Shrouded in Silence : Experts Critique AAIB’s Brief Preliminary Report on AI‑171 Crash!

“Shrouded in Silence: Experts Critique AAIB’s Brief Preliminary Report on AI‑171 Crash”

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI 171, a Boeing 787‑8 Dreamliner, tragically crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, claiming 260 lives. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report within 30 days, as per ICAO regulations. However, aviation experts and pilot associations have raised serious concerns, calling the report “brief,” lacking in technical transparency, and potentially biased. This blog dives into those criticisms, the questions left unanswered, and what deeper investigation must uncover.

Expert Critiques

1. “Notably brief and lacking in technical transparency”
   Aviation expert Amit Singh underscored that the report resembled “a narrative” rather than providing robust forensic data, unlike earlier high-profile investigations such as the Ethiopian Airlines ET 302 tragedy

2. Selective CVR disclosure raises questions
   Sanjay Lazar and the Pilots’ Association of India slammed the AAIB for releasing only a single cockpit voice recorder (CVR) snippet—“Why did you cut off?” followed by “I did not”—arguing that withholding the full transcript prevents contextual understanding and fuels speculation

3. Presumption of pilot error and bias concerns
   ALPA India contended that the report appears to lean toward attributing blame to pilots, stressing that no 787-rated pilots were involved in the investigation and that the report was “manipulated” toward that conclusion

4. Technical gaps: How did switches change state?
   The report indicates that fuel control switches for engines 1 and 2 moved from RUN to CUTOFF seconds after takeoff, a mechanical action not easily triggered accidentally . US experts, including John Cox and Anthony Brickhouse, echo this unease. Yet the report offers no mechanical analysis explaining this phenomenon.

5. Ambiguous pilot interaction
   Confusion persists over cockpit dialogues. Without detailed CVR transcripts, it remains unclear who spoke when, in what context, or why. The investigation lacks clarity on this critical exchange

6. Absence of immediate safety recommendations
   Despite the gravity of the crash, AAIB refrained from issuing any safety directives for Boeing or GE Aerospace, a decision aviation expert Sanjay Lazar criticized as premature and undermining of operator accountability

7. Potential prior design vulnerabilities ignored
   ALPA references a 2018 FAA bulletin regarding lock issues in fuel switches. This procedural gap wasn't addressed in the report, raising questions about systemic oversight failures

8. Leaks and report authenticity questioned
   Details from the report appeared in international news—like the Wall Street Journal—before official domestic release, prompting scrutiny over investigation protocol and validity .

9. Shadow cast by technical vs. human failure debate
   The report neither confirms nor denies pilot error, yet its tone leans that way. Meanwhile, technical possibilities—from switch mechanics to software glitches—require fuller exploration

10. Final report awaited—but transparency must prevail
    ICAO guidelines allow up to a year for a detailed final report. Stakeholders are calling for a more rigorous, data-driven investigation with independent experts, comprehensive CVR and flight data analysis, and actionable safety measures.

Conclusion

The AAIB’s preliminary account of the AI‑171 crash raises more questions than answers. Without deep technical analysis or full transcripts, the narrative remains incomplete. Experts and pilot associations demand transparency, broader expertise within the investigation team, and urgent safety steps. As the final report looms, stakeholders must ensure it is thorough, evidence-driven, and free from premature conclusions or institutional bias. Only then can credible lessons be learned—and aviation safety reinforced.