Air India Crash: Critics Slam Report Blaming Pilots, Allege Boeing Bias
PM Narendra Modi at the Air India plane crash site in Ahmedabad on Friday! (Image X.com)
Critics question timing and motive as official probe remains ongoing in Air India Crash in Ahmedabad
By KUMAR VIKRAM
NEW DELHI, July 11, 2025 — A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report attributing last month’s fatal crash of Air India Flight AI171 to pilot error has ignited a fierce debate across social media, with many aviation experts and veterans accusing the American publication of prematurely exonerating Boeing while black box data has yet to be officially released.
The WSJ article, citing unnamed sources familiar with preliminary findings, claimed that pilots of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner had accidentally switched off the fuel flow to both engines shortly after takeoff, leading to a catastrophic loss of thrust. The report said investigators had found no mechanical or technical faults with the aircraft so far, placing the blame squarely on crew actions.
However, the timing and framing of the report—released even before India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) or Boeing issued an official statement—has drawn sharp criticism.
Accusations of Media Shielding Boeing
Major Digvijay Singh Rawat, a Kirti Chakra awardee and defence commentator, minced no words in his post on X (formerly Twitter): “Interesting how the Wall Street Journal managed to ‘solve’ the case before Boeing or the government even released the black box findings. One has to wonder how much was WSJ paid to help clean up Boeing’s mess?”
Aviation enthusiasts and pilots questioned the technical credibility of the claims, highlighting that the fuel cutoff switches on the 787 cockpit have built-in detents and physical guards—making it virtually impossible to accidentally switch off fuel to both engines during flight.
C David wrote: “These switches have a detent that prevents an accidental bump from moving the switch… You can see the guards on either side also.”
Others pointed to previously documented issues with the same aircraft. “Didn’t we have footage from an earlier flight on the very same aircraft in question, showing prior failing electronics in the cabin?” noted @MericanMSCF, referencing viral footage from May showing malfunctioning cabin systems aboard a Dreamliner.
Contradictions in the Narrative
Multiple observers raised concerns about inconsistencies in the WSJ’s version of events. “The plane required the entire runway to take off, suggesting thrust was already compromised before rotation. Turning off the fuel flow seconds after takeoff doesn’t explain this,” aviation analyst Kevin Pfeffer commented, proposing a more complex scenario involving intentional underperformance and weight misreporting.
Former commercial pilots also chimed in, stating that standard emergency procedures (Quick Reference Handbook or QRH) in case of a double engine failure actually instruct pilots to toggle fuel switches—further complicating the blame game.
“Based on my experience, the QRH does call for pilots to move those switches to ‘off’ to attempt a restart if both engines quit,” said @OBXPilot.
Boeing Under Global Scrutiny
The backlash comes at a time when Boeing is under intense international scrutiny over multiple safety lapses, including the January 2024 Alaska Airlines 737 MAX door blowout and ongoing criminal investigations in the United States. Critics argue that blaming pilots—especially in foreign carriers—has been a recurring theme in Boeing-related incidents.
Aviation commentator Frank Trigiano weighed in: “Nearly impossible to accidentally turn off one fuel switch, let alone both. If they were turned off, it was either deliberate or part of a failed attempt to recover engine thrust.”
Neither Boeing, the DGCA, nor the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India has released official findings from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or flight data recorder (FDR). The preliminary report from Indian authorities is still awaited, and investigators have maintained that multiple scenarios, including technical faults and procedural errors, remain under review.
Legacy of Premature Attribution?
This isn’t the first time questions have been raised about WSJ’s early reporting in aviation disasters. In past incidents involving U.S.-made aircraft, observers have noted a pattern of media narratives shifting blame to pilots or foreign regulators even before full investigations conclude.
As public discourse heats up and official probes continue, one thing remains clear: the rush to pin the AI171 crash on pilot error has raised more questions than it answered—especially around accountability, transparency, and the power of narrative in shaping global aviation discourse.
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
