Nearly a year after Air India flight AI 171 crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad, killing 260 people, investigators have yet to establish publicly what caused the sequence of events that led to the disaster.
Loading Intelligence
Nearly a year after Air India flight AI 171 crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad, killing 260 people, investigators have yet to establish publicly what caused the sequence of events that led to the disaster.
The crash of the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner on 12 June 2025 claimed the lives of 241 of the 242 people on board, along with 19 people on the ground, making it one of the worst aviation accidents in recent Indian history.
Attention is now turning to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) as the first anniversary approaches. Under international aviation guidelines, investigating authorities are expected to publish a final report within 12 months where possible, or provide an update on the investigation's progress if that timeline cannot be met.
However, reports from Reuters and Bloomberg have indicated that the final report may be delayed as technical analysis of the aircraft's engines is still underway in the United States.
The AAIB's preliminary report, released one month after the crash, narrowed the investigation's focus to a critical event that occurred moments after take-off.
According to the report, both engine fuel control switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF within approximately one second of each other shortly after the aircraft became airborne.
The switches regulate the flow of fuel to the engines. Once fuel supply is interrupted, engine thrust is lost.
The preliminary report concluded that the aircraft's engines were starved of fuel following the transition of the switches. However, it did not determine why the transition occurred.
That question remains at the centre of the investigation.
Key facts established by the preliminary report include:
Over the past year, two broad theories have emerged regarding the likely cause of the crash.
One theory centres on possible human action in the cockpit. This gained attention following reporting by several Western media organisations and references contained within the preliminary report.
The report stated that cockpit voice recordings captured one pilot asking the other why he had cut off the fuel supply, with the second pilot responding that he had not done so.
However, the AAIB did not state that either pilot physically moved the switches.
The second theory focuses on the possibility of a major electrical, mechanical or systems-related failure that may have generated a fuel shut-off signal without the switches necessarily being moved manually.
This explanation has been supported by sections of India's pilot community, some aviation safety specialists and several Boeing-related whistleblower groups that have raised broader concerns about aircraft systems and manufacturing quality.
Importantly, neither theory has been confirmed by investigators.
The release of the preliminary report triggered extensive debate within aviation circles.
The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) has repeatedly cautioned against conclusions that place responsibility on the flight crew before the investigation is complete.
According to The Indian Express, FIP President CS Randhawa recently wrote to AAIB Director General GVG Yugandhar, urging the agency not to issue an interim report that could fuel further speculation before all evidence has been analysed.
The pilots' body has maintained that the investigation should reach its conclusions only after all technical examinations are completed.
Separately, pilot associations and family members of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal have raised concerns about public interpretations of the preliminary findings and have sought further scrutiny of the investigation process.
While the one-year anniversary has become a focal point, aviation experts note that complex accident investigations frequently extend beyond 12 months.
Under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 guidelines, investigating states should publish final reports "as soon as possible" and, where feasible, within one year.
Where a final report cannot be completed within that period, investigators are expected to issue a public statement outlining progress and any safety concerns identified during the investigation.
The AI 171 inquiry involves analysis of:
The investigation has also involved international cooperation, including technical support from the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) because both the aircraft and its engines were manufactured in the United States.
The outcome of the AI 171 investigation carries significance beyond India.
In January, the US-based Foundation for Aviation Safety (FAS) submitted a whistleblower report to the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, alleging continuing concerns related to the Boeing 787 fleet and suggesting that potential "latent defects" should be examined as part of the broader safety discussion.
Such claims remain separate from the AAIB investigation and have not been identified by investigators as the cause of the crash.
Nevertheless, the final conclusions could influence future discussions around aircraft systems, pilot procedures, maintenance oversight and aviation safety standards.
As the anniversary approaches, one fact remains unchanged: investigators have identified the event that triggered the loss of power, but the reason that both fuel control switches transitioned remains unresolved publicly. Until the AAIB completes its work, the central question surrounding AI 171 continues to await a definitive answer.
Join the conversation
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts!
Sign In to Comment