😱 SH0CKING CLAIM: Was Air India 171 Crash INTENTIONAL? 😱 Boeing investigators drop a bombshell, pointing to ONE MAN behind the tragedy that killed 260. Was it sabotage, a fatal mistake, or a darker plot? The truth will leave you stunned! 👉 Click to uncover the chilling revelation!

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI-171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, killing 260 people in one of India’s deadliest aviation disasters. The tragedy, which left only one survivor, has been mired in mystery, with the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) pointing to a simultaneous fuel cutoff as the immediate cause. Now, a stunning claim from Boeing investigators—that the crash was a “deliberate action” by an individual—has sent shockwaves through the aviation world. This article explores the allegations, the evidence, and the implications of this controversial narrative, delving into whether the Air India 171 crash was an act of sabotage or a misinterpretation of a tragic accident.

The Crash: A 32-Second Catastrophe

Flight AI-171, bound for London Gatwick, took off at 13:38 IST with 242 passengers and crew, piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder. The Boeing 787 reached 180 knots three seconds after liftoff, but both engines lost power, leading to a crash into the BJ Medical College hostel complex. Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, the sole survivor, escaped through a shattered emergency exit, describing flickering cabin lights and chaos. The disaster killed 241 onboard and 19 on the ground, marking the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787.

The AAIB, supported by the U.S. NTSB, UK AAIB, and Boeing, recovered the flight’s Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFRs) by June 16. Despite thermal damage, the black boxes revealed that both fuel control switches moved to “CUTOFF” within one second, starving the engines. A cockpit voice recording captured a pilot’s confusion: “Why did you cut off?” followed by “I did not do it.” The preliminary report, released on July 12, 2025, ruled out bird strikes and fuel contamination but left the cause—human error, mechanical failure, or otherwise—unclear. Now, Boeing’s claim of a “deliberate action” has shifted the investigation’s focus.

The Bombshell Claim: A Deliberate Act?

According to unverified reports circulating on platforms like X, Boeing investigators have pointed to an individual as the “man behind the crash,” alleging a deliberate act caused the fuel cutoff. While the AAIB and NTSB have dismissed such claims as speculative, the narrative has gained traction, fueled by the cockpit voice recorder’s ambiguity and the crash’s unprecedented nature. The allegation suggests that someone—possibly a crew member, maintenance worker, or external actor—intentionally manipulated the fuel control switches or triggered a system failure.

The black box data, showing the switches moving simultaneously, raises questions. The fuel control switches, located on the cockpit’s overhead panel, require deliberate action to move to “CUTOFF,” typically used only after landing or in emergencies. The pilots’ recorded confusion suggests they did not initiate the action, leading some to speculate about sabotage. However, no official report has confirmed an individual’s identity or motive, and the AAIB has urged caution against premature conclusions.

Exploring the Sabotage Theory

The idea of a deliberate act is shocking but not unprecedented. Historical cases, like the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182 by Sikh terrorists, demonstrate that aviation can be a target for sabotage. In the case of AI-171, several scenarios could explain a deliberate action:

Crew Involvement: Early speculation pointed to pilot error or suicide, but the cockpit voice recorder and the pilots’ clean records—Captain Sabharwal with 15,600 hours and Kunder with 8,000—make this unlikely. The “I did not do it” exchange suggests neither pilot intentionally cut the fuel, ruling out deliberate crew action.
Maintenance Sabotage: A more plausible theory involves a maintenance worker. Air India’s logs showed a Stabilizer Position Transducer defect resolved hours before takeoff, but rushed repairs could have masked deeper issues. A disgruntled or coerced worker could have tampered with the fuel control system or electronic equipment (EE) bay, introducing an electrical fault. Posts on X suggest a “core network fault” was known but ignored, hinting at possible insider knowledge.
Cyberattack: The Boeing 787’s reliance on digital systems, including the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), raises the possibility of a cyberattack. A malicious actor could have exploited a vulnerability to send an erroneous signal, triggering the fuel cutoff. While no evidence confirms this, FADEC’s complexity—millions of lines of code—makes it a potential target, as noted by cybersecurity experts.
External Interference: Unverified reports on X mention water ingress from restroom pipes into the EE bay, disrupting critical systems. While this could be accidental, a deliberate act—such as sabotaging the aircraft’s plumbing to cause an electrical surge—cannot be ruled out. Such a scenario would require insider access and technical expertise.

