Air India AI 171 Crash: WSJ reports suggests human fault, pilots' associations reject claims

A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report citing cockpit voice recordings from the June 12 Air India Flight AI 171 crash has ignited fierce debate, with pilot associations and aviation experts rejecting suggestions that the captain deliberately cut off fuel to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s engines, leading to the disaster that killed 241 of 242 people on board and 19 on the ground

The WSJ report, published Thursday, based on unnamed sources familiar with the investigation, stating that the younger co-pilot asked the captain why he turned off the fuel supply switches moments after take-off from Ahmedabad, en route to London. The captain reportedly responded calmly, denying any such action. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary report, released July 12, confirmed that both engine fuel control switches moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” within a second of each other, three seconds after take-off, causing a catastrophic loss of thrust. The report noted the switches were found in the “RUN” position at the crash site, suggesting an attempt to restore fuel flow, though only one engine briefly responded.

Pilot associations, including the India Commercial Pilots’ Association (ICPA) and ALPA-India, slammed the WSJ’s report as speculative and premature. ICPA condemned the “reckless insinuation of pilot suicide” as unethical, emphasizing the rigorous training pilots undergo. ALPA-India defended the crew, stating they “made every possible effort to protect passengers” and urged a fact-based probe, criticizing the report’s tone for suggesting bias toward pilot error.

Captain C.S. Randhawa, president of the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), told media that the AAIB report did not confirm manual fuel cutoff by the pilots, pointing to a 2018 Boeing safety bulletin about a potential mechanical fault in fuel switches. Randhawa referenced a 2019 ANA flight incident where engines shut down without pilot intervention, suggesting a possible Throttle Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) issue in the AI 171 crash.

Aviation experts echoed scepticism about pilot blame. U.S.-based aviation attorney Mary Schiavo highlighted potential software faults in the TCMA and FADEC systems, noting dual-engine failure is “extremely rare” in modern aircraft. Retired Air Marshal Sanjeev Kapoor called the AAIB report inconclusive, demanding a deeper technical probe into engine and electrical failures.

Air India completed inspections of fuel control switch locking mechanisms on its Boeing 787 fleet, finding no issues, in compliance with a July 14 directive from India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The airline announced a partial restoration of its international flight schedule from August 1, following a safety pause after the crash.  Posts on X reflected polarized sentiments, with some users citing the WSJ report to allege deliberate pilot action, while others, including aviation professionals, decried the narrative as unverified and biased, pointing to possible Boeing system flaws. Government sources, quoted by Indian media, ruled out sabotage and urged restraint in interpreting pilot communications, emphasizing electrical or software faults as potential causes.