Air India 787 Crash Probe Deepens Tussle Among Investigators

(AHMEDABAD, INDIA) Air India Flight 171 crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, killing 260 people and leaving only one survivor, in one of India’s deadliest aviation disasters in recent years. Weeks later, the probe into why the Boeing 787-8 went down has turned into a tense struggle between Indian and foreign investigators, pilot groups, regulators, and the airline itself.

What the preliminary AAIB report found

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report on July 12, 2025. Key findings in that report include:

• The wide-body jet lost thrust in both engines just seconds after liftoff when the fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF.
• That single event stopped fuel flow to the engines and sent the aircraft falling back toward the city.
• The crash claimed the lives of 241 passengers and crew and 19 people on the ground, many in the densely built-up area near the airport.

The AAIB confirmed that both engines shut down because fuel flow stopped, not because of a known mechanical failure. However, the report did not initially explain why the switches moved.

Cockpit recordings and early media reports

Later media reports, citing investigators, said cockpit voice recordings suggested the captain may have turned off the fuel cutoff switches. These reports described the first officer asking why the switches had been moved and the captain denying that he had done so.

“That hint of possible deliberate action set off a storm.”

The suggestion of intentional action prompted strong reactions from pilot groups:

• The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association called it a “reckless and unfounded insinuation of pilot suicide.”
• The Airline Pilots’ Association of India said it was shocked by “the secrecy surrounding these investigations” and complained that “suitably qualified personnel were not taken on board for the probe.”

Both groups argued that introducing the idea of intentional action so early—before a full technical analysis—risks unfairly blaming pilots and upsetting families of Flight 171 crew.

Who is involved in the investigation

The crash inquiry involves a mix of domestic and international organizations:

• The AAIB is leading because the accident occurred in India and involved an Indian carrier.
• The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch sent four specialists, reflecting operational links and 787 traffic with the UK.
• The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) joined, since the Boeing 787 is U.S.-designed and many key systems fall under U.S. oversight.
• GE Aerospace, which built the engines on Flight 171, dispatched a technical team to work on cockpit data and engine components.

GE’s work focuses on electronic engine control systems and fuel-driven actuators that move fuel to and from the engines.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, such a multinational mix is standard for crashes involving global aircraft types, but it can slow the process and raise sensitivities—especially when early clues point toward human actions in the cockpit.

Parallel investigations and institutional tension

Adding to complexity and friction:

• India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) launched an internal inquiry.
• Air India opened its own internal investigation.

These parallel tracks created disputes over control of data and public communications. The DGCA oversees airline operations and flight safety rules, while Air India must answer to families, passengers, and the government about Flight 171’s preparation and departure clearance.

On July 17, the AAIB publicly appealed for the media and the public to stop guessing about the crash cause and to wait for confirmed information. The agency said it feared leaks and early narratives—especially about pilot suicide—could damage trust and add to families’ grief.

Immediate regulatory and airline actions

Regulators moved quickly to press safety measures. The DGCA ordered Air India to begin additional pre-departure technical inspections on its Boeing 787 fleet from June 15, three days after the crash.

The DGCA required extra maintenance and checks on:

• Fuel-parameter monitoring systems
• Cabin air compressor systems
• Electronic engine control systems
• Engine fuel-driven actuators
• Oil-system checks

These measures applied to both 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft—targeting systems linked to fuel control and engine health now under close review.

To comply, Air India suspended 83 wide-body flights for six weeks, disrupting routes to Europe, North America, and the Gulf. Passengers faced rebooking, long delays, and altered itineraries. The airline began a gradual restoration of routes in mid-July and planned a full schedule recovery by October, once government-mandated checks were completed and signed off.

Summary table — Key regulatory actions

Impact on families, legal implications, and possible wider safety actions

For families in Ahmedabad who lost relatives on the ground, technical terms about fuel switches and actuators feel distant. Their questions are immediate: Why did the jet crash into their homes, and who will be held responsible?

• Lawyers for some families are closely watching the AAIB process because the final report will shape compensation claims against Air India and potentially against manufacturers or maintenance providers if systemic faults are found.
• Aviation lawyers note that the involvement of the NTSB, FAA, and GE Aerospace increases the chance that findings about engine controls or software could prompt broader safety actions worldwide.

Potential regulatory directions depending on final findings:

1. If evidence supports a deliberate act by the captain:
   • Regulators may examine cockpit security, mental-health screenings, and training for air traffic controllers and cabin crew to detect warning signs.
2. If evidence points to uncommanded movement of fuel switches or a design flaw:
   • Focus could shift toward Boeing, GE, and FAA certification processes and possible design or software remedies.

Public transparency and sources

India’s aviation authorities face pressure to show they can handle a complex, high-profile disaster transparently and fairly. The DGCA says it is working closely with the AAIB and international partners and points to its public safety actions as evidence of seriousness.

For official rules and updates, the DGCA’s broader rules and updates are available on the Directorate General of Civil Aviation website, which has become a key reference for airlines and safety analysts tracking changes since the accident.

The lone survivor and the ongoing reconstruction

For now, the only survivor of Air India Flight 171 remains the most direct witness to the final seconds before impact, though officials have not released details of that person’s account.

As investigators reconstruct the accident second by second, the mix of grief, technical complexity, and institutional tension continues to shape one of the most closely watched crash probes India has ever seen.