Six months after the catastrophic June 12 crash of an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Ahmedabad, the pain, confusion and unanswered questions remain immense. The disaster, which killed 260 people, including 241 on board and 19 on the ground, has become the focus of a sprawling international investigation and a growing battle for transparency, compensation and truth.

Despite the Dreamliner’s reputation as one of the safest commercial aircraft, the tragedy has exposed serious concerns about engineering vulnerabilities, regulatory lapses and information gaps that continue to frustrate grieving families. Benefit News spoke exclusively with U.S. aviation attorney Mike Andrews, who represents more than a hundred families, about their struggle for clarity, the delays in promised support, and what investigators still have not disclosed.

Q: How many families are currently part of this case, and in what way are you representing them?

Mike: “When we first spoke several months ago, there were around 80-85 families. Today, the number has grown to over 130 families. The rise shows how many people still need answers, representation, and clarity about their options. In the last week, we met families in the UK who are already represented by us, along with new ones reaching out. Over the next week and a half, we will travel to different regions in India to meet more bereaved families, update them on what we’ve learned so far, and assist with practical issues, filling out compensation forms, retrieving belongings from the crash site, and guiding them through the legal process. Many families remain in deep distress even six months on and have numerous questions.”

Q: How are the families coping with the tragedy, given the scale of loss and different kinds of losses?

Mike: “Each family is coping differently because every loss is unique. Some lost breadwinners; others lost people who were not on the plane but were on the ground. For example, we met one British family, a husband and wife with three children aged 17, 18, and 20, both parents working. The husband died in the crash. As he was the main earning member, his death forced the wife and children to move to a more affordable area in Leicester, and the children had to drop out of school and start working. It’s impossible to overstate how deeply the tragedy has disrupted lives.”

Q: There are claims that the airline is asking families to sign a release form for compensation, possibly protecting the manufacturer or other parties from future claims. Can you explain what you know about this?

Mike: “I’ve heard similar claims, reportedly some victims’ families were offered a ‘release form’ to sign in return for compensation. I don’t yet know the exact nature of these forms. What I can say is that if any company is asking victims to sign away their rights while the investigation is ongoing, that would be deeply inappropriate. Much remains unknown about the crash at this stage.”

Q: Many families have reportedly received an interim compensation amount of Rs 25 lakh, but not the promised Rs one crore from the TATA group affiliated with the airline. What is causing the delay?

Mike: “From what I understand, most of our clients have received the Rs 25 lakh announced by the airline. But a majority have not yet received the Rs one crore support promised by the TATA Trusts, which is the parent company. I’ve heard that paperwork is being exchanged and there seems to be bureaucratic delay. I don’t have full visibility into internal processes, so I can’t say exactly why the delay exists, only that it does.”

Q: Will you be making a formal request or legal demand to the group that promised Rs one crore, if payments still don’t come?

Mike: “So far, we have stayed out of that process. The offer was made directly by the group to the families. We hope they honour it in full. If necessary, we are ready to assist, though my preference is that the group does the right thing without external pressure.”

Q: You earlier mentioned you would seek data from the flight, the FDR and CVR. What is the status of that petition?

Mike: “The flight data recorder is essential to understanding what the aircraft’s systems were doing before and during the crash. We believe there may have been an electrical issue. Some reports describe flickering lights and unusual RAT deployment. There were earlier reports, from external sources like the aviation regulator and the manufacturer, of possible water leaks in systems beneath the floor where critical electronics are located. If water leaked into those areas, it could have caused short circuits. Documents from the regulatory authority and the manufacturer dating back to 2016 highlight those leak-related risks. The data recorder can bridge these clues by showing what happened in the moments before loss of thrust.

“We support the petition filed by the pilots’ association and the deceased captain’s father in the Supreme Court of India to obtain the data. The court has heard arguments, and some judges have said it is improper to speculate about pilot fault when technological issues may be involved. That gives us hope.”

Q: Regarding the electrical fault or water leak theory, do you consider it the most likely cause right now?

