Summary
- AAIB’s preliminary report on the June 12 crash raises questions about possible manual shutdown of fuel switches; 260 people died.
- Experts divided over whether the fuel switch transition from RUN to CUTOFF was manual or triggered by system malfunction.
- A leaked WSJ article and prior FAA advisories intensify suspicions of regulatory and media bias against the pilots.
Tragedy at Takeoff: Unanswered Questions from AI171’s Final Moments
The fatal crash of Air India Flight AI171 on June 12, which claimed 260 lives, has morphed into one of the most contentious aviation investigations in India’s history. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), in its preliminary report, noted that both engine fuel control switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF within a second—just as the aircraft was lifting off from the runway. But that detail has ignited a fierce debate in the global aviation community.
Was this a deliberate manual act by the cockpit crew, as some experts allege? Or a result of software logic or electronic malfunction, as others insist?
Amid the chaos of speculation, one fact remains clear: families of 259 victims and one traumatized survivor are still waiting for closure, while the public is left navigating a maze of theories, cockpit ambiguity, and a report that, critics argue, reveals too little and too late.
#AI171Crash Preliminary Report Raises Serious Concerns
— ARK_Bharatiya7 🇮🇳🕉️ (Modi Ka Parivar) (@ARK_Bharatiya7) July 14, 2025
The 15-page preliminary report on the #AI171 crash was released at midnight on the 31st day after the incident Families and aviation experts have expressed complete disagreement with its findings
What the Report Claims
Both… pic.twitter.com/ydxFSkbWjm
What the AAIB Report Says—and What It Doesn’t
- Fuel switches went from RUN to CUTOFF within 1 second after hitting 180 knots at 08:08:42 UTC.
- Engine parameters dropped immediately; RAT deployed seconds after takeoff.
- Cockpit voice quote: “Why did you cutoff?” “I didn’t.”
- No mechanical issues found with engines or fuel switch system.
The AAIB’s preliminary report includes damning lines, but offers little interpretive clarity. It confirms that the fuel supply was cut off milliseconds after achieving takeoff speed and that RAT (Ram Air Turbine) deployment indicated a full power loss.
But the report stops short of declaring whether the fuel switches were moved manually or if the change was triggered electronically. This vagueness is what’s fueling both anger and suspicion.
Further muddling the waters is a Wall Street Journal article, released 20 hours before the official report, which spotlighted the pilots and fuel switches—prompting some to ask: who’s shaping the narrative, and for whose benefit?
Expert Opinions Diverge: Suicide Theory or Software Glitch?
- Capt. Mohan Ranganathan says only manual intervention could explain switch movement.
- Capt. Rakesh Rai and others argue modern 787s allow electronic shutoff even with switches in RUN.
- Others say FAA advisory from 2018 warned of fuel switch vulnerability—but inspections were skipped.
- Debate intensifies over selective CVR release and the absence of full timeline data.
Capt. Ranganathan, a retired Boeing 737 instructor, told NDTV, “Absolutely”—he believes one pilot moved the switches manually. He points to FAA data, cockpit design, and switch architecture that “requires deliberate force” to move. He also references a pilot with a medical history, suggesting mental health should not be overlooked.
But this theory met fierce opposition.
Capt. Rai, a former 787 pilot, counters that software commands can override physical switch positions, and the “transition” could have occurred without touch. He stressed that no pilot would remain silent if a co-pilot intentionally shut down engines. The cockpit voice quote—“Why did you cut off?” “I didn’t”—he says, could have occurred during engine restart attempts, not during sabotage.
Capt. Kishore Chinta adds: “The switches were likely recycled to reset EEC logic after dual engine failure. If it were suicide, why bother resetting at all?”
Meanwhile, Capt. MR Wadia explained why the landing gear failed to retract—blaming a squat switch that locked gear position, likely misidentifying the aircraft as still grounded.
FAA, Boeing, and Insurance: Who Benefits from Blaming the Pilots?
- 2018 FAA advisory mentioned fuel switch flaws but Air India skipped inspection.
- FAA and Boeing say “no unsafe condition” found; fuel switch locks are “safe.”
- Experts say the crash narrative seems to shift blame onto pilots—benefiting manufacturers and insurers.
- Only one survivor—Seat 11A—remains; families demand full CVR and FDR release.
Beyond technical arguments lies a larger institutional battle. FAA and Boeing were quick to issue statements declaring “fuel switch locks are safe,” sidestepping direct accountability. Aviation safety watchdogs, some argue, may be downplaying systemic flaws to protect aircraft reputation and limit insurance liabilities.
“Who gains from this narrative?” asks Capt. Chintan. “Is it the regulators? Boeing? The insurance underwriters?”
A critical voice came from YN Sharma of Chimes Aviation, who emphasized that the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) showed the switches were moved back to RUN just seconds before the MAYDAY call. He insists on full public release of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and precise event timeline.
With no mechanical faults found, and only partial CVR excerpts shared, families and aviation professionals are demanding greater transparency. “We are doing a disservice to dead pilots and 259 souls if we assume guilt without proof,” Sharma said.
Verdict: Premature Judgment or Suppressed Truth?
The crash of AI171 may eventually be remembered not just for its death toll, but for how ambiguous data and media leaks fueled a blame game—with grieving families caught in the crossfire.
Until the full CVR, FDR, and timeline are made public, every theory—be it human error, technical glitch, or systemic failure—remains speculative.
What’s clear is this: lives were lost, questions remain, and narratives are being shaped. Whether the next report offers clarity or confusion will determine if AI171 becomes a case study in aviation reform—or institutional deflection.
