Jon Ostrower’s The Air Current is reporting that the crash of Air India flight 171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick on June 12 may have been an intentional act. The Boeing 787 failed to gain altitude, crashing into a neighborhood 32 seconds after takeoff, reaching just over 600 feet. 241 of the 242 people onboard died, along with 19 people on the ground.
Air India Dreamliner crash flight AI171
A sad day for aviation @AirNavRadar
— Flight Emergency (@FlightEmergency) June 12, 2025
Air India AI171, a 787-8 Dreamliner, with around 242 passengers on board has reportedly crashed near Ahmedabad airport during take off. More details to follow. pic.twitter.com/k4HBIRHlQg
— Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) June 12, 2025
The plane’s Ram Air Turbine, or RAT, deploys automatically to provide power when the plane’s engines fail. It was deployed. The question is why the engines failed, and reporting is a focus on pilots cutting off fuel. It’s not inconceivable that seems highly unlikely to have been an accident or never before seen glitch with the aircraft or engines.
Fuel control switches are moved at engine start and shutdown at the beginning and end of a flight, or to manually shut down and then potentially restart an engine midflight in a rare engine failure event. Cutting off fuel would shut down an engine and cause the plane to lose thrust, and isn’t something that could plausibly be done accidentally.
The investigation into the Air India flight 171 crash is focusing on the movement of the engine fuel control switches, following an analysis of the Boeing 787′s flight and voice data recorders, aviation industry publication the Air Current reported Tuesday, citing people with… pic.twitter.com/3oX3fY8Dx6
— Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) July 9, 2025
While properly hedged – “It is not known to TAC whether one or both of the fuel control switches for the GE engines in the cockpit were moved in the moments after takeoff from Runway 23 in Ahmedabad”) – Ostrower reports on a focus that shutting down engines by cutting off fuel may have been the cause of the crash.
There is not, apparently, a belief that there was a mechanical or design flaw in the plane or its engines. There is also reportedly no evidence “of fuel contamination or improper retraction of the aircraft’s flaps” which were both early areas of speculation.
And the lack of warnings or recommendations to airlines by either Boeing or GE in the two weeks since the plane’s black boxes were read suggests that mechanical failure isn’t at issue. There haven’t been any urgent recommendations from safety regulators, either.
If fuel was cut off to the engines, some of the possibilities include:
- Pilot suicide
- Actual loss of thrust, leading to pilots cycling the engines by cutting off fuel and restarting the engines (but the cockpit voice recorder would have revealed this plan)
- Pilots mistakenly believing they’d lost thrust and needed to do this (again, would have been revealed by the voice recorder)
- Activation of both fuel cutoff switches on their own, without pilot action (hard to fathom)
- Accidental fuel cutoff (seemingly mechanically impossible)
It will take some time to determine the actual cause of the crash and “[t]he focus of nvestigators could change during that time” however the flight data recorder will reveal the position of the fuel control switches.
Woah. Would not have guessed this was ‘intentional.’ If true, that’s really disturbing. Hope they aren’t merely scapegoating the pilot(s).
Do cockpits need video in addition to voice and control recording now?
Video cams are in public bus and in many school buses
What if they were in the planes of 911 would we know more today?
Some reliable sources are reporting possibility that someone was in the jumpseat. If true thats a whole can of worms
Here’s my concern (yes, this is a bit conspiratorial): Let’s say there is an underlying problem, say corruption (like, fuel contamination), or something more nefarious (targeted VIP on-board), or a bigger issue with the engines (uh oh, General Electric), or the aircraft (ah, Boeing). Sure, much easier to just say, welp, let’s cover this up with a ‘depressed pilot,’ time to move on, sorry.
Even after all these years, we still really do not know what happened with MH370 (was it pilot suicide, hijacking, mechanical failure, hypoxia?) Still, they have not found that aircraft or much of its debris. Regardless, I feel for the families of the victims who just want answers and closure. As an industry, those answers are helpful to prevent future harms. I agree; I want less ‘narrative’ and more ‘truth’ here.
