Air India 787 Crash: Families Sue Boeing and Honeywell Over Switches

(AHMEDABAD, INDIA) Families of four victims from the June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171 disaster have filed the first U.S. lawsuit over the crash, accusing Boeing and Honeywell of dangerous cockpit design that allegedly let the aircraft’s fuel flow be cut off seconds after takeoff. Filed on September 16 in Delaware Superior Court, the complaint says faulty and poorly placed fuel cutoff switches on the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner triggered a dual-engine power loss that ended in a fatal impact near Ahmedabad.

The crash killed 260 people, with only one passenger surviving, according to India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) preliminary findings. The case—already drawing global attention—highlights how design choices inside the cockpit can affect safety, legal liability, and the movement of people across borders.

Plaintiffs’ Allegations

The plaintiffs—families of Kantaben Dhirubhai Paghadal, Naavya Chirag Paghadal, Kuberbhai Patel, and Babiben Patel—allege:

• The fuel cutoff switches were located beneath the thrust levers, making accidental activation likely during normal cockpit operations.
• That placement “effectively guaranteed” routine hand movements could move the switches from RUN to CUTOFF, starving both engines of fuel.
• They seek unspecified damages in what could become a lengthy product liability battle (often called the “Boeing Honeywell lawsuit”).

The filing was made in the United States because Boeing is incorporated in Delaware and Honeywell is a U.S.-based supplier.

What the AAIB Preliminary Report Says

The AAIB’s preliminary report describes the sequence of events:

• Shortly after liftoff, both engine fuel cutoff switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF, causing a dual-engine flameout.
• The crew returned the switches to RUN within 14 seconds, but the 787 had already lost critical thrust and struck a building 32 seconds after takeoff.
• The AAIB found no evidence of bird strike or external interference.
• Maintenance records show the throttle control module (which houses the switches) was replaced in 2019 and 2023.

This incident—often referred to in coverage as the “Air India 787 crash”—is now at the center of a transnational legal fight with wide implications for aircraft design, airline oversight, and insurers.

Responses from Boeing, Honeywell, and Regulators

• Boeing has pointed to the AAIB investigation and has not offered further public comment.
• Honeywell has not responded publicly.
• Aviation safety experts are split:
  • Some say the switch design already includes protections against accidental movement.
  • Others caution that cockpit ergonomics and human factors can defeat expectations, especially under stress.
• The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has said the switches themselves do not appear to be the direct cause, a stance that could carry weight as the case progresses.

The plaintiffs’ core claim is straightforward: if normal cockpit activity can trip a system that stops fuel flow to both engines, then design and placement deserve scrutiny.

Regulatory Context: FAA Bulletin and Inspections

In 2018, the FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33, which:

• Advised operators of Boeing 787s to check the locking mechanism of fuel control switches to prevent unintended movement.
• Recommended inspections but did not mandate them.

The AAIB reports Air India complied with all mandatory directives and bulletins but had not performed every recommended inspection. Whether a recommended inspection would have prevented the Flight 171 events will be a contested point in court, as parties argue what counts as reasonable versus advisory safety measures.

Legal and Industry Stakes

• Legal analysts note manufacturers are often targeted because airline liability is limited by international rules, while product liability claims against makers can proceed under broader U.S. tort law.
• Insurers—reportedly including AXA XL and Allianz—face potential claims that could ripple across the market, possibly setting benchmarks for payouts and policy terms in future accidents.
• VisaVerge.com reports wrongful-death claims tied to cross-border air accidents tend to grow as more families seek relief in jurisdictions that can reach manufacturers.

Impact on Communities and Travelers

For immigrant and diaspora communities dependent on long-haul flights for family ties, education, and work, the crash is deeply personal:

• Passengers assess safety not only by airline brand or airframe type, but by trust in the mechanical and legal systems behind those choices.
• If evidence suggests cockpit controls can be moved inadvertently, it may change how passengers view the Boeing 787 and components from suppliers like Honeywell.
• Regulators emphasize that dual-engine flameouts from cockpit switch errors are rare, but the fear a simple touch could cascade into disaster resonates with travelers between India and hubs like London, Toronto, or New York.

