When Air India flight AI171 crashed less than a minute after taking off from Ahmedabad on June 12 last year, killing 260 people, attention immediately turned to the cockpit and the final moments of the flight. Nearly a year later, however, another question continues to linger across the global aviation industry. Has the tragedy reignited concerns surrounding Boeing’s flagship 787 Dreamliner programme even before investigators have determined what caused the crash?
Investigators have not identified any design flaw in the aircraft and no connection has been established between the AI171 crash and previous Boeing 787-related incidents. Yet the disaster has once again brought the Dreamliner under intense scrutiny, placing renewed focus on the aircraft’s technical history, manufacturing practices and safety record.
The significance of the investigation extends far beyond India for one reason: AI171 was the first fatal accident and the first hull loss involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner since the aircraft entered commercial service in 2011.
For aviation regulators, airlines and Boeing itself, that fact alone makes the outcome of the investigation one of the most closely watched in recent years.
Before the Ahmedabad crash, the Dreamliner had earned a reputation as one of the aviation industry’s most successful long-haul aircraft programmes. Boeing says the aircraft has carried more than a billion passengers worldwide, with airlines operating the jet on some of the longest international routes.
Yet the aircraft’s journey has not been free from controversies, but none of those issues has been linked to the AI171 crash.
However, the Ahmedabad disaster has inevitably revived discussion around the aircraft because investigators are attempting to understand what happened aboard a model that had never before been involved in a fatal accident.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s preliminary report released last year disclosed that both engine fuel control switches moved from the “RUN” to the “CUTOFF” position shortly after take-off, resulting in a loss of thrust in both engines. While the report established the sequence of events, it did not explain what caused the switches to move or identify any fault in the aircraft’s design.
Importantly, the preliminary report did not recommend any action against Boeing, Dreamliner operators or aircraft manufacturers, and investigators have so far not identified any systemic flaw in the aircraft. The absence of a final report, however, has allowed competing theories to emerge.
Investigators have established what happened in the final moments of the flight. What remains unknown is why it happened.
