作者： admin

It has been exactly one year since one of the deadliest commercial air disasters in recent Indian history unfolded. On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner bound for London carrying 230 passengers and 10 crew members, crashed just 32 seconds after departing Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Airport. All but one person on board perished in the crash, and an additional 19 people on the ground lost their lives, bringing the total death toll to 260.

Surveillance footage captured the jet’s final moments: the aircraft appeared to lift off normally, but failed to gain altitude, hovering briefly before gliding downward and disappearing behind a line of buildings and trees. Seconds later, a massive fireball and thick plume of black smoke confirmed the scale of the tragedy, but the footage offered no clear answers about what caused the crash.

Under the terms of Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), a division of the nation’s Ministry of Civil Aviation, holds lead responsibility for the official probe. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, alongside technical experts from plane manufacturer Boeing, engine builder GE Aerospace, and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, joined the investigation as accredited representatives, a standard provision for international air accidents involving foreign-built aircraft.

The international agreement guiding the investigation clearly states that the sole purpose of air accident probes is to prevent future disasters, not to assign blame or liability. Yet the stakes for all involved parties could not be higher. Boeing is still recovering from years of high-profile safety scandals tied to its 737 MAX program, and the 787 Dreamliner, one of the company’s flagship products, had maintained a flawless safety record before this crash. For Air India, a struggling carrier recently acquired by the Tata Group, any finding of operational or maintenance failure would deliver a devastating blow to its already damaged brand. For the families of the 260 victims, the investigation is the only path to answers about their loved ones’ deaths.

One month after the crash, the AAIB released a 15-page preliminary report that did not draw final conclusions or issue safety recommendations, but two short paragraphs ignited a firestorm of controversy that still rages today. The report confirmed that flight data showed the aircraft’s two fuel cutoff switches – which control fuel flow to the engines – shifted from the “run” position to the “cutoff” position seconds after takeoff, a move that would immediately cut engine thrust. It added that cockpit audio recorded one pilot asking the other why he had flipped the switches, with the second pilot responding he had not touched them.

The vague wording of this disclosure sparked immediate international speculation that the crash was an act of deliberate pilot homicide-suicide. Multiple international media outlets cited anonymous sources naming veteran captain Sumeet Sabharwal as the person who had triggered the fuel cut. By the time the AAIB issued a statement condemning irresponsible, selective, and unverified reporting and warned against spreading premature narratives that undermined the investigation, the damage to the pilots’ reputations was already done.

Critics of the AAIB’s handling of the probe, including the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), which represents 6,000 Indian commercial pilots, have condemned the preliminary report as irreparably compromised. FIP president Capt. CS Randhawa argues there is a longstanding pattern of investigators shifting blame to deceased pilots to protect aircraft manufacturers and aviation authorities. The FIP, alongside Sabharwal’s 91-year-old father, have petitioned India’s Supreme Court to order an independent judicial probe into the disaster, arguing the national investigation lacks impartiality.

While some veteran aviation investigators, including former UK air accident investigator Tim Atkinson, support the pilot suicide theory – noting it removes blame from regulators, the airline, and the manufacturer, making it a convenient conclusion for powerful stakeholders – safety campaigners, pilots, and victims’ lawyers have vigorously pushed back against the narrative. They argue that a catastrophic, unreported electrical failure caused the crash, and point to multiple inconsistencies and anomalies in the AAIB’s preliminary findings to support their case.

The U.S.-based Foundation for Aviation Safety, led by former Boeing senior manager and whistleblower Ed Pierson, claims the crashed jet, delivered to Air India in 2014, suffered from repeated serious electrical issues throughout its service life. Documents reviewed by the BBC confirm a 2022 incident of burning in one of the plane’s main power panels. Air India says the damage was fully repaired per Boeing-approved maintenance standards and the plane was cleared for service before returning to operation. The preliminary report also confirms the aircraft was allowed to fly with a pre-existing fault in its core network, the central electronic system that connects the plane’s flight computers, often described as the jet’s central nervous system.

The alternative theory advanced by critics holds that a major electrical failure caused the plane’s flight computers to reboot seconds after takeoff. This, they argue, tricked the aircraft’s automatic safety systems into thinking the jet was still on the ground even as it climbed. The system automatically cut fuel flow to the engines to prevent a dangerous thrust surge on the ground, leading to the rapid loss of altitude that caused the crash. Under this scenario, the flight data recorder registered an electronic command to cut fuel, not a physical movement of the cockpit fuel cutoff switches.

