Shocking Air India Crash Report | Pilot Error Or A 737-Max Style Coverup Operation?

 Introduction

The recent crash of Air India Flight 171 has sent shockwaves through the aviation industry. On June 12, 2025, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad International Airport, resulting in the tragic loss of 270 lives. While the preliminary report has been released, numerous questions remain unanswered, particularly regarding the sudden cutoff of fuel to both engines during a critical phase of flight. This blog post delves into the technical aspects of the crash, analyzing the flight recorder data, examining the potential role of the fuel cutoff switches, and questioning whether this represents a systemic issue that Boeing and regulatory authorities may be attempting to downplay.

Timeline of the Tragic Flight

The events leading up to the crash of Air India 171 followed a seemingly routine pattern until the final moments:

11:25 PM, June 11**: Crew’s pre-flight breath analyzer tests were conducted with normal results

12:30 PM, June 12**: Crew completed boarding preparations and pre-flight checks began

1:10 PM**: Scheduled departure time from Ahmedabad to Gatwick, London

1:18 PM**: Aircraft left parking position and taxied to runway

1:38 PM**: Aircraft departed from runway 23

1:38:42 PM**: Aircraft reached maximum recorded speed of 180 knots

At this point, the flight took a catastrophic turn:

1:38:42 PM**: Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFR) indicated fuel supply to both engines was suddenly stopped

1:38:47 PM**: EAFR reported N2 values reduced below minimum idle speed, indicating severe power reduction

1:38:52 PM**: Pilots attempted to restore fuel by switching engine 1’s cutoff switch back to “run” position

1:38:56 PM**: Engine 2’s cutoff switch was also returned to “run” position

1:39:05 PM**: Pilots issued Mayday call

1:39:11 PM**: EAFR recording terminated as the aircraft crashed

Technical Analysis of the Fuel System Failure

The EAFR data confirms that both fuel cutoff switches moved from “run” to “cutoff” position within a second—an extremely unusual occurrence that demands thorough investigation. These switches are not designed for casual manipulation; they feature spring-loaded mechanisms with guardrails specifically engineered to prevent accidental activation.

When the fuel supply was cut, several critical systems responded:

1. The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed automatically to provide emergency hydraulic power
2. Engine power rapidly diminished below operational levels
3. The Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system attempted to relight both engines when the switches were returned to “run” position

Engine 1 showed signs of recovery, but Engine 2 failed to regain sufficient power despite relighting. At this critical juncture, the aircraft lacked both altitude and time to execute an emergency landing, resulting in the catastrophic crash just 29 seconds after the initial fuel cutoff.

Questioning the Preliminary Report’s Conclusions

The preliminary report’s findings raise several concerns:

 1. Insufficient Investigation of Switch Mechanism

The report confirms that the fuel cutoff switches moved to the “cutoff” position but provides no explanation for how or why this occurred. There are three primary possibilities:

– Pilot error (accidental or intentional activation)

– Mechanical failure of the switch mechanism

– Electrical or software anomaly causing false activation

The cockpit voice recording indicates confusion among the pilots, with one asking “why did you cut off?” and the other denying any action. This strongly suggests that neither pilot intentionally activated the switches.

 2. Historical Issues with Boeing Fuel Cutoff Switches

Perhaps most concerning is the existence of a December 17, 2018 FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin specifically addressing potential problems with Boeing fuel cutoff switches. This bulletin warned that if the locking feature of these switches fails, they could inadvertently move to the “cutoff” position, resulting in in-flight engine shutdown.

While this bulletin primarily referenced the 737 model, the same switch design is used in the 787 Dreamliner. Boeing issued this information as a recommendation rather than a mandatory directive, allowing airlines to determine whether to inspect and replace these critical components.

3. Maintenance History Concerns

Flight AI-171 had a documented history of sensor issues. The aircraft had flown from Delhi to Ahmedabad as flight AI-432, and previous crew members had reported a stabilizer sensor fault code. While Air India claims to have troubleshot and fixed this issue, it raises questions about whether other sensor or switch problems might have been present but undetected.

Air India had replaced the throttle control in 2019 and 2023 but had never replaced the fuel cutoff switches, as this was not mandated by Boeing or regulatory authorities.

The Boeing Safety Culture Question

This incident raises uncomfortable parallels to Boeing’s handling of the 737 MAX MCAS system failures that led to two catastrophic crashes. In those cases, Boeing knew about the potential for system malfunction but failed to adequately inform airlines and pilots until after multiple accidents occurred.

The preliminary report on AI-171 states “no action required” regarding the Boeing 787-8 with GE engines. This lack of precautionary measures is concerning, particularly given:

1. The documented history of potential issues with the same fuel cutoff switches
2. The extremely unusual and simultaneous movement of both switches to “cutoff” position
3. The pilots’ evident surprise and confusion when the engines lost power

 What Should Happen Next?

Comprehensive Technical Investigation

A thorough examination of all Boeing 787 fuel cutoff switches is essential, including:

1. Analysis of the switch mechanisms for potential failure modes
2. Electrical system testing to identify potential short circuits or software anomalies
3. Review of all reported incidents involving unexpected switch behavior

Regulatory Oversight

Aviation authorities should consider:

1. Issuing an Airworthiness Directive requiring inspection of all 787 fuel cutoff switches
2. Mandating installation of cockpit video recording systems to better determine causes in future incidents
3. Reviewing Boeing’s safety culture and reporting procedures

 Transparent Communication

The aviation community deserves:

1. Regular updates on the investigation’s progress
2. Press conferences allowing questions from industry experts
3. Clear communication about any potential safety concerns for the flying public

Conclusion

While it is premature to definitively state the cause of Air India 171’s crash, the preliminary evidence points to a critical failure of the fuel cutoff switches—either through mechanical failure, electrical anomaly, or design flaw. The parallels to previous Boeing safety issues are concerning, particularly the pattern of issuing advisory notices rather than mandatory directives for potentially catastrophic failures.

The aviation industry must resist the temptation to default to “pilot error” explanations before thoroughly investigating all technical aspects of the accident. The 270 lives lost in this tragedy deserve nothing less than a comprehensive, transparent investigation that addresses all potential contributing factors—particularly those that might affect other aircraft currently in service.

As the investigation continues, we must remain vigilant against attempts to minimize potentially systemic issues. The history of aviation safety advances has often been written in tragedy, but only when those tragedies are fully understood and addressed. The Air India 171 investigation represents not just an opportunity to determine what happened on that fateful day, but potentially to prevent similar disasters in the future.