Air India 171

This blog was originally written for Il Trafiletto and accessible here.

The recent Air India Flight 171 accident, in which a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crashed into a building shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad Airport on June 12, 2025, captured global attention due to the speed and severity of the events. At 13:37:33 local time (08:07:33 UTC), the aircraft received clearance for take-off from Runway 23. Five seconds later, it began its take-off roll, reaching VR—the speed at which pilots initiate rotation—and lifted off at 13:38:39 local time. The aircraft remained airborne for less than a minute before crashing into a building, resulting in the deaths of 260 people, including 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 people on the ground.

The speed at which this tragedy unfolded immediately sparked speculation about the causes of the crash: a bird strike, a technical failure, or human error? Videos of the incident began circulating online, fueling theories that the aircraft had not used the entire runway, that the flaps had not been correctly set, or that a dual engine failure had occurred.

As is standard in these cases, authorities immediately launched an investigation led by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), with support from the UK AAIB since the flight was bound for London, and the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as the aircraft was manufactured in the United States. Within two days of the accident, both black boxes were recovered, containing the flight data and cockpit voice recordings.

As an aviation enthusiast and ultralight planes pilot, I followed every update closely to better understand what might have happened. However, I immediately noticed how, even in the first hours, unverified theories began circulating online, often shared simply to capture attention, alongside a constant wave of accusations against Boeing, regardless of the actual circumstances. The first available data confirmed that the aircraft had used the full length of the runway, ruling out one of the initial theories. Additionally, early analyses by experienced airline pilots clarified that an incorrect flap setting would trigger multiple visual and aural warnings in the cockpit, giving the pilots the opportunity to abort the take-off, making this scenario unlikely.

On July 8, 2025, just over three weeks after the accident, investigators released their initial findings, revealing an unexpected element: just seconds after take-off, the switches controlling fuel flow to the engines were moved from RUN to CUTOFF one second apart, causing both engines to lose power. Cockpit recordings captured one pilot asking the other why they had cut off the fuel supply, with the other replying that they had not done so.

The preliminary report identified the probable cause as the loss of engine power due to fuel cutoff during the critical take-off phase, also confirming that the flaps were correctly configured. However, the dynamics of the incident require further investigation to determine whether it was due to human error or a mechanical fault. In the weeks following the preliminary report, some newspapers reported leaks suggesting that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal had intentionally cut the fuel supply due to alleged depression, but such claims remain unconfirmed and can only be verified once the final report is released.

After tragic events like this, it is understandable that there is a collective need to find answers and understand what happened. However, spreading premature or oversimplified theories risks creating confusion and hindering the fact-finding process. Once a narrative takes hold in public opinion, it can be difficult to change it later, even in the light of new data.

We live in an age that demands immediate answers to everything, but complex operations like air accident investigations require time, expertise, and rigor to reach reliable conclusions. As aviation enthusiasts, professionals, or simply observers, we have a responsibility to resist the temptation to speculate for views or engagement and to respect the investigation timelines, waiting for concrete data before forming judgments.

Only in this way can we transform tragedies like this into opportunities for collective learning, helping to improve aviation safety and understanding while avoiding adding confusion where clarity and respect are needed most.