On June 12, 2025, we saw an Air India Boeing 787 crash after takeoff from Ahmedabad, killing 260 people. This is the most fatal aviation accident globally in roughly a decade, the most fatal aviation accident in India in over three decades, and it’s also probably the most mysterious since MH370. What would cause a Boeing 787 to essentially fall out of the sky just seconds after takeoff?
Just under a month after the accident, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released its preliminary report into the crash. It confirms what had been reported earlier by Jon Ostrower at The Air Current, though in reality, it raises more questions than answers.
In this post:
AI171 fuel switches were turned off after takeoff
The AAIB has just released its preliminary report about the crash of Air India flight AI171, roughly 30 days after the accident, in line with international standards. Let me emphasize that this is just the preliminary report, and it’ll likely take months (if not years) until the final report is released.
The preliminary report primarily recaps the facts of the incident, though it contains some really interesting tidbits as well. Long story short, we know the crash happened because both of the engine fuel control switches were turned off just seconds after takeoff. Here are the facts that are contained in the report:
- The plane took off at 1:39PM local time, and achieved its maximum speed of 180 knots just three seconds after takeoff
- “Immediately thereafter,” the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from “RUN” to “CUTOFF,” one after the other, with a time gap of just one second; moving these switches starves the engines of fuel, so the plane lost power
- “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff,” and “the other pilot responded that he did not do so”
- Just 10 seconds after the engines were transitioned from “RUN” to “CUTOFF,” the engines were moved back to the “RUN” position, but at that point, it was too late to recover
This accident has become even more of a mystery
Obviously this preliminary report contains some major clues, though if anything, it only makes this even more of a mystery. What could possibly cause the fuel cutoff switches to be turned off just moments after takeoff? Tens of millions of commercial flights operate globally every year, and the Boeing 787 has been flying for over 15 years, and suffice it to say that something like this hasn’t happened before.
For some additional context, engine fuel control switches are ordinarily only adjusted on the ground, either when the engines are being started up or shut down. They can also be used in the air to shut down an engine, if there’s an engine failure. Switching the fuel control switch from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” immediately stops the fuel from flowing to the engine, causing the engine to immediately shut down, and lose thrust.
The fuel cutoff switches are located underneath the Dreamliner’s throttle handles, and are protected with brackets, to prevent their accidental movement. A metal stop lock mechanism also requires the crew to lift each switch past the stop in order to move it.
It’s anyone’s guess if what happened here was some horrible technological or mechanical failure, or if there were human factors involved. And if there were human factors, was it accidental, or was it intentional?
I find it interesting how the cockpit voice recorder reportedly recorded one of the pilots asking the other why he cut off the engines, and he responded that he didn’t:
- One wonders, did the pilot asking the other pilot why he did the cutoff actually see the cutoff happen, or he just assumed that if the cutoff switches were moved, it must have been the other pilot? Because he didn’t ask “if,” but instead, he asked “why”
- Did the actions of the other pilot support that he actually didn’t touch the switches, or was that just said on the cockpit voice recorder, to create deniability? Historically when pilots have tried to sabotage a plane, they’ve often tried to create deniability on the cockpit voice recorder
We honestly have absolutely no clue what caused this. There’s no answer here that will make the public feel any better, right?
- If one were to intentionally take down a plane, starving the engines of fuel just seconds after takeoff is certainly one way to do it; what a horrifying scenario that will no doubt make the travel public feel uneasy
- Conversely, if this was some technological issue, that’s perhaps even more frightening of a reality, that the engine cutoff switches could’ve just miraculously had their position switched at such a critical phase of flight
Obviously not all details of the investigation are public. However, it’s probably somewhat telling that no emergency safety directives have been issued about the jet, and the possibility of this happening. That suggests that at least as of now, investigators haven’t discovered any potential cause that they view as a repeatable problem.
Bottom line
The preliminary accident report has been released about AI171, the Air India Boeing 787 that crashed in Ahmedabad just moments after takeoff, killing 260 people.
We’ve now learned that just seconds after takeoff, the engine fuel control switches were turned from “RUN” to “CUTOFF,” starving the plane of fuel in its most critical phase of flight. The setting was changed back just 10 seconds later, but at such a critical point in the flight, there was no time to recover.
What caused the fuel control switches to be shut off? That’s a mystery. In the cockpit voice recorder, one of the pilots was heard asking the other pilot why he cut off the engines, but he claimed he didn’t. It’s hard to know what to make of that interaction without more context.
What do you make of this preliminary report into the crash of AI171?
