It was supposed to be a routine departure for Air India Flight 171, a 12-year-old Boeing 787 Dreamliner carrying 241 souls from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick. Instead, within seconds of takeoff on the morning of 12 June 2025, the aircraft plunged into a densely populated neighbourhood, killing nearly everyone onboard and 19 on the ground. Now, preliminary findings into the crash lay bare the haunting truth: the engines cut off mid-air.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) early report is as chilling as it is perplexing. Both engine fuel control switches were flipped from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” less than 30 seconds after liftoff – an action typically performed only after landing and engine shutdown.
Anatomy of a Catastrophe
Flight data shows the Dreamliner lifted off at 08:08:39 UTC, reached an airspeed of 180 knots, and then, within one second, both engines lost thrust. The cockpit voice recorder captures one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?”, to which the other denies responsibility. Seconds later, a mayday call was declared. By 08:09:05 UTC, the aircraft crashed into the BJ Medical College hostel, leaving behind a 1,000 x 400 feet debris field of charred metal, severed engines, and incinerated lives.
The fuel switches were quickly returned to their normal position, triggering an automatic engine relight sequence. Engine 1 began stabilising, but Engine 2 could not regain core speed in time to avert disaster.
Human Factors Under Scrutiny
What caused this catastrophic error remains the question gripping aviation experts worldwide. Investigators found no mechanical faults. Maintenance records were clean. The captain had over 15,000 flight hours; the co-pilot over 3,400. Both were well-rested, fit to fly, and cleared all preflight checks.
Yet, with no signs of system malfunction, the spotlight now rests uncomfortably on human action.
“It would be almost impossible to pull both switches with a single movement of one hand,” a Canada-based investigator told the BBC, underlining the rigour of Boeing’s lever-lock fuel switch design – engineered specifically to prevent accidental deployment.
Was this an intentional act? An unfathomable lapse in procedure? Or a tragic confluence of confusion and miscommunication?
Cockpit Recordings Raise More Questions
Peter Goelz, former managing director of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), told the BBC the cockpit voice recording holds the key. “A lone remark like ‘why did you cut off’ isn’t enough. The new details suggest someone in the cockpit shut those valves. The question is, who, and why?”
Experts note the importance of identifying the voices on the recording – a process requiring colleagues familiar with each pilot’s speech patterns. For now, the report confirms only that the co-pilot was flying, while the captain was monitoring.
Design, Procedure, or Intent?
The 2018 FAA advisory, flagged in the preliminary report, adds a technical wrinkle. It warned of possible disengagement issues with similar fuel control switches on Boeing aircraft but deemed them non-critical, issuing no mandatory directive. Air India, like many operators, did not perform the recommended inspections.
Shawn Pruchnicki, former airline accident investigator, notes the significance: “What does this mean in operational terms? Could the switch flip itself if the locking feature was disengaged? That would be a serious design concern.”
Yet others dismiss this possibility, citing no known pilot complaints about fuel switches across Boeing fleets. For now, investigators maintain that there is no evidence of spontaneous switch movement, reinforcing focus on human factors.
This crash also reignites a longstanding safety debate: the absence of cockpit video recorders. Voice alone, experts argue, leaves ambiguity. An over-the-shoulder view could immediately answer who moved the switches, when, and why. The NTSB has advocated cockpit cameras for years, but privacy concerns and regulatory inertia have stalled implementation.
Global Implications and Next Steps
In the aftermath, Air India, regulators, and global aviation authorities are under pressure. Public trust hinges on transparency and accountability. The final report, still months away, will need to address critical questions around design vulnerabilities in the fuel control switch, or procedural gaps and how training protocols could mitigate such fatal errors.
For the Tata Group-owned airline, this tragedy comes as it seeks to reinvent itself as a world-class carrier. For Boeing, still emerging from the shadow of past crises, it renews scrutiny over aircraft design redundancies and human-machine interface safeguards.
A Stark Reminder
Ultimately, AI171’s preliminary findings reinforce aviation’s central paradox: the safest mode of transport remains so only because it treats no anomaly as too small to investigate. An unexplained switch movement, a fleeting cockpit exchange, or a single procedural lapse can tip a routine flight into irrevocable loss.
As investigators comb through the wreckage and cockpit recorders, families of 260 victims await answers to an unbearable question: how could a fully functional plane, under clear skies, with experienced pilots, simply fall out of the sky?
The final report may take months, but its outcome will reverberate far beyond Indian airspace. It will test the boundaries of design accountability, crew training, cockpit culture, and aviation governance itself. Until then, the silent moments in AI171’s cockpit will continue to echo across an industry built on trust, precision, and the thin blue line between routine and catastrophe.
