Air India Crash Probe Reveals Gaps in Safety, Missing Transparency: Experts Raise Red Flags
The interim report into the catastrophic Air India Flight 171 crash, which killed 260 people after take-off from Ahmedabad on June 12, has triggered alarm across aviation circles for lacking technical transparency, omitting urgent safety recommendations, and failing to convey the seriousness of one of India’s deadliest aviation tragedies.
Veteran aviation safety expert and former Boeing 777 pilot Amit Singh, who also heads the NGO Safety Matters, has strongly criticized the report, warning that its narrative-style structure fails to match the depth and technical rigor seen in global crash investigations like that of Ethiopian Airlines ET302.
Key Findings from the Interim Report: Fuel Switch Mechanism at the Centre
The report opens by referencing a 2018 FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) that warned of the potential disengagement of the locking feature on fuel control switches — a mechanical safeguard that prevents accidental shutdown of engines during flight.
Despite this warning, Air India reportedly did not inspect its Boeing 787 fleet for this specific issue. According to the report, the fuel control switches moved to the “cut-off” position within three seconds of take-off, resulting in an abrupt halt to fuel supply, engine shutdown, and the tragic crash.
“This is possibly a mechanical failure that could have been identified and prevented,” Singh noted.
The aircraft became airborne at 1:38:39 PM, reached 180 knots by 1:38:42 PM, and almost immediately afterward, both fuel control switches were found in the ‘cut-off’ position. However, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) — a backup system that activates only when both engines fail — had already been deployed during initial climb, suggesting that the engines had likely stopped producing thrust even before take-off was complete.
Crucial Missing Data: Was It Human Error or System Failure?
A major shortcoming of the report is the absence of cockpit switch movement logs and a complete Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcript, which are vital for understanding whether the fuel cutoff was:
- Due to pilot error,
- A result of mechanical failure, or
- An outcome of uncommanded system inputs.
The report includes only a single verbal exchange between the two pilots. One pilot questions the other about the fuel supply being shut off, to which the other replies:
“I didn’t do that.”
Experts emphasize that without full CVR data, switch actuation logs, and detailed FDR (Flight Data Recorder) analysis, it’s impossible to draw conclusions about what really transpired in the cockpit.
Expert Concern: Could the Fuel Switches Have Moved on Their Own?
While rare, the report hints at several scenarios in which fuel switches could move without human input:
- Disengaged locking mechanism – If the fuel switch lock was not installed or disabled, the switch could have moved unintentionally.
- Faulty installation – Incorrect fitting of the safety lock could have allowed accidental transition.
- Aircraft vibrations – Caused by uneven runway surfaces, possibly triggering lever movement.
- Uncommanded system inputs – Systemic faults that activate without pilot action.
However, the report does not clarify which — if any — of these factors were present in AI 171.
A Missing Safety Mandate: Air India Ignored Boeing Advisory?
A critical revelation in the report is Air India’s alleged inaction following the 2018 Boeing advisory (SAIB NM-18-33), which explicitly warned of a possible failure mode involving fuel control switch disengagement.
“The FAA alert was clear, and there is no evidence that Air India complied or inspected their fleet for the issue,” said Singh.
“Had they done so, this crash might have been prevented.”
Even more concerning is that the Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) failed to recommend immediate inspections or policy revisions in response to this glaring oversight. According to aviation protocols, SAIBs, though non-mandatory, often warrant urgent action when involving catastrophic risk scenarios.
A Report Lacking Depth: Comparison with Ethiopian Airlines ET302
The contrast between India’s interim crash report and global benchmarks like the 33-page Ethiopian Airlines ET 302 preliminary report is stark. The Ethiopian report, released in the wake of a 737 MAX crash, included:
- CVR transcript excerpts
- Detailed FDR timelines
- Manufacturer bulletins
- Procedural checklists
In contrast, the Air India Flight 171 report is narrative-driven and light on technical evidence, lacking data charts or precise timelines that could enable swift fleet-wide safety checks.
What Should Happen Next: Urgent Recommendations Ignored
Experts are urging immediate action on multiple fronts:
- Comprehensive inspection of all Boeing 787 fuel switch locking mechanisms across India
- Mandatory compliance rules for SAIBs related to critical safety components
- Immediate release of full CVR and FDR data to ensure transparency
- Formation of an independent oversight panel to audit operator compliance with safety alerts
Failure to act swiftly could not only undermine passenger trust but potentially lead to repeat incidents.
Final Thoughts from The Trending People
The interim probe into the Air India 171 tragedy leaves more questions than answers. With 260 lives lost, the aviation community and the general public deserve clarity, urgency, and accountability — not vague narratives. The lack of data, missing recommendations, and safety oversight lapses paint a troubling picture of how airline operations and government oversight interact in high-stakes environments.
Unless the authorities act decisively now — by mandating inspections, enforcing compliance with global advisories, and prioritizing transparency — India’s aviation safety reputation could face a long-term credibility crisis.
The nation waits not just for answers, but for action.
