As investigators delve into the Air India Flight 171 incident, new cockpit recordings reveal mysterious actions by pilots that led to a catastrophic loss of engines. With evidence suggesting deliberate switching of fuel controls, experts call for transparent identification of voices and deeper scrutiny of the aircraft's systems.
Chilling Findings Unravel the Air India Flight 171 Mystery
Chilling Findings Unravel the Air India Flight 171 Mystery
A preliminary report into the tragic Air India Flight 171 crash raises unsettling questions about the cockpit events leading to the disaster that claimed 260 lives.
Investigators have made a disquieting discovery during the preliminary examination of the Air India Flight 171 crash, which resulted in the deaths of 260 individuals in June. Moments after takeoff, both fuel-control switches in the 12-year-old Boeing 787 Dreamliner unexpectedly moved to the "cut-off" position, cutting off engine fuel and leading to a total power failure. This action is usually performed only after a flight has landed.
The cockpit voice recording captures one pilot questioning the other about the reason behind the "cut-off," to which the response was that it wasn't his doing. The ambiguity surrounding who performed this action is unsettling. During takeoff, the co-pilot was in control of the aircraft while the captain was in a monitoring role.
The switches were quickly reset to their normal inflight position, which initiated an automatic restart of the engines. However, as the plane crashed, one engine was attempting to regain thrust while the other had relit but had yet to restore full power.
The Air India aircraft was in flight for less than 40 seconds before it descended into a densely populated neighborhood in Ahmedabad, leading to one of India’s most perplexing aviation tragedies. Investigators are closely examining the wreckage and cockpit recordings to unravel the critical moments just after takeoff. A recent report detailing 15 pages offers preliminary insights.
The investigation team, comprised of Indian authorities and assisted by representatives from Boeing, GE, Air India, Indian regulators, and officials from the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the UK, has uncovered significant concerns. The fuel-lever locking switches are engineered to prevent accidental activation, requiring a specific action to unlock and flip them—features that date back decades. “It would be almost impossible to pull both switches with a single movement of one hand, making accidental activation improbable,” remarked an anonymous air accident investigator based in Canada.
This unique aspect of the Air India case prompts critical questions. Aviation expert Shawn Pruchnicki raised the issue: “Why would any pilot deliberately turn the switches off?” He points out that the pilots reported no issues during the flight. Although erroneous manipulations occur in cockpit emergencies, there were no signs of such errors in this situation.
Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the NTSB, shared similar concerns: “The finding is deeply troubling—suggesting a pilot deliberately shut off the fuel switch mere seconds after ascent.” He added that the cockpit voice recorder likely contains more information than currently revealed, questioning who exactly operated the switches and the motivations behind it.
Experts believe that identifying the voices on the cockpit recording could resolve many of these questions. Typically, evaluations of the voice recorder involve individuals familiar with the pilots to assist in matching voices, but such identification hasn’t been accomplished yet. Investigators urgently call for a complete transcript of cockpit communications, labeled accurately, and advocate for the installation of cockpit video recorders, as previously suggested by the NTSB, to clarify these crucial events.
Before boarding Flight 171, pilots and crew passed breathalyzer tests and were confirmed fit to fly. Reports indicate that both pilots, stationed in Mumbai, had arrived in Ahmedabad a day prior to the flight and were adequately rested. However, a notable element in the report highlights a 2018 bulletin from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that noted potential safety issues related to fuel control switches on similar Boeing aircraft; however, this did not invoke a mandatory directive for inspections.
Pruchnicki wonders if there were flaws within the fuel control switches themselves. “Could they be actuated electronically, rendering pilot input unnecessary? If so, that’s a severe safety issue,” he pondered. Others, however, were skeptical that the FAA warning would be a critical factor, as concerns rarely reach pilots directly.
Another investigator questioned the possibility of an electronic malfunction triggering the switches without direct pilot action. “Could the electronic control unit have inadvertently activated the cut-off switches?” he suggested.
Fuel samples taken from the aircraft’s tanks returned satisfactory results, dispelling the earlier speculation of fuel contamination as a cause of the dual engine failure. Both engines’ mechanical issues have been ruled out for now, leaving investigators to piece together the unsettling details of this tragic incident where, upon failing both engines, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed—a sign of severe system failure.
A pilot familiar with the Boeing 787 explained how landing gear retraction usually processes swiftly post-takeoff. When engines fail, however, he suggested, securing the aircraft takes precedence over retraction. Investigators believe quick recovery attempts were made, but the timing and thrust failures rendered the actions moot. The complexity of the incident highlights the need for critical investigation into the conditions and operations surrounding the harrowing crash.
