Did Boeing’s hidden flaw doom Flight 171? 😱 Just 32 seconds after takeoff, both engines died, and the pilots’ desperate “Mayday” call went unanswered. Was it human error—or a design defect that stripped them of control?
👉 Uncover the shocking truth here:

Introduction

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed 32 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, en route to London Gatwick. The tragedy claimed 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 lives on the ground, marking it as the deadliest aviation disaster in a decade and the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787 since its 2011 debut. A preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), released on July 8, 2025, revealed that both engines lost thrust when their fuel control switches were moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” seconds after liftoff. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured a chilling exchange: one pilot asked, “Why did you cut off?” and the other replied, “I didn’t.” This has sparked intense debate about whether human error, a mechanical failure, or a design flaw in Boeing’s 787 left the pilots powerless. This article examines the evidence, focusing on the role of a potential Boeing design flaw, as highlighted by a 2018 FAA advisory, and whether it could have contributed to the catastrophe.

The Crash: A Devastating 32 Seconds

At 1:38 p.m. IST (08:08 UTC), Flight 171, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, began its takeoff roll. The aircraft, registered VT-ANB, was an 11-year-old Boeing 787-8 with General Electric GEnx-1B engines, each with 28,000 to 33,000 operating hours. Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, with 15,638 flight hours (8,596 on the 787), monitored the flight, while First Officer Clive Kunder, 32, with 3,403 hours (1,128 on the 787), was the pilot flying. At 08:08:39 UTC, the plane lifted off, reaching 180 knots and climbing to 650 feet. Three seconds later, at 08:08:42, both fuel control switches moved to “CUTOFF,” starving the engines of fuel. The ram air turbine (RAT) deployed, indicating a total power loss, and the landing gear remained down, suggesting no time for retraction.

The CVR captured the pilots’ confusion, with one asking why the fuel was cut off and the other denying responsibility. By 08:08:52, the pilots moved the switches back to “RUN,” triggering an automatic engine relight. One engine began regaining thrust, but the other had not recovered power. At 08:09:05, a “Mayday, Mayday, Mayday” call was transmitted, but air traffic control received no response. Six seconds later, the plane crashed into the hostel block of B.J. Medical College, 1.5 kilometers from the runway, erupting in flames and destroying five buildings. The sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, a 40-year-old British national, escaped via an emergency exit.

The Fuel Control Switch Mystery

The AAIB report pinpointed the fuel control switches as the immediate cause of the engine shutdown. Located on the cockpit’s center console, these switches are designed with a metal stop-lock mechanism, requiring pilots to lift and toggle them deliberately to move from “RUN” to “CUTOFF.” This safeguard should prevent accidental movement, as noted by aviation expert Keith Tonkin: “You can’t just bump these switches by accident.” Yet, within one second of each other, both switches were flipped, causing an immediate loss of thrust. The pilots’ attempt to restore fuel flow came too late to recover the low-altitude flight.

The CVR’s brief excerpt—“Why did you cut off?” followed by “I didn’t”—has fueled speculation. The report does not identify the speakers, and the full transcript is expected in the final report, due within a year. The lack of clarity has led to theories of human error, intentional action, or a mechanical or electronic issue. However, a 2018 FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB NM-18-33) has drawn significant attention, raising questions about whether a Boeing design flaw could have rendered the pilots powerless.

The 2018 FAA Advisory: A Design Flaw?

In December 2018, the FAA issued an advisory highlighting that some Boeing 737 fuel control switches were installed with disengaged locking mechanisms, potentially allowing unintended movement. The same switch design is used in the Boeing 787-8, including Air India’s VT-ANB. The SAIB was not mandatory, and Air India did not conduct the recommended inspections, as the issue was not deemed an immediate safety risk requiring an Airworthiness Directive. John Cox, a former pilot and safety consultant, noted that the switches on Flight 171 were replaced by 2023, with no defects reported since, suggesting the locking mechanism was likely engaged.

