Passengers, not profits: Who is to blame for the Air India plane crash?

The Air India flight AI 117, operated by a B787-8 Dreamliner, crashed on June 12, killing all but one of the 242 souls on board and over 30 people on the ground.

As investigators attempt to piece together what went wrong and come up with a reasonable explanation for why the plane would have crashed soon after takeoff, one can only hope that commercial interests, and pressure from Boeing, the plane manufacturer, will not hinder an independent investigation. This is essential to restore passenger confidence and ensure flight safety in the future.

To put this in context, ever since Boeing “shifted from an engineering culture to a sales culture,” there have been serious concerns about quality control even as extensive flight tests prior to certification have been reduced.

Unsafe surroundings

The Air India flight AI 171, bound for London, crashed within 36 seconds of takeoff from Ahmedabad, after attaining a height of 625 feet, just 1.5 kilometres from the airfield. It crashed into a concrete building, the latter constructed in what should have been a sterile 10km radius around the aerodrome, free of waste and rubbish, especially along the takeoff or approach path.

It is an unfortunate reality that almost every civilian airport in the subcontinent — India, Pakistan and Bangladesh — is surrounded by concrete structures, both residential and commercial. This is a gross irregularity, committed with the connivance of the respective regulator in each country. We experienced a similar situation in Karachi in 2020 when a PIA passenger plane travelling from Lahore crashed into a residential area a few hundred metres from the airport.

Where there is housing, there is also food waste, which provides the perfect breeding ground for big birds. These can cause major structural damage to the plane’s fuselage or engine and can also lead to a fatal accident if the foreign object damage (FOD) occurs within what is considered as the sensitive takeoff or approach phase.

The Ahmedabad Airport recorded 319 bird and wildlife strikes between January 2018 and October 2023. This is typical of many civil airports in the Subcontinent.

Here in Pakistan, politicised appointments in the Civil Aviation Authority are a major factor in compromising safety. It must be understood that there is a world of difference between commercial civil aviation, which is a highly regulated industry, and military aviation that works on a “Command and Control” structure. In all likelihood, if this concrete structure did not exist in the takeoff/ approach path of the Ahmedabad Airport, the chances of a crash landing, with relatively fewer fatalities was possible.

Faulty aircraft or pilot error?

Flight AI 117 was carrying 100 tonnes of fuel on a hot summer day. The right-wing GEnx-1B engine, manufactured by General Electric, and equipped with FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) was new, installed in March 2025, while the left-wing engine was due for servicing in December.

Air India has a fleet comprising 33 B787-8s. Certain components of this GEnx-1B engine have a fixed lifespan, which ranges between 15,000 to 20,000 cycles [A cycle is counted each time the engine is fired up, regardless of whether it is for five minutes or several hours].

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner also has an EAFR (Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder) capable of withstanding extreme crash forces. It has two flight recorders, the Forward and Aft Recorders, each capable of storing 25 hours of crucial flight and engine parameters, besides two hours of cockpit voice and Air Traffic Control communication. According to media reports, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was recovered on June 13 and the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) on June 16.

According to media reports, the recorders on Flight AI 117 are believed to be “too damaged to be processed locally” and would have to be sent to the US. The Indian government has, however, said that it has yet to decide where the recorders would be sent to be analysed. It is hoped that the recorders would provide substantive clues as to exactly what went wrong on that fateful flight.

One theory doing the rounds is that the crash may have been caused by a pilot error. According to Air India, “the flight was led by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a highly experienced pilot and trainer with over 10,000 hours flying widebody aircraft.” It added that First Officer Clive Kunder, “had over 3,400 hours of flying experience.”

Analysts have pointed out that the landing gear on flight AI 117 was visible despite the fact that the plane had gained considerable height. It is standard operating procedure to retract the landing gear on the first indication of a positive climb, which occurs within a maximum of 6 seconds after rotation. The only reason for a delayed landing gear retraction is if the brakes are hot due to some malfunction.

Another theory being posited is that the aircraft lost one or both of its engines. However, the loss of a single engine is not a major emergency, because modern aircraft performance is based on One-Engine out — meaning it can function adequately on a single engine.

The loss of both engines, on a two-engine jet, is high unlikely. It can, however, be caused by bird congestion, simultaneous fuel starvation, or severe fuel contamination. One other cause of fuel starvation is a malfunctioning FADEC, the brain of the engine.