Ongoing Investigation and Official Resources

The AAIB’s continued work will be central to both safety outcomes and legal arguments. A final report could support or undermine claims that the fuel cutoff switches were prone to accidental activation.

The AAIB’s preliminary report is publicly available through India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation; official updates can be followed on the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau of India site: https://www.dgca.gov.in/digigov-portal/?page=aaib&type=1&tab=1

Investigators will continue to analyze flight data, cockpit actions, and maintenance history and may issue recommendations that could move regulators from advisories to mandates.

Lawsuit Centers on Cockpit Design

The complaint focuses on the throttle quadrant layout on the Boeing 787-8. Key plaintiff arguments include:

• Placing fuel control levers beneath thrust levers created a hazard during takeoff, a high-workload phase.
• Designers should have:
  • Changed the levers’ location,
  • Added stronger physical guards, or
  • Implemented a fail-safe blocking unintended movement.
• Honeywell supplied the relevant switch hardware, tying the supplier to the claim.

Defense likely lines:

• The design meets certification standards.
• Accidental activation is extremely unlikely.
• Pilots are trained to manage the controls safely.
• The FAA’s position (that switches do not seem to be the direct cause) could support the defense, especially if the final AAIB report aligns.

Design cases often hinge on human factors: theoretical unlikelihood can become reality when humans interact with devices in tight spaces, while wearing gloves, or under stress.

Regulatory and Industry Fallout (Possible Outcomes)

If plaintiffs succeed, potential outcomes include:

• Stronger guards or interlocks for fuel control systems
• Mandatory inspections of switch locking mechanisms
• Updated training emphasizing tactile cues and confirmation calls before switching fuel states
• Certification reviews focused on hand clearance and control separation during high-workload phases

Even if the case settles, the risk of a verdict can prompt manufacturers to revise cockpit layouts or add warning systems. Airlines might adopt procedural redundancies, such as two-person confirmation before moving fuel-related controls during takeoff and initial climb.

Insurance, Costs, and Broader Effects

• A large payout could change insurance premiums for carriers flying Boeing 787s and other widebodies, affecting how insurers price supplier-component risk.
• Higher operating costs may eventually pass to ticket prices, impacting students, workers, and families traveling for admissions, jobs, or reunions.
• The Air India 787 crash has already sparked policy conversations about how design risk should be shared among airframers, suppliers, and operators.

Pilots, Families, and the Human Side

• The family of one crew member criticized the AAIB’s preliminary report, saying it unfairly points to cockpit actions without full context.
• That reaction highlights how complex-system failures rarely have a single cause: investigations must weigh design, training, maintenance, and real-time decisions under pressure.
• The courtroom will likely reflect that complexity, with experts debating what a reasonable pilot could do in the 32 seconds after both engines lost thrust.

Case Timeline and Next Steps

• Early hearings in the Delaware case are expected later in 2025.
• More families may file claims in U.S. courts.
• The discovery phase could surface:
  • Design change logs
  • Internal test results
  • Supplier notes
  • Any prior incidents

Those documents often shape settlement talks and sometimes prompt regulatory action. For now, Boeing refers questions to the investigative record, and Honeywell remains silent.

Safety vs. Legal Process

Travelers should separate two things:

1. The ongoing legal process
2. Immediate flight safety

• Regulators have not grounded the global 787 fleet based on the AAIB’s preliminary findings.
• The FAA’s 2018 SAIB requested inspections of locking features but did not issue a mandatory directive.
• Airlines generally comply with required bulletins and directives; AAIB records indicate Air India met the mandatory steps in place at the time.
• Operators may choose to go beyond requirements, adding extra checks to boost confidence while investigations continue.

Final Thoughts

The human cost remains central. Families across Gujarat, the UK, and beyond continue to grieve while navigating cross-border legal and administrative processes. Community groups press for transparency from manufacturers and regulators, seeking clear answers about how both engines of a modern twinjet lost power on a clear day and what steps will prevent a recurrence.

The final AAIB report—expected after months of testing and analysis—may prompt new guidance or stronger rules on cockpit control design. Until then, the Air India 787 crash stands as a stark case study in how a small control movement can lead to large consequences, both in the sky and in court.