On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171 crashed barely a minute after taking off from Ahmedabad, killing all but one of the 242 passengers on board and 19 people on the ground. The tragedy has since evolved into a wider debate on aviation safety governance, investigative transparency, and India’s credibility under global civil aviation norms.
Nearly two decades earlier, in March 2006, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) chairman Assad Kotaite had warned that aviation safety is only as strong as its weakest link, and that transparency is the thread holding the global system together. The AI-171 crash has brought that warning back into sharp focus.
What Happened in the AI-171 Crash?
Flight AI-171 crashed within seconds of lift-off from Ahmedabad airport. Preliminary findings released a month later pointed to a catastrophic loss of engine power almost immediately after take-off. Two facts stood out:
- The fuel control switches of both engines moved to “cut-off” within 3–4 seconds after lift-off.
- Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) audio captured one pilot asking, “Why did you do that?”, to which the other replied, “I did not do that.”
Crucially, these fuel control switches are spring-loaded mechanical devices. They cannot shift due to software malfunction or electrical failure, raising serious questions about cockpit actions during the final moments.
Why the Black Box Data Matters
India, as an ICAO signatory, is bound by ICAO Annex 13, which mandates independence, technical rigor, and transparency in accident investigations.
The CVR and Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) were recovered by June 16. However, Indian authorities lacked the capability to fully decode the data, requiring assistance from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB-UK) was also part of the probe.
Both foreign agencies were aware of the contents of the recorders, as were Indian authorities—evidenced by the unprecedented decision to provide commando protection to the chief investigator of India’s AAIB.
Concerns Over the Preliminary Report
The preliminary report, released a month after the crash, has been criticised for being vague despite access to detailed CVR and DFDR data. At today’s level of forensic capability, the black boxes would clearly reveal:
- Which pilot was handling the controls
- The sequence of switch movements
- Cockpit conversations and ambient sounds during the final 15 seconds
Leaks reported by The Wall Street Journal in mid and late 2025 suggested deep disagreements between Indian authorities and the NTSB on how findings were being interpreted or presented. The NTSB’s role, strictly technical, does not extend to endorsing politically “massaged” conclusions.
A Pattern of Weak Safety Oversight
The AI-171 episode has revived scrutiny of India’s aviation safety record over the past 15 years:
- 2010 Mangalore crash: ICAO compliance claims were later contradicted by concealed safety lapses, including obstacles near the runway and delayed fire response.
- 2020 Kozhikode crash: Persistent risks at the airport were acknowledged but never adequately mitigated, despite deadlines.
In both cases, regulatory follow-through by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) remained weak, often under political or commercial pressure.
Failures at the Crash Site
Immediately after the AI-171 crash, basic investigation protocols were violated:
- The crash site was not secured; media personnel moved freely among debris.
- Critical evidence may have been contaminated or destroyed.
- The airport resumed operations within three hours, despite the absence of rescue and fire-fighting services.
Such lapses directly undermine the integrity of any subsequent investigation and violate ICAO norms.
Misinformation and the Transparency Vacuum
Delays and ambiguity have allowed speculation to flourish. Social media narratives citing ACARS and Inmarsat data have proliferated, despite the fact that:
- Such data is encrypted
- Access is limited to system operators and authorised airline officials
In this environment, the silence maintained by Air India has arguably helped prevent further confusion, even as investigative authorities remain opaque.
How Other Countries Handle Crashes
A comparison with U.S. practices is telling. After a UPS MD-11 cargo crash in November 2025:
- The NTSB held daily press briefings within 48 hours.
- CVR and DFDR findings were disclosed promptly.
- The FAA issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive grounding the aircraft type within days.
By contrast, despite having access to AI-171 data within a week, neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the NTSB grounded the Boeing 787 fleet—strongly suggesting they found no systemic aircraft fault.
Why This Matters for India’s Global Standing
Aviation safety is inherently international. A breakdown in trust with global investigators weakens not just one country, but the entire system. The AI-171 investigation has already raised concerns about India’s:
- Commitment to ICAO standards
- Institutional independence in safety probes
- Credibility as a responsible aviation power
Isolating foreign experts or diluting findings risks pushing India down a path of regulatory insularity—with consequences far beyond a single crash.
What to Note for Prelims?
- ICAO and Annex 13 provisions
- Role of CVR and DFDR in accident investigations
- Functions of NTSB, AAIB, DGCA, FAA
- Importance of transparency in aviation safety
What to Note for Mains?
- Challenges in ensuring independent accident investigations in India
- Impact of political interference on regulatory credibility
- Comparative analysis of global best practices in aviation safety
- Link between transparency, public trust, and international cooperation
