Ahmedabad: Mike Andrews, aviation lawyer with US-based Beasley Allen Law Firm, was on the AI 171 case within a month of the crash and today represents 160-odd victims. Speaking to TOI, Andrews said that the focus of the legal team is firmly on the technical aspect of what caused the crash.“When we look at the video and photographic evidence, even before the aircraft leaves the runway, it appears that the auxiliary power unit, the RAT (ram air turbine) device, is out and functioning before the aircraft rotates for take-off,” he said, adding, “That is important because it comes before any mention of a fuel switch transition. The RAT being out before the fuel system issue is contrary to the preliminary report timeline. So we have focused on understanding all of the symptoms we know of before take-off.”He added, “I have said from the very beginning that when we understand exactly why the RAT deployed early, we will understand what caused the crash, and I still believe that. This is a very complex system, so we have to be careful, avoid confirmation bias, and keep an open mind.”Andrews said that they are more convinced today than ever that the technical issues on board caused the crash. “We have also heard reports that the transponder stopped working during taxi and later started working again. The question is whether that was a temporary fault or a sign of the system failing and being reset. We do not know that yet. We also see that the landing gear begins to retract, but then it stops. That is another important symptom. Then the fuel system has an issue, which is a big symptom. So, our focus is to understand the causes of these symptoms and where they overlap. We are looking for the common link,” said Andrews.Chuck Chionuma, aviation lawyer from the US-based Chionuma Law Firm, added they are focusing on the much-awaited technical report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) India. “The report, either interim or final, is required to be released within a year of the incident. We are hopeful of its earliest release. It will provide the much-needed technical and legal points to understand the responsibility of the parties involved,” he said, adding that it will also decide the ‘litigation venue’ for the case.Chionuma raised the question of the ‘release and indemnity bond’ forced by the parties involved. “We have come across several such cases and we have told the families we represent not to sign it. It indemnifies the parties involved in all capacities – facts about them will only be known through a technical report,” he added.The lawyers also raised the issue related to access to information, and institutional support. They mentioned that in several of the instances, airlines often appoint a pointsman, but in this case, much more could have been done to reduce confusion and anxiety of the relatives to access information.
