New Delhi: On June 12, Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, departed from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at 1:39 pm, bound for London Gatwick. Within just 32 seconds of takeoff, the aircraft crashed into a nearby medical hostel, claiming the lives of 241 passengers and crew on board and 19 people on the ground. Only one passenger—a British-Indian man seated in Row 11A—survived. This tragedy marked the first fatal crash involving a Boeing 787 since its commercial introduction in 2011.
A preliminary investigation into the crash, conducted by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), has revealed a chilling sequence of events that unfolded in a matter of seconds. The probe highlights a mix of technical anomalies and cockpit confusion, while also raising questions about possible mechanical failure or human error.
Flight data retrieved from the aircraft’s Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder shows that the takeoff was routine. The aircraft reached a takeoff speed of 153 knots (approximately 283 km/h) and continued to climb, peaking at an airspeed of 180 knots (around 333 km/h). Flap settings and landing gear positions were standard for departure. Weather conditions were clear, visibility was high, and there was no indication of bird activity or turbulence.
Yet, almost immediately after liftoff, the fuel control switches for both engines moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” within a second of each other. These switches are critical; they control the fuel supply to the engines. Their sudden movement halted the fuel flow, leading to a rapid loss of thrust and initiating a descent from which the aircraft never recovered.
The cockpit voice recorder captured a brief but revealing exchange between the pilots. One of them asked, “Why did you cut off?” The other replied, “I didn’t.” This moment of confusion has become central to the investigation. The design of the Boeing 787’s fuel switches makes accidental activation unlikely. Each switch must be lifted and pulled down deliberately, and the two switches are spaced a few inches apart. Despite this, both moved to the “CUTOFF” position within a single second.
This raises critical questions: Was it an error? Miscommunication? Or something else entirely?
Realizing the loss of thrust, the pilots acted swiftly. Within 10 seconds, they moved both switches back to the “RUN” position to restore engine power. Engine 1 responded positively—its core speed stabilized and began to recover. Engine 2 also showed signs of ignition but failed to regain full thrust.
The flight data indicates that the thrust levers remained in the forward position throughout the descent, though they were later found near idle in the wreckage. Meanwhile, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a small emergency propeller that automatically deploys during engine failure to power essential systems, was activated. Airport CCTV footage confirmed its deployment. However, while RAT can supply hydraulic and electrical power, it cannot generate thrust.
Despite partial recovery of one engine, the aircraft did not gain enough altitude or speed to recover. At 1:39:32 pm, just 0.9 nautical miles from the runway, the aircraft slammed into a residential hostel, sparking a massive fireball.
The AAIB’s report, compiled with assistance from data recovered from heavily damaged flight recorders, is now focusing on the reason behind the fuel cutoff. Three main possibilities are being examined.
The first is human action—whether deliberate or accidental. The cockpit exchange suggests neither pilot acknowledged moving the switches. Experts highlight that moving both switches would require intentional physical action, not a casual or mistaken gesture.
The second possibility is mechanical failure—whether a malfunction in the aircraft systems or control logic caused the switches to move without human input. So far, no evidence has confirmed this theory, but it has not been ruled out.
The third theory examines whether external factors disrupted fuel flow despite the switches remaining in the “RUN” position. However, investigators have found no indication of such a scenario. Fuel quality was verified, and the aircraft had no history of system faults or warnings related to engine performance prior to the incident.
Other factors, including bird strikes, poor weather, or sabotage, have been ruled out. The Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) did activate in an automatic attempt to relight the engines, but it played a limited role in the recovery process.
With the final report still pending, the preliminary findings underline a haunting mystery: a modern, healthy aircraft with qualified pilots and ideal flying conditions crashed just seconds after takeoff—all because both engines lost fuel supply in a move that seemingly no one made. The investigation continues to search for answers behind what triggered one of the most shocking aviation disasters in India’s recent memory.
