Air India Flight 171 Crash: In a tragic and unprecedented aviation disaster, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on June 12, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground. The crash, which struck a medical hostel just 32 seconds after liftoff, marks the first-ever fatal accident involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner since its commercial launch in 2011.
The sole survivor is a British-Indian man who was seated in row 11A, and his testimony is now a crucial piece in the unfolding investigation.
Routine Takeoff Ends in Catastrophe
According to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) report released last night, Flight 171 lifted off at 1:39 pm local time, heading towards London Gatwick. Flight data from the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) confirms that the aircraft took off smoothly, accelerating to a takeoff speed of 153 knots (283 kmph) and reaching a maximum airspeed of 180 knots (333 kmph) within seconds.
Weather conditions were ideal, and standard takeoff procedures were observed. The flap setting was at five degrees, and the landing gear remained down as expected.
However, in a sudden and unexplained move, both Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel control switches flipped from “RUN” to “CUTOFF”, causing an immediate loss of thrust and initiating a rapid descent.
Cockpit Confusion Captured on Voice Recorder
The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured a chilling exchange between Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder, both seasoned pilots with clean medical and professional records.
One pilot urgently asked, “Why did you cut off?”
The other responded, “I didn’t.”
This brief dialogue is now at the center of the probe, sparking critical questions: Was this a case of pilot error, a technical malfunction, or something more sinister?
The fuel control switches on the 787 are not easy to accidentally toggle. They require deliberate lifting and pulling action, shielded by guard rails. Moreover, the switches are 2–3 inches apart, making it nearly impossible for both to be moved simultaneously without intent.
Yet the black box data confirms: both switches went to “CUTOFF” within one second.
Pilots Attempted Engine Recovery
After realizing the loss of thrust, the pilots acted within 10 seconds, restoring both switches to “RUN”, hoping to relight the engines. Engine 1 responded positively, stabilizing and recovering thrust. Engine 2, however, failed to fully reignite, and its core speed kept decelerating despite repeated attempts to revive it.
Meanwhile, the aircraft was losing altitude rapidly. The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) — a small emergency power generator that deploys during a dual-engine failure — was seen extending, as confirmed by airport CCTV footage.
Unfortunately, the RAT does not provide thrust, and with the aircraft barely a few hundred feet above ground, the partial recovery of Engine 1 was not enough to keep it airborne.
At 1:39:32 pm, just over half a minute after takeoff, Flight 171 struck a nearby hostel, engulfing the site in flames and leaving a trail of destruction.
Theories Under Investigation
The AAIB’s 50-page preliminary report is built on critical data extracted from the damaged black box units, with assistance from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which provided advanced equipment to recover data.
Three core theories are under examination:
- Human Action:
Did a pilot intentionally or accidentally move both switches? Experts find this implausible given the mechanical effort involved.“No pilot in their right mind would do this… the switches require intentional effort,” says Captain Saurabh Bhatnagar, a retired Air India Express commander.
- Mechanical Failure:
Could the switches have independently moved to “CUTOFF” due to a hardware or system fault? Boeing engineers are yet to identify any anomaly that could explain this behavior. - External Factors:
Could something outside the switch mechanism — like a software glitch or power fault — have interrupted fuel flow even if the switches remained in “RUN”? The report finds no evidence supporting this theory so far.
Ruling Out Other Possibilities
The AAIB has eliminated several alternative explanations:
- No bird strike was recorded by radar or CCTV.
- The Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) attempted an auto-start to aid engine recovery but was secondary to the main engine controls.
- The report clearly states there is “no immediate evidence of sabotage”.
Global Aviation Community on High Alert
This crash has sent shockwaves through the aviation industry. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner was touted as one of the safest and most technologically advanced commercial aircraft. To date, it has logged millions of flight hours without a fatal accident.
This disaster not only marks a grim first for the 787 but also raises alarming questions about manual engine control vulnerabilities, cockpit protocols, and fail-safe system design.
The AAIB has indicated that a final report will be released after further forensic analysis, additional interviews, and simulation-based testing. The lone survivor, currently recovering in a hospital in London, is expected to provide critical insights into the final moments of the flight.
Meanwhile, Boeing has promised full cooperation and is conducting its own internal safety review of the Dreamliner’s engine control systems.
The tragic loss of 260 lives — including passengers, crew, and people on the ground — now rests at the center of a global investigation that could reshape aviation safety protocols for years to come.
