There is concern that the narrative emerging from the preliminary findings appears too quick to lean on the possibility of pilot error
| Photo Credit:
KUNAL PATIL
The preliminary report of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) into the crash of Air India Flight AI 171 offers a chilling finding: fuel supply to both engines was cut off three seconds after take-off from Ahmedabad. Fuel-control switches for each engine, which are not meant to be touched during flight, were found to have moved from “Run” to “Cutoff”, effectively shutting down both engines at a critical moment of ascent.
The simultaneous and unexplained cutoff of fuel casts a long shadow over the tragic incident, while also opening up several difficult questions. The AAIB has acknowledged the improbability of accidental activation, as the switches are spring-loaded and mechanically protected against unintended movement. It has not, however, established definitive cause or intent. Was it a mechanical failure? Was there an inadvertent signal from an external system? Or was there a moment of human error under duress that we still do not fully understand?
Further complicating the picture are technical advisories from the past cited by the AAIB report. While the report has not recommended “actions to Boeing 787-8” engine operators and makers “at this stage”, it did refer to a 2018 US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warning regarding potential issues with the fuel control switch locking mechanism on various Boeing models. The warning came after reports that these switches were sometimes installed without the locking feature engaged, potentially allowing for inadvertent movement during flight. This advisory is relevant to the Air India crash, as the aircraft involved, a Boeing 787-8, had the same type of fuel control switches with the same locking mechanism. The fact that such vulnerabilities were known and yet not addressed through binding regulation, raises questions about oversight and compliance.
Reactions from the aviation community have been sharp, particularly from pilots’ associations. There is concern that the narrative emerging from the preliminary findings appears too quick to lean on the possibility of pilot error. Excerpts from the cockpit voice recorder, particularly one exchange where one pilot is heard asking, “Why did you cut that off?”, have been interpreted by some as suggestive of blame. But without full contextual evidence, such fragments should not be used to cast aspersions, especially when the pilots are no longer alive to respond. Pilots’ unions have rightly cautioned against what they perceive as a pattern: a tendency to shift focus towards cockpit error when systemic or design issues may be at play. There is discomfort with the possibility that conclusions may be drawn in ways that shield aircraft manufacturers from deeper scrutiny. The AAIB report is a preliminary document. To extrapolate blame or motive from it is to risk undermining the integrity of the investigation. The final report will hopefully be shaped by exhaustive technical analysis, consultation with experts and full transparency.
Published on July 13, 2025