Anyway… pardon my ‘droning on’… feel free to call me silly names and attack me personally as a consolation if that makes you feel any better.
We will know more only when the timeline of any flight deck actions is released.
If the fuel control switches were indeed both moved to the shutoff position, did that happen BEFORE the thrust loss – so we’d have the obvious “what happened” and need to still figure out the why… pure pilot error? Pilot suicide? Sabotage by a relief pilot?
If the switches were moved AFTER the thrust loss, it could have been a desperate attempt at a relight, even without any verbal discussion or command for checklist procedures.
More will be revealed soon – but the likelihood that pilot action is what caused this fits the fact that Boeing and CFM (who both probably have a good idea of the sequence of events, within hours of the accident, based on streamed aircraft and engine health monitoring data) have been “radio silent” to date with other operators of the 787. Neither have issued any urgent bulletins for inspections, changes, etc. No administrative body (FAA, EASA, etc.) has sought to modify procedures nor grounded the aircraft either. With previous planes (with the need for a fundamental design change, discovered once the plane is certified and flying – i.e. DC-10 and cargo door, 737 Max and MCAS, etc.) the governing agencies have typically acted in some degree sooner than now after a crash.
It looks like a perfectly airworthy aircraft was forced down by what the pilots did – the hardest mystery will be if it was deliberate act or an incompetent one.
Fuel for thought.
I assumed 10% chance it was Chinese sabotage. Let’s see what they find
Am seeing on X that a 3rd pilot might have been in cockpit and that neither Captain nor FO was aware of the fuel cutoff switch activation.
this could have been a life-ending accident for the Air India brand.
Wow! As stated in this report, The Indian accident investigators, Boeing, and GE know. Let’s see what comes out from the Indian team on Friday. Doesn’t look good for one of those pilots.
@1990, the leaked preliminary report found no fuel contamination.
A mayday call is inconsistent with an intentional act. It is unlikely that the pilot who issued the mayday call committed an intentional act. Leaving the other pilot in question.
Even if the fuel cutoff ends up being the cause and even if it was purely accidental and even if the pilots restarted fuel flow, given the circumstances, I don’t think you get power back to the motors in time to successfully recover. (I’ve flown aircraft that have the fuel cutoff on the main panel, which makes “accidental” very difficult to do and to not notice.)
And here I was thinking “MCAS II – Boeing $9/hr contractor boogaloo.”
@Denver. Lots of pilot error in both Lion Air and the Ethiopian crash.
@Lee — I’m with you. Will be following.
@Coffee Please — We’ve been through this before; while it’s easy to simply ‘blame the pilots,’ however, officially and objectively, both the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes were caused by a faulty automated flight control system, MCAS on the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft. So, no, those incidents were not ‘pilot error,’ but I expect you’ll keep saying it is anyway. How much does Boeing pay you? Psh.
@1990 – Unless it was a defect in the FADEC system (or associated software) this time.
Boeing has no particular monopoly on corner-cutting…
@Denver Refugee — If so, then let’s get it ‘fix’ it. Again, I’m skeptical when some immediately blame the pilots and attempt to ‘move on’ so quickly. Lion 610 was October 29, 2018; Ethiopian 302 was March 10, 2019; the ‘grounding’ of the Max didn’t happen until after the second incident. Had Boeing and investigators identified and resolved the MCAS issue in late 2018, that could have saved the 157 people on-board ET302. I trust investigators know this and are working tirelessly so we do not have another incident with 787 engines or FADEC, for instance, if that is the ultimate cause.
