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.