😱 A TINY DEVICE brought down Air India Flight 171? Seconds after takeoff, both engines failed, plunging 241 lives into tragedy. What was this mysterious component that caused such a catastrophic crash? 🤔 Uncover the shocking truth behind this aviation disaster. 👉

Air India Flight 171: Did a Tiny Device Cause the Catastrophic Crash?

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, took off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, destined for London Gatwick. Just 32 seconds later, the aircraft crashed into the hostel block of B.J. Medical College, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground. The sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, a 40-year-old British national of Indian origin, escaped through a broken emergency exit. A preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) revealed that both engines failed due to fuel starvation after the fuel control switches moved to the “cutoff” position. Now, a new claim suggests a “tiny device” may have triggered this disaster. But what is this device, and does the evidence support this theory? This article delves into the crash, the mysterious device, and the broader questions surrounding one of India’s deadliest aviation tragedies.

The Crash: A Rapid Descent into Disaster

Flight 171, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, including 169 Indians, 53 British, 7 Portuguese, and 1 Canadian, was commanded by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a veteran with 15,600 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, with 3,400 hours, who was flying the aircraft. At 13:38:39 IST (08:08:09 GMT), the Boeing 787 lifted off from runway 23 after a 62-second takeoff roll. The aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet and an airspeed of 180 knots before disaster struck.

At 08:08:42 GMT, both fuel control switches moved to “cutoff,” starving the General Electric GEnx-1B engines of fuel, leading to a dual-engine failure. Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) audio captured one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?” with the other responding, “I didn’t.” Within 10 seconds, the switches were returned to “run,” triggering an automatic engine relight, and the ram air turbine (RAT) deployed to provide emergency power. At 08:09:05, a “MAYDAY” call was issued, but six seconds later, the aircraft crashed, igniting a fireball that destroyed parts of five buildings. The wreckage spread over 200 meters, complicating recovery efforts.

The black boxes—enhanced airborne flight recorders combining CVR and flight data recorder (FDR) functions—were recovered on June 13 and 16. Data extraction, completed by June 24 at the AAIB’s Delhi lab, confirmed the fuel cutoff but left the cause unclear. The new claim of a “tiny device” causing the failure has sparked intense speculation, but what could this device be, and how does it fit into the broader investigation?

The Tiny Device: A Mechanical Culprit?

The claim that a “tiny device” caused the dual-engine failure is intriguing but vague, as no official report has specified its nature. The AAIB’s preliminary report, released on July 8, 2025, focused on the fuel control switches, which are part of the fuel control module beneath the throttle levers. These switches, equipped with spring-loaded locking mechanisms and metal guards, require deliberate action to move from “run” to “cutoff.” A 2018 FAA advisory noted potential issues with these switches on some Boeing aircraft, including the 787, where the locking mechanism could be disengaged, though this was not deemed an unsafe condition. Air India had replaced the switches on its 787 fleet by 2023, with no defects reported since.

Could this “tiny device” refer to a component within the fuel control system, such as a sensor, actuator, or part of the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system? The FADEC, which manages engine performance, relies on sensors to monitor parameters like fuel flow and engine health. A faulty sensor sending false signals could, in theory, trigger an automatic shutdown, though the CVR’s pilot dialogue—“Why did you cut off?”—suggests human interaction with the switches rather than an automated failure. Capt. Kishore Chinta, a former AAIB investigator, speculated that an issue with the plane’s electronic control unit could have tripped the switches, but no evidence confirms this.

Another possibility is a malfunction in the Variable Frequency Starter Generators (VFSGs), which provide electrical power to the 787’s systems. A senior pilot suggested that a VFSG failure could disrupt the Electronic Engine Control (EEC), causing a loss of engine control. However, the RAT’s deployment indicates that emergency power was available, undermining this theory unless the VFSG failure directly affected the fuel system.

Critical Analysis: Beyond the Tiny Device

The “tiny device” narrative, while attention-grabbing, raises skepticism. The Boeing 787’s fuel control switches are designed to prevent accidental movement, requiring a pilot to lift and shift them deliberately. The CVR’s lack of clear voice identification complicates attributing the action to either Sabharwal or Kunder, and the absence of cockpit video recorders—a long-standing NTSB recommendation—leaves investigators reliant on ambiguous audio. The Wall Street Journal suggested Sabharwal, as the monitoring pilot, may have moved the switches, as Kunder was occupied with flying, but this remains speculative.

Simulator experiments conducted by Air India pilots days after the crash tested scenarios like single-engine failure, retracted flaps, and deployed landing gear. These showed the 787 could climb safely with one engine, suggesting a dual-engine failure at low altitude was catastrophic. The experiments ruled out electrical failures causing a dual-engine flame-out, further focusing attention on the fuel switches.

Other theories, such as fuel contamination or bird strikes, have been largely dismissed. Fuel samples tested satisfactory, and CCTV footage showed no birds during takeoff, unlike the 2009 US Airways “Miracle on the Hudson.” An electrical fire in the tail, suggested by some Indian media, was likely post-impact, caused by spilled fuel or damaged batteries. Sabotage, raised as a possibility due to regional tensions, has been ruled out prima facie by India’s National Security Guard, though anti-terror experts remain involved.

The failure to retract the landing gear, visible in crash footage, suggests a hydraulic or electrical issue, but the RAT should have powered critical systems. The APU’s auto-start attempt at 08:08:54 indicates the aircraft’s systems were responding to the power loss, but the engines’ partial relight was too slow to prevent the crash. This timeline—32 seconds from takeoff to impact—left little room for recovery, especially at 625 feet.

Human and Systemic Implications

The pilots, both experienced and cleared for duty, face scrutiny despite their stellar records. Sabharwal, nearing retirement, was a respected instructor, while Kunder was known for diligence. The CVR’s brief exchange suggests confusion, not negligence, yet the “tiny device” claim shifts focus to mechanical failure, potentially easing blame on the crew. However, without clear evidence, the Airline Pilots’ Association of India has urged restraint, citing the risk of reputational damage.

Air India’s maintenance practices are under review, with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) ordering inspections of its 33 Boeing 787s. The 2018 FAA advisory on fuel switches, though not mandatory, raises questions about whether Air India’s oversight was adequate. Boeing and GE Aerospace, the engine manufacturer, have faced no immediate directives, suggesting mechanical failure is not yet confirmed. The 787’s safety record, unblemished until this crash, adds pressure to identify the root cause.

The human toll is profound. Families await closure, with DNA identification ongoing for many victims. The sole survivor, Ramesh, has spoken of hearing a “loud bang,” possibly indicating an engine issue, though this aligns with the fuel cutoff’s immediate effect. Tata Group’s compensation and global vigils reflect the tragedy’s scale, with 53 British nationals among the victims prompting UK involvement in the investigation.

Looking Ahead: Answers and Accountability

The “tiny device” claim, while compelling, lacks specificity and may oversimplify a complex failure. Was it a faulty sensor, a switch component, or a misreported element of the fuel system? The AAIB’s final report, expected by mid-2026, will likely clarify whether human error, a mechanical fault, or an unlikely external factor caused the crash. Cockpit video, if mandated, could resolve ambiguities about pilot actions, a reform pushed by experts like Peter Goelz.

For now, the investigation must balance technical analysis with public demand for answers. The 787’s design, Air India’s maintenance, and human factors all warrant scrutiny. Flight 171’s legacy may drive changes in aviation safety, from cockpit ergonomics to mandatory video recording, ensuring the 260 lives lost are not in vain.