Investigators continue to probe the mysterious circumstances behind the Air India Flight 171 crash, but the preliminary report has only fueled more questions about how the Boeing 787’s engines were cut off immediately after takeoff, leading to the tragic accident in Ahmedabad.
The preliminary report about the crash of Air India Flight 171, which resulted in the tragic loss of 260 lives in June, was expected to provide clarity but instead has incited further speculation among investigators, aviation analysts, and the public. A critical point of confusion remains: moments after takeoff, the fuel-control switches on the 12-year-old Boeing 787 inexplicably moved to “cut-off,” shutting off fuel to the engines and leading to complete power failure, a procedure typically reserved for after the aircraft lands.
The cockpit voice recording presents a puzzle, capturing one pilot asking why the other “cut-off” the fuel, with the response being unclear. During the takeoff, the co-pilot, Clive Kunder, was at the controls, while Captain Sumeet Sabharwal was monitoring. The pair collectively held over 19,000 hours of flight experience, with a significant portion on the Boeing 787.
After the switches returned to their inflight positions, the engines began to relight automatically. However, one engine had only begun regaining thrust while the other had not yet recovered fully. Tragically, within less than a minute, the plane crashed into a neighborhood in Ahmedabad, western India.
Amid numerous speculative theories that have arisen following the report, news outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and Reuters have noted shifting attention towards the senior pilot’s actions during the incident. Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported that the first officer repeatedly questioned the captain’s actions regarding the engine shutoff.
The wave of speculative reporting has drawn criticism from various quarters. India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) denounced the premature conclusions drawn by some media outlets, describing such actions as irresponsible given the ongoing nature of the investigation. Jennifer Homendy, chairperson of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, also commented on X that these reports are speculative and reminded the media that investigations of this nature require time.
The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association has condemned the quick attribution of blame to the crew, labeling it reckless and insensitive. In parallel, Sam Thomas, head of the Airline Pilots’ Association of India, has highlighted the need for comprehensive reviews that take into account maintenance history and cockpit data.
The report’s release has only compounded the complexity of the situation, as it included a brief excerpt of cockpit conversations without the full transcript, leaving many questions unanswered. The full cockpit voice recorder transcript is expected in the final report and should offer further clarity.
A Canadian air accident investigator suggested several scenarios about the switches’ operation, pondering whether they could have been moved unconsciously by pilot ‘B’ or if deliberate action by pilot ‘A’ was behind the incident, possibly with intent to deflect responsibility through the recorded dialogue. However, the identity of the speaker remains unverified, and establishing intent is challenging.
Moreover, some pilots speculate that a malfunction in the plane’s Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system, responsible for monitoring engine health, could theoretically trigger an automatic shutdown if fed false sensor data. Nevertheless, the theory seems tenuous when considering the timeline and the pilot’s exclamation about the fuel cutoff.
Alternate explanations also surface, such as a potential electrical fire in the tail, underscored by reports from Indian newspapers like the Indian Express. However, the preliminary report confirms the engines’ shutdown was a result of the fuel switches’ movement, suggesting that any fire resulting from spilled fuel or damaged batteries occurred post-impact.
AAIB chief GVG Yugandhar reiterated that the preliminary report’s purpose is to outline the facts around ‘WHAT’ transpired, with the understanding that conclusive findings, root causes, and safety recommendations will follow in the final report. There will be updates provided on salient technical matters and public interest issues as they become relevant.
Ultimately, as noted by former airline accident investigator Shawn Pruchnicki, the fundamental question remains whether the incident was a case of deliberate actions or technological confusion. The investigation does not hastily accuse human error or malice, pointing instead to a wait for answers that may remain elusive.