On June 12th, 2025, an Indian Airlines flight bearing flight number AI171 bound to London, UK from Ahmedabad, India, crashed, killing every...
On June 12th, 2025, an Indian Airlines flight bearing flight number AI171 bound to London, UK from Ahmedabad, India, crashed, killing everyone onboard, barring one miraculous passenger who survived.
The death toll was even higher, as it crashed on top of several buildings of a medical college & hospital, which it crashed on. The black box was recovered, & the investigation was pursued jointly by several agencies from India, the USA, Canada, Boeing (aircraft manufacturer), and other agencies.
Yesterday, on July 12th, 2025, an Indian agency AAIB released a preliminary report, and there was a lot of speculation on the internet among netizens. Some of the comments from the videos below raise some serious concerns over the incident.
Comment 1:
Once the fuel switches were turned off, one was turned on after 10 secs and the other after 14 secs. That's a lot of time. Once the sane pilot realized that the fuel switches were off, why did he take so much time to turn them back on?
Comment 2:
The suggestion that a "fuel cutoff switch" was accidentally activated within seconds after takeoff, leading to engine failure, is indeed highly unusual and warrants scrutiny.
Modern aircraft like the Boeing 787 use Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) systems. Engine fuel supply is digitally regulated, and manual overrides (like a fuel cutoff) require deliberate, multi-step confirmation. A pilot cannot accidentally kill fuel to both engines with a simple single motion unless he activates both engine cutoff switches or there’s a software malfunction or wiring fault.
Therefore, I refuse to believe that a single, accidental switch activation during a highly procedural takeoff sequence led to dual engine shutdown on a digitally controlled aircraft without confirmation layers.
Comment 3:
I've been watching many videos about the Preliminary Report. Yours is by far the best as you have taken the trouble of adding visuals. So thank you.
Sad to know that someone manipulated those switches. Rip all those who perished.
1 reply
At this point we do not know if the fuel cut off switches were manipulated manually.
Comment 4:
Three possibilities:
1. Suicide pilot -- Going to take everyone with him. Has happened before!
2. The mechanical switch interlocks were broken -- Both of them -- Seems remote
3. Are the fuel cutoff switches "Hard Wired" to the fuel flow valves or just an input to other electrical devices, computer, low current to high current amplification......Something that could stop the fuel flow with the physical switches still in the "On" position?
If I had to put money on the table without full knowledge of how the system is designed, I would go with number 1or 3. More likely #1. Sad, but it has happened before.
Also, I concur, a stupid place to put a switch that will probably never be used and has catastrophic consequences if accidently used.
Republic TV's discussion on this report with Group Captain Anant Mathur, a former test pilot at the Indian Air Force and now a pilot trainer in commercial aviation for over a decade, had his explanation on the accident & its preliminary report.
Capt. Anant Mathur highlighted how & which of the systems could fail under certain circumstances, being it a very complex logical decision with both electronics & mechanical systems; he also highlighted it would be very difficult to come to any definitive conclusions without full information & data. However, he made it very clear that it would be really shallow to put the blame onto the pilots in command and conclude without proving it with real hard data.
Air India Crash Report: Did the Ahmedabad Crash Happen Due To Tech Glitch or Human Error? | Explained
The shocking crash of Air India flight AI-171, which claimed at least 270 lives on June 12, has taken a chilling turn, as experts point to potential sabotage as a line of investigation.
According to the preliminary report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), both engines of the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner shut down almost immediately after takeoff from Ahmedabad airport.
Investigators found that the Flight Data Recorder (black box) recorded the fuel cutoff switches in the cockpit shifted from the “RUN” to the “CUTOFF” position within a second of each other, effectively choking fuel supply to the engines. However, the positions of the switch from the debris recovered were in RUN position.
"Captain Sabharwal and his co-pilot, using their years of experience, tried to relight the engines… Since it takes time, they couldn’t do it. If it had happened at an altitude above 4,000 feet, the engine could have been restored immediately. How and why this happened will be known through further investigation,” he added.
The preliminary report into the June 12 Air India AI-171 crash in Ahmedabad confirms that both engines shut down within moments of takeoff, with the fuel cutoff switches moving from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ almost simultaneously, within one second of each other.
Captain Ross Aimer's analysis in Newx-X channel.
All of these above analysis, opinions & inputs from the industry experts, we can understand on what could have been the issue with the AI-171 crash.
So to understand this matter of facts, opinions, explanations & data available so far, see below.
- Investigators found that the Flight Data Recorder (black box) recorded the fuel cutoff switches in the cockpit shifted from the “RUN” to the “CUTOFF” position within a second of each other
- To this action, Group Capt. Anant Mathur also highlighted that the GE engine control system could have done the act of shutting off the fuel supply to the engines, as the sensor that records the switch positions happens at the sensors located with the GE engine hardware.
- a
FADEC in Wikipedia
Advantages
- Automatic engine protection against out-of-tolerance operations
- Safer as the multiple channel FADEC computer provides redundancy in case of failure
- Care-free engine handling, with guaranteed thrust settings
- Ability to use single engine type for wide thrust requirements by just reprogramming the FADECs
- Provides semi-automatic engine starting
- Provides high-idle control appropriate for piston engine warmup
- Better systems integration with engine and aircraft systems
- Can provide engine long-term health monitoring and diagnostics
- Number of external and internal parameters used in the control processes increases by one order of magnitude
- Reduces the number of parameters to be monitored by flight crews
- Due to the high number of parameters monitored, the FADEC makes possible "Fault Tolerant Systems" (where a system can operate within required reliability and safety limitation with certain fault configurations)
Disadvantages
- Full authority digital engine controls have no form of manual override available, placing full authority over the operating parameters of the engine in the hands of the computer.
- If a total FADEC failure occurs, the engine fails.
- Upon total FADEC failure, pilots have no manual controls for engine restart, throttle, or other functions.
- Single point of failure risk can be mitigated with redundant FADECs (assuming that the failure is a random hardware failure and not the result of a design or manufacturing error, which may cause identical failures in all identical redundant components).
- High system complexity compared to hydromechanical, analogue or manual control systems
- High system development and validation effort due to the complexity
- Whereas in crisis (for example, imminent terrain contact), a non-FADEC engine can produce significantly more than its rated thrust, a FADEC engine will always operate within its limits.
Read the full information about FADEC in Wikipedia here in this link.
The Wikipedia article should make one understand that the engine control is in full authority with the FADEC system, & if it has full authority, it is assumed that it has more logic ability to make decisions in such circumstances for a better outcome; however, it seems not in this case. Let's assume for a moment that one or both of the crew were suicidal and they intentionally did it during such a critical phase of the flight, when the risk is maximum. Then the obvious question is raised: Why did the FADEC allow it to happen? Wasn't the FADEC is supposed to be foolproof in such a scenario?
No comments