Air India crash investigation report: Has Boeing gotten away?

New Delhi: The preliminary report into the tragic crash of Air India Flight 171, marking the first fatal disaster involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, offers technical details, a cockpit exchange, and a timeline that lasted barely 30 seconds after takeoff. 

But for all its clarity on what happened, what remains unclear, and increasingly questioned, is why Boeing’s aircraft systems have not come under immediate scrutiny.

In fact, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) explicitly states:

“At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers.”

For now, Boeing has not been asked to issue bulletins, redesign components, or even assist in reassessing systems that may have contributed to the crash. This lack of immediate implication, though standard for a preliminary report, has raised eyebrows in aviation circles and media analysis.

Flight AI171 took off from Ahmedabad at 13:38 IST on June 12 with 242 souls on board. Thirty seconds later, it crashed into a medical college hostel, killing 260 people, including those on the ground.

The report confirms that seconds after achieving maximum airspeed, both engines shut down as their fuel cutoff switches moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” just one second apart. Engine thrust parameters dropped immediately, leading to loss of lift.

What’s striking is the cockpit voice recording: one pilot asked the other, “Why did you cutoff [fuel]?”. To which, the other responded, “I didn’t.” 

The conversation suggests that neither pilot intentionally shut down the engines, introducing the possibility of uncommanded switch movement, mechanical malfunction, or inadvertent activation.

Yet, the report avoids theorising why the switches moved, stating that further analysis is ongoing.

While the AAIB stresses the investigation is incomplete, the absence of any immediate recommendation for Boeing or its engine partner GE Aviation is conspicuous, given the nature of the incident: a catastrophic dual-engine shutdown moments after takeoff.

Experts note that the design of the fuel cutoff switches, their ergonomics, their susceptibility to accidental activation, or even an electronic fault, must now be examined. And yet, Boeing’s name features only in passing in the report.

The million dollar question arising here is: Is the preliminary report giving Boeing a soft landing?

An aviation analyst told NewsDrum, “It’s not unusual for early reports to refrain from naming culpability. But when a new-generation aircraft experiences a dual-engine failure without obvious pilot error, systems-level questions must at least be raised. That hasn't happened here.”

To be clear, the AAIB has not cleared Boeing. It has merely refrained from issuing recommendations at this point. 

The investigation is ongoing. Critical systems and components have been quarantined. Enhanced Flight Data Recorder analysis is underway. And witness and medical reports are being reviewed.

The agency has made no mention of ruling out system failure. In fact, the only definitive conclusion so far is that the engines lost thrust after fuel was cut off, and the pilots appeared not to know why.

Whether that cutoff was caused by human error, mechanical defect, software anomaly, or an interface flaw remains to be seen.

Global media’s misleading headlines

Perhaps more concerning is how global media coverage has interpreted the report, some with headlines that could be seen as prematurely steering public opinion.

Reuters, one of the first international agencies to headline the findings, published:

“Air India crash report shows pilot confusion over engine switch movement”

While technically accurate. The cockpit voice recorder does capture confusion but the headline implies a link between that confusion and fault. The nuance that neither pilot took responsibility for shutting off fuel is absent.

Another example is The Guardian, which headlined:

“Cockpit chaos: Air India pilots questioned each other as engines failed, crash report finds”

Words like “chaos” are absent from the report. These framing choices, especially when amplified by social media, risk placing suspicion squarely on the cockpit, even as the report itself says the cause is still unknown.

This framing not only misrepresents the findings but could also influence public perception, particularly when the tragedy has left grieving families searching for accountability.

In aviation, assigning blame prematurely is as dangerous as ignoring accountability. The loss of 260 lives demands not only technical accuracy but also narrative responsibility, from investigators and the media alike.