July 16, 2025
NEW DELHI – The tragedy of Air India flight 171 has, in its aftermath, thrown up far more questions than answers. In an era of rigorous aviation standards, redundant systems, and near-flawless fail-safes, how a modern aircraft like the Boeing 787-8 could crash within seconds of take-off ~ in clear weather and with no warning from the crew ~ demands urgent clarity. What makes this disaster chilling is the apparent cause unearthed in the preliminary probe: both fuel control switches were in the “cut-off” position, a setting meant to shut down engines after landing.
Their simultaneous de-activation shortly after lift-off led to an immediate loss of thrust and triggered the aircraft’s descent into an Ahmedabad medical students’ canteen. While the switches were returned to the “run” position and engine relight procedures automatically initiated, the aircraft had neither the time nor the altitude to recover. These switches are not vulnerable to casual or accidental engagement. They are protected by physical locks and guard brackets. It would require deliberate ~ and most likely coordinated ~ movement to de-activate both. The cockpit voice recorder captures one pilot asking the other why the cut-off was initiated. The response: a denial. But in the absence of speaker identification, the statement only deepens the ambiguity.
Was it human error? Sabotage? Systemic failure? None of these possibilities can yet be ruled out. Investigators are not suggesting foul play, but they are clearly unnerved by the implication that someone in the cockpit may have, however improbable that may seem in light of the time available, manually initiated the cut-off. That possibility alone ~ if confirmed ~ would shift the investigati – on from mechanical to psychological territory. In this case, silence is not just an absence of data ~ it is the loudest clue we have. But this finding should not become the red herring that diverts attention from the possibility of equipment malfunction.
The fact that the cockpit voice recorder still lacks voice attribution points to a deeper gap in post-crash protocols. In high-stakes scenarios, swift and confident identification of speakers should be standard. Without it, critical seconds of decision-making remain anonymous, stalling accountability and hindering systemic reforms that could prevent future tragedies. To complicate matters, an advisory issued some years ago by a major aviation regulator had flagged potential inconsistencies in similar fuel switch installations. The aircraft model involved in this crash shares that switch design. Yet, because the advisory was not classified as a mandatory directive, the recommended inspections were never carried out.
Mechanical failure has not been confirmed, but it also hasn’t been ruled out. Neither fuel contamination nor engine design flaws have been substantiated. The Ram Air Turbine deployment confirms total engine loss, but not its cause. Without cockpit video footage ~ a long-standing demand from some investigators ~ determining who did what remains speculative. This tragedy demands two immediate responses: the global standardisation of cockpit video recordings and a thorough re-examination of safety-critical components, however minor they may seem. Families deserve answers, not ambiguities. And in aviation, silence ~ even in a few unaccounted-for seconds ~ can be fatal.