Ahmedabad crash puts Boeing under lens again over recurring safety issues

The crash of Air India Flight 171 on June 12 near Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport has once again brought Boeing under scrutiny. Aviation experts are putting forward various theories about what might have brought the aircraft down, killing 265 people, including 241 passengers and crew onboard.

Aviation safety consultant John M Cox, quoted by the Associated Press, said, “The image shows the airplane’s nose pitching up while it continues to descend. That suggests the plane wasn’t generating enough lift.”

Also Read: How Boeing 787 Dreamliner became a game-changer for long-haul flights

Low-quality footage limits clarity

Based on CCTV footage, a commercial airline pilot — without authorisation to speak publicly — noted that the aircraft’s landing gear stayed extended while the flaps were fully retracted at just 600 feet altitude.

Flaps, which are movable panels on the wing, help increase lift at slower speeds, especially during takeoff and landing. Keeping the landing gear down adds drag, or resistance, and retracting flaps too early removes the extra lift needed for the plane to climb safely.

Since the videos were of a low resolution and taken from a distance, experts could not reach any definitive conclusion. They emphasised that these theories must be corroborated with data retrieved from the Black Box, which includes the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder.

Survivor's story supports whistleblower's claims

Aviation experts affirm that flight crew follow a strict regimen and go through a take-off checklist, which includes flap settings. If these settings are incorrect, the warning system alerts the pilot instantly.

The testimony of Boeing whistleblower Sam Salehpour, presented before the US Congress in 2024, has resurfaced on social media, renewing concerns and raising doubts over safety issues.

He had warned that improperly sealed gaps between fuselage sections in 787s could cause “sudden structural failure during high-stress manoeuvres,” such as during takeoff, when the aircraft is under maximum strain.

Also Read: Ahmedabad plane crash: Pilot issued Mayday call; what is it?

Aerodynamic stalls: From sensor failures to structural flaws

An engineer familiar with Airbus Neo230 systems explained that a stall occurs when the wings fail to generate lift, usually because the angle of attack becomes too steep and the smooth airflow over the wing breaks up.

The plane then begins to fall, even if the engines are still working. Although stalls are usually associated with steep climbs, another theory suggests that faulty sensors may mislead the flight control system, sometimes triggering inappropriate and dangerous automated responses.

The role of MCAS (Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System) in the 737 MAX disasters was highlighted in the final accident report by Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee, which found that a misaligned AOA sensor fed erroneous data to the flight control computer, triggering MCAS and repeatedly forcing the aircraft’s nose down until it crashed.

The report emphasised that MCAS was activated by a single faulty sensor and that pilots struggled to counteract the system, a scenario Boeing initially defended. But later, it acknowledged the system’s flaws and implemented design changes.

Aviation engineers and safety experts have repeatedly stressed that both MCAS and modern fly-by-wire systems are only as reliable as the sensor data they receive. Flawed data can mislead these systems to automate

Sensor data is critical

According to FlightGlobal and other sources, the Boeing 787 does not use MCAS, but instead features a "fly-by-wire" electronic flight control system.

This system processes pilot commands electronically and relies on accurate sensor data to function properly.

The Federal Aviation Administration has warned that data-monitoring problems in the 787’s avionics could result in misleading flight data being displayed, with potentially catastrophic consequences if sensor data is incorrect.

Aviation engineers and safety experts have repeatedly stressed that both MCAS and modern fly-by-wire systems are only as reliable as the sensor data they receive. Flawed data can mislead these systems to automate.

Standard Boeing 787 procedures require flaps to be set between 5 and 15 degrees during takeoff, and the landing gear should be retracted within about 15 seconds after liftoff.

Also Read: Ahmedabad crash: Insurance claims payout could run up to Rs 2,400 Crore, say experts

Time and altitude play a key role

Altitude played a critical role in the crash. At just 625 feet, the pilots may not have had enough time to correct a stall.

Even for practice sessions, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flying Handbook recommends practising stall recovery drills at altitudes no lower than 1,500 feet above ground level, specifically because recovery at lower altitudes may not be possible before ground impact.

Reaction time is also crucial. For example, a 2023 study found that airline pilots took an average of 42.6 seconds to respond to an unexpected unreliable airspeed event in simulator tests.

In the case of the Ahmedabad crash, the entire sequence — from takeoff to impact — lasted only 71 seconds. The only surviving passenger, 40-year-old Viswashkumar Ramesh, seated in 11A near an emergency exit, said there was “no panic until impact”, which could support the theory that the crew remained in control and attempted emergency measures right until the final moments.

These details, however, need to be confirmed by official investigation.

Also Read: After Ahmedabad crash, DGCA orders inspection of Air India's Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet

Boeing’s cycle of denial

Boeing’s public response to the AI171 crash has followed a familiar script, echoing its handling of the 737 MAX disasters.

In its statement, the company said it was “supporting investigators and keeping affected families in our thoughts," — nearly identical to its 2018 statement after the Lion Air crash.

That earlier crisis revealed a pattern of deflection and concealment, as confirmed by various investigative reports and official findings.

Boeing rejects faulty system allegation

In October 2018, after the Lion Air crash, Boeing claimed the pilots “didn’t follow the checklist”, even though, as The Seattle Times and the US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure later reported that no such checklist existed because pilots had never been informed about the MCAS system.

The next month, Boeing shifted the blame to poor training and maintenance, despite having omitted any mention of MCAS from official training materials — a fact confirmed by the US Department of Justice and widely reported by media outlets such as the BBC.

By January 2019, Boeing asserted that “MCAS is safe when used properly,” despite FAA assessments and investigative reports proving that the system could be fatally triggered by a single faulty sensor, with no reliable way for pilots to override it.

Following the second crash in March 2019 — Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — Boeing continued to insist there was no need to ground the aircraft. The FAA echoed this stance until international regulators enforced grounding due to nearly identical circumstances between the two accidents.

Even in October 2019, Boeing maintained that “we stand by our design,” despite internal emails and text messages—reported by NDTV and Reuters—showing that Boeing engineers and test pilots had flagged serious problems with MCAS as early as 2016, including concerns about its behaviour in simulators and about misleading regulators regarding its performance.

Also Read: ‘Opened my eyes, saw I'm alive’: Sole survivor of Ahmedabad crash recounts horror, escape

Profit over safety

These choices weren’t just technical missteps; they were financial decisions. US Department of Justice filings revealed that Boeing wanted to avoid pilot retraining, saving the company USD 1 million per plane, at the cost of 346 lives.

Now, with the 2025 crash under scrutiny, Boeing’s rhetoric has not changed. Current CEO David Calhoun has promised to “share learnings transparently” even as the company dismissed whistleblower Sam Salehpour’s warnings just a year ago as “theoretical”.

Black Box holds the answers

While the Black Box was recovered quickly, it will take some time before its contents are downloaded and analysed.

Meanwhile, the aviation regulator — the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) — has launched a fleet-wide audit of Air India’s Boeing 787s following the crash.

As families mourn, the deeper question now confronting the industry is whether this tragedy could, and should, have been prevented.