Gold Rate: ₹9467.62 /g Silver Rate: ₹109.19 /g
Follow on
Deals OTT Releases Gadgets Exams Accidents Crime Indian Railways Indian Armed Forces Airlines India Tamil Nadu Kerala Karnataka Maharashtra West Bengal Gujarat

Air India AI 171 Crash: Unveiling the FAA Warnings, Fuel Switch Faults, and Regulatory Gaps

Share this article
Link copied!
Air India AI 171 Crash: Unveiling the FAA Warnings, Fuel Switch Faults, and Regulatory Gaps

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, tragically crashed shortly after takeoff from London to Ahmedabad, claiming 260 lives. The preliminary AAIB report revealed that both engine fuel control switches unexpectedly moved from RUN to CUTOFF within one second, resulting in dual engine failure.

But this disaster didn’t happen in a vacuum. A series of warnings dating back seven years went unacted upon.


2. December 2018 – FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin NM‑18‑33

In December 2018, the FAA issued SAIB NM‑18‑33 concerning Boeing fuel control switches, including those on the 787:

  • The locking mechanism could disengage unintentionally, allowing the switch to flip to CUTOFF without lifting.
  • This risk could cause an inflight engine shutdown.

Although it urged inspections, this was an advisory, not a mandatory Airworthiness Directive.


3. May 15, 2025 – UK CAA Safety Notice SN‑2015/005

Just weeks before the crash, the UK Civil Aviation Authority issued Safety Notice SN‑2015/005, version 2, dated 15 May 2025, requiring:

  • Mandatory checks, testing, or replacement of fuel shutoff valve actuators on Boeing 737/757/767/777/787 aircraft.
  • Crew-level daily inspections where allowed by existing Airworthiness Directives.

Despite the AI 171 being over UK airspace, neither Air India nor DGCA took preemptive steps.


4. DGCA’s July 2025 Mandate – Too Late to Matter

On July 14–15, 2025, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) issued a directive requiring all Indian airlines to inspect fuel switch locking mechanisms on Boeing 787 and specific 737 aircraft by 21 July 2025.

While the official DGCA circular is not yet available publicly, it references the FAA’s 2018 advisory and UK CAA’s 2025 notice, emphasizing the urgency. However, action was only taken after the crash claimed hundreds of lives.


5. RTI Disclosures: 65 Engine Shutdowns, 11 Mayday Calls

According to data released via India's Right to Information (RTI) Act, over the past five years:

  • 65 engine shutdown incidents occurred.
  • 11 Mayday declarations were made in the 17 months leading up to the crash.

Despite these alarming figures, there was no proactive regulatory response prior to June 2025.


6. Cockpit Voice Exchange – Technical or Intentional?

AAIB’s preliminary report captured the final cockpit exchange:

“Why did you cut off?”
“I didn’t.”

This suggests no pilot intentionally activated the fuel cutoff switches, pointing toward a potential mechanical or design defect that warrants deeper investigation.


7. Pilot Groups Push Back on ‘Suicide Theory’

After media speculation implied a possible pilot suicide, pilot associations responded strongly:

  • Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association (ICPA)
  • Airline Pilots Association of India
  • International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA)

They condemned the narrative as premature, unfounded, and diverting attention from systemic issues.


8. Boeing and FAA Reassurances vs. Systemic Risk

In response to concerns, Boeing and FAA emphasized:

  • The existing advisory suffices.
  • Fuel switch systems are safe when used correctly.

Yet multiple engine shutdown incidents—even with proper protocols—raise doubts about whether the design itself is flawed.


9. Global Aviation Response: Qatar Lead, India Following

  • Qatar Airways voluntarily implemented measures following the 2018 advisory.
  • Airlines in South Korea, UK, Singapore, UAE, among others, have also initiated inspections.

In contrast, India acted only post-crash, reflecting a reactive rather than preventive mindset.


10. Key Takeaways & Lessons

  1. Advisory-level warnings must prompt action, not delay.
  2. Pilot integrity must be upheld until firm proof emerges.
  3. Boeing should redesign the fuel switch to prevent accidental CUTOFF.
  4. The DGCA must strengthen alignment with global aviation safety protocols.

11. Conclusion

The AI 171 crash highlights a critical failure of the aviation safety ecosystem: warnings were issued, actions were postponed, and lives were lost. While the AAIB’s final report is forthcoming, the path forward must include:

  • Redesign of Boeing’s fuel switch.
  • Immediate inspection of at-risk fleets.
  • Systemic reforms to ensure regulatory bodies act on advisories proactively.

History will judge whether the industry learned—before another tragedy strikes.

India | Gujarat | Ahmedabad
Share this article
Link copied!