Hope you police this thread for racism better than the last post's comment section. And also if you read the report it is very thorough for a 30 day post-accident initial report. Maybe this will cause some of the online travel bloggers obsessed with website content to revise their opinion of the AAIB?
@Andrew_M
We can live in hope. But we both know how he runs his blog: push credit cards, manufacture drama (e.g. his previous post whinging about supposed lack of communication from AAIB), stir up politics while maintaining plausible deniability, then sit back and watch the lemmings click click click. Bloggers need money because they don't have real jobs.
You have such a low opinion of Ben. That is too bad. He is clearly one of the good guys. Perhaps your comments reflect more about you.
seems likely to me that the pilot that asked "why" was probably the one that actually flipped the switches, that would make it less obvious to others that they were the actual culprit.
“… though in reality, it raises more questions than answers.”
Not really. While no cause has been confirmed, this eliminates MANY armchair aviator theories floating around the blogosphere. It wasn’t contaminated fuel, it wasn’t a bird strike, it wasn’t engine failure, it wasn’t wrong flap settings, it wasn’t a missile or bomb and it wasn’t sabotage (well, maybe that’s still undetermined).
Despite remaining unanswered questions, and the trite characterization in the post, many important early...
“… though in reality, it raises more questions than answers.”
Not really. While no cause has been confirmed, this eliminates MANY armchair aviator theories floating around the blogosphere. It wasn’t contaminated fuel, it wasn’t a bird strike, it wasn’t engine failure, it wasn’t wrong flap settings, it wasn’t a missile or bomb and it wasn’t sabotage (well, maybe that’s still undetermined).
Despite remaining unanswered questions, and the trite characterization in the post, many important early possibilities have been ruled out.
So basically (what would be DEI hires here) pilot error by third world “aviators”.
Racist much?
Geez
Not sure if you're trolling, have some sort of axe to grind against people who aren't necessarily Caucasian, or if you just genuinely believe that non-U.S. carriers aren't interested in either making money or having their planes and passengers arrive safely.
They weren't "aviators." They were certified pilots.
the report says that the FO was the pilot flying and the Captain was the observing.
The voices will be matched to each of the pilots, including who asked about the switches being moved and the pilot that responded that they didn't do it.
The switches are also designed to make a unique sound which can be heard on the cockpit voice recorder.
and the amount of time until a full report is issued will leave enormous doubt in the minds of consumers.
There was no one flying in the jump seat, as far as we know, right?
It's never been made clear. Seems not. However, doesn't really matter as in the 787 that seat is further back and would require a noticeable effort to get to the switches.
Regardless, you would think. there'd be a big red light underneath to indicate CUTOFF ... even if there was a fire and the engine was shut off in high altitude, you would think the pilot should get a visual clue as a reminder ...
if the switches are activated, bright red messages appear on the 787's cockpit screens.
the 787 also immediately attempts to restart the engines and the APU when fuel is restored. The report says this happened on this flight - but it all took place too close to the ground.
Wow the pilot said to the other why do you cut off the fuel.
To be clear, can the plane takeoff somehow if they had been in the off position on the ground? In other words, I assume they would need to allow fuel to the engine to take off at all, right?
If so, how can it be anything but intentional?
There are three possibilities:
1) Switches turned off by human on purpose to down the plane.
2) Switches turned off by human accident.
3) Switches somehow turned off mechanically.
But, in reality, #3 seems exceedingly unlikely, and it's very hard to imagine how #2 could happen.
Agreed. The reality is for a mechanical or accidental issue to happen exactly at the only critical moment where it would create this scenario is far too crazy. This was orchestrated at the precise moment needed to take the plane down. The only moment it could.
Novel way to intentionally bring a plane down, immediately after takeoff off. Heretofore all suicidal pilots crashed their planes from cruising altitudes.
My thoughts as well. An intentional saboteur might have waited. It's difficult to delve into a sick mind, but at 600 feet, it was possible more could have been saved.
It was the only moment it was critical. More speed and height and the plane could have been recovered. In fact, in the report it notes that the engines were spooling back four seconds later when the fuel switches were turned back on. If they had just a few more seconds, a little more speed, and a few hundred feet more they probably would have made it.
This is so much like the Indians.
a) Never admit your mistakes.
b) Blame the other Guy.
c) pretend it never happened.
d) They cannot handle alcohol.
But in this case something did happen and there is no way of getting out of this one.
By the way, so do The Pilot's Beneficiaries get any compensation?
Didn’t know the orange buffon in the white house is an Indian. He meets 3 of your 4 requirements.