@1990. Yes we have been this before. I asked you back then if you read AW&ST. You said you were aware of it but I think it is fair to say you don’t read it. So I’m going to point you in a different direction. Flight Safety Detectives pod cast by ex NTSB investigator Greg Feith would be worth your time. I haven’t listened in years now but he had some excellent information regarding the Lion Air crash that wasn’t mentioned in AW&ST. Now the Ethiopian pilots still screwed up even after bulletins were issued by Boeing following Lion Air. Those pilots got airborne and never reduced power beyond takeoff thrust. The jet continued to accelerate and accelerate and accelerate. Trim inputs continued. Let me ask you this 1990, does the term “runaway stabilizer trim’” mean anything to you? What are pilots taught to do in f unwanted trim inputs happen on the aircraft? Now go listen to that podcast. You might learn something.
@Coffee Please — Oh, so you’re a fan of MSNBC’s ‘aviation expert,’ are you? Progress!
As for the pod, yes, Episode 14, also with co-host, John Goglia, also former NTSB, who is in HBO’s second season of The Rehearsal with Nathan Fielder, which I’ve promoted on here before as a must-watch for aviation enthusiasts (it focuses on the lack of assertiveness in co-pilots when communicating with the pilot in command during potentially dangerous situations.)
So, as to the substance of your (and Feith’s) assertion that ‘human error’ superseded Boeing’s culpability, I still reject that claim, as do the official reports. Yes, better training and experience do matter. However, once again, the underlying problem with the Max before the corrections were made is that Boeing pushed out the Max quickly, selling it to airlines as not requiring new pilot certification. Ultimately, international pilots were less prepared (practically, set up to fail.) Boeing put profits over people. That’s the story with the Max. It’s still upsetting to many who care.
1990 says: So, as to the substance of your (and Feith’s) assertion that ‘human error’ superseded Boeing’s culpability, I still reject that claim, as do the official reports.
Agreed. Even if pilot error was a factor it happened in a very short time frame at two different airlines so it is very simple. The product needs to be safe for all customers and their pilots to operate It obviously wasn’t. End of story.
I am glad the 787 appears to be blameless in this horrible accident, and that Boeing and its new management team seem to be righting the ship.
I know some people say they won’t fly Boeing products. And then there is the hate Boeing first crowd. I wonder if those people actually won’t go if the flight is on a Boeing airplane. Plenty of pilots flew the Max airplanes and didn’t crash them including a Lion Air crew that was able to correctly handle the aircraft that later crashed, even though it was having the same problems as when it crashed. The two companies flying those airplanes are on my permanently banned list.
Is there really a simple switch that effectively shuts the engines off, regardless of thrust position?
That’s like the Far Side cartoon with the ‘Wings stay on, Wings fall off’ switch.
@JL — Some consider Boeing a ‘once-great’ American company; it still is, but traded the expertise of its engineers for Wall Street executives. *cough* McDonnell Douglas merger (1997) *cough*
Arguably, Boeing should have kept the 757 line and enhanced those engines for greater fuel efficiency (but, they shut it down in 2004). Compare this to Airbus that had a better airframe with its a321 to enhance engines with the ‘neo’ line. Likewise, Boeing could have done as Airbus did with the a220 (I know, formerly Bombardier) and gone for a replacement for the 717, but nope. Just more 737s (Max!), 787s, and the forever-delayed 777X.
All this is beside the point of the Air India tragedy. It just all seems to come up again any time these discussions happen. Personally, I just want safe, reliable, efficient, comfortable aircraft.
@1990 – Southwest (who effectively drove the 737 MAX program) didn’t want a different aircraft type in their fleet. So no “757 neo” nor additional flight certification requirements for the MAX.
Pilots were panicked, only seconds to try and save the plane, so they tried to restart the engines, ran out of options.
@Denver Refugee — Oh my, so yet another reason to be upset with Southwest, huh! Gotta admit, a 757neo woulda been pretty cool…
Lookup the name Joseph Emerson.
He was an off-duty Delta pilot who tried to shut off engine during takeoff while in the JS of an Alaska Air in October 2023.
Could something similar have happened here?
