Tragic Air Crash in Ahmedabad
Raghu
AIR India’s Boeing 787-8 ‘Dreamliner’ flight AI-171 from Ahmedabad to Gatwick Airport in London tragically crashed almost immediately after take-off from Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025. All 10 crew and 232 passengers on board died, except one passenger who miraculously survived and walked away from the crash. Even more tragically, the doomed aircraft crashed into a medical college hostel mess and residential quarters. As per last released official figures four days ago, with no numbers being released since then, at least another 30 people were killed on the ground.
This was the worst air accident in the past decade, and highest loss of life in an air crash in India. It was also the first accident involving the Boeing Dreamliner, at a time when the US manufacturer is struggling to recover from the disastrous accidents involving the Boeing 737 Max airplane.
It was also the worst crash in India going back decades, and the first major accident of an Air India plane since the company’s takeover by Tata-Singapore Airlines. India is among the world’s fastest growing air travel market, but has had its share of mishaps and reputational problems as regards air safety, a crucial parameter in assessing level of modernisation in the country.
As per protocols established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation or ICAO (usually pronounced eye-kay-oh), an inquiry has been initiated in India by the Aircraft Accident Investigations Bureau (AAIB), a body set up under ICAO Annex 13 provisions. The AAIB inquiry is to gather all evidence and submit its interim report in one month and a final report covering wider ground within 12 months maximum.
For unknown reasons, the union government has chosen to set up a parallel High Level Committee (HLC) to also go into the causes of the crash besides many other issues. In days to come, air safety standards in India, as well as the integrity of relevant institutions, will face deep scrutiny as both these inquiries proceed.
THE CRASH
The crash has puzzled aviation experts and observers more than usual. The mainstream and online media have been flooded with analyses and opinions. Without wanting to add to the noise, a few points may be noted here to enable readers to follow the discussions swirling around them.
The known facts are these. The aircraft was fully loaded with over 100 tons of fuel for the non-stop 10 hour flight of around 7000 km. This required AI-171 to use the full 3.5 km length of the runway on a hot day with temperatures over 40 degrees C so as to gather adequate speed and engine thrust or power to take off. In the highly automated aircraft, no warnings were sounded regarding any vital parameter. The aircraft took off normally, although somewhat sluggishly, reached 685 feet altitude, then suddenly started slowing, dipping and dropping to the ground all within 17 seconds from take-off.
There are three major theories around.
First, both engines lost power, itself highly unusual but not impossible. Modern airliners like the Dreamliner are designed to be able to take off even with just one engine. According to early reports, the Pilot is heard saying he had no or inadequate thrust. This may be the result of bird hits, but no flocks of birds were seen by witnesses. Fuel contamination or supply cut-off may be causes, but unlikely because the two engines have their own independent supply. In either case if, no thrust means the aircraft would stall, that is it cannot sustain flight due to insufficient “lift” or upward force on the wings.
Second, control surfaces on the wings, called flaps and slats were incorrectly set before take-off, highly unlikely because loud signals would go off in the cockpit, or that the co-Pilot retracted flaps by mistake instead of raising the wheels as instructed by the Pilot – wheels are clearly seen lowered in videos. Here again, signals would go off but, at such a low altitude, it may have been too late to recover.
Third, failure of hydraulics or electrical and control systems which may have disrupted all the highly automated systems.
One caution is warranted here. “Pilot error” is a convenient scapegoat in many air crash inquiries, especially since as in this case both pilots have been killed. However, many “pilot errors” are a result of poor design, such as levers for raising wheels and retracting flaps being close to each other or not easily distinguishable, or the absence of a siren if wheels do not come up. Red flags should go up, and data rechecked, if pilots are sought to be blamed.
Anyway, we will all know in a month.
DANGEROUS MALPRACTICES AT BOEING
Two eerily similar crashes of Boeing’s 737 Max airliner in 2018 and 2019 had led to the worldwide grounding of all 737 Max aircraft. In the course of the wide-ranging investigations that followed, design flaws, software issues and systematic manufacturing defects and quality control issues were found at Boeing plants in the US. It was also found that the certifying and regulatory body, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), had been colluding with Boeing essentially allowing the manufacturer to self-certify its aircraft without external checks. Subsequent litigation led to massive penalties on Boeing through criminal and civil cases. The accidents, compensation payouts, and prolonged grounding were estimated to have cost Boeing over $20 billion, with additional losses of around $60 billion due to 1200 cancelled orders. Despite new management promising restructuring and reforms, Boeing has been beset with quality issues.
Several whistle blowers have come forward, including giving testimony to the US Congress, alleging egregious short-cuts and bad manufacturing practices, deliberate violation of quality standards and by-passing of quality control protocols in manufacturing and assembly by Boeing and its sub-contractors. Although no Dreamliner has been involved in any serious mishap, whistleblowers have opined that failures will accumulate and result in serious accidents later.
Of immediate relevance to the Ahmedabad crash, whistleblowers have told investigative reporters that Boeing has been quietly delivering aircraft with possible manufacturing defects to overseas customers including to India.
It is hoped these issues would also be brought to light and examined by the AAIB Inquiry.
WHY SEPARATE GOVT INQUIRY?
It is in this context that concerns have arisen about constitution of a High Level Committee (HLC) to also inquire into the crash! Although the Order constituting the HLC states that it “will not be a substitute for other inquiries,” this is directly contradicted by its stated objective to “ascertain the root cause of the crash,” assess factors such as mechanical failure, human error etc and examine the black boxes, aircraft maintenance records, interview Air Traffic Controllers, and collaborate with international agencies. All of these fall squarely under the ambit of the AAIB investigation as mandated by ICAO Annex 13.
The HLC is an undesirable parallel investigation which will, by virtue of its backing by highest levels of government, undermine the AAIB investigation. The CPI(M) and scientific bodies such as the Peoples Science Movement have called upon the Ministry of Civil Aviation to revise the Terms of Reference of the HLC, and remove all overlaps with the AAIB investigation.
India had constituted the AAIB precisely to address the prolonged dispute with ICAO regarding perceived government interference and conflict of interest in DGCA being regulator, certifying authority and safety inspector also conducting accident inquiries. The HLC set up by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and which includes DGCA reignites this controversy by interfering with the AAIB inquiry. Government inserting itself into the accident investigations process will raise questions of the motivation behind such meddling.
At the same time, the broader scope of the HLC inquiry for promotion of aviation safety, excluding investigation into the crash, should be welcomed. In Ahmedabad, the aircraft crashed into a five-storey medical college building just 1.5km from the airport, but there were larger hospitals and establishments in crowded areas nearby, missed only by chance. Recommendations of earlier crash inquiries regarding norms for operations at “table-top” airports, distance of settlements from airports, maintenance of airports, specifications for runway end safety areas (RESA) etc, are crying out for standards, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement in the interests of public, passengers, crew, and aircraft safety. The HLC would indeed perform a valuable service if it addressed these aspects holistically and meaningfully with follow-up on implementation.
or reload the browser
