A preliminary analysis of the crash of Air India Flight 171 by Richard Godfrey has concluded that deliberate pilot action is unlikely to have caused the accident, as India’s Supreme Court continues to examine petitions seeking an independent inquiry into the disaster.
This article is a summary of Mr Godfrey’s analysis of the loss of AI171 on his YouTube Channel and the episode is below.
The Boeing 787-8 crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad Airport on June 12, 2025, killing 260 people — 241 onboard and 19 on the ground — with 67 others injured. One passenger survived. It marked the first fatal hull loss of a Boeing 787.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a 15-page preliminary report 30 days after the accident. In accordance with ICAO Annex 13, the AAIB stated that the purpose of its investigation is prevention, not apportioning blame. No final conclusions have yet been issued.
However, public debate intensified after early reporting suggested investigators were examining possible pilot actions. The Wall Street Journal reported on July 11, 2025 that U.S. officials’ early assessments focused on the pilots and did not initially point to a Boeing 787 design issue.
The AAIB’s preliminary report stated that cockpit voice recordings captured one pilot asking the other, “why did he cutoff,” with the second pilot responding that he did not do so. The report does not specify the word “fuel” in the exchange.
According to the preliminary findings, both engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF within seconds of liftoff — Engine 1 at approximately four seconds after takeoff and Engine 2 one second later. The loss of thrust began immediately thereafter.
Both engines were subsequently returned to RUN — Engine 1 at about 13 seconds and Engine 2 at 17 seconds after takeoff. A mayday call was transmitted at 26 seconds. The aircraft crashed at approximately 34 seconds after takeoff.
The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed approximately two seconds after liftoff, indicating a loss of engine-driven electrical or hydraulic power.
Flight path reconstruction based on ADS-B data, cited in the preliminary report, indicates the aircraft reached approximately 180 knots before losing climb performance. It climbed modestly from 575 feet to 625 feet above mean sea level before entering a shallow descent. Impact occurred in a nose-up attitude of approximately 8 degrees, consistent with an attempt to maintain lift during an energy deficit rather than a steep dive.
The preliminary report also notes that the aircraft’s Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system successfully relit both engines. However, thrust recovery was insufficient in time to prevent terrain impact.
The central factual question identified in the analysis is whether the movement of both fuel control switches to CUTOFF was deliberate, inadvertent, or system-initiated.
Fuel control switches are designed with locking features to prevent accidental movement. Some analysts argue that a dual cutoff within one second is statistically unlikely to occur accidentally. However, 2018 FAA and EASA safety bulletins warned that if the locking feature is disengaged, the switch may be moved without the normal lift-to-move action, creating risk of unintended in-flight shutdown. Air India did not perform the suggested inspections because the bulletin was advisory, not mandatory.
Following the preliminary report, India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) directed industry-wide checks of fuel switch locking mechanisms. Air India later reported no issues found in its fleet.
Pilot associations have rejected speculation of pilot suicide or definitive culpability, calling such claims premature. The AAIB confirmed both pilots had adequate rest and passed breathalyser testing before departure.
The matter has also reached India’s Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions seeking a judicially monitored or independent inquiry rather than leaving the investigation solely to the AAIB. As of February 23, 2026, proceedings remain ongoing. During hearings, the Court criticised speculative reporting and remarked that no one should prematurely blame the pilots.
A structured probabilistic assessment included in the independent analysis examined four hypotheses: deliberate crash intent; deliberate action with unknown intent; unintentional human action; and non-human initiation.
Under the stated assumptions, the model estimated deliberate crash intent at approximately 0.3%, deliberate action with unknown intent at roughly 6%, unintentional human action at approximately 50%, and non-human initiation at about 43%.
The analysis concluded that currently available public evidence disfavors deliberate crash intent. Instead, the most plausible explanations remain either an unintentional human act or a system-initiated event.
Investigators have identified key missing evidence necessary to determine probable cause, including full flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcripts, FADEC shutdown logs, independent confirmation of switch state from separate acquisition systems, and mechanical examination of fuel switch locking mechanisms.
The AAIB’s final report into the Air India loss is expected months after the preliminary release. Until then, the question remains technical rather than moral: whether the engine shutdown was initiated by human action or by system fault.
The Supreme Court has yet to issue a final ruling on the petition for an independent inquiry into the Air India crash.
