More than two-and-a-half months after Air India’s Flight 171 crashed in Ahmedabad immediately after takeoff, killing 241 people onboard and 19 on the ground, all that’s come out is a preliminary report that has generated more speculation than clarity.

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary report of July 12 said fuel supply to both the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner’s engines had got cut off, leaving the two pilots confused. But it gave no final conclusion, blaming neither the pilots nor Boeing.

Grieving family members from abroad and India have approached the US-based Beasley Allen Law Firm, a prominent aviation law firm. Its lead attorney, Mike Andrews, 57, is exploring product liability claims against Boeing. All this will happen after detailed data is decoded.

Andrews has led similar cases, including the Boeing 737 MAX crashes between 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people. Boeing had to pay a huge amount.

Here, Andrews speaks exclusively from the US to The Telegraph about the families’ concerns, what they are going through, how long the final report might take and much more.

He says the preliminary report is incomplete and unfairly causes a focus on pilot actions. Excerpts:

Q: What will be the main plea in the lawsuit and when is it likely to be filed?

Andrews: Rather than presupposing what particular claims might be brought, we prefer to allow the evidence to drive any allegations. In this case, we want and need the flight data recorder information to determine exactly what happened.

Depending on what is contained in that, we will know whether or not there is an issue with the aircraft, for example, in the electrical system or a short that may have caused these issues or we may find out through maintenance records or information that perhaps there were maintenance problems.

Cases like these generally will include claims for product liability, product defect and then there will also be some conduct-based claims similar to negligence or wanton behaviour, wantonness, which is a reckless disregard for safety.

Q: You met the victims’ families. What are their concerns?

Andrews: Their concerns really are primarily twofold.... Firstly, they want transparency and full disclosure so they know exactly what happened, why it happened, and how it happened.

Secondly, they want to use that information to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Regardless of the cause, they want to be able to say, this should be an opportunity to learn in the aviation industry to prevent this from ever happening again.

Q: What are they angry about?

Andrews: All the families that we met are going through different stages and different points in their grieving process.

Some are continually heartbroken and sorrowful. Some have moved to more questioning phases and some are angry. Every family is motivated a little differently, but each and every family wants to know the answers right now.

What I see from most of these families is that they are patient and resolved. They understand that it will take time to get to the bottom of this and they want a complete investigation.

Q: Could you meet Vishwas Kumar Ramesh, the lone survivor, and/ or his family members? What is his condition now?

Andrews: We were invited to come to their home. Any communications are confidential and privileged. The family is grieving greatly. He is not only a survivor, he is a victim.

They also lost another family member. So, there are many complicated issues involved in what that family is going through.

Q: Did the authorities cooperate when you visited the crash site?

Andrews: I have been to the crash site on two occasions. During the first visit at the end of June, there was still a heavy police presence.

The area was closed off. However, once they learned who we were and the purpose of our visit, they allowed us in and took us to the area from where Vishwas (had) walked out.

I visited because I always get a better perspective and understanding in the context of being at a crash site. I have done (this) in my previous cases also.... It helps later when I am talking with families who have been there.

During the second visit, we were invited by family members to go with them to a candlelight memorial service at the site.

Q: Based on the initial reports, what do you think would have gone wrong?

Andrews: There are problems with the initial report. It is obviously not complete. And it takes information out of context and offers very few clues as to what could have happened. It tells us things that we already knew.

It also gives very small pieces of information regarding fuel switches, which truthfully, out of context, are not helpful. I think it unfairly causes focus on the pilot actions without looking at the aircraft and without looking at what could have happened.

We know from reports from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration of the US government) and from Boeing themselves that there are other problems with the 787, problems that could have contributed to this. And so the initial report is premature. It is conjecture, speculative and out of context.

Q: Why has it taken so long to release the full report? Should it take a long time to release it?

Andrews: I do actually think it should take time to release the report for several reasons. One, you don’t want to rush to judgement. You want it to be careful and methodical. You want them to consider all the evidence. Secondly, there is so much evidence to consider here. The black box flight data recorder by itself records hundreds of panels of data.

Even though this was a very short flight, there will be voluminous information to go through. So, in order to properly plot the timeline of the RAT deployment relative to other electrical issues on the plane, it will take some time to establish that. I prefer and support that they are taking their time with this.

