Air India Flight 171: The Furious Dispute Over What Caused the Crash
On a hot, dry morning of 12 June 2025, a Boeing 787‑8 Dreamliner carrying 230 passengers and 10 cabin crew left Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Airport bound for London. The aircraft rose into the sky with a routine climb, but within 32 seconds the flight deck reported a sudden fuel‑cutoff, and the plane plummeted to the ground, killing nearly all aboard. The dramatic footage shows the jet hovering above the terminal before a cloud of flames erupted—what, however, caused the drop remains unclear.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released a 15‑page preliminary report that makes no definitive conclusions. It notes that the two fuel cutoff switches shifted from the “run” to the “cutoff” position seconds after take‑off, followed by a cockpit voice recording in which one pilot asks why the other performed the action; the other replies that she did not. The brief statement, lacking transcript detail, has sparked speculation about a “pilot suicide” scenario. A U.S. investigation team from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which includes Boeing and GE Aviation engineers, is also reviewing the data. Under Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organization, the accident’s origin (India) is first to lead the investigation, yet the process is overseen by foreign experts who may feel pre‑strained.
Competing Theories
Some experts argue that a major electrical failure could have rebooted the plane’s core computer after take‑off, tricking systems into thinking the aircraft was still on the ground. This would trigger an automatic fuel cutoff to prevent perceived over‑thrust, explaining the abrupt shutdown without human intervention. Others point to the Flight Data Recorder’s indication that the aircraft’s “core network”—the central nervous system of the plane—was compromised; Boeing denies that the 787 has systemic safety issues, noting the model’s former impeccable record.
RAT Activation with No Fuel
Following the time‑stamped fuel cutoff, the preliminary report claims the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) provided hydraulic power within five seconds, yet simulator work suggests a 14‑18 second lag. That would mean RAT deployment occurred before the fuel switch, hinting at an underlying fault rather than a pilot‑initiated action. Lawyers representing families insist the RAT activation itself signals an anomaly, not muscle‑wedged sabotage.
The Investigation in Context
The AAIB “must” publish an interim report by the accident’s first anniversary; however, early indications suggest this meeting the cut‑off date is unlikely to resolve the debate. Critics argue that national regulatory bodies, sometimes swayed by local political pressures, lack full impartiality. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has begun drafting new Annex 13 provisions that could allow investigations to be conducted by independent, non‑national third parties—an approach that may help quell doubts arising from this tragedy.
A Legacy of Questions
Air India has struggled financially and faced brand‑damage from prior incidents, while Boeing, already reeling from safety scandals like the 737 Max, sought to protect the 787’s reputation. The crash also reignites long‑standing calls for a global investigative body capable of deepest transparency and accountability, something that could pre‑empt future controversies. Until the final conclusions are issued, speculation will likely continue, underscoring how deeply investigations intersect with technology, heritage, and politics within aviation.
