Air India crash report: ‘No pilot would do that,’ say experts

When Air India flight AI-171 crashed just seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad on June 12, a chilling snippet from the cockpit voice recorder has now made headlines:

"Why did you cut off the fuel?"

"I did not do so."

In the absence of a detailed explanation from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), this single exchange appeared to confirm what is often the go-to theory in aviation disasters: pilot error. But now, senior aviation experts are pushing back forcefully.

Also read | Air India crash report: Pilots' body alleges bias in preliminary report

“There is no possibility of inadvertent tampering with the fuel shut-off switches by the pilots,” says Air Marshal (Retd) M Matheswaran, one of India’s most respected aviation minds. “By design, these are critical switches and are located such that deliberate and clear action is needed to operate them. This is a mechanical and electronic system failure, not human error.”

The cockpit voice recording, according to preliminary data, does confirm the movement of both fuel control switches, from “Run” to “Off”, effectively starving the engines of fuel just as the aircraft was beginning to climb. The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner lost power after it had reached an indicated airspeed of 153 knots at 08:08:35 UTC. The pilots had no time to declare an emergency, consult a checklist, or recover from what followed: total thrust loss, cascading system failures, and a catastrophic descent.

Design that demands intentional action

Captain Saurabh Bhatnagar, a veteran airline pilot and aviation instructor, explains why the idea of the pilots manually switching off both fuel switches during takeoff is implausible.

“No sane pilot would ever switch off the fuel control switches during takeoff. Everyone knows that doing so cuts off the fuel supply and shuts down the engines. More importantly, these switches themselves are not something you can just flip. They’re spring-loaded, gated, and manually protected against accidental operation. You must lift, hold, and shift them with intent. It’s not like brushing your hand across a light switch. You’d have to reach below the thrust levers on the central pedestal and deliberately move them.”

These switches, one for each engine, are designed to be tamper-proof. They’re mechanically locked to prevent unintentional activation. When the switches were found in the “Off” position post-crash, it meant someone or something had physically moved them. And yet, the flight data shows there was no logical reason for either pilot to do so. Both engines were functioning normally, and this phase of flight, climbout, typically requires the crew’s full attention on aircraft control rather than on managing system settings.

“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,” says Bhatnagar

No time for checklists, recovery

One of the theories floated after the crash was that a checklist failure or procedural oversight may have led to the dual-engine shutdown. Both experts reject this categorically.

“During takeoff, there is no printed checklist in hand,” says Bhatnagar. “Everything in those initial seconds is done from memory. You only start running through printed checklists after reaching a safe altitude. In this case, there was barely any altitude. The aircraft lost power within seconds. So theories involving checklist error don’t hold water.”

The loss of thrust caused an immediate loss of electrical and hydraulic systems, as well as systems that are powered by the engines. While the aircraft is equipped with emergency backups like the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), these take time to deploy and don’t provide full power.

“When both engines fail at low altitude, you lose more than just propulsion,” says a Deutsche Lufthansa engineer who handles Airbus. “You lose hydraulics, electricals, and control. The RAT will eventually deploy to provide limited power, but not fast enough. There was simply no time.”

Why do the fuel switches have guards?

Boeing has put safeguards in place for fuel switches and engine switches to rule out the possibility of pilots inadvertently turning them off.

In 1987, Delta Flight 810, a Boeing 767, lost both engines mid-flight when a pilot inadvertently shut down the fuel supply due to confusing switch placement. The aircraft descended a dangerous 1,700 feet and came within just 500 feet of crashing into water before the pilots managed to correct the error and restart the engines. In response, Boeing modified the panel layouts to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Also read | Ahmedabad Air India plane crash report highlights: 10 things AAIB said

In 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Special Airworthiness Inspection Bulletin warning airlines of potential vulnerabilities in Boeing’s fuel control system. But, as Matheswaran notes, advisories aren’t enough. “This was a known design issue that the FAA identified in 2018. However, the advisory was treated as a cautionary note rather than prompting concrete action. Ideally, the FAA should have mandated corrective measures by both Boeing and the airlines to address the flaw effectively.”

Pattern of blaming Indian pilots

In several past incidents involving Boeing aircraft, there has been a noticeable tendency to initially attribute accidents to pilot error, particularly when the crew is from non-Western countries. For instance, in the case of Lion Air Flight 610, Boeing first suggested crew error as the cause before acknowledging that pilots had not been adequately informed about the MCAS software, which led to a nosedive. The flight's captain, Bhavye Suneja, was Indian.

“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,” says Captain Bhatnagar.

Final seconds and final questions

The fact that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) was deployed indicates complete power failure, consistent with both engines shutting down. The gear and slats didn’t retract, possibly because the aircraft never reached sufficient speed or thrust to trigger retraction.

“Since both engines shut down, it would lead to hydraulic failure till such time the RAM engine takes over as the emergency system. Given that this has happened at a very low altitude, there has not been enough time for the emergency system to cut in. Hence, the retraction of slats and undercarriage would not have happened,” says Matheswaran.

Also read | Air India plane crash report: How fuel switches work in aircraft

Captain Bhatnagar is troubled by the limited CVR release: “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 leads to more ambiguity than clarity.”

Who will be held accountable?

In aviation, the truth sometimes dies with the crew. AI-171’s final moments have been reduced to a few data points and a single chilling line. But the fuller picture is yet to emerge. Further investigation may reveal that the issue was not solely due to human error, but potentially the result of several systemic factors.