Air India Flight AI 171 Crash — Case Study :
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171
Overview:
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171 (Boeing 787‑8, registration VT‑ANB) departed Ahmedabad for London Gatwick. Just 30 seconds after takeoff, both engines lost thrust and the aircraft crashed into a hostel block at B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad—resulting in 260 fatalities (241 onboard + 19 on the ground) and 68 injuries, with one sole survivor .
🔍 Investigation Highlights (Preliminary AAIB Report)
 |
| INDIAN PM |
Engine Fuel Switch Incident: Flight data indicates that both engine fuel control switches were abruptly moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” shortly after lift‑off, severing fuel supply .
Cockpit Confusion: CVR captured one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?”, with the other replying, “I did not.” At impact, switches had been returned to “RUN,” and attempts at engine relight were underway .
Switch Design Scrutiny: Both FAA and aviation experts note that these guarded switches should not be easily moved accidentally.
FAA Response: The FAA stated current Boeing 787 fuel-switch designs are not deemed hazardous enough to prompt immediate airworthiness directives. Notably, Air India hadn't implemented a 2018 FAA bulletin regarding switch locking mechanisms.
Safety Protocols Intensified: DGCA has mandated inspections of all Air India Boeing 787‑8/9 aircraft and some 777s, reducing wide-body operations temporarily .
📈 Immediate Aftermath & Stakeholder Reactions
Air India Assistance: Interim compensation of ₹25 lakh (~£21k) to victim families, alongside ₹1 crore support via Tata Sons .
Pilot Accountability & Families’ Demands: Discontent by families and experts labeling the early findings a “cover‑up,” insisting on a “transparent and thorough” inquiry—amid concerns the preliminary report insufficiently addresses a cause-effect gap .
Expert Opinion: Former Navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash deemed the report “intriguing,” advocated for deeper probe into switch toggling and potential systemic issues.
International Support: Boeing, GE, American FAA, and U.S. NTSB are cooperating fully with the investigation.
⚙️ Technical & Human Factors Analysis
 |
| , Air India Flight 171 |
Highly unlikely to toggle both switches unintentionally—requiring deliberate activation.
The presence of locking mechanisms that Air India hadn't inspected per FAA guidance indicates compliance gaps.
Crew Resource Management (CRM):
Early cockpit confusion suggests insufficient cross-verification — a possible breakdown in crew coordination and task-sharing protocols.
Emergency Response Sequence:Rapid engine shutdown followed by attempts to restore thrust likely aided by RAT (Ram Air Turbine) deployment.Tragically, this was insufficient; the aircraft crashed within seconds.
Regulatory Implications:
Highlight the importance of revising cockpit safety standards, especially for fuel system controls.
Improves mandated compliance to international advisories and audit oversight.
🧭 Lessons & Recommendations
| Category | Key Insight | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Design Safety | Accident underscores vulnerability to cockpit switch mis-operation | Boeing and regulators should revisit switch ergonomics, add redundancy and physical guards |
| Pilot Training & SOPs | Swift switch toggling not documented in standard training | Update SOPs and CRM modules; conduct regular cockpit error drills |
| Compliance Adherence | Ignoring FAA bulletins contributes to risk exposure | Aviation authorities must enforce timely adoption of safety directives |
| Independent Oversight | Families demand unbiased scrutiny | Establish an empowered, independent aviation safety board with broader authority |
🕵️ What to Watch in Final Report
Precise timeline of switch actions—manual vs. mechanical cause?
Impact of 2018 FAA bulletin implementation status.
Depth of AAIB's independence and methodology.
Broader effects on global 787 fleet operations and retrofits.
🛫 Broader Context: Air India’s Safety Track Record
Current incident is the first mid-air fuel-triggered failure, reflecting a shift in operational risk spectrum.
✅ Conclusion
This case not only exposes a critical flaw in engine control design but also reveals potential deficiencies in pilot training, compliance, and institutional oversight. As the final AAIB report looms, its findings could set new global benchmarks in aviation safety—impacting cockpit design, pilot operations, and regulatory enforcement. All stakeholders—including Boeing, FAA, DGCA, and Air India—must commit to openness, accountability, and swift action to ensure such a catastroph
.jpeg)
0 Comments