You can now subscribe free to our RagaDecode whatsapp channel for updates

Subscribe
Back to Home

Quick Info

How many people died in the AI 171 crash?
All 260 people onboard lost their lives, making it one of the deadliest aviation disasters involving an Indian airline.
What happened to Air India Flight AI 171?
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI 171 crashed shortly after takeoff from London en route to Ahmedabad, resulting in the deaths of 260 people. A preliminary report revealed that both engines shut down due to the fuel control switches unexpectedly moving from RUN to CUTOFF within one second.
What caused the dual engine failure in AI 171?
The preliminary AAIB report suggests that both engine fuel switches flipped from RUN to CUTOFF without pilot input, indicating a potential mechanical or design flaw in the switch locking mechanism.
Was there any prior warning about this issue?
Yes. In December 2018, the FAA issued SAIB NM‑18‑33 highlighting the risk of unintended fuel switch disengagement. A more recent UK CAA safety notice on May 15, 2025, mandated checks on affected aircraft models, including the 787.
Did Air India or DGCA act on the warnings before the crash?
No. Neither Air India nor the DGCA took proactive measures based on the FAA's 2018 advisory or the UK CAA’s 2025 notice. Action was taken only after the fatal crash occurred.
What did the DGCA mandate after the crash?
On July 14–15, 2025, DGCA issued a directive requiring all Indian airlines to inspect fuel switch locking mechanisms on Boeing 787 and certain 737 models by July 21, 2025. This came after the AI 171 crash.
Were there similar incidents before the AI 171 crash?
Yes. RTI data revealed 65 engine shutdowns and 11 Mayday calls in Indian airspace over the last five years, including the 17 months preceding the crash, with no regulatory overhaul until after the disaster.
Did the pilots of AI 171 intentionally shut down the engines?
The cockpit voice recording shows one pilot asking, 'Why did you cut off?' and the other responding, 'I didn’t,' indicating no deliberate shutdown and suggesting a mechanical or technical malfunction.
Were pilot suicide theories proposed?
Yes, but major pilot associations like ICPA, ALPA India, and IFALPA strongly opposed this speculation, calling it premature and a distraction from systemic mechanical and regulatory flaws.
What is the FAA SAIB NM‑18‑33?
It's a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin issued in December 2018, warning of a potential issue where the locking mechanism on Boeing fuel switches could fail, leading to unintended engine shutoff.
What did the UK CAA Safety Notice SN‑2015/005 require?
Issued on May 15, 2025, it mandated inspections and, where applicable, replacement of fuel shutoff valve actuators across several Boeing aircraft models, including the 787.
How did other countries respond to the FAA advisory?
Airlines in Qatar, South Korea, UK, Singapore, and the UAE initiated inspections or modifications based on the 2018 FAA advisory. In contrast, India delayed action until after the crash.
What are the main criticisms of Boeing and FAA’s response?
Boeing and the FAA have maintained that the fuel switch design is safe when used correctly. Critics argue this ignores multiple prior incidents and fails to address inherent mechanical risks.
What is being demanded after the AI 171 crash?
There are calls for redesigning Boeing’s fuel switch, immediate inspections of similar aircraft, and regulatory reforms to ensure timely responses to safety advisories.
Why is this crash considered a systemic failure?
Despite repeated warnings and prior incidents, neither Boeing, regulatory agencies, nor airlines acted decisively, allowing a known issue to escalate into a fatal disaster.

In-Depth Answers

What lessons can be learned from the AI 171 crash?
Authorities must treat advisories seriously, ensure timely inspections, avoid deflecting blame toward pilots without evidence, and push for design improvements in critical systems.
Has the final AAIB report been released?
No. As of now, only the preliminary AAIB report has been shared. The final investigation findings are still pending.
What type of aircraft was involved in the crash?
The aircraft was a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a wide-body twin-engine jet frequently used for long-haul international flights.
What is vapor lock, and how is it related to this incident?
While the crash article mentions vapor lock, the primary cause cited is a malfunction in the fuel control switches. Vapor lock typically refers to fuel vapor disrupting engine fuel supply, which may be a secondary factor.
What role did the DGCA play before and after the crash?
Before the crash, the DGCA did not act on global advisories. Post-crash, it issued urgent inspection directives referencing older FAA and UK notices, reflecting delayed regulatory engagement.
What is being recommended for Boeing following this crash?
Boeing is being urged to redesign the fuel control switches to prevent accidental disengagement, and to work closely with global regulators on updated safety protocols.
What does the cockpit voice recording imply about pilot actions?
It suggests that neither pilot knowingly engaged the fuel cutoffs, implying a likely mechanical fault rather than human error or malicious intent.
Why is the AI 171 crash seen as preventable?
Because relevant advisories and safety notices were issued years in advance, and had airlines and regulators acted sooner, the crash might have been avoided.
Are airlines now inspecting their fleets post-AI 171 crash?
Yes. Following the crash and the DGCA’s July 2025 directive, Indian airlines and several global carriers have begun inspecting fuel switch systems on Boeing aircraft.
Why is pilot reputation a key issue in this investigation?
Pilot unions argue that baseless suicide theories harm professional reputations and distract from mechanical accountability and systemic failures.
What is the broader implication of this crash for aviation safety?
It underscores the need for proactive regulatory oversight, global coordination on safety advisories, and accountability in aircraft design and maintenance standards.
Subscribe Buy Me a Coffee