“Selective disclosure against crew impedes root cause discovery and threatens future flight safety, calling for a neutral judicial lens,” it added.
The report contains perversity and critical inconsistencies, they charged, adding that it lacked credibility and transparency. The deployment of the emergency generator, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), before the crash is a direct indicator of an electrical or digital malfunction and contradicts the report’s inference that pilot actions initiated power loss.
“Yet, the investigation fails to provide time-stamped correlation between RAT deployment and crew inputs, and ignores the possibility that faults in the Common Core System (CCS), integrating avionics, flight controls, power distribution, and software, may have triggered the sequence of failures. The omission of this line of inquiry demonstrates bias and technical incompleteness,” the petitioners charged.
The petition pointed out that the report had claimed that both fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF within one second and reverted shortly thereafter. “Such near-synchronised manual actuation is implausible under take-off conditions, especially if the RAT had already deployed before any crew action. This strongly suggests an automatic or corrupted digital command, not human intervention,” the petition stated. To treat this as a deliberate pilot error, without first excluding electronic malfunction, is procedurally unjust and logically unsound. It reverses causation, blaming the pilots for what could be a symptom of system failure rather than its trigger, they added.
