The father of the pilot involved in the Air India crash that killed 158 people has publicly defended his son, even as British investigators call for greater transparency in the inquiry. Speaking from his home in Mumbai, the father insisted that his son was a “highly experienced and careful aviator” who had logged over 12,000 flight hours, and suggested that mechanical failure or external factors may have contributed to the disaster. “He would never take risks. There must be another explanation,” he said.
The statement comes amid growing tension between Indian and British authorities over the handling of the investigation. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the United Kingdom has expressed frustration at delays in accessing the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, which remain in Indian custody. A senior AAIB official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “We have repeatedly requested full and unfettered access to the evidence. This is standard procedure for any major aviation accident, and we are concerned that the process has not been as transparent as it should be.”
The crash, which occurred on approach to Kozhikode International Airport in heavy rain, has raised questions about pilot training and decision-making in adverse weather conditions. Early reports from Indian investigators suggest that the pilot may have attempted a landing that exceeded the aircraft’s operational limits. However, the father’s defence has introduced a note of caution into the public narrative, and some aviation experts have warned against drawing premature conclusions.
“The pilot’s reputation is now under scrutiny, but we must wait for the full data analysis before assigning blame,” said retired RAF Group Captain Andrew Blackwood. “There are multiple factors in any crash, including human error, technical fault, and environmental conditions. The black boxes will tell the story.”
The AAIB’s demand for transparency reflects a broader diplomatic undercurrent. Britain has a strong interest in the safety of Boeing aircraft and the training standards of foreign carriers that operate into UK airspace. The crash involved a Boeing 737-800, a model widely used by British airlines and under scrutiny after previous incidents. Any systemic failings identified could have implications for safety protocols worldwide.
Indian authorities have defended their investigation, stating that they are following established protocols and will share data once the initial analysis is complete. A spokesperson for India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation said: “We have nothing to hide. Our investigators are working with international experts, including those from Boeing and the US National Transportation Safety Board. The data will be made available in due course.”
Yet the delay has fuelled speculation. Some aviation experts have pointed to the 2013 crash of a Boeing 777 at San Francisco International Airport, where initial reports blamed the pilots only to later find that complex software issues contributed. “There is a history of rushing to judgment on pilot error,” noted Dr. Helen Mackay, a former investigator with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. “Transparency is crucial not only for accountability but for learning the real lessons from a tragedy.”
The Air India crash is the deadliest aviation accident in India since 1996. The nation’s aviation sector has been growing rapidly, and the crash has prompted calls for a review of pilot training and regulatory oversight. For the families of the victims, the dispute between investigators adds to the anguish of their loss. At a memorial in Kozhikode, one relative said: “We do not want blame games. We want the truth.”
As the investigation proceeds, the cockpit voice recorder is expected to reveal conversations in the final moments before impact. British officials hope that their pressure will yield results, while the pilot’s father continues to voice his defence. The coming days will determine whether the search for truth remains a collaborative effort or becomes mired in national pride and recrimination.
