Air India 787 Crash Probe Focuses on Fuel Switches and Cockpit Confusion

Fuel Cutoff Becomes Central to Ahmedabad Crash Investigation

Both engine fuel control switches on Air India Flight 171 moved from RUN to CUTOFF within three seconds of takeoff from Ahmedabad on June 12, shutting down the engines at a critical moment, according to preliminary findings from India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). The Boeing 787-8 crashed 34 seconds after takeoff, killing nearly 270 people, including almost everyone aboard and several people on the ground.

The investigation is focusing on why the switches changed position, what happened between the two pilots and whether the controls' protective locking mechanism worked as intended. The switches were returned to RUN within seconds, and engine temperature readings indicated attempts to restart. The aircraft was already too low and slow to recover.

As of July 12, 2025, the cause remained under investigation. The AAIB was seeking additional evidence, records and information from stakeholders while examining cockpit actions, possible technical problems and the design of the fuel control system.

The preliminary findings also draw attention to a 2018 advisory from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning the switches' locking feature. Air India had not carried out the recommended inspection because the advisory was not mandatory. The report states that the aircraft and its engines complied with all mandatory Airworthiness Directives and Alert Service Bulletins.

What Happened During the Brief Flight?

Flight 171's journey from liftoff to impact lasted only about 30 seconds, with the crash occurring 34 seconds after takeoff. The loss of fuel supply to both engines left the aircraft without engine power when it had very little time or height available for a recovery.

The sequence described in the preliminary findings puts the fuel switches and the subsequent restart attempts at the centre of the inquiry:

• June 12: The Air India Boeing 787-8 took off from Ahmedabad.
• Within three seconds of takeoff: Both engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF, stopping the fuel supply and shutting down both engines.
• Within seconds afterward: The switches returned to RUN, and engine gas temperatures rose as restart attempts took place.
• 34 seconds after takeoff: The aircraft crashed, killing nearly 270 people aboard and on the ground.
• By July 12: The AAIB's preliminary findings had brought the switch movements, cockpit conversation and an earlier FAA advisory into focus.

The short flight left little room for the crew to respond. Restoring fuel was part of the attempted recovery, but the aircraft's low altitude and speed meant those efforts did not prevent the impact.

What the Pilots Said in the Cockpit

Co-pilot Clive Kundar was flying the aircraft, while pilot-in-command Sumeet Sabharwal was monitoring. Their cockpit conversation captured confusion over the interruption to the engines' fuel supply.

Kundar, the co-pilot at the controls, asked:

Why did you cut off?

Sabharwal, the pilot-in-command who was monitoring the flight, replied:

I did not do so.

The exchange has directed attention toward communication between the pilots, the possibility of unintended switch movement and their understanding of what was happening. Investigators are considering human factors, including miscommunication, inadvertent action and misunderstanding of procedures, alongside possible mechanical problems.

Both pilots had substantial experience on the Boeing 787. Sabharwal had logged nearly 8,600 hours on the aircraft type, while Kundar had more than 1,100 hours. The report also confirmed that both had received adequate rest before the flight, ruling out fatigue as a contributing factor in its initial assessment.

How the Fuel Switches Control the Engines

The Boeing 787's fuel control switches regulate the supply of fuel to its engines. During takeoff and normal flight, they remain in RUN so that fuel continues to reach the engines and power remains available.

Moving a switch to CUTOFF stops that supply and shuts down the corresponding engine. It is a control used deliberately, typically during an emergency or after landing. In Flight 171's case, both switches changed position immediately after liftoff, interrupting power from both engines.

The switches were subsequently returned to RUN. Engine gas temperatures, referred to as EGTs, then rose, indicating attempts to restart the engines. Those temperature readings are part of the evidence investigators are using to reconstruct how the engines responded after fuel was restored.

The AAIB reported no weather issues, and the aircraft's takeoff weight was within permitted limits. Those findings have helped direct the inquiry toward cockpit actions and possible mechanical anomalies. Investigators continue to examine both human and technical explanations.

The 2018 Warning About the Locking Feature

The FAA issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) in 2018 warning of the "potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature" on Boeing 787 aircraft. The AAIB's preliminary report refers to that warning.