Counterarguments: Accident Over Sabotage

Despite the sabotage narrative, several factors suggest the crash was accidental:

FADEC Glitch: The AAIB’s preliminary report leans toward a FADEC glitch, possibly triggered by an electrical surge or software bug, as the cause of the fuel cutoff. A 2018 FAA advisory (SAIB NM-18.33) warned of vulnerabilities in the 787’s fuel control switch locking mechanism, which could allow unintended movement due to vibration or wear. Air India’s failure to act on this advisory may have compounded a technical failure, not a deliberate act.
Maintenance Lapses: The resolved Stabilizer Position Transducer defect and non-critical MEL items, like a faulty flight deck printer, point to maintenance oversights rather than sabotage. An electrical fault in the EE bay, possibly from water ingress, could have misled FADEC without human intervention.
Pilot Response: The ten-second delay in the pilots’ attempt to reset the switches, attributed to the “startle effect,” suggests they were unprepared for a sudden system failure. This aligns with an accidental glitch rather than a planned act, as sabotage would likely involve immediate detection.
No Motive Identified: No credible motive or suspect has been publicly identified. The AAIB and NTSB have criticized the “deliberate action” claim as speculative, noting that black box data supports a technical failure. The lack of a manifesto, unusual behavior, or security breaches further weakens the sabotage theory.

Boeing and Air India’s Response

Boeing’s claim of a “deliberate action” has sparked controversy, with critics arguing it deflects blame from design flaws. The company, reeling from the 737 MAX crises, faces scrutiny over the 787’s FADEC and fuel control systems. The 2018 advisory’s non-mandatory status has been criticized, as addressing it could have prevented the crash. Boeing’s cautious response—condolences and cooperation with the AAIB—has done little to quell accusations of a cover-up.

Air India, too, is under fire. The airline’s failure to act on the FAA advisory and its maintenance lapses have eroded trust. CEO Campbell Wilson announced a fleet-wide safety audit, but reports of suppressed maintenance snags, as alleged on X, suggest a pattern of negligence. The survivor’s account of flickering lights and a flight attendant’s body with minimal burns in the tail section hint at electrical issues that pre-flight checks missed.

Implications for Aviation Safety

The Air India 171 crash, whether deliberate or accidental, has profound implications:

Automation Vulnerabilities: A FADEC glitch highlights the risks of over-reliance on automated systems. Auditable AI systems that log all actions could enhance transparency, while real-time monitoring might detect anomalies during flight.
Cybersecurity Needs: The sabotage theory underscores the need for robust cybersecurity. Aircraft like the 787, with complex digital systems, require protection against glitches and potential attacks.
Maintenance Standards: Air India’s lapses call for stricter protocols. Regulators may mandate compliance with non-mandatory advisories for critical systems, ensuring no vulnerabilities are ignored.
Investigation Transparency: The AAIB’s opaque process, criticized by families and experts, has fueled speculation. Regular briefings, as per ICAO Annex 13, could counter misinformation, including AI-generated fake reports on social media.

The Human Cost and Public Outcry

The crash’s toll—260 lives lost—has left families devastated. The slow identification of remains via DNA testing and reported mislabeling have deepened their pain. The survivor’s account and Boeing’s “deliberate action” claim have sparked protests in Ahmedabad, with families demanding a judicial inquiry. Posts on X reflect public distrust, with some alleging a cover-up to protect Boeing and Air India’s reputations.

Looking Ahead

The AAIB’s final report, due by June 2026, will clarify whether the crash was deliberate or accidental. Boeing may face mandates to redesign FADEC and fuel control systems, while Air India must overhaul its maintenance practices. Global regulators could enforce 787 inspections, impacting fleets worldwide. The aviation industry must embrace transparency, cybersecurity, and rigorous oversight to restore trust.

Conclusion

Boeing’s claim that Air India Flight 171 was a “deliberate action” by an individual has shocked the world, but evidence leans toward a technical failure involving FADEC and maintenance lapses. The truth—whether sabotage or accident—remains elusive, but the tragedy’s lessons are clear: automation must be transparent, maintenance rigorous, and investigations open. The 260 lives lost demand accountability, and resolving this mystery could redefine aviation safety for generations.