Another reason for the loss of both engines can be pilot error, when a live engine is cut off by mistake, instead of the failed engine. Such pilot errors, though highly unlikely, have occurred. It is part of pilot training to carry out this procedure from memory. In such a scenario, the pilot flying the aircraft brings the throttle to idle, while the pilot not flying cuts off the start lever, which effectively shuts fuel supply to the faulty engine.

In cases of emergency, a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) is also available on the aircraft to maintain essential flight systems in the event of a complete loss of power. In fact, investigators believe the system was likely operating when the aircraft crashed. Moreover, in the event that the engine catches fire, the pilot must pull the fire handle and activate the fire extinguisher.

All commercial airlines regularly conduct simulator checks every six months or earlier, which are monitored by the regulator. This is mandatory for pilot license renewal. The civil aviation regulator is required to ensure that such periodical checks are carried. It is also essential that the CAA/ regulator employ the services of an independent qualified pilot inspector, with experience on the particular type of aircraft and who should have no conflicts of interest.

Boeing’s troubles

Over the last several years, Boeing has witnessed its fair share of turmoil regarding the safety, or lack thereof, of some of its aircraft. On October 29, 2018, Lion Air Flight 610, operated by B737 Max plunged into the Java Sea within minutes of takeoff, killing 189 people, while pilots struggled for control over an automated signal which pushed the nose down, sensing an impending stall. Indonesian investigators later blamed Boeing for a combination of aircraft design flaws, inadequate training and maintenance problems, adding that pilots were never told how to quickly respond to malfunctions of the aircraft’s automated flight-control system.

Around six months later on March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed after takeoff, killing 157 people. Within days of the second crash, Boeing tried to pin the blame on the pilots, but later accepted full responsibility for the crash, having “produced an airplane that had an unsafe condition”. This came after investigators found faults in the sensors and new flight control software that had not been explained to pilots.

Last year, yet another incident involving a 737 Max shattered confidence in the aircraft manufacturer when the door plug of Alaska flight 1282 blew out mid-flight, leaving a neat, refrigerator-sized, rectangular hole in the plane. The aircraft was subsequently able to land safely, with no injuries reported. Boeing later paid $160 million to Alaska Airlines as compensation for the incident.

In the recent past, conscientious whistleblowers, motivated by concerns for flight safety, have been persecuted by Boeing, while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), under the influence of powerful members of the Congress, preferred to look the other way. Design and manufacturing faults, involving the Boeing 737MAX were ignored, including concerns about the flight control system, and no information was provided to pilots about any malfunctions. The aircraft itself was rolled out in haste, within a year of undergoing flight tests in August 2015. Previously, exhaustive tests, carried over a period of two to three years were essential for certification.

This is precisely what happens when powerful aircraft manufacturers, in collusion with regulators and unethical elements within government, are motivated by commercial profits alone, ignoring passenger safety concerns.

For now, both Boeing and General Electric — the manufacturer of the engine — have said they are prepared to support the investigators. The Air India B787-8 Dreamliner crash is the first major fatal crash of this aircraft. In January 2013, all B787s were grounded for nearly three weeks, following incidents of fire and smoke of Lithium-Ion batteries.

On April 17, 2024, The New York Times carried a report that a whistleblower Boeing Engineer, Sam Salehpour, appeared before the US Congress, pointing out safety concerns and irregularities in production shortcuts when sections of the Dreamliner were fastened together, which could “eventually lead to a crash if they continued unchecked”. He warned that lightweight composite materials, “improperly fastened together could break apart mid-flight after thousands of hours”. He was accompanied by another whistleblower, Ed Pierson, a former senior manager, who had previously testified before Congress about the B737MAX, along with an engineer Joe Jacobsen and a former airline pilot, identified as Shawn Pruchnicki.

Here too, however, commercial interests prevailed. Salehpour was punished by his superiors. As of now, it is too early to tell what really caused Air India’s worst aviation disaster in a decade. As investigators move to ascertain the facts, however, one thing is clear: whether this was a pilot error or a malfunction in the aircraft, this accident could have been avoided.

Header image: This handout taken and posted on the X account of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on June 12, 2025 shows the back of the Air India plane after it crashed in a residential area near the airport in Ahmedabad. — AFP/ File