AI171 crash report: Read between the lines before blaming pilots

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's preliminary report on the Air India Flight 171 crash has sparked intense debate, with some media outlets quick to point fingers at pilot error. However, a careful examination of the 15-page AAIB report reveals technical evidence that should make us pause before rushing to judgment against the flight crew.

Detailed Coverage: Air India AI171 Tragedy

Facts speak louder than speculation

On June 12, 2025, the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner operating flight AI171 crashed approximately thirty seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad Airport, killing 241 of 242 people aboard and 19 on the ground. The AAIB preliminary report found that both engine fuel control switches transitioned from "RUN" to "CUTOFF" position one after another with a time gap of 1 second.

In the cockpit voice recording, one pilot asked the other "why did you cutoff," and the second pilot responded that he had not. This exchange alone should give us pause about attributing the disaster solely to deliberate pilot action.

Technical evidence points elsewhere

Several critical technical factors challenge the simple pilot error narrative:

* The switch design issue: The US Federal Aviation Administration had issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 on December 17, 2018, warning of the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature. According to Air India information, the proposed inspections were not performed since the SAIB was advisory and not obligatory.

This is crucial. The FAA had specifically identified a potential problem with these switches seven years ago, yet the airline was not required to inspect them because the advisory was not mandatory.

Also Read: 'Something doesn't add up!' Netizens question AI171 crash probe report

* The timing anomaly: The switches for both engines transitioned to cutoff from run one after the other with a time gap of one second. Aviation safety analysts emphasise that these switches have an essential function in the plane's operation. "No rational pilot would ever turn them off during flight, particularly during climb," said John Nance, an American aviation safety consultant.

* The pilots' response: The recovered cockpit conversation recording confirmed that the pilots were not unaware of the activated fuel CUTOFF switches. The pilots did turn the engines back on after they realised the engines were losing thrust. The fuel control switches were switched on later but the deceleration in one of the engines could not be stopped.

If this were deliberate pilot action, why would they immediately attempt to restart the engines and issue a mayday call?

The experience factor

Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, was a senior Air India instructor with 15,638 hours of flying experience, including 8,596 hours on the Boeing 787. The co-pilot, Clive Kunder, 32, had logged 3,403 flying hours. These were not inexperienced pilots making basic errors.

At this point in the inquiry, the data available to the investigators does not indicate a mechanical or design issue with the 787 or its two GE Aerospace GEnx-1B engines. However, this absence of evidence for mechanical failure does not automatically prove pilot error.

When manufacturers stay silent

When airplane manufacturers like Boeing or engine makers like GE discover a serious mechanical problem that could affect safety, they immediately send out urgent warnings to all airlines around the world. These warnings are called "multi-operator messages" or "all-ops wires" -- think of them as emergency alerts that tell airlines to immediately check their planes or ground them if necessary.

Here's why this matters: After investigators downloaded the black box data on June 25 and discovered that the fuel switches had moved to "CUTOFF", Boeing and GE have remained completely silent. For 13 days and counting, neither company has issued any safety warnings to airlines operating Boeing 787s or planes with similar GE engines.

Also Read: Pilots' association slams AI171 crash report

Why this silence speaks volumes

If Boeing or GE suspected that a mechanical defect in their aircraft or engines caused this crash, they would be legally and ethically bound to warn every airline in the world immediately. The fact that they have not suggests they believe the problem lies elsewhere -- not with their hardware.

When Boeing discovered problems with its 737 MAX aircraft after the Lion Air crash in 2018, they issued urgent warnings to operators within 12 days. When there's a real mechanical issue, manufacturers don't stay quiet.

What this means for the investigation

This technical silence from the manufacturers suggests that the current evidence points away from a design flaw or mechanical failure in the aircraft itself. However, this doesn't automatically mean pilot error either -- it could indicate a maintenance issue, a procedural problem, or even the known fuel switch locking mechanism issue that the FAA had warned about in 2018 but wasn't considered serious enough for mandatory inspections.

The key point is that if the plane's makers are not warning other airlines to check their aircraft, it suggests this was not a widespread design problem that could happen to other planes.

What we know for certain is that:

* The FAA had identified a potential issue with these exact switches in 2018

* Air India had not performed the recommended inspections because they were advisory, not mandatory

* Both experienced pilots denied deliberately cutting off fuel

* They immediately attempted to restart the engines upon realising the problem

* The aircraft's configuration was normal for takeoff

Call for comprehensive investigation

Rather than rushing to blame the pilots, we must demand a thorough investigation that considers all possibilities. The families of the 260 victims deserve answers based on facts, not speculation driven by a few media soundbites.

The Airline Pilots' Association of India has categorically rejected the presumption of pilot error, stating: "The tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias toward pilot error. We categorically reject this presumption and insist on a fair, fact-based inquiry".

The aviation industry's safety record depends on learning from every accident, not on finding convenient scapegoats. While the preliminary report provides valuable data, it is exactly that -- preliminary. Civil Aviation Minister Kinjarapu Ram Mohan Naidu said the report's findings were preliminary and one should not "jump into any conclusions on this".

As we await the final report, let us remember that 260 lives were lost in this tragedy. They deserve an investigation driven by scientific rigour, not by the rush to assign blame. The truth, however complex, must prevail over convenient narratives.

The cockpit voice recorder captured confusion, not conspiracy. The flight data recorder shows switches moving in a pattern that defies rational pilot behaviour. Until we understand why these switches moved - whether due to the known locking mechanism issue, some other technical factor, or truly inexplicable human action - we cannot and must not rush to judgment.

India's aviation safety depends on getting this right. The victims' families deserve nothing less than the complete truth.

The author is a defence, aerospace & geopolitical analyst.