Context

• The crash of Air India flight AI 171 on June 12, 2025, stands as one of the most tragic and controversial events in Indian aviation.
• The disaster claimed 241 passengers, 19 lives on the ground, and left only one survivor. It marked the first-ever crash of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a model long regarded as one of the safest and most advanced commercial aircraft.
• The incident triggered widespread speculation, distrust, and debate, revealing serious flaws in India’s aviation safety oversight and investigative transparency.
• Beyond the immediate tragedy, the event exposed how bureaucratic opacity and media sensationalism can erode public trust in national aviation systems.

Technical Context and Background

• The Boeing 787 Dreamliner had built a reputation for reliability, with over 1,175 aircraft flying globally and recording no engine failures during takeoff across millions of flight hours.
• The occurrence of a dual-engine shutdown immediately after takeoff from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, was therefore extraordinary and statistically improbable.
• Historical comparisons—such as the UPS MD-11 crash in 2025, demonstrate that engine separation or failure on takeoff is exceedingly rare.
• This context eliminates the likelihood of a systemic design flaw in the aircraft itself. Instead, the event points toward human, procedural, or investigative lapses.

A Delayed and Incomplete Investigation

• The first flight recorder was recovered on June 13, the second on June 16, and data were accessed by June 25, 2025.
• Yet, the preliminary report, released nearly a month later on July 12, was incomplete and ambiguous, failing to clarify crucial aspects of the event.
• A striking anomaly emerged when the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) assigned X-Category Commando protection to the Chief of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on June 16, citing a “threat perception.”
• Such protection is unprecedented in international aviation history and suggests the existence of sensitive or withheld information.

The Sequence of Events and Procedural Breakdown

• Data from the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) reveal critical details of the takeoff sequence.
• The co-pilot was the pilot flying, while the captain was monitoring.
• According to Air India’s standard operating procedure, the captain controls the thrust levers until the takeoff decision speed is reached, after which the co-pilot continues the takeoff.
• The preliminary report notes that the fuel control switches for both engines moved to cut-off within two seconds, shutting off fuel supply and causing total power loss.
• These switches are spring-loaded mechanical devices, requiring deliberate manual action; they cannot be moved by software errors or electrical glitches.
• Standard cockpit procedures require the captain to call My Controls in an emergency, followed by the co-pilot’s acknowledgment Your Controls.
• The absence of these callouts on the CVR suggests a failure in cockpit coordination or breakdown in command hierarchy.
• Furthermore, during power loss, the co-pilot’s instrument panel goes blank, leaving only the captain’s instruments functional through limited battery and Ram Air Turbine (RAT)

Media Speculation and Government Silence

• In the days following the crash, electronic and social media exploded with unverified theories, ranging from software malfunctions to electromagnetic sabotage.
• The Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) failed to provide timely clarifications, allowing misinformation to thrive.
• A transparent release of the CVR data, a mere one minute and forty seconds of recording, could have dispelled most of these theories.
• In contrast, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) routinely issue daily briefings and public updates to maintain credibility.
• The absence of similar transparency in India reveals a deep-seated culture of secrecy and bureaucratic defensiveness. Instead of reassuring the public, the delay intensified suspicion, portraying Indian authorities as evasive and unreliable.

The Wider Impact on Aviation Safety and Credibility

• The failure to release findings promptly has far-reaching consequences. Delays foster distrust among pilots, who may begin to question the reliability of their aircraft and systems.
• This mental preoccupation can itself become a safety hazard. In global aviation practice, transparency and accountability are inseparable from safety.
• By withholding data and avoiding open communication, the Ministry of Civil Aviation risks turning a technical tragedy into a crisis of governance.
• The NTSB, U.K. AAIB, Boeing, and global regulators are already aware of the flight data; continuing to conceal it from the Indian public serves no purpose except to erode confidence in the system.

Conclusion

• The Air India AI 171 crash exposed far more than a cockpit malfunction, it revealed a systemic failure of transparency and accountability in Indian aviation.
• The combination of technical ambiguity, investigative delay, and government secrecy created fertile ground for conspiracy theories and erosion of public confidence.
• The tragedy underscores an urgent need for reform in investigative procedures, open communication, and alignment with global aviation standards.
• Transparency is not merely a public relations gesture; it is a safety imperative. Only through honesty, clarity, and timely disclosure can Indian aviation rebuild the trust and credibility it has lost.