AIR INDIA 171 CRASH: The Truth They DON’T Want You to Know!
What if the pilots of Air India Flight 171 were powerless as their plane betrayed them? A shocking new discovery reveals the aircraft STOPPED responding entirely—no pilot error, no mistake. Something chilling was caught on the cockpit recorder, and it’s rewriting the story. 😱 Want to know what really happened?

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, took off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad, India, en route to London Gatwick. Within 32 seconds, the aircraft crashed into a residential area, killing 260 people—241 of the 242 passengers and crew onboard, plus 19 on the ground. The sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, described a terrifying moment where the plane seemed to “freeze” before plummeting. Initial reports pointed to pilot error, but emerging analyses, including posts on X and expert investigations, suggest a far more disturbing possibility: the aircraft may have stopped responding to the pilots entirely due to a catastrophic system failure. This article explores the crash, the evidence challenging the pilot-error narrative, and the broader implications for aviation safety.

The Crash: A Timeline of Tragedy

Flight 171 lifted off at 1:38 PM IST (08:08 UTC) with clear weather and two experienced pilots at the helm: Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, with over 15,600 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, with 3,400 hours. The Boeing 787 reached its takeoff decision speed (V1) of 153 knots and was airborne by 08:08:39 UTC. Three seconds later, at 08:08:42 UTC, both engines lost power, and the plane began to lose altitude. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured a frantic exchange, with one pilot exclaiming, “Why did you cut off?” and the other responding, “I did not do so.” By 08:09 UTC, a desperate “Mayday” call was issued, but communication ceased as the plane crashed 1.85 kilometers from the runway, erupting into a fireball upon impact.

The preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), released on July 12, 2025, revealed that the fuel-control switches for both engines were moved to the “cutoff” position almost simultaneously, starving the engines of fuel. However, the switches were found in the “run” position at the crash site, suggesting an attempt to restore power. The deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup power system, was also noted, indicating a total loss of electrical power. These details, combined with expert analyses, have shifted the focus from human error to potential mechanical or software failures.

The Emerging Theory: A Rogue Aircraft?

Recent analyses, including those shared on X by experts like Jeffrey Thomas and Richard Godfrey, point to a mechanical or software issue as the likely cause. One compelling theory, supported by posts on X, suggests water ingress from the aircraft’s rear toilets into the electronic equipment (EE) bay during takeoff rotation. This could have caused a short circuit, disrupting critical systems and triggering an automatic shutdown of both engines. The Boeing 787’s EE bay, located beneath the cabin, houses vital avionics, including the Engine Control Unit (ECU). A 2021 FAA and GE service bulletin highlighted potential issues with the ECU’s MN4 microprocessor, noting that solder ball fatigue from thermal cycling could disrupt fuel flow. This aligns with a 2019 incident involving an All Nippon Airways 787, where a software glitch misjudged the plane’s status, initiating an erroneous fuel cutoff.

The CVR’s chilling exchange adds weight to this theory. The pilots’ confusion—“Why did you cut off?” followed by “I did not do so”—suggests they were unaware of any manual action to shut down the engines. The fuel-control switches, designed with a spring-loaded mechanism to prevent accidental toggling, require deliberate force to move. Aviation expert Melissa Chen, in a post on X, argued that accidental movement was improbable, raising questions about whether a system malfunction overrode pilot inputs. Richard Godfrey further noted that the RAT’s deployment before the fuel cutoff indicates a pre-existing power issue, potentially exonerating the pilots.

Challenging the Pilot-Error Narrative

Initial media reports, including a Wall Street Journal article on July 17, 2025, leaned heavily on pilot error, suggesting Captain Sabharwal may have inadvertently moved the fuel switches while monitoring the flight. This narrative, however, has faced fierce pushback from pilot associations and independent experts. The Airline Pilots’ Association of India and the Indian Commercial Pilots Association issued a joint statement on July 20, 2025, calling such claims “premature and damaging” without conclusive evidence. They emphasized Sabharwal’s extensive experience and the improbability of both pilots simultaneously failing to notice such a critical error.

The CVR data, while not fully released, suggests no clear admission of fault. The pilots’ attempt to restore the switches to “run” within 10 seconds indicates a rapid response to an unexpected event. Michael Daniel, a retired FAA inspector, noted that the CVR’s multiple microphones could clarify whether physical contact with the switches occurred, potentially ruling out human error. The AAIB’s reluctance to release the full transcript has fueled speculation of a cover-up, as noted in X posts by users like @pbhushan1, who called for transparency in the investigation.

