Air India 787 Crash: Four Months On — What We Know and What’s Changed

Four months have passed since the Air India Flight AI171 disaster, the first fatal crash involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. As investigations continue, the picture is clearer, though still deeply troubling. This post looks at what happened that day, what investigators have learned, and what has changed in the months since.

The flight that never climbed

On 12 June 2025, Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 registered VT-ANB, took off from Ahmedabad bound for London Gatwick. Moments later, it crashed into a staff residential building just beyond the airport boundary. Of the 242 people on board, only one survived. Several people on the ground were also killed. The loss sent shockwaves through Indian aviation and the global airline industry, marking the first fatal accident in the Dreamliner’s 14-year service history.

What the data revealed

Initial speculation focused on a possible dual engine failure, but the preliminary report from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau changed that narrative. Data recovered from the flight recorders showed both engine fuel-control switches moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” just seconds after take-off. That cut fuel supply to both engines almost simultaneously. Cockpit voice recordings captured confusion and disbelief as one pilot asked, “Why did you cut off the fuel?” and the other denied doing so. The aircraft, already low and heavy, lost thrust and fell within seconds.

The focus of the investigation

Investigators confirmed that the fuel-control system had been replaced in routine maintenance, most recently in 2023, and there were no outstanding airworthiness issues with the part. The focus quickly turned to how both switches could have moved to “CUTOFF.” Possible scenarios include an inadvertent touch during gear retraction, a mechanical defect in the throttle control module, or a design vulnerability in the locking mechanism. An earlier FAA bulletin in 2018 had warned operators about potential unintentional movement of these switches, making that point especially significant now.

The wreckage and flight data are still under detailed analysis. The AAIB has not assigned blame or confirmed mechanical failure. For now, investigators say that both human and mechanical factors remain on the table. What’s certain is that both engines lost power because the fuel supply stopped—an almost unthinkable situation in a twin-engine jet during initial climb.

Regulatory response and global impact

In response, India’s aviation regulator, the DGCA, ordered urgent inspections across all Boeing 787 aircraft in the country. Engineers were told to check the security and operation of fuel-switch mechanisms, confirm proper engagement of locks, and review pilot training procedures around take-off and emergency response. Similar advisories went to airlines operating Dreamliners abroad, with the FAA and Boeing both supporting the investigation. Boeing has so far not issued a global airworthiness directive, but its technical teams have been working closely with Indian authorities.

Air India, now owned by the Tata Group, has pledged full transparency and cooperation. The airline launched an internal safety audit and made counselling and support available for victims’ families. International assistance from the UK’s AAIB, the U.S. NTSB and Boeing engineers continues, as the investigation involves a mix of British, Indian and American expertise.

Human factors and design lessons

Beyond the technical details, the crash exposed deeper questions about training, cockpit ergonomics and decision-making under stress. The possibility that a small human or mechanical error could instantly disable both engines on a modern airliner has unsettled professionals worldwide. It also underscores the importance of procedural discipline and cross-checking during take-off, when workload peaks and reaction time is minimal.

Boeing’s Dreamliner fleet remains in service, and no systemic flaw has been proven, but the crash has reignited debate about automation, redundancy and fail-safes. Airlines and regulators will almost certainly revisit human-factors training, switch protection standards and electronic interlocks to prevent dual shutdowns in flight. The FAA and DGCA are already coordinating potential updates to maintenance and inspection procedures.

What happens next

As of October 2025, the investigation’s final report is still months away. It will determine whether design, maintenance or human factors were primarily responsible. The stakes are high: more than 1,000 Boeing 787s operate worldwide, and any finding could lead to changes in design certification, training and operating procedures.

A lesson still unfolding

This tragedy is a reminder that no aircraft is invincible. Modern systems reduce risk, but they also rely on human understanding and mechanical integrity working perfectly together. When one fails the other must compensate — and on that June morning, neither did. Four months on, the families still wait for answers, and the aviation world waits to learn what must change to make sure it never happens again.