NOT pilot error! 8 shocking reasons behind the AI 171 crash will blow your mind!
The world blamed the pilots for the tragic Air India Flight 171 disaster, but experts have uncovered chilling evidence proving it wasn’t their fault. What really caused the Boeing 787 to plummet in Ahmedabad? The truth is more disturbing than you think. ✈️😱 👉 Want to know the real cause? Click to uncover the jaw-dropping facts!
The catastrophic crash of Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, on June 12, 2025, shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, claimed 241 of 242 lives onboard and 19 on the ground, marking one of the deadliest aviation disasters in recent history. Initial speculation pointed to pilot error, fueled by reports that the fuel control switches were moved to the “cutoff” position, shutting down both engines. However, the preliminary findings from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), combined with expert analyses from sources like the BBC, Al Jazeera, and The Financial Express, reveal a different story. Eight compelling reasons—ranging from technical failures to systemic oversights—demonstrate that the crash was not the fault of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder. This article uncovers these shocking factors, shedding light on the true causes of the tragedy and their implications for aviation safety.
1. Water Ingress Compromising Critical Systems
Aviation expert Richard Godfrey, quoted in The Financial Express (August 11, 2025), identified water ingress in the Electronic Equipment (EE) bay as a leading cause of the crash. A 2025 FAA Airworthiness Directive warned that leaks from lavatory or galley water lines could infiltrate the EE bay, potentially causing short circuits in critical systems. Such a malfunction could have triggered the fuel control switches to move to “cutoff” without pilot intervention, as seen in a 2019 All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 incident where software errors led to an engine shutdown. This environmental failure points to maintenance lapses rather than pilot error, absolving the crew of responsibility.
2. Defective Fuel Control Switch Mechanism
The Boeing 787’s fuel control switches, designed with a locking mechanism to prevent accidental movement, were found to have a critical flaw. A 2018 FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) noted that some switches had disengaged locks, a defect present in Air India’s VT-ANB aircraft. Air India’s failure to act on this advisory, as reported by the UK Civil Aviation Authority in 2025, meant the switches could have been moved unintentionally, possibly by a system glitch. This design issue undermines claims that the pilots deliberately or mistakenly flipped the switches, shifting focus to Boeing’s engineering.
3. Potential FADEC System Failure
The Federation of Indian Pilots suggested a potential failure in the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system, which governs engine performance. The AAIB’s preliminary report noted that both engines shut down simultaneously after the switches moved, an unlikely outcome for manual action. A FADEC glitch, possibly triggered by electrical interference or water ingress, could have sent false signals to cut fuel flow, similar to the 2019 All Nippon Airways case. Aviation expert Mary Schiavo supports this theory, emphasizing that such failures point to technological issues, not pilot error.
4. Absence of Robust Fail-Safe Mechanisms
The Boeing 787’s cockpit lacked adequate fail-safe lockouts for the fuel control switches, as highlighted by The Daily Pioneer (August 25, 2025). Unlike critical systems with audible alarms or physical barriers, these switches could be activated silently during takeoff, a phase requiring pilot focus elsewhere. This design oversight, which allowed a potential glitch to go unnoticed, contradicts assumptions that the pilots intentionally shut down the engines, pointing instead to a systemic failure in the aircraft’s safety architecture.
5. Maintenance Lapses and Regulatory Non-Compliance
Air India’s failure to address known issues exacerbated the crash’s likelihood. The airline did not comply with the FAA’s 2025 directive on preventing water ingress, nor did it inspect the fuel control switches’ locking mechanisms, despite the 2018 SAIB. Post-crash inspections, rushed and inconclusive, further suggest negligence, as noted by Godfrey. These oversights, detailed in The Hindu (July 9, 2025), indicate that systemic maintenance failures, not pilot actions, set the stage for the disaster.