Mike: “I hesitate to call it ‘the most likely,’ because speculation, whether about pilot error or a technical issue, is risky without full data. But based on what is publicly known, flickering lights, RAT deployment, earlier documented risk of water leaks and electrical short circuits, the theory is plausible. And if the data recorder confirms electrical disruption, water infiltration, or any other system failure, it will strongly support that hypothesis.”

Q: The preliminary report notes the fuel-switch positions after takeoff, prompting a theory of pilot error. What is your view now?

Mike: “The preliminary report has raised more questions than answers. It may have encouraged premature speculation and unfounded blame on the pilots. Public information shows the fuel-control switches moving from RUN to CUTOFF without explanation. That movement could also reflect corrective action by the pilots, not necessarily a fault. And there are conflicting reports about cockpit communication, some claim the pilot turned off fuel; others deny it. With such fragmentary data, no definitive conclusion is possible. We need the full FDR picture, anything less is like looking through a keyhole and assuming we know the entire room.”

Q: From your 20 years of aviation disaster experience, why is this case particularly complex? Could it involve a design or manufacturing defect?

Mike: “Every crash has its own complexity. Here, the challenges are substantial: the Dreamliner is highly advanced and electrically operated; the number of people affected is huge; there are multiple jurisdictions; and there are political and international sensitivities. Also, many subcomponents come from different manufacturers, so the answer may involve multiple companies. In previous cases, large airliners and smaller planes, when a technical failure is possible, the investigation must be methodical. Jumping to conclusions only creates more harm. We follow the evidence wherever it leads and stand ready to hold the responsible entities accountable once responsibility is clearly established.”

Q: Media reports mention tensions between investigators in India and the US, possibly complicating the probe. How might this affect the investigation?

Mike: “Cross-border investigations are always challenging. There can be ‘protectionist attitudes’, for instance, favouring the manufacturer, especially when a US company like Boeing is involved. At the same time, technical collaboration is essential. We are aware of a meeting scheduled next week between investigators from the US and India. That’s a positive sign. If everything were already settled, for example, if it were conclusively pilot error, there would be no need for such a meeting. The fact that it is happening suggests unresolved technical issues that need joint review.”

Q: Many families still haven’t received personal belongings recovered from the crash site. Why the delay? Could it be to preserve evidence?

Mike: “I don’t think the delay is deliberate, it is likely due to volume and logistics. There were 241 people, and possibly belongings from people on the ground. Thousands of items were recovered. In previous crashes, an independent entity is often contracted to collect, catalogue, clean, and identify items. Items with clear tags can be returned sooner, but damaged or unrecognisable items, jewellery, documents, religious books, require careful cleaning page by page. Families may also need to provide proof, such as photographs, to claim certain items. The process is slow, but not necessarily intentional.”

Q: Are families satisfied with the compensation so far? Some say Rs one crore may not be enough. Are you considering asking for more?

Mike: “Most families value truth and accountability far more than money. No amount can replace a human life. Asking ‘how much is enough’ misses the point, because the loss cannot be quantified. What they want is an explanation, what went wrong, why, and who is responsible. My job is to ensure that once the investigation is complete, we have a strong basis to seek appropriate accountability and compensation that reflects the gravity of the loss. For now, their priority is answers, not compensation amounts.”

Q: Are you getting full cooperation from the Indian and US authorities? How many officials do you expect to meet on this visit?

Mike: “We are not trying to interfere with Indian investigators, we respect their process. In the US, we have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FAA for any documents they received during the initial investigation, including those shared with the NTSB. A US government shutdown paused the process; we have since renewed the request and await their response. Regarding our visit, we are monitoring the planned meeting between Indian investigators and the NTSB and hope to track developments closely. I cannot commit to a specific number of officials until the agenda is final.”

Q: What are the next steps? Are you planning to sue Boeing or other manufacturers, or waiting for evidence?

Mike: “The next steps depend entirely on the evidence. We are continuing our research, reviewing public documents, regulatory reports, manufacturer documentation (including past water-line leak incidents under the cabin floor on certain 787 aircraft), and anything relevant. We are closely watching the upcoming India US investigator meeting and hope it brings clarity. Once evidence identifies whoever is responsible, Boeing, a sub-supplier, or multiple entities, we will take all necessary legal action. Until then, we remain methodical and patient.”

Watch Also: