Air India AI 171 Crash: Why the Investigation Needs Patience, Not Premature Judgement

The tragic crash of Air India flight AI 171 on June 12 has drawn intense international attention — but not all of it has been constructive. In the days leading up to the release of the preliminary investigation report, several Western media outlets published detailed leaks, speculating about technical failures and pilot actions. These premature narratives have triggered a strong pushback from India’s aviation authorities and global aviation experts alike.

The Media Leak Storm: Speculation Ahead of Evidence

On July 8, detailed claims began surfacing — reports suggested that the crash investigation was zeroing in on the manual fuel control switches in the Boeing 787 cockpit, implying that pilot error might have played a role. Over the next several days, more outlets followed with claims based on cockpit voice recordings and data from the aircraft's black box, further fueling speculation.

These media reports came before the preliminary report was made public — raising serious concerns about the reliability and motives behind the leaks.

AAIB’s Firm Response: Facts, Not Fiction

India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) responded firmly. In a letter dated July 17, its Director-General appealed for restraint and stressed that the investigation was being conducted in accordance with the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017, and international protocols set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

The letter highlighted AAIB’s “flawless record” in investigating 92 accidents and 111 serious incidents since its formation in 2012. It criticized the selective and speculative reporting by parts of the international press, calling such actions irresponsible and damaging.

The AAIB clarified that its preliminary report only states what happened — not why. The final report, which is still under preparation, will address root causes and suggest safety improvements.

International Backing for a Fair Process

The Director of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) publicly backed AAIB’s appeal, describing the media leaks as “premature and speculative.” She emphasized that investigations of this magnitude require time, expertise, and a commitment to accuracy.

Indian pilot unions have also responded strongly, indicating they may pursue legal action for reputational damage. International pilot federations have similarly urged all parties to avoid hasty judgments and respect the integrity of the investigative process.

Inside the Preliminary Report: What Do We Know So Far?

The preliminary report, released on July 12, focuses on a key event: the transition of the engine 1 and engine 2 fuel cutoff switches from “Run” to “Cutoff” within a second of each other — effectively shutting down both engines.

According to the cockpit voice recording, one pilot can be heard asking the other, “Why did you cut off?” — to which the second pilot replies that he did not. Roughly 10 seconds later, the switches were turned back to “Run”, and the aircraft's digital systems automatically initiated a relight process to recover engine thrust. A Mayday call followed.

Interestingly, the report makes no safety recommendations against the aircraft (Boeing 787), engine (GE GEnx-1B70/P2), or their manufacturers — a decision that has drawn criticism from aviation experts and pilot bodies, who feel potential system vulnerabilities were overlooked.

A Deeper Mystery: The Role of the Fuel Control Switches

At the heart of the crash investigation lie the manual fuel control switches, which are mechanical-electrical hybrids — designed to be operated only by pilots, with no possibility of external interference.

Aviation experts have pointed out that the Boeing 787 features a highly digitized system with real-time health monitoring. Had there been a software anomaly, it would have been flagged instantly by the aircraft’s automated diagnostics and sent to both Boeing and the engine manufacturer. The lack of such alerts further points to the manual nature of the incident — raising more questions than answers.

Safety Measures in Motion

Following the crash, India’s aviation regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), issued fresh directives:

Air India was instructed to conduct enhanced inspections on its Boeing 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft, particularly focusing on electrical, hydraulic, and propulsion systems.

Airlines were directed to inspect the locking mechanism of the fuel control switches on Boeing 737 and 787 aircraft, based on earlier advisories by international aviation authorities regarding potential disengagement issues.

Several airlines have since undertaken precautionary checks on their Boeing 787 fleets.

Calls for Better Tools, Not Just Blame

Amidst the investigation, global aviation leaders have renewed the call for video recorders in cockpits to aid future accident investigations. Though a controversial issue for decades, the lack of visual data from flight decks has long been seen as a missing piece in many complex crash investigations.

In Search of Irrefutable Truth

Ultimately, aviation investigations are not courtroom dramas or media trials — they are technical, meticulous, and governed by international standards. The goal is not to assign blame but to uncover the truth and ensure safer skies for the future.

The Air India AI 171 crash deserves nothing less than a full, fair, and transparent investigation. While the media may chase headlines, the aviation world knows better: truth takes time — and only through patience, professionalism, and precision can that truth emerge.

Let us respect the process, not rush to conclusions. A tragedy deserves clarity — not conjecture.