Air India AI171 Boeing 787 Dreamliner crash took place on June 12th 2025 at Ahmedabad when all persons on board except one, both crew and passengers, numbering about 260, died. The aircraft with 54,200 kgs of fuel hit a building leading to a huge fire to further ground fatalities. Aviation Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) consisting of 5 members reached the site on the same day. Three officers from Director General Civil Aviation’s (DGCA) Air Safety Directorate also joined. Further, as the aircraft manufacturer was a US company the notification of the accident, based ICAO’s Annex 13, was sent to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), USA who sent Representatives from FAA, Boeing and GE. As citizens from United Kingdom, Portugal and Canada were also died in the accident, their country representative were also invited.
The inquiry into the accident is being conducted by a duly appointed Aviation Accident Inquiry Board (AAIB) of India as required by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and FAA along with Boeing, the manufacturing company have been invited. The issue of either the pilot error or a software glitch in this highly sophisticated aircraft is now becoming a matter of contention. AAIB presented their preliminary report on the July 12th as an open document.
A preliminary report, required to be issued within a month of the accident, was presented in time and has come out with many details while many details have not been presented fully. As the accident was a catastrophic event and the first for a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in the Aviation sector, there was a greater of speculation on the cause of the accident. The following causes were speculated by many experts prior to the release of the interim report: that the fuel provided was contaminated; that the pilots seat was not properly locked in and slid back; that the wing tales were down when they should have been up; it was a suicidal attempt; and there was a malfunction of fuel switch. However, post the report all but two above mentioned speculations were put to rest.
The reason for the accident brought out by the Report was with the fuel switch had been turned off leading to no fuel going into the two engines and consequently, the engines took off with the initial fuel which was within it. However, immediately after the take-off, as they got no fuel into the engines, it led to loss of thrust leading to its crash. The aircraft went nose down in the immediate neighbourhood which was fully built up, causing a huge fire and more deaths on ground.
We now need to take a view on the two hypothesis on the cause of this catastrophic accident. One view taken by Wall Street Journal(WSJ) and supported by individual aviation expert Capt Ranganathan that it was a suicidal attempt by one of the pilots because due to mental depression. Capt Ranganathan in his interview with NDTV has stated, without naming the pilot, that he had heard that one of them was depressed and therefore he deliberately switched of the two fuel switches sometime during take-off. The finger points to Commander Sameer Sabharwal as he had announced to his friends that he will be retiring soon to take care of his father.
However, Capt Sam Thomas who had personally known Commander Sameer Sabharwal stated that he vouched for his health. He further said that his only health issue was deficiency in Vitamin B12. The WSJ claimed that an undisclosed source from the US government also claimed it was a suicidal attempt by the Commander. However, no evidence has been put out by WSJ. The Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) which was found in tact, has been examined by the investigation team, has reported a conversation between the two pilots as follows: “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.” The Report does not identify which pilot spoke what, nor is the conversation between the two pilots considered unusual. The full transcript was never released. This leaves identification of pilots difficult. WSJ has cited assessment of US officials that the Black Box indicated that the Captain turned off the fuel switches. The three Pilots’ Unions of India are up in arms against WSJ and it is believed that they have filed a case against WSJ.
On the other hand, it may be pointed out that in a recent interview to Barkha Dutt, Mary Schiavo, a highly regarded and leading US aviation attorney and a former Inspector General of US Transport Department, who has fought many cases of air accidents, had mentioned that in 2019, the same type of aircraft i.e. Boeing 787 Dreamliner, belonging to All Nippon Airlines (ANA) of Japan had a similar incident on landing at Osaka airport when the fuel got switched off automatically. However, the difference was that, in case of Osaka, the aircraft was landing and not taking off. Therefore, fuel getting switched off did not lead to an accident. But it was a software glitch not a pilot error. She has categorically stated that it is incorrect to blame it on the pilot, till the possibility of aircraft fault is removed.
Coming to the Boeing Company, it is now well established that they were cutting corners in their manufacturing and not following their own laid out guidelines, thereby compromising safety in manufacturing aircrafts. Already a few whistleblowers have complained and were not treated well by the company. One committed suicide. The CEO of the company has had to face extreme grilling by Senator Hailey of US in a Senate hearing which is available for all to see on YouTube.
