India Summons Air India CEO Over A320 Altitude-Loss Incident

NEW DELHI — India's civil aviation minister has summoned outgoing Air India (AI) CEO Campbell Wilson as the investigation into an Airbus A320neo's sudden altitude loss expands from the flight itself to the airline's response and its crew.

Civil Aviation Minister Kinjarapu Ram Mohan Naidu called Wilson to a meeting over the August 4 occurrence involving Flight AI2379 from Phuket International Airport (HKT) to Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport (DEL), Reuters reported, citing a person familiar with the matter.

The aircraft deviated downward by about 300 feet during cruise, and multiple passengers and crew members were injured, according to Reuters. Published injury totals have varied as the investigation has developed; an official reconciled count was not available in the material reviewed by Airways.

The ministerial summons is now the central development. Investigators have recovered the flight-data recorder and cockpit-voice recorder, Airbus is sending specialists to assist, and the flight crew is under examination. None of those steps, individually or together, establishes what caused the altitude deviation.

Recorders Shift the Investigation Toward Evidence

Recorder analysis could move the inquiry beyond passenger accounts, early airline descriptions, and flight-tracking data. A flight-data recorder captures parameters that can include altitude, airspeed, aircraft attitude, autopilot mode, and flight-control inputs. A cockpit-voice recorder preserves crew conversation, radio transmissions, and other cockpit sounds, according to the US National Transportation Safety Board's recorder explainer.

For AI2379, investigators can use those two data sets together to reconstruct the sequence around the deviation. The evidence may show whether the aircraft encountered an atmospheric disturbance, whether an automated mode changed, what control inputs occurred, how the crew responded, and which alerts or communications were present.

Those are investigative questions, not current findings. Recovery of the recorders does not mean their data have been validated, synchronized, or interpreted, and no recorder findings were publicly available in the sources reviewed for this draft.

India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau classifies occurrences before determining the appropriate investigation path. Its published occurrence guidance says it may conduct a preliminary investigation when needed to decide classification, while the International Civil Aviation Organization explains that safety investigations are intended to prevent future occurrences rather than assign blame.

Reuters reported that Indian authorities have classified AI2379 as a serious incident and that AAIB is investigating. That classification reflects the event's potential safety significance; it is not a conclusion about cause or responsibility.

What Airbus Can Add

Airbus specialists can help investigators interpret aircraft-system architecture, recorded parameters, maintenance information, and expected system behavior. That technical access is particularly relevant when an inquiry must distinguish among atmospheric conditions, automated-flight behavior, crew inputs, and a possible aircraft or system anomaly.

Manufacturer participation is a normal part of the international investigation framework. ICAO notes that the states connected with an aircraft's design and manufacture can provide relevant information and expertise to the investigator in charge. Airbus's involvement should therefore not be read as evidence that investigators have identified an A320neo defect.

The aircraft has been identified in developing reports as VT-EXO. The registration corresponds to an Air India Airbus A320-251N in Flightradar24's aircraft record, but Airways has not independently confirmed its assignment to AI2379 on August 4. Its current operating status also remains unconfirmed.

An Initial Screen Is Not a Finding of Impairment

Reuters also reported that the captain produced an initial positive screening result for psychoactive substances and that confirmatory laboratory testing was pending. The ministry did not identify the substance indicated by the screen.

That distinction is essential. India's DGCA framework uses an initial screening stage followed by laboratory confirmation. In an ICAO working paper submitted by India, the DGCA process is described as splitting a urine sample into two parts. A non-negative result on the first sample sends the second for confirmatory testing.

If the confirmatory test is positive, a Medical Review Officer then evaluates whether a legitimate therapeutic treatment or another innocuous source could explain the result. The Delhi High Court recorded the DGCA's explanation of that sequence in a 2024 judgment.

An initial screen therefore does not establish that the captain was impaired during the flight. It also does not establish any connection between the screening result and the altitude deviation. Those are separate questions that require confirmed laboratory evidence, medical review, and the operational evidence from the investigation.

Scrutiny Reaches Air India During a CEO Handover

The summons places accountability directly with Wilson while Air India is preparing a leadership transition. The airline announced Wilson's resignation in April, saying he would remain CEO until his successor was announced and in place.

Air India named former Ethiopian Airlines chief Tewolde Gebremariam as CEO and managing director on August 5, one day after the AI2379 occurrence. The effective handover date was not available in the announcement material reviewed by Airways and must be confirmed before publication.

The timing means the operational event occurred under Wilson's leadership even as the airline prepared to identify his successor. A ministerial meeting can examine matters beyond the cockpit sequence, including the carrier's immediate response, injury reporting, crew procedures, regulatory notifications, and preservation of evidence.

It does not replace the technical investigation. AAIB must determine what happened and why, while the DGCA can separately consider whether the operator or crew complied with applicable rules and whether interim operational action is warranted.

What Is Still Unknown

No confirmed cause had been released when this draft was prepared. The inquiry still must distinguish among turbulence, automated-flight behavior, crew or flight-control inputs, a technical issue, or another factor without assuming any of them in advance.

The exact injury count, recorder findings, confirmatory test result, Airbus's formal role, the crew's current duty status, and any DGCA enforcement or operational action also remain unresolved. Airways has not confirmed whether VT-EXO remains out of service or has returned to flying.

The summons changes the scale of scrutiny around AI2379, but it does not answer the investigation's central question. That answer will depend on the recorders, aircraft and maintenance evidence, crew and medical processes, and the authorities' eventual findings—not on one preliminary test or an early characterization of the event.