Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner Crash: 6 Months Later, Investigation Still Raises Questions About Fuel Switch Malfunction

Air India flight 171 departed at 1:38 pm, but what triggered the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crash that claimed 260 lives? Six months later, investigators have not provided conclusive answers, creating tensions between pilots, the airline, and Boeing.

Following international protocols, India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report one month after the June 12 tragedy, when the aircraft burst into flames shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad in western India.

While the report presented technical details, the investigation continues with many questions unanswered.

The ill-fated Air India flight 171 took off at 1:38 pm from Ahmedabad airport carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, headed for London Gatwick Airport.

Within less than a minute, the aircraft crashed into buildings at a medical university campus just hundreds of meters from the runway.

Video evidence shows the aircraft taking off but failing to gain sufficient altitude before crashing in an explosive fireball.

The disaster resulted in 241 fatalities among the 242 people aboard and 19 deaths on the ground.

Only a single passenger survived, suffering severe injuries.

The victims included 200 Indians, 52 British nationals, seven Portuguese citizens, and one Canadian.

The AAIB report published July 12 revealed that fuel supply switches for both engines were almost simultaneously moved to the "off" position immediately after takeoff.

"In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off (the fuel supply). The other pilot responded that he did not do so," according to the report.

The aircraft subsequently began losing altitude.

The report also indicates that an auxiliary power unit, designed to provide emergency power during engine failure, activated automatically.

Less than 10 seconds later, both switches were returned to the "on" position.

Immediately after, "one of the two pilots" managed to transmit "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" before the crash occurred.

The 15-page document does not specify whether the fuel switches were turned off due to pilot action or some type of malfunction.

The report faced immediate and substantial criticism upon publication.

Pilot associations argue that the paraphrased dialogue between the captain and co-pilot implies possible human error without presenting concrete evidence.

They also noted that the AAIB did not recommend any control measures for the aircraft or its engines at that stage—effectively dismissing the possibility of technical failure or maintenance issues.

A heated dispute emerged between victims' families, lawyers, and pilots on one side, and the airline and manufacturer on the other.

The case reached the Supreme Court when the father of one pilot filed a petition.

Pushkaraj Sabharwal, 91, father of pilot Sumeet Sabharwal, described the preliminary investigation as "profoundly flawed."

In his petition, reviewed by AFP, he contended that it appeared to "predominantly focus on the deceased pilots, who are no longer able to defend themselves, while failing to examine or eliminate other more plausible technical and procedural causes of the crash."

British lawyer Sarah Stewart, representing approximately 50 victims' families, also supports a scenario not implicating the pilots.

"The factual information raises a troubling spectre that this accident may have been caused by uncommanded fuel cut off, suggesting a possible failure in the Boeing systems," she stated.

Air India CEO Campbell Wilson claimed in a September 10 speech that the "preliminary report indicates nothing wrong with the aircraft, nothing wrong with the engines, nothing wrong with the airline's operation."

Some experts challenge this perspective.

"There were electrical faults reported before the crash on this plane," former commercial pilot Amit Singh, founder of Safety Matters Foundation, told AFP.

"The narrative of the report is built in such a way that the reader tends to believe that the pilots are responsible" even though "a lot of the data presented are not sourced," he observed.

He warned the final report "could be manipulated."

Aviation expert Mark Martin takes an even stronger position, calling it a "cleverly designed cover-up."

"Boeing did exactly the same after the 737 MAX crashes—they blamed the pilots," he said regarding the 2018 and 2019 accidents, pointing out that subsequent investigations uncovered a design flaw.

"Boeing cannot afford to take the blame for the crash," Martin added.

When contacted by AFP, the US aircraft manufacturer declined to comment.