6 reasons why India’s probe on Ahmedabad AI-171 crash is raising global alarm

The inadequacies of Air India have come to the fore following the June 12 crash of flight AI-171 near Ahmedabad, killing 274 people. In parallel, the events following the disaster have brought to light institutional deficiencies in the country’s aircraft accident investigation process.

Also read | Ahmedabad crash puts Boeing under lens again over recurring safety issues

Firstly, even two weeks after the accident, the investigation has not gained any momentum.

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the investigating agency, has yet to formally appoint a designated lead investigator for the probe. It had identified Dhruv Rebbapragada, a former regional director of safety (South Asia) at Airbus, to head the investigation panel, but is yet to issue an official order to this effect.

No formal order

The government has not yet issued any order giving the go-ahead to the AAIB or formally authorising Rebbapragada, a former IndiGo chief of flight safety, to lead the probe. Rebbapragada is a former director general of the DGCA’s Civil Aviation Training Centre (CATC), which makes him eminently qualified to investigate an air crash, but handicaps him in the absence of this key authorisation.

Under the norms of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Annexe 13, the appointment of an investigator-in-charge is required for the “organisation, conduct and control of the aircraft accident investigation”.

As a signatory to the ICAO’s Chicago Convention on international aviation agreements, India is required to issue a preliminary report on an aircraft accident within 30 days of a significant accident or incident. Half of this deadline has passed with no formal lead investigator yet authorised. This is a clear sign of flouting global norms.

Analysts have pointed out that the AAIB is required to mandatorily issue a notification of the investigation by its Director General. “This would allow the designated official to have a budget, powers to summon, and have unhindered access to the site of the crash, including its wreckage and the aircraft’s flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder (black boxes). Otherwise, no one is legally required to cooperate,” an analyst said.

Parallel probe route

To make matters worse, the government has announced the formation of a parallel committee, known as the High-Level Committee (HLC). The All-India People's Science Network (AIPSN), an alliance of 40 People’s Science organisations across 25 states, has questioned the logic behind setting the HLC as the designated one, as it has already begun work.

In its statement, the AIPSN said the decision to set up this parallel committee within 48 hours of the crash has created considerable confusion about which agency will now be the official one to probe the crash and raises questions about whether the government lacks confidence in the AAIB.

“The HLC is an undesirable parallel investigation which will, by virtue of its backing by the highest levels of government, undermine the AAIB investigation," the organisation stated.

The network has also demanded that the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) “immediately revise the Terms of Reference of the HLC and remove all objectives, scope of work, and mandates that overlap those of the AAIB investigation”.

Financial constraints

The delays in formally appointing an official to head the probe reflect systemic problems that parliamentary committees had flagged months before the accident. In a report tabled in March 2025, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture noted that the “modest” amount earmarked for AAIB to function was inadequate.

The AAIB had received only ₹20 crore in capital allocation, while the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) received just ₹15 crore in financial allocation for the fiscal year 2025-26. For comparison, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had received ₹30 crore, nearly half of the entire aviation regulatory and safety agencies’ budget of ₹65 crore, which is a relatively low amount for a regulator.

Also read | After Ahmedabad crash, several Air India flights hit by snags, delays

“The committee noticed this distinct imbalance in the allocation of funds across key aviation bodies. While regulatory compliance remains essential, the rapid expansion of aviation infrastructure—with airports increasing from 74 in 2014 to 147 in 2022 and a target of 220 by 2025—necessitates proportional growth in security capabilities and accident investigation resources,” it noted.

The delays in formally appointing an official to head the probe reflect systemic problems that parliamentary committees had flagged months before the accident.

The acute underfunding is not new, and the committee had flagged it in 2022. It had noted that the “AAIB had a meagre allocation of Rs 1 crore, against its projected requirement of Rs 4.40 crore in the financial year 2022-23”. This situation of acute underfunding will make it difficult for the bureau to acquire the technical skills and manpower necessary to investigate complex aviation accidents.

Lack of technical skills

One of the biggest roadblocks to a swift and efficient investigation has been the country’s own lack of technical capacity to undertake complex crash investigations.

News sources initially reported that the black boxes would be sent to the US for analysis, as had been done in the past for cases involving newer aircraft. However, “government sources familiar with the matter” later stated that they were not in favour of this approach and decided to have the data analysed using AAIB’s newly set-up lab.

This lab was formally inaugurated in April 2025 with an investment of ₹9 crore, along with technical assistance from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), but there are reports that it was not in a position to take on such a high-profile case.

According to Capt Mohan Ranganathan, a former Boeing 737 instructor pilot and air safety expert, “India has the technical expertise, but they’re not employed in DGCA. In the recent past, the DFDRs (Digital Flight Data Recorder) of new generation aircraft crashes were all sent abroad for decoding, as we did not have trained professionals.”

Conflict of interest

The AAIB's structural ties with the MoCA have also been under scrutiny for potentially compromising its independence. Although technically designated as an “attached office” since 2017, the bureau operates under the same ministry that regulates airlines through the DGCA, creating potential conflicts of interest.

The AIPSN has been quite vocal about the autonomy of the AAIB. In its statement, it noted: “India constituted the AAIB precisely to address the prolonged dispute with ICAO regarding perceived government interference and conflict of interest in DGCA being the regulator, certifying authority and safety inspector, also conducting accident inquiries over decades”. The HCL “reignites this controversy by interfering with the AAIB inquiry”, the organisation noted.

In addition to this, the DGCA’s manpower crunch is another area that needs to be addressed immediately. The number of vacant posts exceeds 53 per cent, or 879 out of 1,633 sanctioned posts, which severely reduces the effectiveness of the entire aviation safety mechanism.

International fallout

India’s response to the disaster has also triggered international ramifications.

Reportedly, India has denied entry to a UN investigator whom the ICAO had offered to the AAIB to help with the investigation. “ICAO had sent a request for India to grant observer status to this UN investigator. We refused the offer,” said government sources, quoted by news agencies.

However, in a complete about-turn, the government has now decided to accord observer status to ICAO, which is now being widely viewed as an exercise in optics.

Also read | What Air India must do to arrest its freefall post Ahmedabad plane crash

Taken together with the investigation delays, this puts an unnecessary international spotlight on India’s aviation safety and infrastructure capabilities.

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has also sent a team to support the investigation, as is required under international agreements because the aircraft was produced in the US. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy has also noted that for aviation safety and public awareness, “we hope the Indian government will make its findings public swiftly”. She was quoted as saying this to the media.

Mounting pressure

As India rushes to meet the 30-day deadline for a preliminary report, the investigation is facing mounting pressure. Data from the aircraft's enhanced flight recorders has been successfully downloaded, with analysis underway at the AAIB laboratory in Delhi.

However, the absence of formal leadership and resource constraints continue to cast doubt on the investigation's effectiveness.

Unless such critical institutional issues are addressed, India will not only fail to meet its international commitments under aviation agreements but also fail to learn the lessons of this disaster to prevent future tragedies.