The crash of Air India Flight AI171 remains a focal point of aviation safety discussions, with ongoing investigations and conflicting narratives. This detailed analysis expands on the preliminary findings, expert opinions, aircraft history, and official responses, providing a comprehensive overview for stakeholders and the public.
Incident Overview
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner registered as VT-ANB, took off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at 13:38 local time (08:08 GMT), bound for London Gatwick. The aircraft, 11 years old with 41,868 flight hours, was powered by two General Electric GEnx-1B engines, both recently installed. Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, with 15,638 total flying hours (8,596 on the 787), was the pilot monitoring, while First Officer Clive Kunder, with 3,403 hours (1,128 on the 787), was the pilot flying. The weather was clear, with no significant meteorological factors or bird activity reported. Less than 40 seconds after takeoff, at approximately 625 feet altitude and 180 knots, both engines lost thrust. A mayday call was issued, and the aircraft crashed into the hostel of B.J. Medical College, igniting a fire that destroyed parts of five buildings. The disaster claimed 241 of the 242 passengers and crew onboard and 19 on the ground, totaling 260 fatalities, with Vishwaskumar Ramesh, a British national of Indian origin, as the sole survivor. This event marks the deadliest aviation disaster in India since 1996 and the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
.gif)
Preliminary Report Findings
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India released a preliminary report on July 8, 2025, stating that both engine fuel control switches were moved to "CUTOFF" just three seconds after takeoff, leading to a loss of thrust. The switches were quickly returned to "RUN," but only one engine regained power before the crash. Cockpit recordings show one pilot asking, "Why did you cut off?" and the other replying, "I didn’t," but the voices aren’t identified, leaving uncertainty. The report rules out fuel contamination and notes the thrust levers stayed in takeoff position, suggesting no pilot error in throttle management. However, it mentions a 2018 FAA advisory about potential issues with the switch design, which Air India didn’t inspect, adding to the mystery. The report raises questions about whether the switch movement was intentional, accidental, or due to a mechanical issue, with cockpit voice recordings adding to the mystery. The lack of a full transcript and voice identification leaves room for speculation, and expert opinions vary on the implications.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Quality Control History
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, launched in 2011, has faced multiple quality control issues, leading to repeated halts in deliveries by the FAA. Key instances include:
- 2021 Halts: Boeing paused deliveries to address inspection issues with horizontal stabilizers, where workers clamped portions too tightly, potentially leading to premature material fatigue. The FAA withdrew Boeing’s delegated authority to inspect and sign off on new 787s, pausing deliveries for nearly a year.
- 2024 Issues: Boeing discovered incorrectly installed fasteners on fuselages of undelivered 787s, affecting hundreds of fasteners per plane, leading to further delays.
These issues, while not directly linked to the fuel control system, raise broader concerns about the 787’s production standards, particularly at Boeing’s South Carolina facility, where VT-ANB’s fuselage sections were built.
Mary Schiavo’s Concerns: The TCMA System
Mary Schiavo, a former US Department of Transportation Inspector General and now an aviation attorney with Motley Rice, has expressed concerns that the crash may have been caused by a software malfunction in the Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) system. The TCMA, integrated with the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), monitors aircraft status to determine whether it is on the ground or in the air. If it mistakenly registers the aircraft as on the ground, it can automatically reduce or shut down engine thrust. Schiavo references two prior incidents:
- A 2019 incident involving an All Nippon Airways (ANA) Boeing 787, where both engines shut down during landing due to a TCMA malfunction, was attributed to a software fault, not pilot error. The plane landed safely.
- A more recent incident involving a United Airlines Dreamliner flight between Washington, DC, and Nigeria, though specific details are limited.
Schiavo argues that a similar TCMA failure could explain the AI171 crash, especially given the pilots’ denial in cockpit recordings. She questions whether VT-ANB was inspected for TCMA flaws, noting the aircraft’s age aligns with the ANA incident, and calls for a comprehensive investigation into the 787’s software systems.
NTSB’s Criticism of Western Media Reports
The NTSB, led by Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy, has criticized Western media reports blaming the AI171 captain for the crash as "premature and speculative." This stance was reported on July 19, 2025, supporting India’s AAIB investigation. The AAIB also called out "irresponsible" conclusions drawn through "selective and unverified reporting," particularly given the lack of a full cockpit voice transcript in the preliminary report. Western outlets reported that the captain turned off the fuel control switches, either accidentally or deliberately, based on alleged cockpit audio. However, these claims lack substantiation from the official report, which does not identify voices or provide a full transcript. An Italian media report detailed a timeline, including the first officer asking why the engines were shut off and the captain denying it, but this has not been officially verified.
Conclusion and Implications
The crash of Air India Flight AI171 remains unresolved, with the preliminary report suggesting fuel switch movement but not determining the cause. Expert opinions, such as Schiavo’s focus on the TCMA system, highlight potential aircraft software issues, while the Boeing 787’s history of quality concerns adds complexity. The NTSB and AAIB’s criticism of speculative media reports underscores the need for a thorough, evidence-based investigation. As the inquiry continues, the debate over whether it was the pilot or the plane will persist, emphasizing the importance of rigorous safety standards and transparent investigations in aviation, especially for advanced aircraft like the Boeing 787. Until the final report is released, the truth behind this devastating accident remains elusive, leaving families and the public seeking answers.