Investigative journalist Rachel Chitra, who has published detailed technical analysis of the crash, has pointed out multiple inconsistencies in the AAIB’s account of engine performance after the fuel cut. Lawyers representing victims’ families have also highlighted discrepancies around the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), the emergency power system that deploys to provide electricity and hydraulic pressure when main systems fail. CCTV footage shows the RAT deployed immediately after takeoff, but the preliminary report claims it deployed five seconds after the fuel switches were cut. Independent simulator tests shared with the BBC show the RAT would take 14 to 18 seconds to deploy after a fuel cut, suggesting the RAT activated while the plane was still on the ground, before any fuel cut occurred – evidence, attorneys argue, of a pre-existing electrical failure.

“This is a symptom of something that has gone wrong,” explained Mike Andrews, an attorney with the U.S. firm representing 135 victims’ families. “If the RAT deployed before the fuel cut, as our tests indicate, we have to ask why – the pilot suicide narrative cannot answer that question.”

The AAIB is required by international regulation to release either a final report or an interim update on the first anniversary of the crash, which falls on June 12, 2026. Most observers do not expect a conclusive final report to drop on this date, after India’s civil aviation minister stated in May that the probe was in its final stage and a full report would likely come a month later. Few expect any update will resolve the deep doubts that already surround the investigation, which are rooted in widespread perceptions that powerful corporate and national interests are protecting themselves from liability.

This controversy has reignited longstanding criticism of the global system for investigating air accidents, which has not been fundamentally updated since it was established in 1944. Critics note that assigning investigation authority to the nation where the crash occurs leaves the process vulnerable to political pressure, corporate influence, and local bureaucratic capture. Even when foreign experts participate, manufacturers’ representatives face overwhelming pressure to deflect blame from their companies.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the U.N. body that oversees global aviation, has acknowledged these conflict-of-interest risks and recently approved amendments to Annex 13 that will allow nations to delegate accident investigations to independent third parties and increase procedural transparency starting in 2028. But critics say these changes do not go far enough to address the systemic flaws of the current system.

“Whatever ICAO is trying to change and improve is only trying to reduce the symptoms, but global aviation, global manufacturers and global airlines demand a global answer,” said aviation safety consultant Eckhard Jann. Jann argues the only solution is the creation of a permanent, independent global air accident investigation authority with the power to enforce its safety recommendations.

Other aviation experts disagree on the need for a full overhaul. Atkinson, who supports the pilot suicide conclusion in the AI171 case, argues that existing systems can work if they embrace far greater transparency at the early stages of investigations, releasing more information to the public sooner rather than allowing leaks and speculation to shape the narrative. Even so, he acknowledges the current model of major accident investigations has fallen short of its core goal of preventing future deaths, with modern safety technology driving most improvements in air travel safety rather than post-crash probes.

One year on from the disaster that killed 260 people, the only point all sides agree on is that the current controversy surrounding the AI171 investigation has exposed deep flaws in how the world probes major air accidents – and that change is needed to ensure future investigations deliver the answers that victims’ families deserve and keep millions of air passengers safe.

Four months into the destructive US-Israeli military campaign launched against Iran on February 28, Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andreas Kravik has delivered a clear, unflinching rebuke of the operation, stressing that the international community must defend the rules-based global order even when violations are committed by closest allies. In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye’s *Expert Witness* podcast recorded in Oslo, Kravik — a veteran public international lawyer and former head of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry’s legal affairs department — laid out Norway’s independent legal assessment that leaves no room for ambiguity: the war is unlawful under the UN Charter.

Under well-established international law, Kravik explained, a sovereign state may only legally deploy force against another nation in three narrow scenarios: when explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council, when acting in self-defense against an imminent armed attack, or when the host state consents to the intervention. None of these conditions were met in the case of Iran, he emphasized. “In our interpretation of the law, it is not a legal operation,” Kravik stated. “We think that is a violation of the UN Charter, and we have said so in no unclear terms. There is no authorisation here from the UN Security Council… and there was no consent from Iranian authorities.”

Kravik also balanced his assessment by acknowledging that while Iran holds an inherent right to self-defense under the UN Charter, its own response to the invasion has fallen short of international legal standards. He noted that Iran’s disproportionate counter-strikes that targeted third-party states, alongside the government’s harsh crackdown on domestic protesters amid widespread economic distress, both violate core tenets of international law. “Every state has the right to self-defense, including Iran, but that self-defence needs to be proportionate and must not target civilians,” he said.

