On Saturday, 12th July, major Western media outlets such as Reuters, BBC, and Daily Mail released articles that appeared to pin the blame for the Air India AI171 crash on the pilots. These publications cited selective elements from a preliminary report issued by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB)—a report that is still under review and far from being conclusive. The move has drawn sharp criticism, with many accusing these media houses of deliberately twisting facts to divert scrutiny away from Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer already facing global criticism for multiple safety concerns with its commercial jets.

The incident, which occurred on June 12, claimed the lives of 260 people, including 19 civilians on the ground. The aircraft involved was a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, en route from Ahmedabad to London. But just moments after taking off, the aircraft suffered a catastrophic dual engine failure and crashed into a densely populated residential area near the airport.

According to the 15-page preliminary report by the AAIB, the plane had reached a speed of 180 knots when both engines lost power almost simultaneously. “The Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches moved from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ within one second of each other,” the report stated. This action abruptly halted fuel supply, leading to engine failure. The engines did flicker back to life briefly, but failed to stabilise. The plane, which had barely left the runway, started losing altitude immediately and did not even clear the airport’s boundary wall.

The AAIB further confirmed the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—a device that activates when all engine and electrical power is lost—indicating a complete systems failure. Investigators have now finished all on-site inspections, including drone-based aerial photography and videography, and moved both engines to a secured hangar for in-depth technical analysis. The team also ruled out the possibility of a bird strike, noting that “there was no bird activity recorded in the area during takeoff.”

Twisting the Narrative: Media’s Push to Blame the Pilots

Despite these clear findings that leave multiple possibilities open, some foreign media outlets have chosen to suggest that the accident was a result of pilot error, well before the final report has even been drafted. By cherry-picking parts of the preliminary findings, they are building a one-sided narrative that may influence public opinion and muddy the waters for investigators.

This has led to serious concern that Western media is attempting a cover-up to protect Boeing and other stakeholders by subtly making it appear as if the pilots caused the tragedy. The Guardian, for instance, highlighted the report’s mention of the fuel switches being toggled to the “CUTOFF” mode, but failed to clarify that the report does not confirm whether this was due to a human action or a mechanical issue.

Similarly, BBC reported that “the cockpit fuel switches were turned off during takeoff, something that should only be done in emergencies or after landing.” The broadcast then referred to audible cockpit confusion, quoting a voice asking why the fuel had been shut off. The flight was operated by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and co-pilot Clive Kundar, though the report does not specify whose voice is heard on the recording.

The Daily Mail also zeroed in on the voice recorder contents, stating that “cockpit confusion was heard on the voice recorder, where one pilot asked the other why he had cut off the fuel.” However, the AAIB report itself provides more context: “One of the pilots is heard asking the other, ‘Why did you cut off?’ to which the second pilot replied that he had not done so.” This critical exchange is vital, as it suggests neither pilot intentionally shut off the engines, and points toward a deeper technical malfunction or miscommunication in the moments leading up to the crash.

Engine 1 reportedly began to recover after the fuel switches were returned to the “RUN” position, but Engine 2 continued to fail, and the aircraft could not recover. This moment, filled with chaos, pain, and uncertainty, should not be simplified to a hasty narrative about human error—especially when the AAIB has made no definitive conclusions yet.

Overlooked Warning: FAA’s Advisory on Fuel Switch Malfunction in Boeing Jets

One of the most critical revelations in the preliminary report, which most international outlets ignored, was the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory about a known fuel lock malfunction in Boeing aircraft. This existing technical advisory, relevant to Boeing jetliners, raises questions about whether a software or mechanical glitch could have led to the fuel cutoff switches being triggered unintentionally.

Instead of focusing on this possibility—or even fairly presenting the fact that both pilots denied initiating the cutoff—several Western reports chose to emphasize cockpit confusion, painting a picture of incompetence rather than mechanical failure.

This kind of reporting is not just irresponsible; it’s dangerous. It threatens to mislead public perception and could influence the investigative process, shifting scrutiny away from Boeing—a company already facing numerous safety lawsuits and international scrutiny.

As it stands, “The AAIB has not yet made any findings. It has not incriminated the pilots, nor has it exonerated Boeing and the engine manufacturer.” The report remains a technical account of known data, and the final investigation is still ongoing. To push blame onto deceased pilots without full evidence is not only morally wrong but also a grave disservice to the process of truth and justice.

