Boeing must be made to disclose all relevant data, design documents, past complaints, and test results. Indian authorities must not defer to foreign regulators. We owe that to the victims.
Representational Image
I t was yet another Thursday afternoon when a friend called to tell me about a possible plane crash in Gujarat. Little did I know at that time that it would be one of the worst crashes in aviation history. The crash of Air India’s Boeing Dreamliner flight from Ahmedabad to London shocked the nation. In the aftermath of this tragedy, the public discourse in India has focused on seeking accountability from the airline, the regulatory authorities like DGCA and the Government. While these entities deserve scrutiny, a critical player remains conspicuously absent from mainstream discussion, Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer. Boeing’s legal and ethical responsibility for the safety of its aircraft cannot be a blind spot in our search for accountability.
In a country where aviation accountability often stops at the cockpit or the airline hangar, it’s time to confront a glaring oversight. International norms, global legal precedents, and past tragedies remind us that manufacturers like Boeing bear a heavy responsibility, both legally and morally. Ignoring this link risks both justice and future safety. For instance, in 2019, Chinese aviation authorities grounded all Boeing 737 MAX over safety concerns. This was in the aftermath of the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight ET 302 which resulted in the loss of 157 lives.
Advertisement
Under international aviation law, particularly ICAO Annex 13 (this Annex provides the International Standards and Recommended Practices in case of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation), every air accident must be investigated not just for human or operational failures but also for potential design and manufacturing defects. In fact, Annex 13 mandates that the country of the aircraft’s design and manufacture (in this case, the United States, where Boeing is headquartered) must participate in the investigation. This is not mere formality. It is a recognition that in the world of commercial aviation, manufacturers wield immense influence over aircraft safety. The very fact that international law mandates the manufacturer’s involvement underscores an important principle, aircraft manufacturers must be thoroughly scrutinized after a crash, not shielded from tough questions. With millions of parts, hundreds of interconnected systems, and advanced automation software, any hidden defect can be as fatal as human error. Boeing’s engineers, documents, and design history will be central to understanding whether this crash involved systemic or design flaws.
Advertisement
History shows that some of aviation’s deadliest crashes stem from ignored or downplayed design flaws. In 1974, a Turkish Airlines DC-10 (made by McDonnell Douglas, now part of Boeing) crashed due to a known cargo door design flaw which was covered up with false documentation. This flaw had caused issues in earlier flights but went unaddressed. The result: 346 dead. The manufacturer blamed ground crew before eventually accepting fault, and paid millions in compensation.
In 1989, a Boeing 747’s cargo door blew out mid-flight which resulted in the death of nine people onboard. Boeing had previously warned of the flaw but failed to enforce fixes. The National Transportation Safety Board of US concluded that a lack of timely corrective actions by Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – following a previous door opening incident – to fix the design flaw led to the incident.
More recently, the 737 MAX disasters in 2018 and 2019 exposed a dangerous flaw in Boeing’s automated MCAS (Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System) system. Investigations revealed Boeing misled regulators and airlines about the system’s risks. The result, 346 lives lost. Boeing paid over a billion dollars in a U.S. settlement, including around $500 million to victims’ families, and admitted to criminal misconduct but walked away from a criminal conviction which could potentially disrupt its status as a federal contractor. Even the Boeing Dreamliner (which some have defended on social media) has had a troubled history.
In March 2024 a LATAM Airlines flight from Sydney to Auckland suddenly plunged 400 ft. when the pilot’s seat in the 787-9 Dreamliner lurched forward unexpectedly. While eventually the Captain was able to recover, 10 passengers and three crew members suffered injuries.
FAA ordered an investigation and inspection of Boeing 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10 aeroplanes following this incident. Internationally, and especially in the U.S., aircraft manufacturers can be held liable for:
Negligence: If manufacturer failed to use reasonable care in design, testing, or warning about defects, it is liable. Courts have long held that aircraft makers owe a duty of care to passengers. The case of King v Douglas Aircraft held that a manufacturer of aircraft owes a duty of care and would be held liable to a third party for a product which, if negligently made involves unreasonable risk of harm to those using it for the intended purpose (MacPherson principle).
Strict Liability: Even without proving carelessness, a manufacturer can be held liable if its aircraft had a defect that made it unreasonably dangerous when it left the factory.
Breach of Implied Warranty: Courts have ruled that passengers can sue manufacturers for selling planes unfit for safe use, even without a direct contract.
Failure to Warn: If the manufacturer knew of a danger and failed to inform airlines or retrofit planes, it faces liability. The 737 MAX case showed how devastating such omissions can be. These doctrines have led to hundreds of millions in damages, and in the MAX case, criminal sanctions. India is one of the fastest growing civil aviation markets with Indian airlines having placed orders worth billions for new aircraft from leading global manufacturers.
In India, legal action against aircraft manufacturers is rare. Blame typically stops at pilots or airline staff. But if the Dreamliner had a defect, be it in software, engines, sensors, or manuals, then Boeing must answer. India has the legal tools to pursue such accountability.
Our tort law, inherited from British common law, recognizes manufacturer negligence. Product liability as a concept is well established and litigated. While aircraft aren’t ordinary consumer goods, the principle applies; if a manufacturer causes harm, it can be sued, even without a direct contract.
This has precedence in multiple cases across the world. Airlines, too, can seek damages from the manufacturer for defects in the aircraft. Globally, carriers have sued manufacturers for faulty components or designs. If the investigation concludes that a defect caused the crash, Air India should not hesitate to pursue Boeing for recovery.
DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation must ensure full cooperation from Boeing during the investigation, as per ICAO Annex 13. Boeing must be made to disclose all relevant data, design documents, past complaints, and test results. Indian authorities must not defer to foreign regulators. We owe that to the victims.
Should the investigation point to any fault with the Dreamliner, Indian prosecutors must explore not just civil but even criminal accountability.
In US itself Boeing was sued and had to eventually agree to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge after the two fatal 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia in 2018 and 2019. Judge Reed O’Connor described it as the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history.
We should also consider new legislation, a dedicated aviation product liability law that clarifies how and when foreign manufacturers can be held liable in Indian courts. It can provide presumptions based on investigation findings, reduce procedural hurdles, and make sure foreign corporations like Boeing know they are not beyond Indian reach.
As the investigation of the Air India Dreamliner crash proceeds, India must broaden its gaze beyond the immediate actors.
Certainly, if pilot training was inadequate or the airline skimped on maintenance, those issues must be fixed. Regulators, too, must introspect on their vigilance. But equally, we must ask: Did the aircraft itself do everything it was supposed to? The loss of precious lives demands that we examine every angle, including potential lapses at the very genesis of the aircraft. In aviation, there is a saying that every accident is the result of a chain of errors; it’s time to ensure that we don’t consistently ignore one crucial link in that chain – the designers and manufacturers who provide the machines we trust with our lives.
Only when India makes that scrutiny routine, not rare, can we claim to have a mature aviation safety culture. We are on the cusp of an aviation boom, with more passengers flying than ever and airlines purchasing hundreds of new jets. In this environment, our legal system and investigative ethos must send a clear message, “Air safety is a shared responsibility, and no entity is above scrutiny”.
Such accountability is not about casting blame for its own sake; it is about driving home the lesson that only when every stakeholder, especially manufacturers, upholds the highest standards can we prevent the next tragedy. The memories of the lost deserve nothing less than a full measure of justice.
(The writer, an LL.M. in Air & Space Law from McGill University, is an advocate based in Mumbai specialising in aviation, space and corporate law.)
Advertisement
