Pilot error or technical failure? A year later, experts still don’t agree on what caused the Air India crash. india news

What do investigators know for sure?

The most significant findings came from a preliminary report released by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) in July 2025.

Read this also AI-171 crash: where are the final reports? 70% of air accidents in the last 3 years are pending findings

Investigators found that both fuel control switches in the cockpit went from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” just seconds after takeoff. This action cut off the fuel supply to both engines, causing an almost immediate loss of thrust. The plane rapidly lost altitude before crashing into buildings near Ahmedabad airport.

The switch was later returned to the “RUN” position and the pilots attempted to restart the engines, but there was not enough time and altitude to recover the aircraft.

Initial reports found no immediate evidence of failure in Boeing’s 787 systems or the GE Aerospace engines powering the plane.

But investigators still have a key unanswered question: Who, or what, moved the switch?

Theory 1: Did the pilot intentionally shut off fuel?

This remains the most controversial theory as investigators investigate it. One of the pilots intentionally moved the fuel switch. A cockpit audio capturing the conversation between the pilots points to deliberate action by the captain.

In the horrifying moment recorded on a voice recorder, one of the pilots aboard the ill-fated flight can be heard asking: “Why did you cut off (the fuel)?” To this the second pilot replies, “I didn’t do that.” Shortly afterwards the plane crashed in the hostel premises of BJ Medical College.

In command of AI171 were Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder. Captain Sabharwal, 56, was among Air India’s most experienced pilots with over 15,600 hours of flying experience, including over 8,500 hours on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. His co-pilot, Clive Kunder, 32, had flown more than 3,400 hours since joining Air India in 2017. Both pilots held the required certifications and were fully qualified to operate the Boeing 787.

Despite this, the pilot error theory gained attention because fuel switches are protected by a locking mechanism and are designed to prevent accidental activation during flight. Aviation experts say moving both switches almost simultaneously would generally require deliberate action.

However, India’s AAIB has repeatedly cautioned against drawing conclusions before the investigation is complete. In February 2026, the agency publicly dismissed the speculative reports and insisted that the investigation would continue. No official report has concluded that the accident was the result of deliberate pilot action.

Theory 2: Could it have been pilot error?

Another possibility is that the switches were inadvertently moved.

While some investigators believe the physical design of the switch makes accidental movement impossible, others argue that a sequence of unusual cockpit conditions, confusion or human errors during a critical phase of flight cannot yet be ruled out, Reuters reported.

Pilot unions have strongly opposed the suggestion that the crew was the cause of the accident. The Federation of Indian Pilots and other pilot bodies have criticized attempts to blame the crew before examining all the technical evidence, arguing that such conclusions are premature.

The pilots’ group says investigators must eliminate every possible technical explanation before pinning responsibility on the flight crew.

The groups reiterated the demand on Thursday, when Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) Claims that the plane suffered from “numerous problems” including electrical failures, and urged investigators to involve independent subject matter experts before reaching a final conclusion.

FIP President Captain CS Randhawa said that there were many flaws in the preliminary investigation report. According to him, the aircraft had arrived from Delhi with a stabilizer problem, following which the motors were replaced before declaring it fit for service. He also alleged that the plane had electrical problems that were affecting the air conditioning system and other components, and also questioned the timing mentioned in the initial report.

Randhawa further argued that the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) evidence cited in the initial report was only two seconds long, adding that “Western media picked it up as a deliberate attempt”.

Theory 3: Was there a technical or software failure?

Some aviation experts and independent researchers argue that the possibility of a technical malfunction remains.

Questions have been raised about whether a software malfunction, electronic malfunction or hidden system fault could have triggered the fuel-switch movement or generated misleading signals inside the cockpit. Some experts have pointed to the aircraft’s maintenance history and past technical issues as areas requiring deeper investigation.

However, investigators have not yet identified any evidence that proves that a Boeing 787 design flaw or a GE engine defect was the cause of the crash. Neither India’s DGCA nor US aviation regulators have banned the aircraft type following the accident.

The ongoing investigation of engine components and aircraft systems is one reason why the final report has been delayed beyond the first anniversary of the accident.

Why did the investigation take so much time?

Aircraft accident investigations are designed to determine cause rather than assign blame.

In the AI171 case, investigators from India are working with experts from the United States and the United Kingdom because the crash involved a Boeing aircraft, GE engines and British victims. According to recent reports, engine testing, technical testing and international consultations are still ongoing. As a result, officials may issue an interim report before issuing final findings.