Inside the Final Moments: Air India Crash and the Mystery of Fuel Switches

The 15-page preliminary report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) into the tragic crash of Air India Flight AI171 has stood out for its depth and detail. Unlike most preliminary reports that offer only a basic outline, this one dives into the technical sequences leading up to the crash and lists several key indicators that point to potential causes.

Typically, such early-stage documents avoid drawing conclusions. But here, the AAIB report shows a determined effort to understand what went wrong within seconds of takeoff from Ahmedabad on June 12, when the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crashed, killing 260 people, including 19 on the ground.

Key Findings in the AAIB Report

The report confirms that co-pilot Clive Kunder was in control of the aircraft at the time, while Commander Sumeet Sabharwal was in the role of pilot monitoring. Both pilots had adequate rest prior to the flight and cleared breathalyser tests conducted at the airport that morning. Maintenance checks on the aircraft had also been performed as scheduled. It was a normal takeoff up until the plane reached around 400 feet in altitude.

What followed was catastrophic. The report underlines a critical moment: “the Boeing 787-8 aircraft’s engine fuel control switches transitioned from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ position within a second of each other moments after lift-off,” an action that led to one of the worst aviation disasters involving an Indian airline in the last 40 years.

There are two fuel control switches, each responsible for one engine. As detailed in the report, “one of the pilots can be heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he cut off the fuel, to which the other pilot responded by saying that he did not.” The report does not clarify which pilot said what, and no further dialogue is released. The full transcript of the cockpit recording has not yet been made public.

Interestingly, when investigators recovered the wreckage, the fuel switches were found in the RUN position, suggesting that the pilots tried to correct the situation. According to the report, “after a few seconds in the CUTOFF position, the switches for both engines on the doomed aircraft transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN position—evidently an attempt by the pilots to recover thrust in the engines.” However, with the aircraft still flying at low altitude, there was simply not enough time for the engines to recover fully and allow the plane to climb safely.

A major point of debate centers around how the switches could have moved in the first place. Experts in aviation have explained that these fuel control switches are extremely difficult to move accidentally. “The movement of the fuel control switches—critical switches that allow and cut fuel flow to the plane’s engines—have to be deliberate actions and their accidental movement is next to impossible.” These switches are designed with brackets for protection and include a stop-lock mechanism, requiring a pilot to lift the switch upward before it can be moved between RUN and CUTOFF. The AAIB report does not yet confirm whether the switches were moved manually by either of the pilots.

Fuel switches are typically operated only on the ground—used to start the engines before departure and then again to shut them down after arrival. In-flight, the switches would only be used if an engine failed or was severely damaged, requiring shutdown for safety. In some situations, pilots may briefly cut fuel and then immediately restore it in an attempt to restart a failing engine. But “that does not seem to be the case here,” the report notes.

Adding to the complexity is a safety advisory from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The report refers to a 2018 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) that warned of the “potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature.” This advisory was originally issued for 737 aircraft, but those jets use the same fuel switch design as the module installed in the 787s. Because the FAA notice was advisory and not mandatory, Air India did not perform any inspections based on it.

A check of the plane’s records revealed that the cockpit throttle control module, which includes the fuel switches, was replaced in both 2019 and 2023, but neither replacement was connected to fuel switch issues. “No defect was reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on the aircraft,” the report states. It further assures that “all applicable Airworthiness Directives and Alert Service Bulletins were compiled on the aircraft as well as engines.”

Shortly after the fuel switch incident, emergency backup systems were activated. The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) was deployed following engine shutdown, and the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) automatically came online once the switches were moved back to the RUN position. These two devices serve as backup power sources. The RAT, a small wind turbine placed behind the landing gear, spins to generate power when all other sources fail. The APU, typically located at the tail, offers electrical and pneumatic power for onboard systems. The activation of both RAT and APU underscores the seriousness of the engine failure—a full system flameout.

At this stage, the AAIB notes that there are no recommended actions for B787-8 or GE GEnx-1B engine operators or manufacturers, which implies that investigators have not found a direct fault with either the aircraft or its engines. “Pilot action is thereby a focus of the investigations to follow,” the report states. It also mentions that a final report could be released within a year, possibly sooner given the detailed work already completed in this preliminary document.

The investigation continues, but the tragic mystery of what happened to AI171 remains unresolved. What is clear, however, is that the narrative must be shaped only after careful examination of facts—not speculation.