@Disgruntled American — Oh yeah, I remember that incident. They dropped the attempted murder charges against him for that. Umm, don’t do mushrooms if you’re gonna be in a cockpit, please.
Mental health is real; wish we as a society didn’t vilify folks who need help. Would rather have pilots ‘on their meds’ than having pilots who secretly ‘self-medicate’ (or ‘breakdown’ on-the-job).
Another wild story is Richard “Sky King” Russel, the guy who stole a Horizon Air Q400, did a barrel roll and crashed it. At least he was the only one on-board.
disgruntled.
he was an Alaska Airlines pilot
and, to your question, yes, emotional instability does happen in the industry. We will know more when the preliminary report comes in and information from the cockpit voice recorder becomes available.
If one pilot flipped the fuel flow switches, the 787 immediately notifies the pilots and the other pilot or pilots should have reacted. The low altitude might have made the act irreversible.
he was an Alaska Airlines pilot.
to your question, yes, these types of things have happened in the industry. We will know more when the preliminary report comes out and information from the cockpit voice recorder becomes available. If one pilot flipped the fuel flow switches, the 787 immediately notifies the pilots and the other pilot or pilots should have reacted. The low altitude might have made the act irreversible.
@Tim Dunn — Good catch! How dare anyone defame our beloved Delta Airlines!
it is solely about facts.
there have been nefarious acts on airplanes by pilots before. The voice recorder should reveal any clues about motive or struggle between the pilots or anyone else that was on the flight deck.
Boeing cannot afford to be the blame for another crash, im sure they are paying whomever they can to say it was the pilots fault.
@ 1990 –
In keeping with the theme, it’s Delta Air Lines ( two words for airlines ) ….
Never understood the mystery why some companies use one or the other variant …
…lol
If it was intentional it could be the pilot who called mayday covering his actions.
And why is a switch so catastrophic not behind a safety cover? (I can see why it would exist–fire.)
@bossa — Ah, good one! Some go with Airways, like Qatar. It’s odd. And what’s the deal with ‘aeroplane’… blame the British/French/Greeks, or something.
Tim Dunn says: If one pilot flipped the fuel flow switches, the 787 immediately notifies the pilots and the other pilot or pilots should have reacted.
How does the 787 ‘notify’ the other pilot and how long does it take? How should that pilot have reacted?
@JL — Tim said already: “The low altitude might have made the act irreversible.” Air India flight 171 hardly made it 600 feet off the ground… so, no ‘time’ for recovery.
Contrast with Alaska Airlines Flight 2059, which was at 31,000 feet when Emerson attempted to deploy the fire suppression systems on both engines. Even if he had achieved a ‘flameout,’ at that altitude, so long as there was no engine damage, they probably could have ‘easily recovered.
1990 says: Tim said already: “The low altitude might have made the act irreversible.”
I am aware and that brings up another question for Tim. Is it irreversible if the fuel control switches are immediately returned to the run position?
@JL — I’ll play along. Ready… set… JL says: 1990 says: Tim said already: “The low altitude might have made the act irreversible.”
On the ‘returning the switches’ question, apparently, not, because, otherwise, unless they intended to crash, we wouldn’t even be talking about this as no accident would have happened.
Oh, so you think in the heat of moment while you might be flying the aircraft it would be easy to diagnose and that the fuel control switches were positioned to cutoff? And, that brings us back to my first question for Tim Dunn.
Tim Dunn says: “If one pilot flipped the fuel flow switches (sic), the 787 immediately notifies the pilots and the other pilot or pilots should have reacted.”
How does the 787 ‘notify’ the other pilot and how long does it take?
@JL — Believe me, I like Tim, but I doubt Tim (or anyone) knows at this point; we’re just gonna have to wait and see what the investigators uncover.
990 says: Believe me, I like Tim, but I doubt Tim (or anyone) knows at this point
As MaxPower said and WADR you shouldn’t feel the need to respond to everything especially questions that are clearly not directed at you.