However, the advisory raises a critical question: could a disengaged or faulty locking mechanism have allowed the switches to move without pilot intervention? Posts on X have amplified this theory, with users like @BDUTT criticizing media for focusing on pilot error while ignoring the FAA advisory. Others, like @flyingbeast320, pointed to additional system failures, such as the emergency locator transmitter (ELT), suggesting broader issues with the aircraft’s systems. Aviation analyst Mary Schiavo referenced a 2019 All Nippon Airways incident where a Boeing 787’s software mistakenly shut down an engine mid-flight, warning that a similar glitch in the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system could not be ruled out.

Pilot Error or System Failure?

The pilots’ experience—over 19,000 combined flight hours—makes deliberate or accidental error seem unlikely. Both passed pre-flight breathalyzer tests and had adequate rest, ruling out fatigue or intoxication. The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association and the Airline Pilots’ Association of India have rejected claims of human error as “reckless and unfounded,” emphasizing the pilots’ impeccable records and the need to examine maintenance and system issues. A Canada-based investigator suggested that if a pilot operated the switches unwittingly, they might deny it due to shock or muscle memory, but deliberate intent seems improbable given the pilots’ profiles.

The FADEC system, which regulates engine performance, could theoretically trigger an automatic shutdown if it misinterprets sensor data, as in the 2019 Osaka incident. However, the CVR’s dialogue, occurring after the switches moved, suggests the pilots physically noticed the change, undermining the FADEC theory. Simulations by Air India pilots failed to replicate a dual-engine flame-out due to electrical failures, further focusing attention on the switches. The absence of cockpit camera footage, which could confirm pilot actions, has also raised concerns, with former pilot Martin criticizing its omission.

Other Factors: Bird Strikes, Maintenance, and More

Initial theories included bird strikes, fuel contamination, or flap misconfiguration, but these have been largely dismissed. CCTV footage showed no significant bird activity, and fuel samples were satisfactory. The 787’s takeoff configuration warning system would have alerted the pilots to flap issues, and visual evidence suggests the slats and flaps were extended correctly. Air India’s maintenance practices are under scrutiny, particularly its failure to inspect the fuel switches post-2018 SAIB. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) ordered inspections of Air India’s 33 Boeing 787s by July 21, 2025, with no issues found in the locking mechanisms.

The RAT’s deployment and the landing gear’s down position indicate a rapid systems failure, but the exact cause remains unclear. The 787’s advanced fly-by-wire system should compensate for asymmetric thrust, yet no yawing was observed, suggesting both engines failed simultaneously. The lack of urgent advisories to Boeing or GE Aerospace, as noted by the NTSB and FAA, suggests no immediate mechanical flaw, but the investigation continues.

Implications for Boeing and Aviation Safety

The crash has reignited concerns about Boeing’s safety record, already strained by the 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019. Posts on X, like @MumbaichaDon’s, have accused Boeing of cost-cutting measures compromising quality, though no evidence directly links this to Flight 171. The 787’s “more-electric” architecture, relying heavily on electrical systems, could be vulnerable to glitches, but the AAIB’s preliminary report found no mechanical faults. If a design flaw is confirmed, it could lead to mandatory inspections or modifications across the global 787 fleet, impacting Boeing’s reputation and finances. Boeing’s stock futures dropped nearly 9% post-crash, reflecting market concerns.

The tragedy also highlights the challenges of low-altitude emergencies. A Boeing 787 pilot explained that at 650 feet, pilots have mere seconds to react, with landing gear retraction and flight path management taking precedence over diagnosing dual-engine failure. The incident underscores the need for robust safeguards on critical controls and clearer maintenance directives.

Conclusion

The Air India Flight 171 disaster remains an enigma, with the fuel control switches’ movement at its core. While the 2018 FAA advisory raises the possibility of a Boeing design flaw, the evidence is inconclusive. The switches’ locking mechanism, pilot experience, and lack of mechanical faults complicate the narrative. The CVR’s haunting exchange suggests human or system involvement, but without the full transcript or cockpit footage, speculation persists. The AAIB’s final report, expected by mid-2026, will hopefully clarify whether a design flaw left the pilots powerless or if other factors were at play. For now, the aviation industry and grieving families await answers, as the crash serves as a sobering reminder of the stakes in ensuring aircraft safety.