What the Air India AI171 preliminary crash probe report reveals

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its preliminary findings into the tragic crash of Air India flight AI171 — a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner — which crashed just seconds after take-off from Ahmedabad on 12 June.

Bound for London's Gatwick airport, the aircraft was airborne for only 32 seconds before plummeting into a hostel building near the airport, killing 260 people, including 241 onboard and several on the ground in what is among the deadliest aviation disasters in India’s history.

What went wrong?

According to the AAIB’s preliminary report, the aircraft reached a maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots (Indicated Air Speed) at approximately 08:08:42 UTC (about 1.38 pm IST). Immediately after this point, both the left and right engine fuel control switches — Engine 1 and Engine 2 — were moved from the ‘RUN’ to the ‘CUTOFF’ position, within one second of each other.

This critical action abruptly stopped fuel supply to both engines. As a result, both N1 and N2 engine speeds began to drop from their take-off levels, leading to a total loss of thrust at a crucial stage of flight.

Confusion in the cockpit

Audio recovered from the cockpit voice recorder captures a startling exchange between the pilots. One is heard asking, “Why did you cut off?”, to which the other replies, “I did not.” The exchange indicates a moment of confusion or disagreement, suggesting that neither pilot believed they had intentionally triggered the fuel cutoff.

Given that the fuel control switches are physically guarded and require deliberate force to move, this raises serious questions. The investigation is now working to determine whether the switches were moved through human action, mechanical fault, or some other failure.

The aircraft was powerless

Following the dual engine shutdown, the aircraft’s Ram Air Turbine (RAT) — a backup system that deploys automatically in emergencies — activated to provide limited hydraulic power for flight controls. However, the RAT does not generate thrust. With no engine power and insufficient altitude, the aircraft could not remain airborne and crashed just under a nautical mile from the runway.

No fault in fuel or weather

Fuel samples collected from airport bowsers and storage tanks were found to be uncontaminated. The aircraft was properly loaded within weight and balance limits, with all flaps and landing gear settings normal for take-off. Weather conditions were favourable, and both pilots were well-rested, medically cleared, and highly experienced on the Boeing 787.

Avoiding a rush to judgment

Despite these early findings, selective leaks — mostly from Western aviation circles — have begun portraying the incident as likely the result of 'pilot error'. Critics argue that this is a familiar narrative used to shift responsibility away from aircraft and engine manufacturers when systems fail.

Seasoned observers of the aviation industry point out that attributing crashes to pilot error is often the default position of manufacturers, as it insulates them from legal and regulatory consequences.

What is particularly concerning is the way sections of Indian media and social media have echoed these premature claims — at times irresponsibly tarnishing the reputations of the deceased pilots, who are no longer here to defend themselves.

What could have caused the fuel cutoff?

The AAIB has identified three main areas of investigation:

Human action – Whether one of the pilots moved the switches deliberately or accidentally. Given the switches are protected by guard mechanisms and require deliberate effort, this is considered unlikely unless other factors were involved.

Mechanical or software malfunction – Whether the switches transitioned to CUTOFF due to a system defect or automated process, without pilot input.

Other undiscovered factors – The investigation remains open to the possibility of other technical anomalies or cascading failures.

Where do Boeing and GE stand?

As of now, no safety directives or preliminary findings have been issued against Boeing (the aircraft manufacturer) or General Electric (which supplies the GEnx-1B engines). Both engines have been recovered and placed under quarantine for detailed forensic examination.

What happens next?

Investigators will continue to analyse black box data, wreckage systems, and cockpit instruments. As per international aviation protocol, a full report is expected within 12 months, offering a definitive account of what caused the crash and recommendations for preventing similar events.

Why this report matters

This preliminary report provides a clearer picture of how a rare and catastrophic dual engine failure unfolded in less than a minute after take-off. While it raises important questions, it does not yet provide definitive answers.

In the meantime, it is critical that media, industry voices, and the public avoid speculative blame — especially when it comes to the pilots, who acted within a system governed by both humans and machines. To leap to judgment without concrete evidence is not only unjust but also dishonours the professionalism of those who lost their lives in the service of others.