Menu

AVIATION LIABILITY IN LIGHT OF THE AHEMDABAD TRAGEDY

Publications, Research paper

Abstract

In recent years, despite significant advancements in aircraft technology and safety protocols, aviation accidents have continued to occur, shaking public confidence and raising significant questions about responsibility and accountability within the aviation industry. These tragedies highlight the unsettling truth that even in a highly regulated and technologically sophisticated field, systemic setbacks exist. This study reviews the influence on the general public and critically assessing the responsibilities for such incidents, particularly in relevance to the recent Ahemdabad plane crash tragedy.

Keywords

Whistle-blower, Swiss Cheese Model, Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), Boeing, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)

Introduction

Aviation accidents are unintended and unforeseen events related to the operation of an aircraft, which results in serious injury or fatality to any person, extensive damage to the aircraft or the aircraft being missing.

“The Swiss Cheese Model developed by James Reason” visualises layers of defence in a system, like procedures, equipment, training, and regulations as slices of Swiss cheese. Each layer is designed to prevent accidents. However, no layer is perfect, so it has holes, just like Swiss cheese.

These “holes” represents weaknesses, such as:

  • Human error
  • Equipment failure
  • Poor communication
  • Management flaws
  • Inadequate training

An accident occurs when the holes in all the layers temporarily align. Plane crashes, though statistically rare, have been a constant and haunting issue since the early days of aviation. From the mid-20th century to today, these incidents have often resulted in catastrophic loss of life, with devastating consequences for families, communities, and nations. Each crash brings with it more than just headlines, it brings grief, unanswered questions, and long legal battles. Families are left mourning, struggling to obtain justice, compensation, or even a full understanding of what went wrong. For decades, people have suffered, not only those on board, but also their families and the first responders who witness the aftermath. 

In light of this long-standing history of aviation tragedies, the recent Ahmedabad plane crash of 2025 stands as yet another sheer reminder of how deeply such incidents continue to affect lives. The incident which occurred on June 12, 2025, involved Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner operating on an international route from Ahemdabad (Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport) to London Gatwick Airport. Just 30 seconds after taking off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahemdabad, the aircraft tragically crashed, resulting in the deaths of 241 people onboard, including 230 passengers and 11 of the 12 crew members. One passenger miraculously survived. Additionally, the crash caused devastation on the ground, killing 19 people and injuring 67, including individuals in a student hostel near BJ Medical College.

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report which revealed a shocking technical sequence: both engine fuel control switches were moved from the “RUN” to the “CUTOFF” position within seconds after take-off. This action instantly stopped the fuel supply to both engines, causing them to shut down mid-climb. Although one engine was restarted soon after, it was too late. The black box recording further disclosed a cockpit exchange in which one pilot asked, “Why did you shut it off?” to which the other responded, “I did not”, suggesting confusion.

No mechanical faults or maintenance lapses were found in the aircraft, which had recently undergone scheduled checks. Weather conditions were also clear, and no bird strike or external interference was detected.

The incident has sparked strong reactions from multiple stakeholders. Air India’s CEO stated that the airline was fully cooperating with investigators. Many critics argue that Boeing’s design choices and corporate practices have contributed to accidents by prioritizing cost-cutting and production efficiency over thorough safety measures. In the public discussion, these criticisms gained attention after previous incidents where design flaws in Boeing aircraft were linked to fatal accidents. As a result, some people believe that Boeing not only bears responsibility for the engineering aspects of its airplanes but also for a broader systemic culture that potentially overlooks safety risks in favour of economic efficiency. Setting these theories aside, the AAIB is continuing its investigation in collaboration with international bodies, including the UK’s AAIB, Boeing and General Electric. 

 According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the global accident rate in 2023 was approximately 0.80 accidents per million flights, meaning fewer than one accident for every million departures. That year saw a total of 30 aviation accidents, only two of which were fatal, resulting in 67 deaths. Statistically, the risk of dying in a plane crash is extremely low, a person would need to fly every day for over 100,000 years to experience a fatal incident. Despite this, the emotional and societal impact of aviation disasters remains immense, as each crash brings significant loss of life, public outrage, and long-term trauma for the victim’s families.

While statistics may assure us that flying is one of the safest modes of travel, a single plane crash shatters not just lives, but entire worlds. Behind every wreckage are grieving families, unfinished dreams, and unanswered questions. In these moments, law is not merely a system of rules, it becomes a means of seeking truth, justice, and accountability.  

Research Methodology

This research is a qualitative approach, primarily relying on secondary data sources such as case laws, government reports, aviation safety board findings, scholarly articles, and news reports. The research does not involve any empirical data collection but is rooted in doctrinal legal research and qualitative analysis of documented facts and legal standards.

Review of literature

The intersection of aviation disasters and legal accountability has been widely discussed in global and domestic legal scholarship. Several researchers have highlighted the inadequacies of existing aviation liability regimes in ensuring timely justice and compensation to victims and survivors.

Ruwantissa Abeyratne in Aviation Security Law offers a detailed understanding of state responsibilities under international air law, especially under conventions like the Chicago and Montreal Conventions. He emphasizes the growing need for legal mechanisms to evolve with increasingly privatized and technically complex aircraft manufacturing processes.