The core principle guiding Norway’s stance, Kravik argued, is that consistent application of international law is non-negotiable if the framework is to survive. Too many global powers invoke the law only to condemn adversaries while ignoring violations by close partners, a trend that will ultimately unravel the entire global order, he warned. “Sometimes it can be more important to criticise or take on some of your closest allies,” Kravik said. “If we move into a global community where we speak out only when our adversaries violate the law, and not where our friends do so, then the law will eventually collapse.”

Against a growing narrative among global analysts that international law has become effectively irrelevant after a string of high-profile violations — including Israel’s actions in Gaza, the forced removal of Venezuela’s sitting president, and the war on Iran — Kravik pushed back that the reality is far more nuanced. He insisted that international law remains a critical pillar of global stability, pointing out that widespread compliance is far less visible than high-profile breaches, just as most people follow domestic law daily without drawing public attention. “I think it’s clear that international law matters. I think it’s clear that it has to matter,” he said. “Without international law, without multilateralism, which is very closely linked to international law, we’re not going to be able to preserve international stability. We also have multiple violations of national law… but we don’t say that Norwegian law has lost relevance.”

Despite Oslo’s clear condemnation of the US-Israeli war, Kravik clarified that the designation has not hampered Norway’s work as an impartial diplomatic mediator working to end the conflict. Oslo has continued to engage both Washington and Tehran for a negotiated solution, even as it calls out unlawful actions from both sides. “Even though the law has been violated, we need to find a way forward to reinvigorate the diplomatic process,” he explained.

As the conflict drags on and Israel expands its military operations into neighboring Lebanon, Norway has positioned itself as a quiet behind-the-scenes mediator, backing Pakistan-led diplomatic efforts to bring all warring parties back to negotiations. In line with this work, Kravik has recently completed a regional tour, holding talks with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar and Army Chief General Asim Munir in Islamabad, Iranian Foreign Ministry officials in Tehran, and Omani foreign policy leaders in Muscat.

Kravik emphasized that a core priority of any negotiated settlement must be the reopening and secure management of the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical energy shipping chokepoint that has been closed to most commercial traffic for much of the war, with the US imposing a reciprocal blockade on Iranian ports. “It’s important that the parties return to the table, that they are adamant in finding a diplomatic solution, and that that solution ensures that the Strait of Hormuz is managed in a way that comports with the basic principles enshrined in the law of the sea,” he said.

Beyond the Iran conflict, Kravik reaffirmed Norway’s unwavering support for the International Criminal Court (ICC), and issued a sharp condemnation of US sanctions imposed on ICC judges and prosecutors for carrying out their official mandates. “The fact that some third states who aren’t party to the court have decided to sanction court officials for just doing their jobs is unconscionable,” he said. “The integrity and the mandate of the ICC has never been more important.”

When asked about the ICC’s outstanding arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Kravik confirmed Norway would uphold its legal obligations. “If there is an arrest warrant attached to an individual who is on Norwegian soil, we will execute on that warrant,” he said.

He also addressed ongoing disciplinary proceedings against ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, urging all state parties to the court to respect the final findings of the independent judicial panel convened to investigate alleged misconduct. “When the report and three judges have come to the conclusion that there are no grounds for the termination of his contract, then I think that should be respected by states,” Kravik said. To disregard the panel’s independent ruling would risk open politicization of the court’s processes and erode its institutional integrity, he added.

Turning to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Kravik criticized Israel for refusing to comply with a 2025 advisory opinion requested through a Norwegian-led UN General Assembly resolution, which ordered Israel to unblock full humanitarian access to Gaza and end its obstruction of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). “At the current moment, we’re seeing that those decisions by the ICJ are not respected by Israel,” he said. “That’s extremely unfortunate.”

Kravik closed by reaffirming Norway’s longstanding commitment to UNRWA, describing the agency as an indispensable lifeline for Palestinian civilians that Oslo will continue to fund regardless of international pressure.

On the notoriously treacherous upper slopes of Mount Everest, a story of extraordinary survival has captured global attention while forcing a long-overdue reckoning with the hidden dangers facing local guides in the booming high-altitude tourism trade. Last Thursday, a post-climbing-season cleanup team combing the Khumbu Icefall—widely labeled the deadliest stretch of the world’s highest peak—stumbled on a shocking discovery: 57-year-old Hillary Dawa Sherpa, a climbing guide who had been missing for six days and already presumed dead by his family, who had started funeral preparations.

