A Deadly Code K*lled 260? 😱 A hidden glitch in Air India 171’s FADEC system may have doomed the flight!Was it a software flaw or human error? 🤔 Uncover the chilling truth behind this aviation tragedy! 👉

The crash of Air India Flight 171 on June 12, 2025, which killed 260 people, remains one of the deadliest aviation disasters in decades, raising haunting questions about what brought down a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner just 32 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India (Wikipedia,). A preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) revealed that both engine fuel cutoff switches moved to the “CUTOFF” position seconds after liftoff, starving the engines and triggering a fatal descent into a residential area (The Guardian,). The cockpit voice recording captures one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?” with the other responding, “I didn’t,” deepening the mystery (Hindustan Times,). Speculation on X, including posts from @eshwar_n and @Grippan65Momi, points to a “hidden line of code” in the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system, potentially misinterpreting Weight-on-Wheels (WoW) sensor data (X,,). This theory, while compelling, sits alongside possibilities of human error or mechanical failure, echoing sensationalized narratives like Rachel Zegler’s “meltdown” or The Acolyte’s backlash in its blend of fact and conjecture. This analysis examines the FADEC theory, alternative causes, and the broader implications for aviation safety and public perception.

The FADEC system, which controls engine thrust and airspeed, is central to the crash’s mystery. Designed to automate engine functions, it relies on sensors like WoW to determine whether the aircraft is on the ground or airborne (Financial Express,). A 2019 All Nippon Airways (ANA) Boeing 787 incident, cited by @Grippan65Momi, saw both engines roll back mid-flight due to a FADEC software glitch misreading sensor data (X,). Aviation attorney Mary Schiavo suggested a similar Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) error could have throttled back Flight 171’s engines, believing the plane was still on the ground (Financial Express,). The AAIB report notes the fuel switches moved to “CUTOFF” at 08:08:42 UTC, just as the plane hit 180 knots, with no FADEC command recorded, casting doubt on an automatic shutdown (Leeham News,). The switches’ return to “RUN” within 10–14 seconds triggered FADEC’s relight sequence, but only one engine began recovering before impact (Wikipedia,).

The WoW sensor theory, while plausible, faces scrutiny. Schiavo referenced a 2025 United Airlines 787 incident involving uncommanded dives, suggesting systemic FADEC vulnerabilities (Financial Express,). X user @eshwar_n hypothesized that a WoW fault caused FADEC to misinterpret the plane’s airborne state, initiating a cascade of shutdowns (X,). Yet, Leeham News notes that FADEC data showed no TCMA activation, and the switches’ physical movement suggests human or mechanical intervention (Leeham News,). The 787’s fuel cutoff switches, located between the pilots, require deliberate force to move, making accidental flips unlikely (The Guardian,). A 2018 FAA bulletin highlighted disengaged locking features on similar Boeing switches, but Air India’s failure to inspect them doesn’t confirm a malfunction (BBC,). The cockpit audio, with one pilot’s confusion, implies the action was unexpected, potentially ruling out intentional error (BBC,).

Human error remains a contentious possibility. Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, the monitoring pilot with 15,600 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, the flying pilot with 3,400 hours, were rested and cleared to fly (Wikipedia,). The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association (ICPA) decried “reckless” speculation about pilot suicide, noting the switches’ rapid movement within one second suggests a mechanical or electronic issue over deliberate action (Al Jazeera,). The AAIB’s selective disclosure of CVR data fuels debate, as withholding full transcripts raises suspicions of bias (BBC,). Former AAIB investigator Capt. Kishore Chinta suggested an electronic control unit glitch, aligning with the FADEC theory (BBC,). The pilots’ “mayday” call at 08:09:05 UTC, just 15 seconds before impact, underscores the crisis’s brevity, leaving little time to troubleshoot (Times of India,).

The aviation industry’s reliance on automation, as Times of India notes, raises questions about human versus machine control (Times of India,). Airbus’s A350 prioritizes pilot override, unlike Boeing’s FADEC, which can override inputs in extreme conditions (Financial Express,). If a “hidden line of code” caused the crash, as @RajaSBhadauria suggests, it could expose systemic flaws, impacting Boeing’s credibility (X,). Boeing’s stock fell 9% post-crash, and their silence beyond condolences reflects caution (Newsweek,). The crash’s cultural impact, like The Acolyte’s backlash you’ve discussed, shows how social media amplifies speculation, with @TheFederal_News fueling “software glitch” theories (X,). The sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, and the tragedy’s scale—260 deaths, including 19 on the ground—intensify scrutiny (Sky News,). The ongoing investigation, involving Boeing, GE Aerospace, and NTSB, must clarify whether code, hardware, or human factors sealed Flight 171’s fate, shaping aviation safety’s future.