Independent investigation contradicts official findings on Air India flight 171, alleges software fault killed 260

Quick summary

A new independent investigation by The Caravan magazine directly contradicts the official preliminary findings on Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people on 12 June 2025. The investigation alleges that a cascading electronic failure and software fault — not deliberate or accidental crew action — cut fuel to both engines of the Boeing 787-8 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad, and that the pilots were subsequently locked out of manual override. India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) preliminary report, issued in July 2025, attributed the dual engine flameout to fuel control switches moving to CUTOFF but did not establish why.

The final AAIB report is not expected for roughly another year. If its findings shift causality toward software or electronic failure, airworthiness directives affecting global 787 fleets could follow.

Nearly a year after the deadliest aviation disaster in Indian history, the official narrative is under direct challenge. The Caravan magazine’s independent investigation, published in early June 2026, claims that a software bug — not panicked or reckless pilots — triggered the fuel cutoff that destroyed Air India flight AI171 and killed 260 people, including 241 of 242 people on board and at least 19 on the ground.

The AAIB’s July 2025 preliminary report established that both engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF approximately three seconds after liftoff, causing a dual engine flameout. What it did not establish was how or why those switches moved. The Caravan investigation argues the answer lies not in the crew’s hands but in the aircraft’s own electronic architecture — specifically, a software state that allegedly caused the flight computer to believe the aircraft was still on the ground, triggering an automated fuel shutoff protocol.

The investigation draws on satellite transmission data, maintenance records, and internal technical documentation attributed to General Electric and Boeing. Its central physics argument: the aircraft reached its peak recorded speed of 180 knots at the precise second the AAIB report places the switch movement, which the investigation contends is incompatible with engines that had already lost fuel. Acceleration to peak speed, the argument goes, requires thrust that a dead engine cannot provide.

Boeing and the AAIB have not publicly responded to the specific claims in the Caravan report. The investigation remains unverified by any regulatory body. But the questions it raises — about software authority over fuel systems, about cockpit override capability, and about whether the preliminary report moved too quickly toward a crew-action theory — are now in public circulation and will be difficult to ignore as the final investigation proceeds.

What the official record actually shows — and what it leaves open

The AAIB preliminary report on VT-ANB, the Boeing 787-8 operating the Ahmedabad–London Gatwick service, is precise about the sequence of switch movements but silent on their cause. Both fuel control switches moved to CUTOFF. An automatic engine relight sequence followed. One engine was in the process of restoring thrust; the other had not yet recovered. The aircraft impacted multiple buildings. No defects with the fuel control switches had been recorded on this airframe since 2023.

The lever-lock design of the 787’s fuel control switches is relevant here. These are not switches a crew member brushes accidentally — they require a deliberate two-step action to move. They are used after landing or in specific emergencies such as an engine fire. The AAIB noted this design feature without resolving the contradiction it creates: if the switches require deliberate force to move, and if no emergency condition consistent with intentional shutdown existed at that moment, what moved them?

The Caravan investigation’s answer — that a software fault commanded or enabled the cutoff after a flight computer reboot caused it to misidentify the aircraft’s state — is a serious allegation that deserves serious scrutiny. It is not, however, a confirmed finding. The AAIB, the NTSB, and the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch are all participating in the ongoing technical investigation. A comprehensive account of the known facts around AI171 confirms the final report could take up to a year from the June 2025 accident date — meaning it may not arrive until mid-2026 at the earliest.

This is also not the first time that silent electronic failure has emerged as a competing explanation in a high-profile crash investigation. The Singapore Airlines SQ321 turbulence disaster produced a final report finding that a weather radar fault “cannot be ruled out” as a contributing factor — a system that failed without triggering any cockpit alert. The pattern of avionics failing silently, without warning the crew, is becoming a recurring thread in modern accident investigation.

Why the 737 MAX precedent makes regulators nervous about this one

The aviation industry has been here before — and the outcome was catastrophic for Boeing’s reputation and the global schedule network. The 737 MAX crisis, triggered by two crashes in 2018 and 2019 involving the MCAS automated trim system, resulted in a 20-month global grounding while Boeing redesigned software, training, and documentation. Airlines scrambled to substitute aircraft, cancel routes, and manage passenger rebooking on a scale that took years to fully unwind.

The AI171 situation is not yet the MAX. No grounding has been ordered. No airworthiness directive has been issued. The Caravan investigation is a media report, not a regulatory finding. But the structural similarity — automated system potentially overriding crew authority over a flight-critical function, with a preliminary report that may have moved too quickly toward human error — is exactly the pattern that makes aviation safety investigators and regulators uncomfortable. The 787 is a far more complex electronic architecture than the MAX, which makes both the failure modes and the remediation harder to isolate.

Jurisdiction here is layered. The FAA certifies the 787 under 14 CFR Part 25, with software safety governed by standards including DO-178C for complex avionics. India’s DGCA oversees Air India’s operations. Only the AAIB’s final findings can compel coordinated design or software changes across fleets — which is why that report, whenever it arrives, carries enormous weight.

Steps for travelers with 787 bookings right now

No airworthiness directive has been issued and no grounding is in effect — but the AI171 investigation is active, the final report is pending, and the Caravan allegations have now entered the regulatory conversation. Travelers with upcoming 787 bookings should take these steps now, before any potential disruption materializes.

• Check your aircraft type before you fly. Use Google Flights, Seat Guru, or your airline’s own booking page to confirm which aircraft operates your specific flight. Aircraft type can change at short notice — recheck within 72 hours of departure.
• Enable airline app notifications. Air India and other 787 operators will communicate aircraft substitutions and schedule changes through their apps first. Turn on push notifications so you are not caught off guard by a last-minute swap.
• Monitor AAIB and DGCA communications directly. The AAIB India and India’s DGCA are the authoritative sources for any new safety directives. If a directive is issued affecting 787 fuel control or electronic systems, it will appear there before it reaches the media.
• Understand your rebooking rights. If an aircraft substitution results in a significantly different product or schedule, most airlines’ conditions of carriage allow a free rebooking or refund. Know your entitlements before you need them.
• Consider route alternatives if flexibility matters. For travelers on Air India’s Ahmedabad–London or other 787-operated long-haul routes, Google Flights allows filtering by aircraft type to identify itineraries on other equipment if preferred.

Watch: The AAIB final report on AI171 — expected roughly mid-2026 — is the single most consequential document in this story. If it attributes primary causality to software or electronic failure, expect FAA and DGCA airworthiness directives and potential schedule disruption during fleet-wide modifications. If it reconfirms crew action as the cause, systemic 787 fleet changes become significantly less likely. Watch also for any FAA advisory or directive specifically referencing 787 fuel control or electronic bay systems — that would be the first concrete signal of regulatory action.

Questions? Answers.