(The RAT or Ram Air Turbine is an aircraft’s backup power source, deployed during emergencies when the primary power systems fail.)

Q: Do you fear that the probe is trying to protect someone?

Andrews: Well, right now, I can’t say that either way…. we really don’t know what is happening behind the scenes.

All I can say is, that little piece of information that was released is open to speculation and conjecture. It can be used either way. So, I can’t say whether or not they are trying to protect anyone right now. I would prefer to let the process play out and see what information they release when they have a more detailed report.

Q: No amount of compensation brings back someone’s near ones. Would you ask for a higher compensation?

Andrews: Yes, no compensation will ever be sufficient to offset the loss of a life. But the amount and type of compensation that is requested would be based primarily on the facts of what happened when we learn about it. For example, if it is a maintenance issue that was through oversight or intentional, that you would expect a certain level of compensation.

However, if it is a manufacturing or design issue for Boeing and something that they may have known about for quite some time, you would expect to see the compensation increased because, again, the whole point is to try to deter or prevent something like this from happening again.

Q: From your past experience, do you think lessons are learnt by the authorities concerned from crash reports?

Andrews: I think that more often than not, manufacturers and regulatory agencies learn more from litigation and the reports that come out than they do just from the reports. Because what we have seen is, it is difficult to expect any major industry to fully self-police and self-regulate.

And because of that, you need litigation and families who have been affected to stand up and seek accountability. These are the lessons that have tended to make the most impact, certainly long-lasting. As a result of litigation, of the 737 MAX cases, aircraft designs have been changed.

Q: Do you think the truthof AI171’s crash will ever come out?

Andrews: I tend to think so. I certainly hope so. I think if the data from the flight data recorder is shared, certainly we can find out.

Our experts and the people that we work with can certainly find out. My hope is that the AAIB is truly independent, is methodical and if they take their time and look at the actual evidence, we should all know exactly what happened and why.

Q: How did the family members of the victims approach you?

Andrews: Currently, we have over 100 families of victims. Our firm has worked in these cases in the past.

We posted a website video giving information that I was going to be in Ahmedabad and would be available to give answers to people who might have questions because most people have never been through anything like this.

As we began meeting with families, word of mouth began to spread between the families that there are lawyers available to give you answers, to give you help, to give you direction. The most significant way the numbers have grown for us is by word of mouth.

Q: Why is your firm fighting the case gratis?

Andrews: Any case that we take is always no-charge initially. We need to find the answers, and it would be wrong to expect families to pay to have to find out what happened. So, we evaluate cases, and we help to find out what happened.

Then, if there is a case, we bring those cases on behalf of the families. And in that instance, when there is a recovery, then there is a percentage compensation on the back end, but only if there is a recovery. If there’s no recovery, there is never any charge.

Q: Have Boeing, Air India or the Airports Authority of India or the investigation agencies approached you after your firm came intothe picture?

Andrews: No. That is not unusual…. Typically, they are trying to protect their interests, first of all. They are careful with what they say and how they say it.

But also, they are focused, or they should be focused, on the investigation, as we are. And so right now, we don’t see this as an adversarial process. We see this as a search for the truth of what happened.

Right now, we are not in contact with them. We want them to do their work.

Q: With your vast experience, how long do you think it will take to release the report?

Andrews: It is not unusual for it to take a year for the next report to come out….

I will also tell you that frequently, there is information that can be leaked during an investigation. And so we sometimes — not always, but sometimes — we begin to get clues as to what direction they may be taking. One thing we have asked for, in the media at least, is if they would make available the raw data so that our experts could also be performing an independent evaluation.

Q: Have you made a formal request for this?

Andrews: We have filed a formal Freedom of Information Act request in the United States. We filed it there because we understand that at least some of the data has been shared with US regulators, the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board.

Q: Are you satisfied with the way the investigation is going on?

Andrews: Yes, with one caveat.

My only issue so far is the release of the very limited information in the preliminary report, which tended to focus, we think, maybe unfairly, on pilot actions because it doesn’t really blame a person or a pilot. It just makes statements that the flight data recorder indicates that the switch positions or the current for the switches may have changed at some point.

And because of that, it leaves people open to speculation and that leads sometimes to unfair blame.