This interview marks one year since the Air India AI 171 crash and centers on victims’ lawyer Mike Andrews arguing that the investigation still lacks a credible root cause. His working view is that the evidence points to a technical/electrical failure cascade, not pilot suicide, and he says a premature or incomplete report could worsen confusion, harm families, and miss important aviation-safety lessons.
Watch on YouTube ›Get the market thesis, key claims, assets, contradictions, and follow-up questions from any financial video — then unlock a version personalized to your portfolio, watchlist, and favorite speakers.
The interview is built around a single question: what really caused the AI 171 crash, and why is the official investigation still unresolved a year later? Mike Andrews, representing victims’ families, says his team has continued its own technical review behind the scenes while the public has been left with only a preliminary report and a lot of speculation. He says they have examined wiring diagrams, hydraulic schematics, logic information for the 787, and simulator evidence to reconstruct the sequence of failures. His thesis is that the accident looks like a chain of technical symptoms, not a deliberate act by the pilots. Andrews repeatedly points to the RAT deploying very early, before the aircraft had even rotated, as a key clue. …
The near-term setup is dominated by the anniversary report risk: a thin or misleading disclosure could intensify backlash and keep the controversy alive. The actionable question is whether investigators provide enough technical context to stabilize the narrative.
Over the coming weeks and months, the base case is continued dispute over cause until the flight-data trail is fully reconciled. The view changes only if investigators present a detailed technical explanation that fits the observed symptoms and withstands scrutiny.
Structurally, the transcript points to a broader regime issue around complex-aircraft transparency and how accident reports influence liability and fleet confidence. If the defect proves systemic, the consequences could extend well beyond one crash and one airline.
The crash investigation still lacks a definitive public root cause despite a year having passed.
He says his team is still investigating while the public has not received concrete findings from AAIB or other agencies.
The observed sequence of failures looks more like an electrical/logic cascade than intentional pilot action.
He points to RAT timing, hydraulics, transponder behavior, and fuel/power symptoms as interconnected electrical issues.
The preliminary report’s RAT timing is inconsistent with the aircraft’s design manuals and testing.
He says the report's 4-second hydraulic-power timing is wrong and that RAT power should take 14-18 seconds.
Where do you think the investigation stands as of now, one year after the crash?
Mike Andrews says their investigation has continued daily. They've uncovered technical documents, wiring diagrams, hydraulic schematics, and logic information for the 787. They've looked at each symptom of failure — the RAT device deploying early on the runway, hydraulics for landing gear retraction starting and stopping, fuel being cut off — and conducted flight simulator testing.
What have you found so far in your independent investigation?
Andrews states the transponder may have ceased working while taxiing then restarted, there were faults recorded before takeoff, the RAT was out, fuel stopped at some point, and landing gear hydraulics apparently stopped. Simulator testing showed the flight took longer than expected to take off, possibly from brake drag or reduced thrust. He also disputes the preliminary report's claim that the RAT produces hydraulic power 4 seconds after deployment, saying it should take 14-18 seconds. His focus is on electrical issues and cascade failures.
Could it be a fadec error?
Andrews says they're looking at the FADEC. There are two, one per engine, designed to be independent of each other and the power supply. Some connections are fiber optic to prevent electrical interference. He's trying to understand how a failure on one side can propagate to the other, and mentions looking at potential failure of the central battery system which could have backfed power.
Unlock the full claims, asset map, scores, related transcripts, follow-up questions, and AI chat — shaped around your portfolio, watchlist, favorite speakers, and risks.
