Just moments after lifting off from Ahmedabad, India, bound for London, Air India Flight 171 plunged to the ground in June 2025. The catastrophic crash of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner claimed the lives of 241 people on board and 19 on the ground, with only a single passenger surviving. This devastating event quickly became one of India’s most perplexing air disasters, and a preliminary investigation report, intended to shed light on what happened, has instead fueled intense speculation and left critical questions unanswered.
The initial report, released within the standard 30-day international protocol by India’s Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), confirms a crucial and baffling finding: seconds after takeoff, the fuel cut-off switches for both engines were abruptly moved from “run” to “cut-off.” This action immediately starved the engines of fuel, causing a total loss of thrust. While flight data shows attempts were made to restart the engines by returning the switches to “run,” thrust recovery was tragically too late to prevent the impact into a crowded neighborhood.
The Baffling Fuel Cut-off Action
Fuel cut-off switches are fundamental controls, typically used only before starting engines on the ground and after landing to shut them down. They feature robust safety mechanisms, including a lever-lock design that requires them to be pulled up before they can be flipped to the “cut-off” position. Protective guard brackets further shield these controls. Aviation experts widely agree that this design makes accidental activation, especially of both switches simultaneously, “almost impossible.” This inherent design safety makes the fact that these switches were moved mid-flight the central mystery of the AI171 crash.
The AAIB report, while detailing this critical switch movement, provides limited context. It notes a brief exchange from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) where one pilot asks the other, “why did you cut off?”, and receives the response, “I did not do so.” However, the report omits a direct transcript of the CVR and crucially does not identify which pilot spoke which line. At the time of the incident, the co-pilot was reportedly flying the aircraft while the captain was monitoring.
Industry Experts Voice Concerns and Criticisms
The limited detail in the preliminary report, particularly the lack of a full CVR transcript with pilot identification, has drawn sharp criticism from aviation professionals worldwide. Pilots, former accident investigators, and aeronautical analysts interviewed following the report’s release expressed widespread dissatisfaction.
Bjorn Fehrm, an aeronautical analyst at Leeham Company, labeled the omission of a CVR transcript “totally unacceptable,” highlighting the contradiction between providing technical details and withholding conversational context. Experts stress that knowing precisely who said what in the cockpit voice recording is vital to understanding the sequence of events and the pilots’ state of mind or actions. The incident has also renewed calls for cockpit video recorders, which could visually confirm control inputs.
Beyond the CVR issue, critics point to other significant gaps. The report lacks detailed information about what transpired in the cockpit during the critical 10-second interval after the switches were moved and before the attempted relight. Furthermore, detailed data on the engines’ performance immediately preceding the fuel cut-off is missing. Some engineering sources suggest that flipping the switches off and then back on is a procedure pilots might be trained to perform to restart an engine already losing power, potentially implying an engine issue preceded the switch action.
Speculation, Rejection, and the FAA Advisory
The report’s finding of the fuel cut-off switches being activated, combined with the brief, anonymous pilot exchange, quickly fueled speculation in the media and online. Some commentators controversially suggested the accident could have resulted from deliberate action by a pilot, potentially even suicide.
This grave speculation was met with forceful condemnation. The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association issued a strong statement warning against “invoking such a serious allegation based on incomplete or preliminary information,” calling it “irresponsible” and “deeply insensitive.” The chief executive of Air India, Campbell Wilson, also cautioned staff against drawing “premature conclusions,” emphasizing the need for verified evidence.
Another controversial element in the AAIB report is a reference to a 2018 US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB). This advisory alerted operators of some Boeing 737 models that fuel cut-off switches had been found with their locking features disengaged, raising concerns about potential accidental flipping. While the FAA classified this as an “airworthiness concern,” it was not deemed an “unsafe condition” requiring mandatory action via an Airworthiness Directive (AD). Operators of various Boeing models, including the 787, were advised to conduct simple inspections. The AAIB report stated Air India did not perform these recommended inspections on the crashed aircraft.
This prompted speculation that faulty, unlocked switches might have been accidentally activated. However, the FAA has since reiterated its stance that this issue does not compromise safety. Furthermore, engineering sources noted that the aircraft’s throttle control module, which houses these switches, had been replaced twice, most recently just two years before the crash, potentially making the 2018 SAIB less relevant to this specific aircraft. Despite the debate, India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation has ordered operators of aircraft covered by the original FAA bulletin to perform inspections as a preventive measure.
Investigation Progress and Lingering Questions
Despite the controversy surrounding the preliminary findings, the investigation is actively progressing. Authorities successfully began downloading data from the aircraft’s Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFRs) – the flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) – in late June 2025. These “black boxes” are expected to provide crucial details about flight parameters, engine performance, and cockpit audio, offering the potential to reconstruct the final moments and identify voices on the CVR.
However, aviation experts expressed some concern over the nearly two-week delay between the crash and the start of data download, describing it as unusual for a high-profile accident. The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is collaborating with the Indian AAIB on the investigation, emphasizing the importance of swift public dissemination of findings for aviation safety globally.
Air India, meanwhile, has taken measures including a 15% reduction in wide-body international operations temporarily for enhanced safety checks, citing the crash and other external factors. The airline’s chairman stated that both engines had “clean histories,” with one being recently installed in March 2025. Modern engines like the GE Aerospace Genx-1B used on the 787 utilize sophisticated FADEC systems for continuous monitoring, meaning maintenance is often performance-based rather than strictly scheduled by age, though certain Life Limited Parts have fixed lifespans.
For those seeking definitive answers, the waiting continues. International protocols suggest a final accident report within a year, but in practice, complex investigations like this often take significantly longer. Some former investigators fear the preliminary report’s vagueness might be deliberate, intended to subtly point towards a conclusion without explicit evidence, a practice they consider detrimental to transparency. The lack of clarity on who moved the switches and why remains the central enigma. Like other aviation mysteries, such as the disappearance of MH370, the AI171 crash highlights how even initial findings can raise more questions than they answer, leaving families and the public grappling for truth amidst swirling theories.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the key findings in the preliminary Air India 171 crash report?
The primary finding in the preliminary report is that seconds after takeoff, the fuel cut-off switches for both engines were moved to the “cut-off” position, starving the engines of fuel and causing a loss of thrust. It also referenced a brief cockpit conversation about the switches but did not provide a full transcript or pilot identities.
Why did industry experts criticize the preliminary report?
Aviation experts criticized the report primarily for its lack of detail, especially the absence of a full cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript with pilot voice identification. They also noted missing information regarding cockpit actions after the switches were moved and detailed engine performance data immediately before the event. Critics argued this limited information hindered understanding and fueled speculation.
Could the Air India 171 crash have been caused by faulty switches?
The report mentioned a 2018 FAA advisory about some Boeing 737 fuel switch locks being disengaged, and stated Air India did not perform inspections on the crashed 787 (which uses similar switches). While this raised the possibility of accidental activation, engineering sources noted the switches on this specific aircraft had been replaced twice, and the FAA reiterated that the issue was not an unsafe condition. The actual cause remains under investigation.
Word Count Check: 1208
