Air India AI171 crashed due to fuel cut off for both engines: report

New Delhi – The echoes of a pilot’s desperate question reverberate through the preliminary report of the Air India flight AI171 crash, painting a chilling picture of the final moments aboard the ill-fated Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner. “Why did you cut off [fuel]?” one pilot is heard asking, only to be met with a disbelieving “did not do so” from the other, just seconds before the aircraft plummeted to its fiery demise. This horrifying exchange, captured on the cockpit voice recorder, lies at the heart of an unfolding tragedy that claimed 241 lives, including former Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani, making it one of India’s deadliest aviation disasters in recent memory.

The preliminary findings, released amidst intense public scrutiny, offer a stark glimpse into the catastrophic sequence of events on that fateful June 12th. Both engines of the London-bound aircraft, it states, inexplicably shut down a mere second apart shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. This sudden and simultaneous loss of power sent the majestic Dreamliner spiraling downwards, its journey cut short by a brutal impact with a hostel building at BJ Medical College, just beyond the airport’s perimeter.

Investigators have swiftly ruled out external factors like bird strikes, shifting the spotlight onto an internal catastrophe. The report unequivocally states that “the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ position one after another with a time gap of one second.” This mechanical action, whether deliberate or accidental, choked the vital fuel supply to the engines, causing their N1 and N2 values to rapidly decrease from their take-off thrust. The visual evidence corroborates this grim assessment: CCTV footage from the airport captured the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) – an emergency power generator – deploying immediately after lift-off, a tell-tale sign of a critical power loss early in the flight.

The crucial question remains: what or who initiated this catastrophic fuel cutoff? The bewildering exchange between the pilots, where one denies an action the other seemingly observed, introduces a terrifying layer of uncertainty. Was it a moment of extreme disorientation? A system malfunction not immediately apparent? Or something far more complex?

Adding a disquieting dimension to the investigation is the re-emergence of a 2018 safety warning from the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) No. NM-18-33 specifically addressed a potential flaw in Boeing’s fuel control switches, noting reports from operators of Model 737 aircraft where the crucial locking feature, designed to prevent accidental engine shutdowns, was found disengaged. While the FAA did not deem this a condition warranting a mandatory airworthiness directive (AD), considering it advisory, its relevance to the AI171 crash is undeniable.

The preliminary report notes that the fuel control switch design, including its locking mechanism, is “similar on various Boeing airplane models, including part number 4TL837-3D, which is fitted in B787-8 aircraft VT-ANB,” the registration of the crashed Dreamliner. Pertinently, Air India, due to the advisory nature of the SAIB, did not carry out the suggested inspections. While maintenance records show the throttle control module on VT-ANB was replaced in both 2019 and 2023, these replacements were not linked to issues with the fuel control switch, and no defects pertaining to the fuel control switch had been reported since 2023 on the aircraft.

This information raises serious questions about the adequacy of advisory bulletins versus mandatory directives when it comes to potential safety hazards. Aviation experts are now debating whether the FAA’s decision not to mandate corrective action in 2018 was a critical oversight that might have contributed to this tragedy. “Advisory bulletins are important for raising awareness, but they often fall short of ensuring compliance, especially when they involve complex systems,” stated a veteran aviation safety consultant, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The burden of proof then shifts to the operator, and in a busy environment, non-mandatory checks can sometimes be overlooked or deferred.”

As the forward Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) data undergoes meticulous analysis, investigators are sifting through every piece of evidence, record, and information from all relevant stakeholders. At this nascent stage, no immediate safety actions have been recommended for the B787-8 aircraft or its GE GEnx-1B engines. However, the path forward is clear: a thorough and transparent investigation is paramount to understanding how a routine takeoff transformed into a nightmare.