Air India crash probe raises questions, not conclusions -experts urge caution amid ongoing probe
New Delhi, Jul 13: More than a month after the tragic crash of Air India Flight 171 in Ahmedabad that killed 260 people, including 19 on the ground, a preliminary investigation report has begun to shed some light. Still, it has also raised a host of complex questions. Newspapers across India and abroad have prominently reported on the findings, which centre on the abrupt shutdown of both engines just seconds after take-off, triggered by the unexpected movement of the aircraft’s fuel control switches.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), in its 15-page preliminary report, states that both engines lost power within a second of each other after the fuel-control switches flipped from "RUN" to "CUTOFF", a move typically made only after landing. According to The Indian Express, these are the “two most crucial aspects” of the crash: the sudden fuel cutoff and the cryptic cockpit dialogue that followed.
A brief exchange captured in the cockpit voice recorder has added to the mystery. One pilot is heard asking, “Why did you cut off?” to which the other replies, “I did not.” The report does not specify who said what, and crucially, no full transcript has yet been made public. As CNN reported, this detail "answers one key question – but raises others."
At the time of take-off, the co-pilot, Clive Kunder, was flying the aircraft, while Captain Sumeet Sabharwal was monitoring the flight. Both had passed pre-flight tests and had adequate rest, according to the report. There were no prior technical issues reported with the fuel control module, which had been replaced twice in recent years for unrelated reasons.
Multiple aviation experts have expressed concern and confusion over how the switches could have moved during flight. As BBC News quoted a Canada-based air crash investigator: “It would be almost impossible to pull both switches with a single movement of one hand… this makes accidental deployment unlikely.” A veteran air safety specialist cited by CNN, said it would be “bizarre” for a pilot to deliberately shut off fuel to both engines just after take-off. “There is no scenario on the planet where you’d do that immediately after lift-off,” he noted.
The design of the switches adds to the puzzle. They are protected by brackets and equipped with locking mechanisms that require deliberate effort to disengage, typically a two-step process. This has led many, including The Hindu and NDTV, to highlight a lingering technical question: could there have been a malfunction in the locking feature?
Indeed, a 2018 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) issued by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had warned about potential disengagement of this very locking feature, albeit in Boeing 737 aircraft. As the switch design is the same in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner that crashed, some are now questioning why the recommendation wasn't enforced more rigorously. As Hindustan Times noted, the advisory wasn’t mandatory, and Air India, like many other carriers, did not carry out the suggested inspections.
Adding to the uncertainty, the report states that the wreckage showed both switches back in the "RUN" position, indicating that the crew tried to restore power. While one engine began regaining thrust, the aircraft, then at a dangerously low altitude, didn’t have enough time or lift to avoid impact.
Other technical aspects have been noted too. The aircraft’s Ram Air Turbine (RAT) and Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) both activated — a sign of complete engine failure. Despite the automatic systems functioning as designed, the response window was far too narrow to recover.
As one of the leading newspapers underlined in a recent editorial, “It is imperative to avoid a rush to judgment before full data, transcripts, and technical assessments are available.” The same sentiment was echoed by another newspaper, which noted the absence of cockpit video recordings, something that the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has long recommended for precisely such scenarios.
The AAIB has said the final report may take up to a year, though it could arrive sooner, given the level of detail already made public. Meanwhile, what remains is a long list of unanswered questions: Was it pilot error, a technical malfunction, or some rare confluence of both? How did both switches move in such close succession? Could a previously identified design issue have contributed? And why wasn’t more done after the FAA bulletin?
At this stage, there is much that investigators are still piecing together. As The Hindu rightly points out, “It is premature to fix accountability when key evidence is still under analysis.”
Let us all have patience until the full investigation report is out. The focus should remain on supporting the ongoing inquiry that will not only help in reviewing global safety protocols but also bring out lessons learned from the tragedy. We should in no case draw too quick conclusions. Also, do think of the families of the victims. A tragedy of this scale demands both accountability and clarity, but above all, patience and humanity.
