Air India Flight AI171 Crash: A Tragedy Shrouded in Mechanical Mystery and Procedural Gaps
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI171—a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner bound from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick—crashed shortly after takeoff, claiming 241 lives and leaving 67 seriously injured. The aircraft impacted the BJ Medical College hostel, located less than a mile from the end of Runway 23, raising urgent questions about aviation safety, mechanical oversight, and systemic accountability.
What Happened: Timeline and Technical Sequence
Data recovered from the aircraft’s flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) reveal a chilling sequence: just 7 seconds after takeoff, both fuel cutoff switches were inexplicably moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF,” simultaneously disabling both engines. At 08:08:42 UTC, the aircraft lost thrust and began descending. Although pilots attempted to relight the engines, there was insufficient altitude to restore full power. The plane crashed 32 seconds after liftoff.
Cockpit audio captured a moment of confusion between the pilots:
“Why did you cut off?”
“I did not do so.”
This short exchange has become emblematic of the core mystery: why were the engines shut off mid-ascent—and by whom or what?
Ruled-Out Causes: What Didn’t Go Wrong
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has ruled out multiple common causes:
- Mechanical failure of engines or airframe
- Bird strikes, with no physical evidence
- Fuel contamination, as lab tests confirmed fuel quality was within safe standards
With these ruled out, investigators have narrowed their focus to the movement of the fuel cutoff switches, though the exact mechanism remains unclear.
The FAA Advisory That Was Ignored
One major point of scrutiny is a 2018 FAA advisory warning of solder-ball fatigue in the Engine Control Unit (ECU)—specifically in the MN4 microprocessor. The advisory, though not mandatory, recommended proactive replacement of the affected component due to risk of fuel control switch disengagement.
Air India chose not to act on this advisory.
That decision has sparked intense criticism, with many questioning why a known vulnerability—however rare—was left unaddressed in a critical flight system.
Unanswered Questions and Anomalies
Despite extensive analysis, multiple uncertainties remain:
- Simultaneous switch activation: Could this have been a design flaw, software malfunction, or unintended physical input?
- Pilot confusion: Did one pilot inadvertently shut down the engines, or were the controls affected by an external fault?
- Additional red flags:
- The landing gear was never retracted
- The Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) failed to send a distress signal
- There were discrepancies in the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)
- Absence of cockpit video and limited timestamp granularity in the CVR
Together, these anomalies complicate root cause analysis and limit our ability to reconstruct pilot decision-making in the final seconds.
Crew and Aircraft Background
- Captain Sumeet Sabharwal: 15,000 flight hours (8,600 on B787), assigned as monitoring pilot
- First Officer Clive Kunder: 3,400 hours, in the active flying role
Both passed breathalyzer tests and appeared fully alert in CCTV footage before departure. - The aircraft, built in 2011, had undergone all scheduled maintenance.
- Its throttle control module was replaced in 2019 and 2023.
- No defects were reported in the fuel control switch system since then.
Investigative Panel and Timeline
The investigation is being led by an interdisciplinary panel of aviation experts, including:
- Senior pilots
- Aeronautical engineers
- Aviation medical specialists
- Flight data analysts
The UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is assisting in an advisory capacity. A final report is expected by June 12, 2026, and may include:
- Simulator reconstructions
- Interviews with Air India maintenance personnel
- Deep technical reviews of the aircraft’s electronic systems
Public and Expert Response
For the families of the victims, the preliminary report offers little closure. Many are demanding accountability from both Air India and Boeing, particularly over their inaction on the FAA advisory. Social media reactions range from outrage to disbelief, with aviation professionals calling for renewed scrutiny of flight control software and cockpit ergonomics.
Final Thoughts: The Need for Systemic Rethinking
The crash of Flight AI171 is not just a tale of technological failure—it’s a stark reminder of the thin margin for error in modern aviation. Whether the result of pilot error, design oversight, or maintenance omission, the tragedy underscores the urgent need for:
- Proactive adherence to safety advisories—even when not mandated
- Better redundancy and fail-safes in cockpit controls
- Enhanced cockpit data (including video) to support post-crash analysis
- Transparent communication between regulators and operators
As investigations continue, one truth stands out: aviation safety cannot rely solely on protocol—it demands foresight, diligence, and the humility to act before disaster strikes.
Would you like:
- a version optimized for your blog with internal links (e.g., to author bio or source citations)?
- a shorter summary post for mobile readers or news-style?
- visuals or a diagram timeline for better storytelling?
About the Author
The author is an independent educator and solo researcher committed to making complex topics clear and engaging. With a Master’s in Computer Science and multiple technical certifications, he brings a rigorous, research-driven approach to his work. His passion for teaching spans both computer and science subjects, reflecting broad expertise and strong research skills. Through meticulous analysis and clear communication, he aims to deliver accurate, trustworthy content to readers.