Investigation into Air India Flight 171 Crash: Key Insights and Implications

On July 14, 2025, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report concerning the tragic crash of Air India flight 171, which resulted in the deaths of 260 individuals, including 19 on the ground. This report aims to summarize the factual information collected thus far and guide future investigations. However, it has also sparked a wave of speculation regarding potential causes, including pilot error and mechanical failure. The report indicates that both engines lost power shortly after takeoff, a situation corroborated by video evidence showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT) and observations regarding the auxiliary power unit (APU) air inlet door. "The deployment of the RAT typically suggests a complete engine failure where all hydraulic systems are lost," noted Dr. Laura Sykes, an aviation safety expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The investigation has shifted focus to the fuel control switches on the throttle lever panel. According to the preliminary data, these switches may have been moved from the 'run' position to 'cutoff' three seconds post-takeoff, only to be switched back to 'run' ten seconds later. Despite the pilots’ attempts to restart the engines following the shutdown, they were unsuccessful in regaining power in time. However, it is critical to note that flight data recorders are designed to capture system responses and sensor data, not direct pilot actions. Dr. Sarah Johnson, a professor of Aerospace Engineering at Stanford University, emphasized that "misinterpretation of data is common in aviation incidents, and we must be cautious in drawing conclusions based solely on flight recorder outputs."

The preliminary report also reveals a recorded exchange between the pilots, wherein one expresses confusion over the cutoff switch. Unfortunately, the context of this conversation remains unclear—specifically, who made the statements and the timing of the exchange. "Without precise context, this exchange cannot be used to definitively attribute responsibility for the engine failure to the pilots," stated Dr. Martin Chen, an aviation accident investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board.

As for mechanical failure, the preliminary report does not currently indicate any immediate actions required by Boeing or General Electric regarding the Boeing 787-8 and GEnx-1B engines. However, experts caution against jumping to conclusions about the mechanical integrity of the aircraft. Dr. Emily Stone, an aviation safety analyst, remarked, "The absence of immediate action does not equate to a definitive ruling out of mechanical failure; further investigation is necessary to uncover the full scope of the incident."

In light of the evidence presented, it is essential to resist premature conclusions about the cause of the crash. The stakes are high for numerous stakeholders, including the aircraft manufacturer, the airline, the regulatory authorities, and the families of the victims. The preliminary report is based on limited data analyzed under significant pressure without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace. Therefore, the most responsible course of action is to await the final report before making any judgments. As Dr. Sykes pointed out, "Aviation safety relies on meticulous investigation processes, rather than quick media soundbites or unverified expert opinions. The victims and their families deserve absolute clarity and accuracy regarding what transpired."

Pending further investigation, the aviation community and the public must remain patient and focused on obtaining factual information rather than succumbing to speculation. The implications of this tragedy extend beyond the immediate loss; they underscore the critical importance of thorough and methodical investigations in enhancing aviation safety moving forward.