🚨 EXPOSED: Five catastrophic mistakes Boeing made that could have caused the Air India Flight 171 crash—and they’re desperate to keep them secret! 😱 The truth behind the tragic loss of 260 lives is more shocking than you can imagine. What are they hiding about the Boeing 787 Dreamliner?

Click to uncover the chilling details that could change everything!

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI-171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed 32 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, killing 241 of 242 aboard and 19 people on the ground. The disaster, one of the deadliest aviation incidents in a decade, has thrust Boeing into the spotlight amid allegations of critical oversights in the aircraft’s design, production, and maintenance protocols. Families of the victims, represented by U.S. law firm Beasley Allen, claim Boeing is concealing five key mistakes that contributed to the tragedy. From flawed fuel control systems to ignored warnings, these allegations paint a troubling picture of corporate negligence. This article examines these purported errors, the ongoing investigation, and their implications for aviation safety, drawing on official reports, legal filings, and expert analyses.

The Crash: A Devastating Mystery

Flight AI-171, bound for London Gatwick, lifted off at 13:39 IST, reaching 625 feet before both engines lost thrust, causing the plane to plummet into B.J. Medical College’s hostel block, 1.7 kilometers from the runway. The sole survivor, Vishwas Kumar Ramesh, reported a loud bang and flickering lights before the crash. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) preliminary report, released July 8, 2025, found that the fuel control switches moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” seconds after takeoff, starving the engines. Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data captured one pilot asking, “Why did you do the cut-off?” with the other denying responsibility. This exchange, coupled with lawsuits claiming Boeing’s negligence, has fueled speculation about systemic failures. Below are the five critical mistakes Boeing is accused of hiding, as alleged by families and their legal team.

Mistake 1: Faulty Fuel Control Switch Design

The first alleged mistake centers on the Boeing 787’s fuel control switches. A 2018 FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) warned that some switches on Boeing 737s and 787s were installed with disengaged locking mechanisms, potentially allowing accidental activation. Air India did not inspect these switches, as the SAIB was advisory, not mandatory. Attorney Mike Andrews, representing 95 families, argues that a design flaw could have caused the switches to flip without pilot input, possibly due to electrical interference or mechanical failure. The CVR’s ambiguity—neither pilot admitting to moving the switches—supports this theory. A similar incident on an All Nippon Airways 787 in 2019, where a software glitch triggered an engine shutdown, suggests a recurring issue with Boeing’s fuel control systems.

Mistake 2: Ignored Water Leak Vulnerabilities

Boeing is accused of overlooking known vulnerabilities in the 787’s water supply systems. Service bulletins from 2017 and 2020 highlighted leaks in couplings and tanks near electrical equipment, risking short circuits that could disrupt critical systems like the Thrust Control Module Assembly (TCMA) or Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). Andrews cites FAA documents suggesting such a short could have triggered the fuel cut-off signal in AI-171, misinterpreted by the flight data recorder (FDR) as manual action. The failure to mandate fixes for these leaks, despite Boeing’s awareness, is a key point in the lawsuits, raising questions about why preventive measures were not enforced across the fleet.

Mistake 3: Production Shortcuts Compromising Safety

Whistleblower allegations have long plagued Boeing’s 787 program. In 2024, engineer Sam Salehpour testified before Congress about production shortcuts, including forceful alignment of fuselage sections at Boeing’s South Carolina plant. These practices, allegedly driven by pressure to meet delivery schedules, left debris in joints and stressed composite materials, potentially weakening the airframe. For AI-171’s aircraft (VT-ANB), delivered in 2014, such defects could have contributed to electrical or structural issues, though no direct evidence links them to the crash. The families’ legal team argues that Boeing’s failure to address these quality-control issues, despite internal warnings, constitutes negligence.