@Ole
He is a close friend with the current Indian PM, so that must be why?
Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, us AVGeeks will most likely be getting more content on Mayday: Air Disaster from the Haneda Runway collision and the mid-air collision earlier this year, to this.
I suspected a dual engine flameout caused by fuel starvation from the beginning. And, sadly I suspected human error or human intent. The only question is the same one the pilot on the controls asked. ‘Why?’
I was just reading about the report. It does say, the second switch moved to CUTOFF within 1 second of the other. Based on where they are located and how they operate, is it humanly possible?
Yes with 2 hands they Can be operated simultaneously
Speculation would be irresponsible. None of us is an expert in this domain.
That won't stop complete and total morons from chiming in, just watch this comment section.
25 comments, uploaded two hours ago, yet you have 22 likes already.
Seems not suspicious at all.
glad for the late article for you and notable that India released this in the middle of the night there.
The 787's flight monitors immediately display bright red warnings if the fuel switches are turned off which is why the one pilot asked.
You can bet the phase of the investigation is not focused heavily on the pilots and any reasons why either of them would do this.
What seems certain is that...
glad for the late article for you and notable that India released this in the middle of the night there.
The 787's flight monitors immediately display bright red warnings if the fuel switches are turned off which is why the one pilot asked.
You can bet the phase of the investigation is not focused heavily on the pilots and any reasons why either of them would do this.
What seems certain is that there was no involuntary movement of the switches.
and, as I said before, Air India's huge international expansion looks very cloudy.
Thanks for the conclusion. I guess, we should inform AAIB, FAA, Boeing and GE not to bother with their investigation. Mr. Tim Dunn has identified the root cause.
as I noted soon after this happened, Boeing and GE both knew within hours that the fuel flow switches were cutoff.
As Ben notes, there were no required inspections of 787 switches outside of India and no service bulletins from either Boeing or GE.
The report was released in the middle of the night without a press conference.
It doesn't take a whole lot of gray matter to conclude that the switches were...
as I noted soon after this happened, Boeing and GE both knew within hours that the fuel flow switches were cutoff.
As Ben notes, there were no required inspections of 787 switches outside of India and no service bulletins from either Boeing or GE.
The report was released in the middle of the night without a press conference.
It doesn't take a whole lot of gray matter to conclude that the switches were moved by humans.
as I also said, there have been pilot suicide/ murder by aircraft and this was going to be one of the easiest to solve.
I will gladly admit I was wrong if someone proves that it wasn't human action - either one of the assigned pilots to that flight or someone else in the cockpit - but I don't think I will have to be apologizing to anyone
Why don’t you worry about how to spin Delta’s planned unbundling of Delta One. Everything else beyond your intelligence.
I will never understand why some of you people whine so much about this dude, but then when he actually stays on topic and contributes accordingly, YOUR dumb asses start to bring up Delta. Get a life.
His dumb ass concluded this as an intentional downing and that’s an issue. The report doesn’t indicate that. It is the most plausible explanation BUT it is NOT confirmed yet and that’s where I have an issue with him. Every time he acts like an ass, I’d call him out.
Rather than calling out others, tell him stop being an ass.
Ole is clearly ticked that someone else can think and do it faster than him.
Since this report was released - which coincided with national news broadcasts in the US - multiple aviation experts have said it is nearly impossible to accidently flip these two switches within 1 second of each other.
and Sarthak, below, ONE SECOND. that was time between when the two switches were moved from run to cutoff.
The return...
Ole is clearly ticked that someone else can think and do it faster than him.
Since this report was released - which coincided with national news broadcasts in the US - multiple aviation experts have said it is nearly impossible to accidently flip these two switches within 1 second of each other.
and Sarthak, below, ONE SECOND. that was time between when the two switches were moved from run to cutoff.
The return of those switches to their normal position 10 seconds later took 4 seconds between each switch.
the switches are designed to be difficult to accidently move. You have to pull it out and then move it.
Seems you don’t understand the difference between plausible and conclusion. I never said, this was accidental or there was a malfunction. But, unlike you, I also didn’t conclude this was intentional. A smart doesn’t jump to conclusions. Lack of evidence is not evidence AND Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I do not think it seems certain that involuntary movement can be ruled out with such few details. In fact, in that situation neither AI nor Boeing would be incentivized for anyone to know.
There's no way it moves involuntarily. The switch has a detent and is spring loaded. You have to squeeze the sides of the switch, lift up and over to whichever position you want it to go. It can only be done intentionally. It's designed that way for obvious reasons.