Air India Ahmedabad AI-171 crash: Was it Boeing, not the pilots?

The tragic Air India Express crash in Ahmedabad has once again spotlighted Boeing's aircraft design and accountability.

With the recent release of the cockpit voice recordings revealing a chilling exchange—"Did you switch off the fuel switch?" "No, I didn’t"—the questions are mounting.

In this in-depth interview, Captain Saurabh Bhatnagar, a senior aviation professional, offers technical insights into the incident, the aircraft's design, and the underlying culture of blame.

Where exactly is the fuel control switch located in the Boeing 787 cockpit, and how is it designed to prevent accidental operation?

The fuel control switches in a Boeing 787 are located inside the cockpit, just below the thrust levers on the central pedestal. These are manually controlled, spring-loaded, and gated switches—meaning you must lift them against a spring and move them deliberately to either the "run" or "off" position. Once set, they lock back into place. Switching it off electronically signals the shutoff valve to stop fuel supply to the engine.

There are two such switches—one for each engine. If you shut off the left one, fuel stops going to the left engine, and vice versa. These switches are heavily guarded to prevent inadvertent activation.

Given the safeguards in place, is it plausible that a pilot could accidentally switch off both fuel switches during takeoff?

No sane pilot would ever do that. Everyone knows that switching off the fuel control switch cuts off fuel supply, leading to engine shutdown. It's highly improbable during such a critical phase like takeoff.

Even in the past, inadvertent switch-offs have occurred mid-flight, not at takeoff. A pilot might shut down a failed engine mid-air as part of standard protocol. But shutting off a healthy engine or both by mistake is extremely rare. The switches are physically guarded to prevent such scenarios. It would require a manual lift and deliberate action. It's not just flipping a light switch.

The report mentions the switches were moved. Could this still be attributed to a mechanical issue or design flaw?

The report indicates the switches were moved—commanded—which means they physically changed position. That brings up more questions: Who moved them, and why?

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) only gives a single line—“Why did you switch it off?”—but doesn’t clarify which pilot said it. Each pilot’s mic is recorded separately, and it’s possible to identify the speaker. The pilot flying was the co-pilot (right seat), and the captain was on the left. But without identifying who made the switch or why, the report raises more ambiguity than clarity.

Wouldn’t these pilots have been following a rigorous checklist, especially just after takeoff?

During takeoff, there’s no checklist in hand. Pilots rely on memory for critical actions. Only after reaching a safe altitude do they begin following the printed checklist.

At the time of this crash—just four seconds after takeoff—there would have been no time to consult any checklist. So theories involving procedural failure or checklist error don’t hold. Everything in those first seconds relies on memory and muscle memory.

The report also rules out hydraulic or landing gear issues, correct?

Yes. Initial theories around landing gear or slats being improperly retracted were ruled out. The flaps and landing gear lever were in the correct position. The aircraft hadn't reached the point where landing gear retraction would have occurred—it was too soon.

Also, the gear wasn’t raised because there was likely already a failure in one engine, limiting the ability to retract gear due to insufficient hydraulic power or thrust. The engine data recorder confirms the fuel control switches were put off and then back on, suggesting a possible attempt at engine relight, which is part of dual engine failure procedures.

Could the fly-by-wire system have played a role in the crash?

Fly-by-wire essentially means there’s no physical connection between the pilot controls and the aircraft's control surfaces. Instead, electronic signals command hydraulic actuators via computers. These systems have built-in protections. For instance, they won’t allow the pilot to take the aircraft beyond its flight envelope—like too steep a nose-up attitude.

However, in this case, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has stated there was no problem with the flight control systems. The problem was with engine thrust—not enough lift because the engines weren’t providing power.

So what would the pilots have been experiencing in the cockpit during those final seconds?

If both engines fail, the aircraft loses not only thrust but electrical and hydraulic systems, which are powered by the engines. Backup systems like the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) kick in, but they take time and don't always power everything.

If the engines fail that soon after takeoff, there may not be enough time or altitude for these backups to become effective. So yes, alarms would be blaring—engine failure, hydraulic failure, electrical failure—but in this case, power likely failed entirely before most alerts could even activate. The cockpit would have gone dark. It was catastrophic.

There’s been some concern about cultural bias in how blame is assigned. Do you think there's a pattern of blaming non-white pilots in such cases?

While I don’t want to speculate without evidence, yes—there’s often a tendency to shift blame away from manufacturers. Boeing will naturally want to come out clean, and the first reaction is to point to pilot error. The AAIB report, too, only says *what* happened—it doesn’t explain *why* or *how* it happened.

But moving the switches from “run” to “off” cannot happen automatically—not even due to software. They must be physically moved. If the locking mechanism failed, that’s a Boeing issue. That’s why it’s important not to rush to blame pilots, especially when they can’t defend themselves.

Given that the incident occurred just seconds after takeoff, how realistic is it that the pilots could have manually switched off both fuel switches?

It’s almost impossible. During takeoff, the pilot flying keeps hands on the yoke, and the pilot monitoring is also on alert, ready to assist. Neither would have their hands near the central pedestal where the fuel switches are located. For both to be moved within seconds is highly unrealistic.

The fact that the report hasn’t revealed more of the CVR data only deepens the mystery. Just one line doesn’t tell us enough. The investigation needs to identify who said what and when.

From a layperson’s perspective, why do airplanes even have a fuel switch? You don’t have that in cars.

Good question. In cars, you switch off the engine with a key or button—cutting off electricity. But aircraft use turbine engines, which don’t stop unless fuel supply is cut off. So the fuel control switch is the only way to shut down the engine.

It’s essential not just for regular shutdowns, but also emergencies—like fuel leaks or engine fires. You need a way to stop fuel to prevent explosions. Fuel dumping, on the other hand, is a separate system, used to reduce landing weight. But in emergencies, especially with engine issues, cutting fuel supply through the switch is a safety protocol.

Since the pilots didn’t declare an emergency, does that suggest they were still trying to manage the situation rather than give up?

Absolutely. From what we understand, they were hands-on, trying everything they could to recover the aircraft. But if you lose engine thrust seconds after takeoff, you're essentially in a glider. With a fully loaded aircraft and no altitude, there’s not much time or room to act. They must have followed every standard operating procedure they knew in that moment—but sadly, it wasn’t enough.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.