The locking feature is intended to prevent the switches from moving accidentally. Its purpose is especially relevant to this investigation because changing a switch from RUN to CUTOFF interrupts the fuel supply to an engine.

Air India did not perform the inspection recommended by the bulletin. The recommendation was advisory, so carrying it out was voluntary. The report also states that all mandatory Airworthiness Directives and Alert Service Bulletins applicable to the aircraft and its GE GEnx-1B engines had been complied with.

A Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin alerts operators to a potential safety concern that may not yet warrant compulsory action. An Airworthiness Directive, by contrast, is legally binding. That difference determines whether an airline is required to carry out a particular safety measure.

The crash has renewed debate about how airlines assess voluntary safety recommendations, especially those involving controls that can shut down engines. It has also brought attention to whether advisory notices need stronger follow-up when they concern critical systems.

What Investigators Are Examining

The AAIB is coordinating with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and international partners, including the FAA and Boeing. The inquiry involves technical specialists and evidence from several parts of the aircraft's operation.

Investigators are analysing flight data recorders, cockpit voice recordings, maintenance logs and crew training records. Together, these can help reconstruct the aircraft's behaviour, the crew's conversation and the history of the equipment involved.

The fuel switches' design and ergonomics are also part of the examination. Ergonomics concerns how people interact with equipment, including where controls are placed and how they are operated. Investigators will consider whether the arrangement allowed any possibility of inadvertent activation.

Human factors specialists will assess cockpit procedures, communication and workload at the time of the incident. The task is to establish how the crew responded during the short sequence between takeoff, the loss of engine power and the attempted restarts.

Air India's Response and Support for Families

Air India expressed condolences after the preliminary report's release and said it remained committed to supporting those affected. The airline also pledged full cooperation with regulators and investigators.

In a statement posted on X, formerly Twitter, Air India described its response to the loss and its work with other organisations:

We continue to mourn the loss and are fully committed to providing support during this difficult time. Air India is working closely with stakeholders, including regulators.

The AAIB said the investigation was continuing and that further evidence, records and information were being sought from various stakeholders. The aviation community was awaiting additional findings that could clarify the causes and guide changes to safety procedures.

The Safety Issues Raised by the Crash

Flight 171 has brought several connected safety concerns into focus: clear cockpit communication, consistent use of standard operating procedures, protection against accidental movement of critical controls and the way airlines respond to advisory warnings.

The investigation also touches on pilot training, including human factors and automation. The cockpit exchange and the rapid sequence of events make the crew's communication and workload central parts of understanding what happened.

An aviation safety analyst described the relationship between equipment, procedures and communication:

Every accident is a chain of events. Breaking any one link—whether it's a design flaw, a procedural lapse, or a communication breakdown—can prevent disaster.

Modern commercial aviation is statistically very safe, but rare catastrophic accidents require close examination of each part of that chain. In Ahmedabad, investigators are working through the switch movements, engine responses, cockpit conversation and maintenance history to identify where safety protections failed.

For airlines and regulators, the case also brings a concrete policy issue into view: how to judge a voluntary warning about a critical control, and when stronger action is needed. The final explanation will depend on the continuing technical and human factors investigation.

Key Points

• Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8, crashed in Ahmedabad on June 12, 34 seconds after takeoff, killing nearly 270 people.
• The AAIB's preliminary findings say both engine fuel control switches moved to CUTOFF within three seconds of takeoff, shutting down both engines.
• The switches returned to RUN within seconds, and rising engine gas temperatures indicated restart attempts.
• Co-pilot Clive Kundar was flying, while pilot-in-command Sumeet Sabharwal was monitoring. Their recorded exchange revealed confusion about the fuel cutoff.
• The report found no weather issues, confirmed that takeoff weight was within limits and said both pilots had received adequate rest.
• A 2018 FAA advisory warned about possible disengagement of the switches' locking feature. Air India had not performed the voluntary inspection.
• The report states that all mandatory Airworthiness Directives and Alert Service Bulletins for the aircraft and its engines had been complied with.
• As of July 12, investigators were continuing to examine cockpit actions, technical problems, switch design, maintenance and training records.