In a country where every life lost in an aircraft accident should result in justice, transparency, and reform, we find ourselves, instead, battling a system that is seemingly designed to obscure the truth.
On paper, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is a statutory and autonomous investigative body. In reality, it is anything but independent. It functions as an office of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), the very same authority that oversees airlines, regulates aviation through the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and, crucially, appoints the leadership of the AAIB and the DGCA. This structure presents an apparent conflict of interest. In railway accidents, investigations are typically carried out by the Commissioner of Railway Safety or, occasionally, a judicial authority, and not by the Ministry of Railways. Although, technically, under the MoCA, the Commissioner is functionally independent of railway operators, this ensures that those running trains are not the ones investigating the derailments. But in aviation, the MoCA controls airline operations and accident investigations.
Stop the firefighting
The accident on June 12, 2025, at Ahmedabad was not just an operational occurrence. It was a full-fledged aircraft accident that should serve as a wake-up call. Is India’s aviation safety framework keeping pace with its exponential growth? There have been a number of helicopter crashes, accidents involving flying schools, there was a weather-related incident in May 2025 that affected a Delhi-Srinagar IndiGo flight, and, in addition, troubling ground handling lapses, that include the cancellation of ground handler Çelebi Aviation’s permit over security concerns. These are not isolated incidents but point to something more profound. Are we identifying and fixing risks before they become headlines? Or are we merely reacting? We cannot keep firefighting. We need a system that prevents failures, and not just manages the damage.
The high-level committee appointed to investigate the Air India AI171 crash must go beyond reviewing a single event. It must recognise that India’s aviation ecosystem has outgrown the current National Civil Aviation Policy (NCAP). In a complete revamp of the NCAP, ‘safety’ should be deeply woven into every regulation, operation and decision. That is how we prepare for the responsibilities that come with being one of the largest aviation markets in the world.
A report that told inconvenient truths
The Air Marshal J.K. Seth Committee Report in 1997 was India’s most honest and far-reaching review of aviation safety. But it was quietly buried because it told the truth. It highlighted key systemic flaws: fragmented oversight; lack of independence; inadequate training and resources, and regulatory capture. These issues remain largely unresolved. Any new committee must reckon with these truths and not repeat the pattern of superficial reviews and buried reports.
Too many accident reports have internal contradictions. In an accident in 2001, that claimed the life of a former Union Minister, ‘entry into the cloud’ was cited as the cause, while the meteorology section confirmed that there were no clouds around. Was it a mistake or does it point to something else? Overloading was evident in the Indian Airlines crash (IC491) in Aurangabad in 1993. Yet, the final report did not spell it out so clearly. This writer has pursued data for years in another case of suspected overloading on an Air India Express flight (IX611), in October 2018, from Tiruchi, Tamil Nadu to Dubai, only to be denied access. What is being protected?
The Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017 make one point clear — that the purpose of an investigation is to prevent future accidents, and not to assign blame. Yet, law enforcement and courts routinely misuse the AAIB’s findings. The police, lacking the expertise and jurisdiction in aviation matters, rely almost entirely on the AAIB’s reports, treating them as conclusive. The AAIB’s findings are meant for safety learning, and not legal prosecution. When these reports are interpreted outside their technical scope, truth becomes a casualty.
Investigating officers unfamiliar with aviation treat the AAIB’s “probable cause” as a legal verdict. The judiciary focuses on what is immediately visible, while the AAIB is meant to dig deeper. But both often end up blaming the pilot, the case is closed and the truth is left behind.
Why is pilot error so often the conclusion? Because it is convenient. Legally, it simplifies matters. From an insurance standpoint, a conclusion of pilot error helps expedite payouts. It closes the loop quickly, shielding other accountable entities — airlines, maintenance providers, and air traffic control, from scrutiny. The pilot becomes the system’s scapegoat, even in death.
A front to protect people
Too often, accident investigations in India are reshaped to protect institutions, and not the people they serve. The MoCA holds all the levers, policy, regulation, appointments and investigations. With that much control, real accountability becomes a myth. Each time a family receives a hollow, contradictory report instead of honest answers, the system not only fails but also breaks faith. At times, the structure is so well-insulated from responsibility that it has perfected the art of getting away with murder — through delay, dilution and the quiet deletion of truth.
The International Civil Aviation Organization’s State Safety Briefing (2022) says that India has had zero fatal accidents recently. But 21 lives were lost in the Kozhikode air crash in August 2020. The recommendations in the investigation and those of the committee to review the accident report have not been implemented duly. There is no accountability. No systemic change. Just silence. India cannot claim global leadership in aviation while hiding behind data. Absolute safety comes from integrity.
These are the steps needed. First, move the AAIB and DGCA to an independent statutory body that reports to Parliament. Second, stop having parallel committees that bypass or undermine established investigative bodies. Third, take legal steps to prevent the AAIB’s findings from being used in criminal trials unless independently validated. Fourth, amend Rule 19(3) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which holds the powers to penalise a pilot for any mistake. There is a need to protect a pilot with a genuine no-blame culture, unless gross negligence is proven. Fifth, appoint an independent ombudsman to review how accident reports have been handled and mishandled.
It is not that India lacks the talent or the tools to investigate accidents. What it lacks is the institutional courage to tell the truth. Therefore, this writer’s plea. Have an honest, sincere aircraft accident investigation; one that shows that India values truth and precious lives over image. Let that be India’s legacy for those lives lost, not only in the skies but also in the silence.
Captain Amit Singh is an aviation safety expert, author, and Royal Aeronautical Society Fellow, pioneering human factors and cultural integration in aviation
Published – June 16, 2025 12:08 am IST