Mistake 4: Inadequate Response to Software Glitches

The 787’s reliance on complex avionics, including the FADEC system, introduces vulnerabilities to software glitches. Aviation lawyer Mary Schiavo referenced the 2019 All Nippon incident, where a software misinterpretation caused an engine shutdown by assuming the plane was on the ground. For AI-171, a similar glitch in the TCMA or FADEC could have triggered the fuel cut-off, a possibility Andrews is investigating through independent FDR analysis. Boeing’s alleged failure to rigorously test or update these systems, despite known risks, is cited as a critical oversight, especially given the 787’s nickname as an “electrically driven flying computer.”

Mistake 5: Failure to Act on Prior Warnings

Boeing’s history of ignoring warnings is a recurring theme. The 2018 SAIB, 2013 battery fire incidents, and 2019 cybersecurity concerns about the 787’s Crew Information Service/Maintenance System all pointed to potential weaknesses. Yet, Boeing and the FAA often deemed these non-critical, avoiding mandatory fixes. Post-crash, Air India’s inspections of its 33 Dreamliners found no issues with fuel switch locks, but the DGCA mandated additional checks, suggesting unease. Families argue that Boeing’s pattern of downplaying risks—evident in the 737 MAX scandals, which cost 346 lives—continued with the 787, culminating in AI-171’s tragedy.

The Legal Battle: Families Demand Accountability

In August 2025, 95 families, including those of 65 passengers and 30 ground victims, hired Beasley Allen, led by Mike Andrews, who secured billions in 737 MAX settlements. The lawsuits, filed in U.S. federal courts and UK courts under the Montreal Convention, target Boeing for product liability and Air India for operational failures. Andrews disputes the AAIB’s preliminary report, arguing it overemphasizes pilot action without addressing mechanical or software causes. He seeks raw FDR and CVR data to prove a defect, citing Boeing’s history of concealing issues, as seen in a 2021 $2.5 billion fraud settlement.

Families like that of Hir Prajapati, who lost his mother, and UK-based kin advised by Keystone Law, aim for both compensation and systemic change. The Montreal Convention allows unlimited liability for passenger deaths, and U.S. courts offer faster resolution than India’s. The lawsuits could set a precedent, especially if defects are proven, forcing Boeing to retrofit its fleet or face stricter FAA oversight.

Boeing and Air India’s Response

Boeing has remained silent on the lawsuits, with CEO Kelly Ortberg pledging cooperation with the AAIB. The company insists all mandatory maintenance was completed on VT-ANB, and Air India’s post-crash inspections found no fuel switch issues. Air India, under the Tata Group, offered ₹25 lakh interim compensation per passenger and ₹1 crore ex gratia per deceased victim, establishing the AI-171 Memorial and Welfare Trust. However, families report bureaucratic delays in accessing funds, intensifying their resolve to sue.

Human and Industry Impact

The crash devastated communities, from Ahmedabad’s medical students to the Gujarati diaspora in Leicester. Victims included former Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani and young crew member Nganthoi, leaving families like Arjun Patoliya’s orphaned daughters in despair. Social media posts on X reflect public outrage, with one stating, “Boeing’s hiding something again—families deserve the truth.” The case could reshape aviation, forcing transparency and stricter regulations.

Critical Perspective

The “five mistakes” narrative, while compelling, relies on allegations not yet proven. The AAIB’s final report, due in 2026, will clarify whether design flaws, software issues, or human factors caused the crash. Media sensationalism, as criticized by the AAIB and NTSB, risks oversimplifying a complex event. Boeing’s safety record is troubled, but Air India’s maintenance practices and pilot workload must also be scrutinized. The focus on Boeing’s cover-up could overshadow other factors, like the aircraft’s pre-flight faults noted in the AAIB report.

Conclusion

The Air India Flight 171 crash is a tragedy mired in allegations of Boeing’s negligence, from faulty fuel switches to ignored warnings. The families’ lawsuits, backed by Beasley Allen, seek to expose these mistakes and ensure accountability. Whether driven by design flaws, software glitches, or production shortcuts, the crash underscores the fragility of trust in aviation. As investigations continue, the 260 lives lost demand not just answers but reforms to prevent future disasters. The truth, though hidden now, may soon surface, reshaping how we view the skies.