6. Automatic Deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)
The AAIB report confirmed that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup power source, deployed automatically five seconds after the fuel switches moved to “cutoff”. This rapid activation, captured on CCTV, signals a major electrical failure independent of pilot control. The RAT’s deployment suggests the aircraft lost primary power, likely due to a short circuit or system error, reinforcing the case that the pilots were responding to an unexpected crisis rather than causing it.
7. Ambiguous Cockpit Voice Recorder Evidence
The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured a brief exchange: one pilot asked, “Why did you cut off?” with the other replying, “I did not”. This snippet, reported by the BBC, lacks context, as the AAIB has not released the full transcript. Aviation safety expert Shawn Pruchnicki warns against interpreting this as evidence of pilot error, noting it could reflect confusion over a system malfunction. The ambiguity suggests the pilots were reacting to an anomalous event, not initiating it, challenging early media narratives.
8. Human Factors and Cockpit Ergonomics
The Bloomberg report (July 24, 2025) highlights the “startle effect,” where sudden alarms overwhelmed the pilots in the 10 seconds between engine shutdown and impact. The Boeing 787’s cockpit design, with centrally located fuel switches, may have contributed to confusion under pressure, as noted by NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy. This ergonomic flaw, combined with the intense cognitive load of an unexpected crisis, shifts blame from the pilots to the aircraft’s human-machine interface, which failed to support effective decision-making.
Historical Context and Investigation
The AI 171 crash occurred amid ongoing concerns about Boeing’s safety record, following 737 MAX crashes and a 2025 panel blowout. The aircraft, VT-ANB, had accumulated 41,868 flight hours and featured newly installed GE GEnx-1B engines. The pilots, Captain Sabharwal (15,638 hours) and First Officer Kunder (3,403 hours), were experienced and cleared for duty, with no evidence of fatigue or error. The AAIB’s preliminary report, released July 8, 2025, focuses on technical anomalies, supported by international investigators from Boeing, the FAA, and the UK CAA. A final report, expected by mid-2026, aims to clarify the crash’s causes.
Skeptical Perspectives
Early reports, like those in The Wall Street Journal, suggested the captain intentionally cut the fuel, drawing criticism from the Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association for premature conclusions. Aviation experts like John Cox argue that the switches’ design makes accidental movement unlikely, while Mary Schiavo emphasizes the need for complete data. The selective release of CVR audio and unverified U.S. media leaks have fueled skepticism, with Jeff Wise noting that systemic issues are often downplayed in favor of pilot-focused narratives.
Human and Global Impact
The crash’s toll—260 deaths and 67 ground injuries—devastated communities, with the sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, symbolizing rare hope. Air India grounded 83 wide-body aircraft for inspections and retired the AI171 flight number, reflecting the tragedy’s severity. Compared to mysteries like MH370, the crash has sparked global calls for enhanced safety protocols, with X posts amplifying public outrage. The AI-171 Memorial Trust, established by Air India, supports victims’ families, but demands for accountability persist.
Implications for Aviation Safety
The AI 171 crash exposes vulnerabilities in aircraft design, maintenance, and automation. Calls for mandatory fail-safe lockouts, real-time diagnostics, and stricter maintenance compliance have intensified, as noted by The Daily Pioneer. The FAA and UK CAA’s post-crash directives for Boeing 787 inspections signal a push for fleet-wide reviews. If water ingress or FADEC issues are confirmed, Boeing could face further scrutiny, impacting its reputation. The tragedy underscores the need for robust safety systems to prevent similar failures, shaping future aviation standards.
Conclusion
The Air India Flight 171 crash was driven by a cascade of failures—water ingress, defective switches, FADEC malfunctions, missing fail-safes, maintenance lapses, RAT deployment, ambiguous CVR evidence, and poor cockpit ergonomics—none of which point to pilot error. These eight reasons, grounded in the AAIB’s findings and expert analyses, reveal a tragedy rooted in systemic and technical shortcomings. As the investigation continues, the aviation industry faces a reckoning, with the victims’ legacy driving demands for safer skies. The truth about AI 171, far from pilot error, is a sobering reminder of technology’s limits when oversight fails.
