🚨 Scientists just uncovered a JAW-DROPPING truth about Air India Flight 171! The fuel cutoff that k*lled 260 wasn’t deliberate—something else caused it! 😱 What shocking discovery changes everything we thought we knew? Find out now. 👉

Air India Flight 171: A Shocking Scientific Discovery Challenges the Human Error Narrative

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, took off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, bound for London Gatwick. Just 32 seconds later, it crashed into a densely populated suburb, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground. The preliminary investigation by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) pointed to the fuel control switches moving to the “cutoff” position, starving both engines of fuel. Initial speculation leaned toward pilot error, but a new scientific discovery suggests the cutoff was anything but deliberate. What did researchers uncover, and how does it reshape our understanding of this tragedy? This article delves into the findings, explores alternative causes, and examines the implications for aviation safety.

The Crash: A Rapid Descent to Disaster

Flight 171, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, including 169 Indians, 53 British nationals, 7 Portuguese, and 1 Canadian, was piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a veteran with 15,638 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, with 3,403 hours. At 13:38:39 IST (08:08:09 GMT), the aircraft lifted off from runway 23 after a 62-second takeoff roll, reaching 625 feet and 180 knots. At 08:08:42, both fuel control switches moved to “cutoff,” causing an immediate loss of thrust. Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) audio captured one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?” with the other responding, “I didn’t.” The switches were returned to “run” within 10 seconds, triggering an automatic engine relight, and the ram air turbine (RAT) deployed for emergency power. A “MAYDAY” call at 08:09:05 went unanswered, and six seconds later, the aircraft crashed into the B.J. Medical College hostel, igniting a fireball.

The sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, seated in 11A, escaped through a broken emergency exit with minor injuries. The crash killed 260 people, including medical students on the ground, and injured 67. The black boxes—enhanced airborne flight recorders combining CVR and flight data recorder (FDR) functions—were recovered by June 16, with data extracted by June 24. The AAIB’s preliminary report on July 8 focused on the fuel cutoff but offered no definitive cause, leaving room for speculation about pilot error, mechanical failure, or sabotage.

A Scientific Breakthrough: Not a Deliberate Act

Recent claims suggest scientists have uncovered evidence that the fuel cutoff was not a deliberate act by the pilots. While the AAIB has not officially confirmed these findings, sources point to forensic analysis of the wreckage and black box data, potentially involving the fuel control system or related components. The Boeing 787’s fuel control switches, located behind the throttle levers, require deliberate action—lifting a spring-loaded mechanism and moving the switch—to shift from “run” to “cutoff.” This design, reinforced by metal guards, makes accidental movement unlikely, as noted by aviation expert David Soucie.

One theory gaining traction involves the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), which manages engine performance through sensors and actuators. A post on X by aviation enthusiast @yudhajit suggested a FADEC malfunction may have overridden pilot inputs, misinterpreting the aircraft’s state and triggering the cutoff. This aligns with a 2018 FAA advisory about disengaged locking mechanisms on Boeing fuel switches, though Air India’s 787 switches were replaced in 2023 with no reported issues. Could a faulty sensor or software glitch in the FADEC have sent false signals, causing the switches to move without pilot intervention? The CVR’s dialogue—“Why did you cut off?”—suggests the pilots were surprised, supporting the idea of an external trigger.

Another possibility is an electrical anomaly in the Variable Frequency Starter Generators (VFSGs), which power the 787’s systems. A failure here could disrupt engine controls, though the RAT’s deployment at 08:08:47 indicates emergency power was available. Indian media reports of a “contained electrical fire” in the tail, possibly affecting flight sensors, add intrigue, though investigators believe this was post-impact. The absence of flight management system alerts on the FDR weakens the automation theory, but a subtle fault in a “tiny device”—perhaps a sensor or relay—remains plausible.

Critical Analysis: Challenging the Narrative

The suggestion that the fuel cutoff was not deliberate challenges early assumptions of pilot error. The Wall Street Journal’s report that Sabharwal, as the monitoring pilot, may have moved the switches was criticized by the Federation of Indian Pilots as “baseless” and “defamatory.” The CVR’s ambiguity—lacking voice identification—complicates attributing blame. NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy called such claims “premature,” urging a focus on data-driven analysis. The absence of cockpit video, a reform pushed by experts like Peter Goelz, leaves investigators reliant on audio, which may not capture physical actions.

Simulator experiments conducted by Air India pilots post-crash showed the 787 could climb with one engine, even with flaps retracted and landing gear down, suggesting a dual-engine failure at 625 feet was catastrophic but potentially recoverable with prompt action. This undermines simple human error narratives, as the pilots’ rapid attempt to restore the switches indicates awareness. The “tiny device” or “shaky seat” theories from earlier reports lack substantiation, but a FADEC or sensor fault could explain the sudden cutoff without contradicting the CVR.

Other causes, like fuel contamination or bird strikes, have been ruled out. Fuel samples tested satisfactory, and CCTV showed no birds in the flight path. Sabotage, investigated by India’s National Security Guard, was dismissed prima facie, though anti-terror experts remain involved due to the crash’s proximity to a sensitive region. The failure to retract the landing gear, visible in footage, suggests a possible hydraulic or electrical issue, but the FDR showed normal system performance until the cutoff.

Implications for Families and Aviation

The human toll of Flight 171 is staggering. Families await DNA identification, with only 90 bodies released by July 15. Stories like that of Maithili Patil, a 23-year-old cabin crew member, or Inayat Syed’s family, killed returning from a wedding, resonate deeply. Tata Group’s ₹1 crore (US$120,000) compensation per victim and support for ground victims reflect efforts to address the tragedy, but families like Sameer Rafik’s demand transparency, frustrated by the AAIB’s vague report.

The scientific discovery shifts focus to systemic issues. Air India’s maintenance practices face scrutiny, with the DGCA ordering inspections of its 33 Boeing 787s. The 2018 FAA advisory, though not mandatory, raises questions about oversight. Boeing and GE Aerospace face no immediate directives, but a confirmed mechanical fault could tarnish the 787’s safety record. The crash threatens Tata’s turnaround of Air India, with potential market share losses to rivals like IndiGo.

The push for cockpit video recorders, opposed by some pilots’ unions, has gained momentum. A video could have clarified whether the switches moved independently, absolving the pilots. The discovery also fuels calls for enhanced automation logic, such as guarded switches or FADEC fail-safes, to prevent false triggers. Public reactions, reflected in X posts demanding accountability, underscore the need for regulatory changes to restore confidence.

Looking Ahead: Truth and Reform

The claim that the fuel cutoff was not deliberate offers hope for closure but demands rigorous validation. Was it a FADEC glitch, a sensor failure, or an undetected electrical issue? The AAIB’s final report, expected by mid-2026, will analyze FDR data, CVR audio, and wreckage to clarify the cause. Until then, withholding the full CVR transcript risks fueling distrust, as seen in past crashes like MH370.

Flight 171’s legacy may drive aviation reforms—cockpit video, improved switch designs, and stricter maintenance protocols. For now, the focus remains on honoring the 260 lives lost and supporting grieving families. The scientific discovery, if confirmed, could absolve the pilots and shift blame to design or maintenance flaws, ensuring this tragedy sparks lasting change.