Alternative Theories and Speculation

While mechanical failure is the leading theory, other possibilities have emerged. Some X posts, such as one by @surveilz, speculated about deliberate action, suggesting a pilot may have intentionally flipped the switches, though no evidence supports this claim. Such theories have been met with outrage from pilot groups, who argue they cause undue distress to the victims’ families. Another hypothesis involves a software anomaly in the Boeing 787’s fly-by-wire system, which relies heavily on automated controls. A YouTube analysis by SkyFall, titled “What Scientists Just Discovered in the Air India 171 Crash IS NOT WHAT WE’RE BEING TOLD,” suggested the aircraft’s systems may have “shut themselves down” due to a glitch, rendering pilot inputs ineffective.

The 2018 FAA advisory on the 787’s fuel-control switch locking mechanism, which noted potential disengagement issues, adds another layer of complexity. Air India’s failure to implement the recommended inspections, as they were not mandatory, has drawn scrutiny. The combination of these factors—potential water ingress, software glitches, and unaddressed mechanical issues—paints a troubling picture of systemic vulnerabilities in modern aircraft.

The Investigation and Industry Response

The AAIB, with support from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Boeing, and GE Aerospace, is conducting a comprehensive investigation, expected to conclude with a final report by June 12, 2026. The probe is examining the aircraft’s maintenance records, fuel samples (which were satisfactory), and the EE bay for signs of water damage or electrical faults. The failure of the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) to activate, despite the high-impact crash, is also under scrutiny.

In response, India’s civil aviation authority ordered inspections of fuel-control switches on all Boeing 737 and 787 aircraft operating in the country, effective July 25, 2025. Air India reduced its international flights by 15%, and CEO Campbell Wilson urged employees to avoid speculating until the investigation concludes. The tragedy has prompted calls for stricter oversight of aircraft maintenance and software systems, particularly for fly-by-wire aircraft like the 787, which rely on complex automation.

The Human and Societal Impact

The crash’s toll—260 lives lost, 67 injuries, and one survivor—has left a profound mark on India and the global aviation community. Vishwaskumar Ramesh, the sole survivor, recounted the horror of escaping the wreckage as flames engulfed the aircraft. Families of the victims have expressed frustration with the lack of transparency, with some organizing protests in Ahmedabad. Air India established the AI-171 Memorial and Welfare Trust to support affected families, but public anger persists, fueled by conflicting narratives on social media.

X posts reflect a polarized sentiment. Users like @sabinsmathew shared 3D clone models suggesting a technical glitch, while others, like @daeroplate_v2, echoed the water ingress theory. These discussions highlight a broader distrust in the aviation industry, with some accusing authorities of downplaying systemic issues to protect corporate interests. The YouTube video by SkyFall, viewed by thousands, amplified these concerns, claiming “patterns too dangerous to ignore” in the crash data.

Implications for Aviation Safety

The Air India 171 crash raises critical questions about the reliability of modern aircraft systems. The Boeing 787, celebrated for its advanced technology, relies heavily on automation, which can be a double-edged sword. While fly-by-wire systems enhance efficiency, they also introduce vulnerabilities, such as software glitches or electrical failures, that can override human control. The 2019 All Nippon Airways incident underscores this risk, and the FAA’s 2021 bulletin on the ECU microprocessor suggests ongoing concerns with the 787’s systems.

This tragedy also highlights the need for proactive maintenance. The 2018 FAA advisory, though advisory, should prompt airlines to prioritize inspections of critical components like fuel-control switches. Furthermore, the potential for water ingress from cabin systems into the EE bay suggests a design flaw that Boeing must address. The aviation industry faces increasing pressure to balance innovation with safety, ensuring that automated systems do not compromise pilot authority.

Conclusion

The Air India Flight 171 crash is a stark reminder of the complexities and risks of modern aviation. While initial reports pointed to pilot error, emerging evidence suggests the aircraft itself may have failed the pilots, possibly due to water ingress, a software glitch, or an unaddressed mechanical issue. The ongoing investigation will be crucial in determining the truth, but the public’s demand for transparency and accountability is palpable. As the aviation industry grapples with this tragedy, the focus must shift to preventing future disasters through rigorous maintenance, robust design, and a commitment to prioritizing safety over corporate interests. The haunting question remains: if the pilots didn’t make a mistake, what—or who—caused Air India 171 to stop listening?