A chilling discovery inside the wreckage of Air India Flight 171’s Boeing 787 has left investigators speechless
What they found could rewrite everything we thought we knew about this tragic crash. Was it human error, a hidden flaw, or something far more sinister? 😱 The truth is closer than you think—click to uncover the shocking details!
On June 12, 2025, the aviation world was rocked by the catastrophic crash of Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that plummeted just 32 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad Airport, India, en route to London Gatwick. The crash, which claimed 241 lives on board and 19 on the ground, marked the first fatal hull loss of the technologically advanced Boeing 787, a plane once hailed as one of the safest in the skies. Recent reports of a shocking discovery within the wreckage have reignited global scrutiny, raising questions about the aircraft’s systems, the pilots’ actions, and whether hidden flaws in the 787’s design could have played a role. This article explores the incident, the preliminary findings, and the unsettling questions that continue to linger.
The Crash: A Timeline of Tragedy
Air India Flight 171, registered as VT-ANB, was a routine international flight carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, including 169 Indian, 53 British, 7 Portuguese, and 1 Canadian nationals. The aircraft, powered by two General Electric GEnx-1B engines, lifted off at 13:38:39 IST after a 62-second takeoff roll, reaching a maximum airspeed of 180 knots. Just three seconds later, both fuel control switches moved from the “RUN” to “CUTOFF” position, starving the engines of fuel and causing a catastrophic loss of thrust. The pilots, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder, issued a desperate “Mayday” call at 13:39 IST, but the plane, barely reaching 625 feet, crashed into the hostel block of B.J. Medical College, 1.7 kilometers from the runway. Only one passenger, a British national seated at an emergency exit, survived.
The preliminary report from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), released on July 8, 2025, revealed that the fuel control switches’ movement triggered the dual engine failure. Cockpit voice recordings captured a chilling exchange: one pilot asked, “Why did he cut off?” to which the other replied, “I didn’t.” The report did not specify who said what, fueling speculation about whether this was human error, mechanical failure, or something else entirely. The deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup power source that activates during dual engine or hydraulic failure, further confirmed the severity of the systems failure.
The Shocking Discovery: What Was Found?
While the exact nature of the “shocking discovery” inside the Boeing 787 wreckage has not been fully disclosed in public reports, sources suggest investigators uncovered evidence pointing to potential issues in the aircraft’s electrical and equipment bay, located beneath the cockpit. This area houses critical systems, including the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) and Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA), which regulate engine performance. Attorney Mike Andrews, representing 85 families of the crash victims, has highlighted Boeing and FAA documents indicating defects in the 787’s water systems, specifically couplings near electrical equipment that could cause short circuits. Water leaks in this area, previously documented in other 787s, could disrupt electrical continuity, potentially affecting systems like the FADEC, which might misinterpret the aircraft’s status and throttle back engines mid-flight.
This theory aligns with earlier incidents. In 2019, an All Nippon Airways (ANA) Boeing 787 experienced an uncommanded fuel switch transition from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” during landing, caused by a fault in the avionics misreading the air-ground transition. Similarly, a 2025 United Airlines 787 incident involved a suspected TCMA failure that caused a nosedive. Aviation attorney Mary Schiavo has pointed to these cases, suggesting that a software glitch in the 787’s TCMA or FADEC systems could have triggered the catastrophic power loss on AI 171, rather than pilot error.
Human Error or Systemic Failure?
The AAIB’s preliminary report has sparked controversy by focusing on the fuel control switches, leading some Western media outlets to speculate that Captain Sabharwal deliberately or accidentally turned them off. The AAIB strongly criticized such claims as “irresponsible,” arguing that they rely on unverified sources and prematurely blame the pilots. Both Sabharwal, with 15,600 flight hours (8,600 on the 787), and Kunder, with 3,400 hours (1,100 on the 787), were experienced and had passed pre-flight breathalyzer tests, with adequate rest. The report noted that switching off fuel requires deliberate action—lifting a stop-lock mechanism and moving two switches—making accidental activation unlikely.
Veteran pilot Dilip Desmond, a former Indian Navy aviator, has challenged the AAIB’s narrative, arguing that the fuel control switches did not move to “CUTOFF” as claimed. He suggests the engines spooled down due to a FADEC fault, possibly a ground-air contradiction or electrical glitch, and that the report’s vague omission of altitude data and full pilot communications may indicate a cover-up to protect corporate interests. Desmond’s analysis points to inconsistencies, such as the timing of the APU door opening, which does not align with the report’s account of the fuel switch movements.
Boeing’s Troubled History with the 787
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, introduced in 2011, was designed as a fuel-efficient, technologically advanced aircraft. However, it has faced significant issues, including lithium-ion battery fires in 2013, which led to a global grounding, and quality control problems from 2019 onward, such as improper shimming and fuselage joint issues. Whistleblowers like John Barnett, who took his own life in 2024 while testifying against Boeing, raised concerns about production standards, warning of potential defects serious enough to cause a major accident. These issues, combined with the decision to manufacture parts in non-unionized facilities like South Carolina, have fueled skepticism about the 787’s reliability.
The FAA’s 2018 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) highlighted disengaged stop-lock mechanisms on fuel control switches in some Boeing 737s, a design shared with the 787. Air India did not inspect AI 171’s switches, as the SAIB was advisory, not mandatory. This oversight, coupled with the replacement of the throttle control module in 2019 and 2023, raises questions about whether latent defects went unaddressed.
Legal and Global Implications
The families of 65 victims, including ground casualties, have hired Beasley Allen, a U.S. law firm with experience in Boeing 737 MAX cases, to pursue product liability claims against Boeing and Montreal Convention claims against Air India. The firm is exploring a water leak theory, seeking flight data through Right to Information and Freedom of Information Act requests. If a software or hardware flaw is confirmed, the investigation could lead to operational changes for the global 787 fleet, which numbers over 1,100 aircraft.
India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has ordered enhanced inspections of Air India’s 787 fleet, focusing on fuel systems, cabin air compressors, and engine controls. Air India has completed checks on 26 of its 33 787s, with the rest underway, and extended safety measures to its Boeing 777 fleet. The crash has also raised questions about Air India’s transformation under Tata Sons, which acquired the airline in 2022, as public trust wanes following this tragedy and a subsequent Boeing 777 incident on June 14.
Unanswered Questions and the Path Forward
The investigation into AI 171 is far from over. The AAIB, supported by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, is analyzing flight data recorders, cockpit audio, and maintenance logs. The selective release of pilot communications and the absence of altitude and engine telemetry data have fueled suspicions of a rushed narrative to deflect blame from Boeing. Experts like Schiavo and Desmond argue that a software-triggered engine rollback, possibly linked to the TCMA or FADEC, is a plausible cause, supported by prior incidents.
The crash has also reignited debates about automation in aviation. Modern aircraft like the 787 rely heavily on systems like FADEC, which can override pilot inputs under certain conditions. While designed to enhance safety, these systems can introduce vulnerabilities, as seen in the 737 MAX crashes, where software flaws led to global groundings. The AI 171 investigation could set a precedent for how regulators address software-driven failures in increasingly automated aircraft.
Conclusion
The Air India Flight 171 crash is a stark reminder of aviation’s fragility, where seconds can mean the difference between life and death. The discovery of potential water leaks or software faults in the Boeing 787’s systems has shifted the focus from pilot error to systemic issues, challenging the narrative of a “clean” aircraft history. As investigators piece together the final moments of AI 171, the world awaits answers that could reshape trust in one of Boeing’s flagship aircraft. For now, the families of the victims, the aviation industry, and a grieving nation hold their breath, hoping the truth will emerge from the wreckage.
