Ahmedabad Air India Crash: Preliminary Report Points to Fuel Switch Enigma

The preliminary report on the Air India Flight AI171 crash provides critical but inconclusive insights into a tragedy that has shaken India’s aviation industry and drawn global attention.

On July 12, 2025, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India released a 15-page preliminary report detailing the initial findings of the catastrophic crash of Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, which occurred on June 12, 2025, shortly after takeoff from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad. The flight, bound for London’s Gatwick Airport, crashed into a densely populated residential area, striking the hostel block of B.J. Medical College, killing 260 people, including 241 of the 242 passengers and crew on board and 19 individuals on the ground. The sole survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, a British national of Indian origin, escaped from a detached section of the aircraft near an emergency exit.

Key Findings of the Preliminary Report

The preliminary report provides critical insights into the sequence of events leading to the crash, focusing primarily on the sudden loss of engine thrust due to the movement of fuel control switches. Below are the main points outlined in the report:

1. Fuel Control Switch Movement:

- At 13:38:42 IST (08:08:42 UTC), just three seconds after the aircraft became airborne at 180 knots, both engines’ fuel cutoff switches transitioned from the “Run” to “Cutoff” position within one second of each other.

- This action starved the engines of fuel, leading to a near-immediate loss of thrust. The report notes that the switches are equipped with safeguards, such as locking mechanisms, to prevent accidental movement, raising questions about how or why they were flipped.

- Cockpit voice recordings captured a moment of confusion, with one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?” and the other responding, “I did not do so,” indicating possible miscommunication or an unintended action.

2. Attempted Recovery:

- Within seconds of the fuel cutoff, the pilots attempted to relight the engines by returning the switches to the “Run” position. Engine Gas Temperatures (EGTs) rose, suggesting partial success in relighting, but only Engine 1 showed partial recovery, while Engine 2 failed to revive.

- The aircraft deployed its Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup power source that activates during a loss of primary power, confirming the total power loss from the engines.

3. Flight Path and Crash:

- The aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet before losing speed and altitude rapidly. It clipped trees near the airport boundary and crashed into the B.J. Medical College hostel at 13:39 IST, approximately 30 seconds after takeoff.

- The landing gear was found in the “down” position, which is unusual for the climb phase, as it is typically retracted to reduce drag.

- The crash caused multiple explosions due to the aircraft’s heavy fuel load for the long-haul flight, exacerbating the fire and complicating rescue efforts.

4. Investigation Details:

- The black boxes, including the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR), were recovered on June 13 and 16, respectively, and their data was successfully downloaded by June 25 at the AAIB’s lab in Delhi.

- The report does not recommend immediate actions for Boeing or General Electric (GE), the manufacturer of the GEnx-1B engines, indicating that no clear mechanical or design flaws have been identified at this stage.

- The wreckage was moved to a secure hangar, and key components were quarantined for further analysis.

Analysis of the Findings

The preliminary report raises more questions than it answers, a common characteristic of such reports, which are intended to establish facts rather than pinpoint causes. The focus on the fuel control switches is particularly perplexing, as their movement to the “Cutoff” position is highly unusual during takeoff, a critical phase of flight. Several possibilities emerge:

- Human Error: The cockpit voice recordings suggest confusion between the pilots, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal (15,638 flight hours) and co-pilot Clive Kunder (3,400 flight hours). The dialogue indicates that neither pilot intentionally moved the switches, which could point to an accidental action or miscommunication.

- Mechanical or System Malfunction: The report mentions a potential issue with the “serviceability of the fuel control switch gates,” hinting at a possible mechanical failure. However, the absence of recommended actions against Boeing or GE suggests that investigators have not yet found evidence of a systemic issue.

- External Factors: The report does not indicate any emergency, such as an engine fire, that would justify cutting off fuel. Other potential factors, such as bird strikes or external interference, are not mentioned but cannot be ruled out at this stage.

The deployment of the RAT and the landing gear remaining down further complicate the narrative. The RAT’s activation confirms a total loss of engine power, while the landing gear’s position could indicate an attempt to prepare for an emergency landing or a failure to retract it due to the rapid sequence of events.

Controversies and Public Response

The release of the preliminary report has sparked significant debate, particularly among aviation experts and pilots’ associations. The Pilots’ Association of India, led by Captain Sam Thomas, has criticized the report for appearing to presume pilot guilt, calling it “unsigned” and questioning the secrecy surrounding the investigation.

Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu has urged the public not to jump to conclusions, emphasizing that the report is preliminary and that a final report, expected within 12 months, will provide more clarity.

The crash has also reignited scrutiny of Boeing, given its history of safety concerns with other aircraft models, such as the 737 MAX. However, the 787 Dreamliner has a strong safety record, with this being its first fatal crash since its introduction in 2011.

Broader Context and Future Considerations

The crash is a significant setback for Air India, which has been undergoing a transformation under Tata Group ownership since 2022. The airline’s chairman, N. Chandrasekaran, described the incident as the “most heartbreaking crisis” of his career and urged employees to use it as a catalyst to improve safety. The crash has also drawn attention to India’s aviation safety record, with comparisons to past incidents like the 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision and the 2020 Kozhikode crash.

For Boeing, the incident adds to ongoing public relations challenges, though the lack of immediate recommendations against the 787 suggests that the focus remains on operational or human factors rather than design flaws. The global fleet of over 1,100 787s continues to operate normally, but the outcome of the final investigation could influence future regulatory oversight and public confidence in the model.

Conclusion

The preliminary report on the Air India Flight AI171 crash provides critical but inconclusive insights into a tragedy that has shaken India’s aviation industry and drawn global attention. The unexpected movement of the fuel control switches remains the central mystery, with human error, mechanical issues, or a combination of factors as possible explanations. While the report has fueled debate over pilot accountability and investigation transparency, it is a starting point for a complex inquiry that will likely take months to resolve. As the AAIB continues its work, the focus must remain on uncovering the truth to prevent future tragedies, honoring the memory of the 260 lives lost in Ahmedabad.