In India, The Aircraft Act, 1934 and rules framed under it continue to govern civil aviation, yet scholars have critiqued its outdated provisions in light of rapid technological advancements. Following the global examination of Boeing aircraft, especially the 737 MAX crashes, several international investigations, including those conducted by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), exposed systematic negligence in design approval processes. These findings have sparked legal debates over corporate accountability and the limits of regulatory negligence.

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) in India, though relatively new, has played a pivotal role in post-crash investigations, including the Ahmedabad Dreamliner case. Preliminary findings suggest possible manufacturer and maintenance issues, echoing past global patterns. However, the legal consequences for manufacturers like Boeing remain minimal in India due to limited legal provisions addressing product liability in the aviation sector. 

The following are the recent significant aviation related failures and crash incidents in 2025:

  1. On January 29th,2025, A Bombardier CRJ-700 (American Eagle) collided mid-air with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. All 67 aboard both aircraft were killed. 
  2. On February 6th,2025, A Cessna 208B Grand Caravan crashed over Norton Sound, Alaska, killing all 10 onboard. The wreckage was found after weather-clearance issues.
  3. On January 31st,2025, A medical evacuation Learjet 55 crashed into a residential neighbourhood in Philadelphia shortly after take-off, killing all six onboard and one person on the ground. Investigations explored mechanical and maintenance issues.

Edward Pierson: Boeing Whistle-blower in the 737 MAX Crisis

Edward Pierson, a whistleblower and former senior manager at Boeing, played a pivotal role in exposing internal safety concerns related to the 737 MAX aircraft. While working at Boeing’s Renton, Washington facility in 2018, Pierson raised alarms about serious production issues on the 737 MAX assembly line. He observed a rushed manufacturing environment, overworked staff, missed deadlines, and critical quality lapses. In internal communications, he urged Boeing executives to temporarily shut down the production line to resolve the chaos and reduce safety risks.

Despite Pierson’s repeated warnings, Boeing failed to act. Tragically, both the Lion Air Flight 610 (October 2018) and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (March 2019) crashed within months, killing 346 people in total. After these incidents, Pierson stepped forward as a whistleblower, testifying before the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in December 2019. He stated that Boeing’s leadership had ignored warnings, prioritized production speed over passenger safety, and contributed to a preventable disaster.

Pierson’s disclosures became a foundation of the 2020 Congressional Report on the Boeing 737 MAX, which concluded that both Boeing and the FAA had failed in their oversight and accountability. His role as a whistleblower helped bring global attention to corporate negligence and highlighted the need for stronger legal protections and liabilities in the aviation sector.

This case was not a matter adjudicated before a court of law, rather, it serves as an illustrative example often cited in academic or theoretical discussions. However, there are several actual cases that were formally presented before the court, involving real legal disputes, judicial analysis, and definitive rulings that contributed to the development of aviation law. Many of these cases centred around issues such as pilot negligence, failure of airline operators to detect or address known faults, and lapses in maintenance protocols, all of which played a significant role in the occurrence of aviation accidents. The following case is a notable example of such negligence that was brought before the court of law.

Indian Commercial Pilots Association v. DGCA & Ors., Delhi HC, Aug 17, 2017

In the case of Indian Commercial Pilots Association v. DGCA & Ors., decided by the Delhi High Court on August 17, 2017, the Indian Commercial Pilots Association filed a petition against the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), raising serious concerns regarding the misconduct of Captain Arvind Kathpalia, a senior executive at Air India. The petition alleged that Captain Kathpalia had failed to undergo mandatory Breathalyzer tests, both pre-flight and post-flight on January 19, 2017, in violation of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) issued in August 2015, which mandate alcohol testing for all scheduled flight crew members. It was further alleged that he falsely recorded compliance in the Breathalyzer register upon arrival, constituting a breach of protocol and falsification of official records. The case highlighted systemic lapses in the enforcement of safety regulations within Air India and sought regulatory accountability. Following the incident, the DGCA temporarily suspended Kathpalia’s license for three months. The case underscored the importance of strict adherence to aviation safety norms and equal enforcement of regulations, regardless of an officer’s seniority, reinforcing the role of whistleblower-driven legal action in promoting institutional transparency and safety abidance.

Such instances where pilots or flight operators are found liable for misconduct, whether due to negligence, breach of regulatory protocols, or wilful disregard for safety procedures-are met with strict legal consequences. The nature and extent of the penalties depend on the severity of the misconduct. Depending on the outcome and severity of the misconduct, the following IPC/BNS provisions may apply:

  • Section 304A IPC / Section 106 BNS –
    Causing death by negligence (e.g., pilot error due to intoxication or fatigue): Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
  • Sections 336–338 IPC / Section 124 BNS –
    Act endangering life or personal safety of others:
  1. Section 336: Rash or negligent act likely to endanger life — up to 3 months.
  2. Section 337: Causing hurt by such act — up to 6 months.
  3. Section 338: Causing grievous hurt — up to 2 years.
  • Section 201 IPC/ 118BNS –
    Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information during accident investigations.

