Aviation consultants say that within the absence of the airline popping out and clarifying what precisely transpired contained in the Airbus A320neo, the continued state of affairs raises questions over the opacity of the investigation course of, the severity of the technical failure amongst others.
The Air India flight, carrying 137 passengers and eight crew members, was on its approach to New Delhi on 4 August when it skilled the sudden lack of 300 ft altitude.
A dozen warnings
The post-flight technical sheet reveals that the plane recorded 12 warning and failure messages across the time of the sudden mid-air altitude drop These included low-pressure warnings on its Inexperienced, Yellow and Blue hydraulic methods, an ‘AUTO FLT AP OFF’ alert, and faults involving each the left and proper elevators.
The Airbus A320’s three hydraulic methods use pressurised fluid to function vital flight controls. The elevators management the plane’s pitch—whether or not its nostril strikes up (climb) or down (descent).
The ‘AUTO FLT AP OFF’ alert means the autopilot had disengaged. In easy phrases, the system that was robotically preserve the plane’s flight path was now not doing so and that the pilots needed to management the plane manually.
The technical sheet recorded low reservoir ranges within the Yellow and Blue hydraulic methods, an Engine 1 anti-ice fault and warnings associated to the correct door and aft emergency exits.
In its preliminary findings, Airbus discovered that the Inexperienced hydraulic system was misplaced shortly earlier than 04:02:44 hours, adopted a couple of second later by the Blue and Yellow methods. The lack of hydraulic strain briefly affected the plane’s elevators, ailerons and remaining spoilers for about 4 seconds.
Throughout this era, Airbus mentioned, the ailerons moved in direction of unfavourable positions, inflicting the plane’s pitch to extend. Ailerons are hinged flight-control surfaces hooked up to the trailing fringe of an airplane’s wings, used to manage the plane’s roll and assist it flip.
At about 04:02:46 hours, the autopilot disconnected and a full nose-down enter was utilized from the First Officer’s facet, however there was initially no direct response from the flight-control surfaces, the report says. The hydraulic methods then recovered, permitting the flight-control surfaces to return to operation.
The flight-control behaviour, in keeping with Airbus, was a consequence of the lack of hydraulic strain. It additionally recognized a difficulty involving the Inexperienced hydraulic strain swap 1151GN — a element that screens hydraulic strain.
Air India was requested to conduct additional assessments of all three hydraulic methods, together with their strain switches and strain transducers, which measure strain within the system. Airbus has additionally sought information of hydraulic-system upkeep carried out through the earlier month.
The Plane Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has taken up the investigation, with technical help from Airbus and France’s Bureau of Enquiry and Evaluation for Civil Aviation Security (BEA).
The AAIB has mentioned it’s inspecting the plane and its methods, recorded flight information, operational and upkeep information, medical info and human components, in addition to interviewing folks linked with the incident.
One other level of concern is when the 4th August episode is seen within the context of repetitive defects recorded throughout Air India’s fleet.
Authorities information tabled within the Lok Sabha in February 2026 confirmed that 137 of 166 Air India plane examined—about 82 %—had been flagged for repetitive defects between January 2025 and three February 2026.
At the moment, Air India had mentioned the quantity was excessive as a result of it had performed checks throughout its fleet “out of an abundance of warning.”
Additionally Learn: Air India makes drug testing mandatory for all pilots amid Phuket-Delhi flight row
Choices of pilot
Former pilots, in the meantime, have questioned why the plane continued to fly in direction of Delhi after the incident somewhat than diverting to a nearer appropriate airport.
Considered one of them alleged that the pilots ought to have been given the choice of declaring an emergency and diverting after he made a Pan-Pan name—a world radio sign meaning an plane has an pressing security downside, however it’s not in fast hazard.
Whether or not an emergency was declared, the place the plane was when the altitude drop occurred, what directions the crew obtained and why the choice was taken to proceed to Delhi could be established by means of ATC (Air Site visitors Management) recordings, flight information, crew accounts and operational information.
ThePrint has sought responses by means of e-mail from Air India, AAIB, and France’s BEA. This report can be up to date as soon as a response is obtained.
PIC beneath the lens
The technical findings are unfolding alongside a separate investigation into the psychoactive-substance screening of the PIC. Each pilots of AI 2379 flight have been taken off the roster pending an inquiry.
The PIC’s preliminary screening required confirmatory testing, following which samples had been despatched to a chosen laboratory. Sources informed ThePrint that the PIC filed the preliminary check and that the confirmatory check was additionally optimistic.
A optimistic check doesn’t by itself set up that the pilot was impaired through the flight or that the consequence had any reference to the altitude occasion. The timing, focus and impact of any substance must be established individually.
Aviation advisor Sanjay Lazar mentioned the pilot’s drug-test consequence and the plane’s technical issues ought to be handled as separate points. “There are 2 components to this onion – the ‘dope’ bit and the ‘technical failures’; each of them must be checked out individually,” he posted on the social media platform X.
Questions for DGCA, Air India
The Airbus technical findings have additionally prompted questions from aviation insiders about what Air India and DGCA knew after the plane landed in Delhi.
Three trade insiders, together with one previously related to the AAIB, questioned the dealing with of knowledge following the incident.
Considered one of them recalled that Air India’s engineering crew downloaded the plane’s technical information after the flight and had entry to the post-flight report and the pilot’s assertion. “The engineering crew downloaded this. Submit-flight report, assertion of the pilot. The DGCA was communicated promptly,” the insider alleged.
The insider additionally questioned why the preliminary account targeted on turbulence if technical info was accessible to the airline and regulator.
Lazar additionally alleged that the DGCA had entry to details about the 4 August incident however that it was not made public on the time. “ALL THESE FACTS WERE KNOWN TO THE REGULATOR @DGCAIndia ON 4 AUG. WE AS THE PUBLIC WERE MISLED INTO THE HOCUS POCUS OF CAT (turbulence) (sic),” he mentioned on X.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Additionally Learn: AAIB steps in, confirmation awaited on whether Captain of Phuket-Delhi AI flight failed dope test
