The factors listed are not mutually exclusive, so any combination may resolve to YES or NO. Potentially all could resolve NO; all could resolve YES; or any combination in between.
This market will resolve based on the final accident report issued by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB-India). However, if credible reports from sources like The New York Times indicate that the staff of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) does not concur with the AAIB-India report, resolution will be based on the NTSB staff’s reported beliefs (even if NTSB declines to issue an official report).
This market will follow Zvi’s Manifold House Rules. These rules allow the to be resolved early if the outcome becomes sufficiently certain (e.g., the market stabilizes above 90% or below 10% based on credible reports that NTSB staff or AAIB-India investigators have reached a determination concerning the presence or absence of a particular cause).
Option 1: Pilot Action
This question resolves YES if the final investigation report lists a pilot action or inaction as a probable cause or contributing factor that precipitated the emergency. This refers specifically to errors that created the hazardous conditions (e.g., incorrect takeoff configuration), not to imperfect pilot reactions to an emergency they did not cause.
This market resolves NO if:
- The report finds the pilots reacted poorly to an emergency created by external factors (e.g., dual engine failure from a bird strike) but did not cause the initial event. For example, if an ideal pilot theoretically might have been able to recover from the emergency, this would still resolve no if the pilots did not make any errors prior to the emergency/loss of altitude.
- The crew's response is criticized but is explicitly listed as non-causal.
Examples
- YES: The report finds the pilots failed to set flaps correctly for takeoff and ignored a configuration warning (or gave inappropriate inputs after takeoff), leading to a stall on climb-out.
- NO: The report finds that a dual bird strike caused catastrophic thrust loss and that the crew was unable to properly recover from an emergency created by factors outside their control.
Option 2: Design or Manufacturing Defect
This market resolves YES if the final investigation report lists a flaw originating with the airframe manufacturer (Boeing) or an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) supplier as a probable cause or contributing factor. This includes defects in hardware, software, system design, or the manufacturing process.
This market resolves NO if the report does not identify such a defect in its causal findings or limits its conclusions to airline maintenance, pilot action, or external events.
Examples
- YES: The report determines that a software bug in the autothrottle system incorrectly commanded the engines to idle thrust after takeoff.
- NO: The report determines an engine failed because an engine intake was improperly inspected by Air India’s maintenance division, with no fault attributed to the engine's original manufacturer.
Option 3: Maintenance or Fueling Lapse
This market resolves YES if the final investigation report lists a maintenance, servicing, or ground-handling error by the airline operator (Air India) or its contractors as a probable cause or contributing factor.
This market resolves NO if such lapses are determined to be non-causal or are not included in the report's causal findings.
Examples
- YES: The report finds that a ground-handling contractor contaminated the Jet A fuel supply, causing both engines to flame out.
- NO: The report notes minor paperwork irregularities in the aircraft's maintenance logs but concludes these were unrelated to the accident sequence.
Update 2025-06-17 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified the role of media reports in the resolution process:
Resolution will be based on the findings of government investigators (either AAIB-India or U.S. NTSB staff), not the opinions of journalists.
A media report is only relevant if it credibly reports that U.S. NTSB staff disagree with the official AAIB-India report.
1,000
3.00"Investigators believe Air India Flight 171 had an emergency-power generator operating when it crashed last week, raising questions about whether the plane’s engines functioned properly during takeoff."
"Findings from the wreckage indicate the aircraft’s flaps and other flight-control surfaces had been configured for takeoff, some of the people said."
https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/boeing-787s-emergency-power-system-likely-active-before-air-india-crash-148b7e02?st=CCTvYw&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
But there’s something else: two people deeply familiar with the Charleston 787 plant told the Prospect they had particularly acute quality concerns over planes that were delivered to Air India. Cynthia Kitchens, a former quality manager who worked at the Charleston plant between 2009 and 2016, has a binder full of notes, documents and photos from her frustrating years at Boeing, one page of which lists the numbers of the eleven planes delivered between early 2012 and late 2013 whose quality defects most kept her awake at night. Six of them went to Air India, whose purchases were bolstered by billions of dollars in Export-Import Bank loan guarantees. The plane that crashed was delivered in January 2014 from Boeing’s now-defunct assembly line in Everett, Washington, though its mid- and aft- fuselages were produced in Charleston.
IDK about this market because it resolves based on what the New York Times will say, but this is pretty damning for Boeing.
@abhimanyu Thanks for posting this, very interesting. To be clear, the intention is to resolve based on the official AAIB-India report unless there are clear and credible reports that the U.S. NTSB staff disagrees. In either case, the resolution will be based on government investigators' findings, not the opinions of journalists. I'm just giving priority to the U.S. NTSB over AAIB-India in the event that they disagree.
The reason why I included that in the resolution criteria is that there have been cases where foreign governments issue reports that everyone knows are false for political reasons. This happens pretty often when the cause is pilot suicide (e.g., official reports by local investigators in EgyptAir 990, Indonesia SilkAir 185, China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735, among others, did not acknowledge that intentional action by the pilot appears to have caused the crash). FWIW, my personal view is that the U.S. NTSB is quite professional and they will call it like they see it, whether the cause is Boeing or an Indian pilot/airline.
@RaviKiran Yes, absolutely! The market states explicitly all could resolve YES or all could resolve NO or any permutation in between. The categories are trying to capture the main error points: Boeing, Air India/ground contractors, or pilot error. But it absolutely could turn out to be something like a dual bird strike on both engines simultaneously where the report really does not identify any of these three options as causal. (Less likely here, but if it turned out to be terrorism or sabotage, all of these markets might resolve no.)
There is a theory that due to lengthy stand-by on the runway (2+ hours) on the runway prior to take-off, without A/C running in the airplane, conditions in the fuel lines may have lead to double engine fault, and although the RAT could eventually have overcome the problem, the plane was too low to be able to recover. For some reason Air India appears to not run A/C when planes wait on the runway, I have personally been sitting for over 2 hours on the runway in Delhi with no A/C waiting for take-off clearance, it was hellish!
@ReneDokbua That's interesting! I wouldn't be surprised if we see some unusual causes here. This one seems pretty open-ended, although I gather we'll know a lot once we see reports of what the black boxes show.