New Delhi: The preliminary report into the tragic crash of Air India flight AI171, which claimed 260 lives on June 12, has triggered a fierce debate in aviation circles. At the heart of the controversy is whether the aircraft’s fuel switches were manually moved from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ — an action that would result in complete engine shutdown — or if a technical malfunction caused the deadly failure. Adding to the intrigue is a media report that surfaced just before the official findings, suggesting pilot error, which has raised questions about narrative shaping and accountability.
One aviation expert claimed that the fuel switches can only be moved manually, requiring a physical pull, and cannot transition on their own. He pointed out that the switches “transitioned” during the takeoff phase, which he argued implies deliberate action. While he did not accuse the pilot of intentionally causing the crash, he mentioned that one of the pilots had a medical history and had recently returned from medical leave. He also called for the full Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) to be made public for transparency and clarity.
However, many experienced pilots and professionals strongly disagreed. One senior Dreamliner pilot explained that in modern aircraft, systems are capable of electronically shutting off fuel even if switches remain in the ‘RUN’ position. He noted that a critical failure, like a dual engine shutdown, could have occurred due to a software or electronic system issue. The early deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup power source, was also seen as a sign that something went wrong during rotation — within seconds of takeoff.
Another veteran pilot dismissed the theory of manual sabotage, calling it far-fetched. He pointed to cockpit dialogue recorded in the report — “Why did you cut off?” and “I didn’t” — as indicative of surprise rather than intent. He further explained that in the case of engine failure, pilots may attempt to reset electronic engine controls by recycling the fuel switches. This process, he said, would explain the switches being returned to ‘RUN’ shortly before a ‘MAYDAY’ call was made.
Additional technical details were also highlighted by another expert, who explained why the aircraft’s landing gear did not retract. Modern aircraft use squat switches to detect whether they are airborne. If the system wrongly senses the plane is still on the ground, the gear won’t retract, even if commanded. This could point to an electrical or system fault, not a manual failure.
Other experts emphasized the need for transparency and the release of all cockpit and flight data. According to flight data, the switches were moved from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’, then returned to ‘RUN’ within seconds. A distress call followed shortly after. Some believe the crew may have been trying to restart the engines, not shut them down intentionally.
The debate has also shifted toward the motivations behind the emerging narratives. Some aviation professionals have questioned who benefits from suggesting pilot error. Shifting blame to human action may protect aircraft manufacturers and insurers from liability. They also expressed concern over how quickly the narrative of deliberate pilot action was picked up internationally, warning it could unfairly influence public opinion.
The report also acknowledged a previously known advisory regarding a possible issue with fuel switch locking mechanisms, but there was no evidence that thorough inspections had been conducted. Official sources have stated that the switches are safe and do not warrant a new safety directive.
As the investigation continues and families wait for answers, the absence of clear evidence in the preliminary report has left many with more questions than closure. Only one passenger survived the crash and is still recovering from the trauma. There are growing calls for the full release of all voice recordings and data to determine whether the cause was human error, mechanical failure, or a tragic combination of both.