I am not asking TD what happened. Yet again he said, “If one pilot flipped the fuel flow switches (sic), the 787 immediately notifies the pilots and the other pilot or pilots should have reacted.”
I simply want TD to tell us how the 787 ‘notifies’ the pilots and how long does that take.
One of the problems with social media is too many people often pretend to know what they are talking about. I was hoping TD could educate us on this subject especially when he misidentifies the fuel control switches as fuel flow switches.
@JL — I don’t recall Tim ever suggesting he’s a 787 expert, but maybe he’ll get back to you soon.
Are you and @MaxPower the same fella? As for self-censorship, no thanks, you first.
However, I tend to say the more the merrier, and think engaging on here is a plus, not a bad thing. If you can’t handle the heat, get outta the kitchen.
1990 says: I don’t recall Tim ever suggesting he’s a 787 expert, but maybe he’ll get back to you soon.
He said the 787 notifies the pilots the they “should have reacted.” That sounds like he thinks he knows something that is quite technical. The fact that he hasn’t responded and that he doesn’t know the actual name of the switches in question definitely points to him not being an expert so he shouldn’t pretend to be one.
1990 says: However, I tend to say the more the merrier, and think engaging on here is a plus, not a bad thing. If you can’t handle the heat, get outta the kitchen.
That is so cute. Judging from the content of your posts I think I’ll be OK, but thanks for your concern.
Generally requires 250 kt airspeed and 60 seconds to perform an unassisted ‘windmill restart’ after cycling the fuel cutoff switch. AI 171 didnt have either the airspeed or the time to accomplish. What is puzzling is the apparent lack of surge when the fuel was cut. The video would have shown the surges, but that did not happen. No-surge fuel chop would happen only if the throttles were retarded to Idle first, followed by the cutoff switches 3-4 seconds later.
Yes, plenty of CRM errors – extending to MX and Bird Prevention – at LionAir and Ethiopia on Max.
Preliminary report released:
“The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”
Oh. My. Goodness. Bad.
[Preliminary report released:
“The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”
Oh. My. Goodness. Bad.]
I searched for a view of these switches and did not come up with one. I was looking to see it the switches were of an electromechanical design or an electrical or electronic design. Electromechanical designs have their problems such as failing every once in a while but they cannot be bypassed or hacked so easily. With the B787 being a modern airplane, I suspect that electromechanical switches were not used. So the question becomes whether the cutoff was intentional, accidental (including a person accidentally activating, equipment failure, etc.), a design flaw or a hack. One cutoff could be a failed component but one after the other cutoffs are less likely to be failed components (failed components are still possible such as being caused by a voltage surge.)
I searched for a view of these switches and did not come up with one. I was looking to see it the switches were of an electromechanical design or an electrical or electronic design. Electromechanical designs have their problems such as failing every once in a while but they cannot be bypassed or hacked so easily. With the B787 being a modern airplane, I suspect that electromechanical switches were not used. So the question becomes whether the cutoff was intentional, accidental (including a person accidentally activating, equipment failure, etc.), a design flaw or a hack. One cutoff could be a failed component but one after the other cutoffs are less likely to be failed components (failed components are still possible such as being caused by a voltage surge.)
My bad. There is actually a view of the switches. They look to be a bat toggle switches with a hemispherical head. They also look to be electromechanical. Another report indicated that there is a central position that you have to move to before moving to the to the opposite position. Another report said that it took four seconds to restore fuel. I would consider that a reasonable time between feeling the loss of thrust, determining the cause and correcting the switch position for both switches. 1.5 seconds is considered normal for automobile emergency braking but your feet are positioned so moving one foot to the brake is much more automatic than moving a hand from the thrust levers to the fuel cutoff switches and manipulating them. I wonder if voice of the pilot saying he didn’t move the switches is clear enough to do stress analysis to check if he is likely lying. Also this for the other pilot.