While theories are hovering over the crash of India, the main details remain unknown

While the preliminary report on the reason for the loss of Air India 171 last month, it also made some answers, it also paid a wave of speculation about its case.

Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed into a building less than one minute of taking off from Ahmed Abad in western India on his way to London, killing 241 people on board, along with 19 on the ground. One passenger survived.

The information received in the report of the Air Force Bureau in India, the first official account of what happened, raised questions about the role of the pilots.

However, aviation experts claim that researchers were very selective as they chose to say.

Under international protocols, the country that leads the investigation of the air accident aims to issue a preliminary report within 30 days. The 15 -page document published by the Air Investigation Office in India (AAIB) on Saturday fulfills this requirement.

Although AAIB is leading the investigation, American interests are also represented, because Boeing, the maker of the plane, and Geospace, the engine manufacturer is American.

The report does not specify any conclusions on the cause of the accident. However, it has sparked great controversy.

In her account of the accident trip, AAIB states that two key to cut fuel has been transferred from “running” to “cutting” seconds after taking off.

This deprives fuel engines and causes them to lose trend. Although the data from the trip registrar turned out that the engines were later restarted, it was too late to prevent collapse.

These keys are usually used only to run the engines before the trip and stop them after that. They have a lock mechanism, which means that they need to be pulled before it is turned, a system designed to prevent accidental publication.

The report also states that one of the pilot asks the other, “Why did he cut off”, while his colleague replied, “He did not do it.”

However, it does not provide any direct copy of the conversation, which could have been captured by the CVR. It also does not specify the pilot who asked the question.

It should be noted that the initial reports are not aimed at providing a complete picture of what happened or extracting the conclusions of a company. It is supposed to be a realistic summary of the information obtained in the early stages of what could be a lengthy achievement.

The investigation authority also does not submit an obligation to conduct their initial reports.

The information that has been released so far has prompted a number of commentators to the claim, in the media and through the Internet, that the accident was the result of deliberate and deliberate procedures by a pilot.

It is a point of view that attracted an angry response from the Indian Trade Pilot Association, which warned that “calling such a dangerous claim based on incomplete or primary information is not only irresponsible – it is not very sensitive to the individuals and families concerned.”

He added that “an accidental proposal for experimental suicide in the absence of evidenced evidence is a serious violation of moral report.”

In a memorandum of employees, Air India CEO has a similar note. Campbell Wilson warned against drawing “early conclusions.”

Since the report, the British Broadcasting Corporation has spoken to a group of people inside the industry, including pilots, accident investigators and engineers. While theories related to what actually happened varyingly vary, the dominant opinion is that important information is currently missing.

“They have told us things they want to know at the present time, and we have blocked what they did not want to know,” explained one of the pilots, who asked not to get to know him. “It is not a complete report.”

One of the main criticisms is that there is no copy of the cockpit audio recorder, which will enable the reported conversation among pilots about the fuel cutting keys that will be placed in the context.

Biurne Vehram, a flying analyst at Lieham News, said this is “completely unacceptable.”

“They have all these artistic details. Then you have this reference to the dialogue, but it does not even tell you who talks,” he said.

Mr. Fehrm was also concerned that there was no reference to what happened in the cockpit between the keys that were turned from running to the pieces, and the first shift was pushed to put it to hide the first engine after 10 seconds.

“He is a person trying to hide something,” he said.

Meanwhile, an engineering source said the report was “very selective”, and he had no detailed information about what the engines were doing directly before the keys turned. The document says that the engine speed started to decrease from the boot values “as fuel supply was cut to the engines.”

They said this is important – because stirring the keys to the pieces and back was something that the pilot would train to restart an engine that has already loses power.

“It is very disappointing to read a report that provides some prominent facts, leaving many questions,” said Tim Atkinson, aviation adviser and former air accident investigator in the United Kingdom.

Another component of the report that caused the controversy is a reference to the safety bulletin – known as the private aviation authority informative – published by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2018.

This was used to alert the aviation community, which informed some Boeing 737 models of cases where the fuel cutting keys were provided with the separated lock feature – which may enable the key to chance.

At that time, the Federal Aviation Administration described this as “a source of concern for aircraft for flights”, but he said that it was “not an unsafe condition” that requires mandatory procedure through what is known as flight validity directions.

A number of different Boeing models have been advised with similar switches, including 787s, to carry out simple searches.

The investigation report says that Air India has not carried out these inspections – which prompted speculation that the accident may be caused by the defective keys that are turned by chance.

but, In an internal note that the BBC sawThe Federal Aviation Administration has since repeated its belief that the issue has not been compromised.

The engineering sources also indicated that the report says that the console in the suffocating on the shattered plane was replaced on two occasions, two years before the accident. This would have included replacing the cutting keys as well.

According to Bjorn Fehrm from Leeham News, the indication of FAA’s advice in the report was “completely related” in the context of the accident.

However, the General Directorate of India Civil Aviation has asked the operators of all the aircraft covered by the original FAA bulletin to perform searches by July 21.

For the former incident investigator Tim Atkinson, the mystery of the report may be intentional – in order to suggest an explanation of the accident, while avoiding being very clear.

“The worst reports are those that are written that are read” between the lines “, and if this is what we have here, it will not achieve any balance for the investigators.”

Meanwhile, those who are looking for fixed answers to what happened on Journey 171 may have to wait.

International protocols state that a final report should be published within a year of the accident. However, in practice, it may take longer.