Air India Crash Preliminary Report Reveals Startling Details on Engine and Fuel Control Failures

By Ronald Kapper
Published: July 11, 2025

The preliminary crash investigation report released today into the devastating Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner accident that claimed the lives of 260 passengers and crew has begun to unravel the complex sequence of technical anomalies that led to the fatal June 8, 2025 tragedy. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing, have jointly reviewed early data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), highlighting two critical components under scrutiny: fuel-control switch positions and engine behavior during takeoff and climb.

This early report sheds light on a deeply troubling pattern of systemic oversights and technical failures that may have played a pivotal role in the crash. It also signals the beginning of a more profound debate over aircraft safety standards, pilot training, and mechanical redundancy on long-haul flights operated under Indian aviation oversight.

Timeline of the Tragedy

The aircraft, operating as Air India Flight AI271, departed from Delhi at 02:45 IST en route to Frankfurt. The Dreamliner reached rotation speed normally, but within four minutes of takeoff, pilots issued a "Mayday" call reporting dual engine thrust anomalies and fuel-flow irregularities. Despite attempts to stabilize the aircraft, Flight AI271 lost altitude rapidly and crashed in an open field near Rohtak, Haryana.

The accident is being compared to previous Boeing 787 incidents involving engine control issues, though never before had such a catastrophic loss of life occurred under similar circumstances.

Key Findings in the Preliminary Report

According to the DGCA report, the central focus is now on:

1. Fuel-Control Switch Positions

One of the most critical findings relates to the fuel-control switches on both engines. These switches regulate the fuel supply from tanks to the engines and are essential during takeoff.

“Initial data suggests both switches may have been inadvertently left in an intermediate position,” says the report. “This could have restricted fuel delivery during the engine spool-up phase, leading to an unstable thrust configuration.”

This condition could explain the asymmetric thrust observed in the flight data, where engine #1 appeared to deliver full power, while engine #2 experienced intermittent drops in thrust pressure ratio (TPR), causing the aircraft to veer left and destabilize during climb.

Experts from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) noted that such an error, while rare, should be caught during standard pre-flight and post-takeoff checklists, raising questions about procedural compliance in the cockpit.

2. Engine Behavior and Auto-Throttle Response

Engine behavior is another major concern, particularly regarding auto-throttle system failure. The aircraft’s Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, while certified for long-haul operations, have previously encountered issues related to software-based thrust management.

“FDR logs show inconsistent engine RPMs despite pilot throttle adjustments,” stated a Boeing spokesperson in the joint press briefing. “Our software team is working closely with DGCA to identify if auto-throttle misconfiguration played a role.”

Auto-throttle systems are designed to automatically manage engine thrust for optimal fuel efficiency and safety. However, in this case, manual override attempts may have been too late as the aircraft stalled during an aggressive left bank at low altitude.

Human Factors and Pilot Response

While the technical anomalies dominate headlines, the human element is not overlooked. The CVR captures the flight crew’s final attempts to troubleshoot amid growing panic.

The captain, a 22-year veteran with over 14,000 flight hours, reportedly followed emergency protocols, but the compressed timeline of the failure left little room for recovery.

The co-pilot's voice is heard requesting a switch to manual throttle just moments before the engines lost coordinated thrust. A preliminary simulation of the event indicates that if engine power had been redistributed within the first 60 seconds, a safe return may have been possible.

Aviation psychologist Dr. Neelima Agarwal from the Centre for Aviation Psychology Research notes, “This accident underscores the importance of repetitive high-stress simulation training. Even seasoned pilots face immense cognitive overload during rapid system failures.”

Regulatory and Industry Reactions

The crash has prompted urgent meetings within India’s Ministry of Civil Aviation, with directives already issued for:

• Fleet-wide inspections of all Boeing 787 aircraft in Indian carriers

• Mandatory retraining for pilots on fuel system emergencies

• Software patch reviews for auto-throttle logic

The Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) also called on the government to review safety inspection intervals, particularly on aircraft nearing the 10-year service mark. Air India’s 787 involved in the crash was delivered in 2016 and had logged over 36,000 flight hours.

Internationally, Boeing has pledged full cooperation, while also facing mounting scrutiny. Analysts at FlightGlobal have compiled a list of 787-related incidents since 2018, many involving non-fatal throttle and fuel delivery glitches.

“We must be vigilant not to repeat the patterns seen with the 737 MAX grounding,” warns aerospace analyst Ravi Menon from Aerospace Safety Review. “Transparency, swift corrective action, and international alignment are crucial.”

Families and Legal Implications

While the technical report garners global attention, the families of the victims continue to demand accountability. Air India has begun issuing initial compensation in line with the Montreal Convention, but legal proceedings are already underway in both Indian and German courts.

Legal firm Mitra & Mehta Aviation Law, representing 34 families, has filed an initial class-action lawsuit in the Delhi High Court citing “negligent maintenance oversight and failure to act on prior internal warnings.”

According to a statement from the families’ representative, “Air India management had been alerted about throttle synchronization irregularities in March 2025, yet no systemic maintenance directive was issued.”

The DGCA has not commented on those allegations, but the final report—expected within three months—may include a comprehensive audit of Air India’s internal safety and maintenance logs.

A Turning Point for Indian Aviation?

This tragic accident could mark a turning point in the evolution of Indian aviation standards. In recent years, the sector has seen rapid growth with increasing international routes, newer aircraft models, and intense competition.

But growth must be matched with safety rigor, says former DGCA Chief Arun Mishra:

“Our systems must shift from reactive to proactive safety cultures. Every checklist, every training session, and every software update must be executed with zero margin for error.”

Already, the Civil Aviation Safety Advisory Council (CASAC) has called for a national-level aviation safety audit, independent of airlines and OEMs.

Conclusion

The preliminary crash report of Air India Flight AI271 offers a sobering look into how small misalignments in technical systems, human decisions, and regulatory oversight can result in catastrophic consequences. While this is only the beginning of a broader investigation, the insights already revealed signal the urgent need for global aviation collaboration, transparent accountability, and a renewed focus on safety culture.

The final report, expected by October 2025, could change not only Air India’s internal operations but also influence aviation safety legislation across Asia.