The cause of the Air India flight 171 crash remains disputed as the official investigation has yet to release its final conclusions. The flight crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad airport in western India, killing 260 people, including passengers, crew, and individuals on the ground. The ongoing controversy highlights questions about the integrity and impartiality of air crash investigations, especially when multiple parties with vested interests are involved.
Why this matters
The crash of Air India flight 171 resulted in a significant loss of life and raised concerns about aviation safety, accountability, and transparency. The investigation’s outcome will impact the reputation of Air India, Boeing (the aircraft manufacturer), and regulatory authorities. Families of the victims seek clear answers, while the aviation community debates the reliability of current investigative processes. The case also underscores the challenges in determining causes of complex air disasters and the potential influence of political and corporate interests.
Background
Flight 171 departed from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Airport in Ahmedabad on a hot, dry afternoon, bound for London. Onboard were 230 passengers, including 53 British citizens, and 10 cabin crew members. The flight crew consisted of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, an experienced pilot, and First Officer Clive Kunder. Just 32 seconds after takeoff, the aircraft crashed, killing all but one person onboard and 19 people on the ground.
Video footage from the airport shows the plane taking off normally but then appearing to hover before descending and crashing in flames. The exact cause of the crash is not visible in the footage.
Investigation and controversy
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), part of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, is leading the investigation. Under international law, the country where the accident occurs is responsible for the official inquiry, with other countries involved as accredited representatives. In this case, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Boeing, GE Aerospace, and the Federal Aviation Administration have participated.
The preliminary AAIB report, issued a month after the crash, did not conclude the cause but included two controversial points:
- The aircraft’s flight data recorder showed that the fuel cutoff switches moved to the cutoff position seconds after takeoff, which would have cut fuel to the engines and caused loss of thrust.
- The cockpit voice recorder captured a pilot asking why the fuel was cut off, with the other pilot denying responsibility. The report did not identify the speakers.
This led to speculation that a pilot deliberately shut off the fuel supply. Former NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt suggested the crash was caused by someone in the cockpit cutting fuel. Media outlets and some aviation experts have echoed this theory, while the AAIB condemned premature reporting and urged restraint.
Challenges to the pilot suicide theory
Many pilots, safety campaigners, and lawyers representing victims’ families dispute the pilot suicide explanation. They point to alleged electrical faults with the aircraft and inconsistencies in the preliminary report’s timeline. The plane, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner delivered in 2014, reportedly experienced electrical problems during its service life, including a documented incident of burning in a power panel in 2022. Air India states all repairs met Boeing-approved maintenance standards.
One alternative theory suggests a major electrical failure caused the aircraft’s flight computers to reboot after takeoff. This may have led the systems to mistakenly believe the plane was on the ground, triggering a safety mechanism that cut fuel electronically without physical switch movement. Investigative journalist Rachel Chitra has highlighted technical inconsistencies supporting this scenario.
Additionally, lawyers note that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), an emergency power system, deployed immediately after takeoff according to CCTV footage. The preliminary report states the RAT activated within five seconds of fuel cutoff, but simulator tests indicate it should take 14-18 seconds to deploy, suggesting it may have engaged earlier, possibly while the plane was still on the ground. This raises questions about what triggered the emergency power system.
Reactions and next steps
The Federation of Indian Pilots and Captain Sabharwal’s family have called for a judicial investigation, citing concerns about the investigation’s impartiality. Former UK air accident investigator Tim Atkinson supports the pilot suicide conclusion but acknowledges the difficulty in addressing such cases. Safety consultant Eckhard Jann notes that the lack of clear answers unsettles the aviation community accustomed to safe air travel.
The final report from the AAIB is expected to provide more clarity in the coming days. Meanwhile, the debate continues over the investigation’s integrity and whether current processes adequately prevent conflicts of interest and ensure transparency.
Recommended reading
For more context, see related Peack News coverage and explainers linked below.