Weakened, frostbitten and severely exhausted, Hillary Dawa was still conscious enough to sit upright and speak to his rescuers before being airlifted to a Kathmandu hospital. News of his unlikely rescue spread rapidly across international headlines, stunning the global mountaineering community. But beyond the miracle of his survival, the incident has pulled back the curtain on systemic risks and questionable industry practices that put Sherpa workers in unacceptable danger.

Hillary Dawa was originally hired by budget expedition operator Himalayan Traverse Adventure (HTA) as a camp cook stationed at Camp 2, roughly 7,200 meters above sea level. HTA managers say he was reassigned at the last minute to substitute for a lead guide who fell ill at Base Camp, a change he accepted to earn extra income. On May 29, he set out from the highest Camp 4 to descend the southern route alongside two clients: British former soldier Chris Thrall and Polish climber Mariusz Chmielewski, plus a second guide, Pasang Kaji Sherpa.

When the group began their descent, Chmielewski was running low on oxygen, so Pasang Kaji and Chmielewski pressed ahead first. Thrall followed behind with Hillary Dawa, who stopped just above Camp 3 to rest on his backpack, as he had done hundreds of times before. “He says, ‘Yes, yes, I’m fine Chris, please go, ‘” Thrall recounted in an Instagram video. Facing an impossible choice between backtracking for Hillary Dawa, who seemed unhurt, or continuing to help Chmielewski—who was low on oxygen, suffering from early frostbite and at high risk of hypothermia in a raging snowstorm—Thrall chose to stay with the struggling client. With only half a tank of oxygen left, turning back would have likely put his own life at risk, he explained.

The blizzard conditions were so severe that Thrall and Chmielewski were forced to write farewell messages to their families, convinced they would not survive the 38-hour trek back to Base Camp. When they arrived, they assumed Hillary Dawa had perished in the storm. Chmielewski, who also required hospital treatment for frostbite, has joined Hillary Dawa’s family in accusing HTA of gross negligence. He claims Pasang Kaji notified HTA of Hillary Dawa’s disappearance on May 30, but no search effort was launched for three full days. He also says HTA operated with chaotic planning and woefully inadequate preparation, and has called for the company to lose its operating license.

For his part, Hillary Dawa has described how he ran out of oxygen above Camp 3 and could not continue moving, forcing him to wait out six days alone at lethal altitude. Most fully acclimatized climbers survive just 2 to 3 days without supplemental oxygen at that elevation. He went two full days without food, surviving on melted ice he chewed, before finding forgotten chocolate in his pocket that kept him going. He fell into a deep crevasse during his slow descent, but a subsequent avalanche filled part of the crevasse with snow, giving him the platform he needed to climb out. From there, he followed fixed ropes down until he encountered the cleanup team, the first people he had seen in nearly a week.

HTA has defended its actions, arguing that severe weather made an immediate rescue impossible, and that any attempt to send rescuers into the storm would have resulted in more deaths. HTA founder Dawa Sherpa added that 8K Expeditions, the larger firm that issued the expedition’s climbing permits, bore responsibility for executing search operations. But 8K Expeditions countered that it was not contracted to provide logistical or operational support for HTA’s trip, saying HTA notified them of the disappearance on May 30 then went radio silent, and that an aerial search was not coordinated until June 2, which turned up no trace of Hillary Dawa. HTA manager Angfurba Sherpa has also pushed back against criticism, noting that the two clients paid one of the lowest rates on the market for the expedition—roughly $37,500 per person, far less than the six-figure sums charged by many top operators—and arguing that Hillary Dawa could have contacted the company via his working walkie-talkie if he had needed help.

That claim has been rejected by Hillary Dawa’s loved ones, who say the guide was abandoned by the company he worked for. Mountaineering experts note that camp cooks are rarely trained or equipped to lead summit expeditions, even if they have previous high-altitude experience. As of early this week, Hillary Dawa has been moved out of intensive care to a general ward and is recovering well, but questions about the incident remain unanswered. Nepal’s tourism department has launched a formal investigation into the incident, and Hillary Dawa’s family has filed a police complaint alleging negligence. The extraordinary survival story has sparked urgent calls for better regulation and protections for Sherpa workers, who bear the brunt of the risk in the $200 million annual Everest tourism industry.