moments of takeoff.
Attorney Mike Andrews, representing over 100 victims’ families, has criticized initial reports suggesting pilot error. He emphasizes that such claims are unfounded and advocates for an investigation focused on possible technical failures, particularly concerning the aircraft’s potable water system. This system, which provides drinking water to passengers and crew, has raised concerns for years due to its proximity to sensitive electronic equipment on the plane.
Andrews intends to pursue legal action against Boeing, emphasizing persistent issues with the water system that could lead to electrical malfunctions. Voicing his grave concerns, he pointed out that several FAA bulletins from 2016 to 2018 had warned airlines about maintenance needs for couplings in water line systems, which have been linked to water leaks. He maintains that these leaks can cause catastrophic failures, particularly if they reach the electronics bays containing critical flight control systems.
The day of the crash, shortly after takeoff, both engines reportedly lost power, leading to an abrupt descent that tragically ended in a collision with a medical college building. This sudden power loss occurred less than two minutes into the flight, creating chaos among passengers and crew alike. Ramesh recounted that the cabin lights began flickering moments before the crash, signaling potential electrical issues that Andrews believes warrant further examination.
The preliminary investigation from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau highlighted that both fuel supply switches were moved to the “cut-off” position immediately following takeoff, an event described as alarming by Andrews. A cockpit exchange recorded a pilot questioning why fuel was cut, to which the other pilot insisted he did nothing to cause it. Andrews urges caution, suggesting that this could reference a malfunction rather than intentional pilot action.
Internal findings indicate that the FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive six days after the crash, calling for inspections concerning improper water line installations that could threaten aircraft safety. Andrews has raised concerns about regulatory oversight, noting that the FAA’s jurisdiction often does not extend to international operations, a gap he believes could contribute to safety issues.
As Andrews gathers evidence, including whistleblower testimonies, he asserts the importance of broadening the investigation scope and avoiding premature conclusions about pilot culpability. The preliminary report’s ambiguous implications have fueled speculation, but Andrews cautions that families should await comprehensive data before jumping to blame.
Meanwhile, families affected by the tragedy are not only seeking justice but also transparency. Many express frustration over compensation processes, feeling left with unanswered questions regarding the crash’s preventability. Andrews argues that responsibility ultimately lies with the manufacturers, stressing that if faulty components were to blame, the accountability should extend to the companies supplying those parts.
Investigative findings may lead to stronger regulatory reforms, as Andrews advocates for enhanced aviation safety oversight. The implications of this incident not only affect those directly involved but also resonate throughout the aviation industry, emphasizing the need for rigorous standards to prevent future tragedies.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and events may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, correction, or retraction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.