AAIB has called it ‘un verified’ and selective reporting. While the AAIB has not attributed the cause of the accident, the possibility of software/ chip malfunctioning is gaining ground due to Boeing 787 previous history as well as Boeing companies’ manufacturing lapses.
People are pointing towards vulnerability of critical design, system redundancy and regulatory oversight in the manufacturing of the aircrafts. Boeing 787 Dreamliner is marketed as fly by wire with triple redundancy aircraft. But it seems that at take-off there is zero redundancy – as there is no backup power or control protection. Airbus aircrafts, in comparison, in both A320neo and A350, are equipped with guarded fuel switches, flight phase aware interlocks and Full Authority Dual Emergency Control (FACED). Airbus also allows Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) to remain active or on standby during takeoff while Boeing 787 disables the APU during take-off and relies on delayed auto start which proved inadequate in this case.
Boeing introduced a new version of 737 series called Boeing 737 MAX in 2011 and it entered commercial service in January 2016. A little after its introduction two fatal accidents took place in 2018 and 2019 of Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines respectively. In the first instance, Boeing managed to put the blame on the pilot but after the second accident, when the deficiency of a new system/ software called MCAS, was proved that Boeing accepted their guilt and they agreed to pay of over $2.5 billion in penalties and settlements rather than face a court proceedings. The settlements were in particular tied to Boeing’s admission to concealment of safety issues regarding MCAS. If the above design flaws are established in present case of Boeing 787 Dreamliner, in particular in the fuel system, which is a greater possibility, it would lead to more severe penalties. As already stated, in 2019 a Boeing 787 Dreamliner belonging to All Nippon Airlines (ANA) of Japan had a similar incident when fuel switches got turned off automatically. However, the difference was that in this case as the Aircraft was landing and therefore fuel getting switched off did not lead to an accident. It was a software glitch.
With such active lobbying going on in US media to absolve Boeing of any mistake and therefore liability and reputation, because Boeing and its associated companies like engine and software suppliers will have to face heavy penalties and even criminal cases, both AAIB and NTBS have issued warnings with regards to speculative analysis. General GVG Yughandhar, DG AAIB issued an appeal on Thursday 17th July urging public to “refrain from spreading premature narratives repeatedly attempting to draw conclusions through selective and unverified reporting” and termed it as ‘irresponsible’. This has been followed by a statement from Jennifer Homendy, Chairwoman NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) of US cautioning its media on ‘premature and speculative’ media reports.
In spite of the above mentioned requests, Reuters reported on 24th July 2025 that Mr Bryan Bedford the head of Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) of USA has said on Thursday ( the same day) that the fatal crash of Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner ‘does not appear to be due to mechanical issue or inadvertent movement of fuel control unit or switches’ He has further stated, ‘we can say with high level of confidence it doesn’t appear to be a mechanical issue with the Boeing fuel control unit’. It is unfortunate that the FAA Administrator has made this statement when the inquiry into the accident is being conducted by a duly appointed Aviation Accident Inquiry Board (AAIB) and FAA along with Boeing, the manufacturing company have been associated. The issue of either the pilot error or a software glitch in this highly sophisticated aircraft is now becoming a matter of contention. If it is a manufacturing issue then the Boeing company along with its suppliers will be held responsible and it would lead to huge damages and loss of reputation.
The final AAIB report, which could take up to a year, as permitted by ICAO, will determine the cause of the accident. Both the possibilities of pilot error and defective software glitches are very much on the table. If software glitches are finally proved it will mean that Boeing and its associated companies will have to go in for serious litigation and pay huge compensation and penalties. But the interim period is very long and the possibility of another accident cannot be ruled out. It may be reiterated that in the case of B737 Max, in its first accident, Boeing had put the blame on the pilot but after the second crash they finally accept their fault due to introduction of new MCAS technology without providing training to the pilots. Then, all Boeing 737 MAX aircrafts were immediately grounded for some time.
There are over 1,100 B787 Dreamliners running with various airlines all over the world. It is therefore, not prudent to ground them as it will lead to major disruption of service. However, China had ordered no further intake of any new Boeing aircrafts into their country (since withdrawn), India could do something similar. It is for consideration of the DGCA India to defer any new Boeing aircraft into Indian Commercial fleet by any Indian airline till further orders.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sanat Kaul is Chairman, International Foundation for Aviation, Aerospace and Defence. He is a former civil servant, has worked with ICAO as India representative, a former JS in the ministry of civil aviation, GOI, and retired as secretary at the centre.