In continuance with these concerns, several incidents have been reported involving emergency landings attributed to such lapses. 

For instance:

  • In July 2022, an IndiGo flight from Sharjah to Hyderabad made an emergency landing in Karachi due to engine-related issues that had reportedly been flagged earlier.

While many such incidents have, by virtue of circumstances, not resulted in fatalities, they serve as urgent reminders of the need for enhanced regulatory vigilance, transparent fault reporting, and strict adherence to safety protocols to prevent potential disasters. Nevertheless, certain cases have still led to fatalities such as one of the most well–known aviation disasters in modern history is the crash of Air France Flight 447 in 2009, which claimed the lives of all 228 passengers and crew on board. 

  • Cause of the Crash:
  1. A combination of pilot error and technical malfunction.
  2. Ice crystals blocked the aircraft’s pitot tubes, causing the autopilot to disengage.
  3. The aircraft stalled and descended into the ocean.
  • Legal and Safety Impact:
  1. Sparked global reform in pilot training, especially regarding manual flying in stall conditions.
  2. Led to scrutiny over Airbus automation and pitot tube design.
  3. The pilots failed to respond correctly to the stall warnings.
  4. Triggered lawsuits by families and major changes in international aviation monitoring systems.

Method

“A Quantitative Study of Aircraft Maintenance Accidents in Commercial Air Transport” 

1.Research Objective & Design

  • The study aims to understand the characteristics and trends of aircraft-maintenance-related accidents in commercial aviation.
  • Analysed a global dataset of 358 maintenance-related accidents identified from the Aviation Safety Network.
  • Compared these accidents quantitatively across two periods: 1941–1997 (“older”) and 1998–2019 (“modern”) using statistical methods like chi–square tests. 

2.Trends Over Time

  • Although the absolute number of maintenance-related accidents increased modestly each year, the rate of accidents per flight–hour has halved every 27.7 years, indicating improvements in safety practices.
  • Maintenance causes now account for 3.8% of aviation accidents (1998–2019), up from 1.3% (1941–1997), signalling the growing complexity of maintenance issues. 

3. Implications for Aviation Safety

  • The study demonstrates that while modern maintenance accidents are less deadly, they occur more frequently at critical flight phases, highlighting need for reinforced maintenance protocols and post–maintenance testing.
  • Equipment failure remains a systemic risk, underscoring the importance of robust reliability engineering, age–based maintenance practices, and systematic component oversight.

Suggestions

‘Government guidelines for preventing Aviation accidents’ by the Government of India regulates aviation safety and accident response through agencies like the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The DGCA enforces safety through binding regulations called Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs), which cover flight operations, crew fitness, aircraft maintenance, and incident reporting. Airlines are required to implement Safety Management Systems and adhere to strict fatigue and alcohol testing protocols. In the event of an accident, the AAIB conducts independent investigations to determine causes and recommend preventive measures.

 For compensation, for aviation accidents is primarily governed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which includes provisions from the Montreal Convention, 1999. Under this framework, airlines are strictly liable to pay compensation up to 1,00,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) for death or injury of passengers on international flights. For domestic flights, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) mandates compensation of ₹20 lakh for each passenger in case of death. Additional claims may be made through civil litigation or consumer courts, depending on the circumstances. While standard compensation exists, final amounts can vary based on legal proceedings, airline policies, and case-specific factors.

As a researcher engaging deeply with this subject, I would like to propose the following set of suggestions, drawn both from empirical observations and a critical evaluation of existing systems. These recommendations aim to support existing laws and institutions by offering practical measures to improve aviation safety and accountability.

  1. Whistle-blower Protection and Incentivization

  The aviation sector must institutionalize clear, protected channels for whistleblowers, including pilots, engineers, and regulatory staff, to report safety violations without fear of retaliation. Legal provisions similar to those in the U.S. Whistleblower Protection Program under the FAA could be adapted to the Indian context. A particularly tragic example is the case of John Barnett, a former Boeing quality control manager. Barnett’s family filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in federal court, claiming Boeing’s sustained harassment was a “foreseeable cause” of his death

  1. Mandatory Public Disclosure of Investigation

 Final reports of aircraft incidents and near-misses must be published in a time-bound manner. Revising sensitive information where necessary, this transparency would build public trust and provide the aviation industry with critical safety lessons.

Conclusion

Aviation liability, though governed by extensive international conventions and domestic statutes, continues to face significant challenges in the face of evolving technology, growing air traffic, and tragic accidents that shake public confidence. The need for clear, comprehensive, and enforceable liability frameworks is not a matter of policy refinement, it is a matter of justice, accountability, and human life.

The Ahmedabad tragedy in 2025 is more than a statistic in aviation history; it is a bleak reminder of what is at stake when systems fail and laws fall short. The uncertainty surrounding manufacturer liability, pilot accountability, regulatory oversight, and maintenance failures exposes critical weaknesses in India’s current legal structure.

Aviation liability is not just about addressing what went wrong. It is about safeguarding what could go right. As the skies grow busier, our laws must grow stronger, not only to honour those lost but to protect those yet to fly. 

Shreya Minj

Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law, Navi Mumbai