The Air India crash report and unanswered questions

Hindustan Times

2 days ago

The release of the preliminary investigation report into the tragic crash of Air India Flight AI171 on June 12, 2025, brings with it a fresh wave of confusion, and suspicion. The 15-page document, expected to clarify the early findings of the crash of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner at Ahmedabad, opens a Pandora's box of unresolved questions and incomplete disclosures. It paints a picture that is more fragmented than coherent.
Flight AI171, operating a scheduled service from Ahmedabad to London, crashed moments after takeoff, killing all 260 people on board. The aircraft, VT-ANB, lifted off the runway and within seconds, both engines ceased to produce thrust. Within half a minute, the plane had descended into the nearby college hostels, engulfed in flames. According to the report, the aircraft reached a speed of 180 knots at approximately 08:08:42 UTC. Shortly after, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel control switches were found to have transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF — just one second apart. Ten seconds later, the crew attempted to restart the engines. But by then, it was too late. The aircraft descended uncontrollably to the ground.
ICAO Annex 13 clearly states that the objective of a preliminary report is not to assign blame or determine cause, but to provide a factual sequence of events, highlight significant safety concerns, and issue urgent recommendations if necessary. It is meant to inform other States and parties involved about the early facts of the case, so that timely corrective actions may be initiated if needed.
However, while the AI171 preliminary report adheres to the form of Annex 13, it falls short in spirit and substance. It avoids conclusions, as expected, but in doing so also omits a substantial amount of critical information that should have been presented.
The most glaring absence is of the comprehensive Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data. The report mentions the transition of the fuel control switches, which implies that this data exists and was retrieved. Yet, no graphical or tabular snapshot has been shared through the report. Nor is there any confirmation that 100% of the FDR data was recovered. Similarly, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) is only referenced once — a vague sentence about an attempted restart. There is no transcript, no clear timeline of the cockpit conversation, and no insight into the crew's awareness or state of mind.
In high-profile crashes worldwide — such as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — the preliminary reports have included detailed readouts from the FDR and CVR, graphical system schematics, warning messages, and pilot action logs. Those reports ran over 30 pages and offered transparency in the public interest. In contrast, AI171's report appears hastily compiled, which should not be the case for an investigative report.
It describes the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) — a small emergency turbine that powers key systems during engine failures, shortly after takeoff. It also notes a slew of unrelated system alerts yet offers no explanation as to why these were triggered, whether they were consequential or collateral, or how the aircraft's health monitoring system processed them.
Moreover, critical questions remain unanswered: Did the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) generate an ENG FAIL or similar warning at any point? Why did both fuel control switches move to CUTOFF? Was it pilot action, inadvertent contact, or a system fault?
Did the pilots misinterpret any signal, or was the failure abrupt and total? Why did the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) not activate? Why were crash-proof recorders (EFAR) damaged, especially when installed in parts of the fuselage designed to survive impact?
Adding to the mystery is the discrepancy in the aircraft's altitude. The RAT is said to have deployed at 60 feet, as inferred from the CCTV image, which again fails to produce a timestamp, which suggests that the onboard systems had already detected a power loss almost instantly after liftoff. Yet, the report timestamps this after the fuel control switch cutoff. Which came first: the RAT deployment or the engine shutdown? Absolute clarity about the sequence is necessary.
The report offers no safety recommendations. Despite multiple system anomalies, potential failure of critical safety features, and questionable cockpit switch behaviour, the report stops short of issuing a preliminary advisory to airlines, manufacturers, or regulators.
Compare this with Boeing's past actions. After similar incidents, service bulletins and safety information bulletins were quickly issued. Was any such communication shared internally within Air India or to other 787 operators worldwide?
For the families of the 260 people killed, this report offers no reassurance on the investigation, no clarity on whether similar aircraft are safe, and no indication that anyone has been held accountable or that corrective measures are underway. Transparency is the cornerstone of trust in aviation safety. A preliminary report that fails to provide basic data may only fuel doubt, and grief. In a country striving to become a global aviation hub, where air traffic is growing exponentially, this tragedy — and the lacklustre handling of its investigation — signals that our institutional capacity for accident investigation is still inadequate.
The AI171 preliminary report was an opportunity to demonstrate transparency, integrity, and commitment to learning. Instead, even as it avoids speculation, it avoids detail too. It follows the letter of ICAO Annex 13, but not its spirit. What we need next is not just a final report but a cultural shift where accident reports are comprehensive, timely, and made with the public's right to know in mind — where safety recommendations are proactive and where the data speaks for itself, because in aviation, the truth is a matter of life and death.
Amit Singh, a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society (FRAeS), is the founder of Safety Matters Foundation. The views expressed are personal