Hours after the preliminary findings into the June 12 Air India crash were released on Saturday, selective excerpts began circulating on social media — particularly the cockpit exchange — interpreting them as an apparent signifier of pilot error.
Aviation safety experts said the report’s sparse narrative, lack of timeline, and absence of human factors data have allowed speculation to overwhelm facts.
The report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), tasked with inquiring into the crash, said analysis of the aircraft’s cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder showed both fuel control switches had been transitioned from run to cut-off position seconds after lift-off. Between 10-14 seconds later, both switches were turned on again, but the plane failed to regain power fast enough to prevent the crash.
The report offers no explanation for this.
Experts said the absence of technical context, behavioural analysis, or a clear sequence of events has left room for unverified theories and AI-generated content to spread unchecked.
Social Media Conjecture
As the report circulated, social media timelines were flooded with so-called explainers and crash reconstructions—many of them drawing conclusions or implying fault despite no cause being mentioned in the report.
“It says that the fuel switches moved. It doesn't say the pilots moved the fuel switches. So it's carefully worded,” said Captain John Cox, veteran pilot and safety analyst. The lack of clarity, he warned, has helped misinformation thrive.
In light of this, the government has cautioned people not to jump to conclusions until the final report is out.
“This has been what I would call a low point in aviation history because of the actions of people speculating and using the internet, as well as AI, to present things that they say as fact, when in fact, they're not,” said Cox, adding that it was “cruel to the families” and “counterproductive.”
The misinformation does nothing, he said, “except provide clickbait for someone who thinks they're an expert when in fact they are not.”
“It (the report) does, however, debunk several speculative theories which were in circulation, not least on social media,” said aviation consultant John Strickland. Without clearer framing, facts become fodder for fiction, experts said.Various theories have been doing the rounds. Apart from those cited earlier, these include deliberate action, a software or electrical malfunction simulating the activation or that the crew tried to restart engines by toggling cut-offs. Some cited a 2018 FAA bulletin warning of a switch design flaw, reviving concerns about mechanical failure.
Patrik Frykberg, an ICAO-certified investigator and former director of Peru’s accident investigation board, said the report’s structure did little to aid public or policy understanding. ICAO is the International Civil Aviation Organization.
“While the report meets Annex 13 requirements, there are areas where the presentation could be strengthened,” he said. “A brief executive summary or synthesis of the main findings known so far would aid accessibility for non-technical audiences or high-level stakeholders. The report could have benefitted from a clearer timeline graphic, summarising key actions, from liftoff to impact.” ICAO’s Annex 13 is the framework for investigating incidents involving planes.
Although the report notes that no immediate safety recommendations have been issued, a short section summarising potential human factors under investigation could offer value without prejudging conclusions, Frykberg said.
Strickland, who has over four decades in the industry, said, “The report is brief. It states facts and figures, but it does not draw conclusions. It is a preliminary report, and only the final report will provide full causal analysis and any mandated actions.”
UK safety expert David Learmount said pilots can make mistakes under pressure. “It’s unlikely, but possible,” he said.
“Just after takeoff, both are focused on performance and flight path. Their only task at that point is to raise the landing gear, which isn’t near the fuel switches. Yet, they didn’t raise the gear, and there was no reason to touch the switches. It’s hard to believe trained pilots could make such an error—but maybe. We don’t know, and we may never know.” So far there’s no evidence of intent—only that the switches were moved, he said. Until the final report emerges, experts said, the bigger concern is not just what happened on the flight deck, but how an inconclusive report, according to experts, has unleashed a flood of misinformation.
Aviation safety experts said the report’s sparse narrative, lack of timeline, and absence of human factors data have allowed speculation to overwhelm facts.
The report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), tasked with inquiring into the crash, said analysis of the aircraft’s cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder showed both fuel control switches had been transitioned from run to cut-off position seconds after lift-off. Between 10-14 seconds later, both switches were turned on again, but the plane failed to regain power fast enough to prevent the crash.
The report offers no explanation for this.
Experts said the absence of technical context, behavioural analysis, or a clear sequence of events has left room for unverified theories and AI-generated content to spread unchecked.
Social Media Conjecture
As the report circulated, social media timelines were flooded with so-called explainers and crash reconstructions—many of them drawing conclusions or implying fault despite no cause being mentioned in the report.
“It says that the fuel switches moved. It doesn't say the pilots moved the fuel switches. So it's carefully worded,” said Captain John Cox, veteran pilot and safety analyst. The lack of clarity, he warned, has helped misinformation thrive.
In light of this, the government has cautioned people not to jump to conclusions until the final report is out.
“This has been what I would call a low point in aviation history because of the actions of people speculating and using the internet, as well as AI, to present things that they say as fact, when in fact, they're not,” said Cox, adding that it was “cruel to the families” and “counterproductive.”
The misinformation does nothing, he said, “except provide clickbait for someone who thinks they're an expert when in fact they are not.”
“It (the report) does, however, debunk several speculative theories which were in circulation, not least on social media,” said aviation consultant John Strickland. Without clearer framing, facts become fodder for fiction, experts said.Various theories have been doing the rounds. Apart from those cited earlier, these include deliberate action, a software or electrical malfunction simulating the activation or that the crew tried to restart engines by toggling cut-offs. Some cited a 2018 FAA bulletin warning of a switch design flaw, reviving concerns about mechanical failure.
Patrik Frykberg, an ICAO-certified investigator and former director of Peru’s accident investigation board, said the report’s structure did little to aid public or policy understanding. ICAO is the International Civil Aviation Organization.
“While the report meets Annex 13 requirements, there are areas where the presentation could be strengthened,” he said. “A brief executive summary or synthesis of the main findings known so far would aid accessibility for non-technical audiences or high-level stakeholders. The report could have benefitted from a clearer timeline graphic, summarising key actions, from liftoff to impact.” ICAO’s Annex 13 is the framework for investigating incidents involving planes.
Although the report notes that no immediate safety recommendations have been issued, a short section summarising potential human factors under investigation could offer value without prejudging conclusions, Frykberg said.
Strickland, who has over four decades in the industry, said, “The report is brief. It states facts and figures, but it does not draw conclusions. It is a preliminary report, and only the final report will provide full causal analysis and any mandated actions.”
UK safety expert David Learmount said pilots can make mistakes under pressure. “It’s unlikely, but possible,” he said.
“Just after takeoff, both are focused on performance and flight path. Their only task at that point is to raise the landing gear, which isn’t near the fuel switches. Yet, they didn’t raise the gear, and there was no reason to touch the switches. It’s hard to believe trained pilots could make such an error—but maybe. We don’t know, and we may never know.” So far there’s no evidence of intent—only that the switches were moved, he said. Until the final report emerges, experts said, the bigger concern is not just what happened on the flight deck, but how an inconclusive report, according to experts, has unleashed a flood of misinformation.
You may also like
UP News: MLA Neelima Katiyar Leads BJP Membership Drive in Nankari; Ex-BSF Jawan Joins Party
U.S. Introduces $250 Visa Integrity Fee For Non-Immigrant Applicants, Including Students & Tourists
'BrahMos Missile From Lucknow Attracts Global Interest; Supply To 15 Nations Likely Soon': Rajnath Singh
Shubhanshu Shukla's return to Earth begins today after historic ISS mission
Iran's Prez Pezeshkian sustained minor leg injuries while escaping Israeli attack
