Talk:Air India Flight 171

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

According to a preliminary report released on 12 July 2025 by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the aircraft's front enhanced airborne flight recorder revealed that the crash was caused by the loss of thrust in both engines after their fuel control switches were moved from RUN to CUTOFF three seconds after liftoff.[1][2] The crash remains under investigation.

To:

No cause for the crash was identified in the preliminary report released on 12 July 2025 by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). The crash remains under investigation. Amitrao17 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. No reason why we should remove that. This is a description of things that were included in the preliminary report. This was the cause of the crash. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 21:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It is incorrect to interpret the preliminary report as stating a "cause" for the crash. It is incorrect to say that the fuel cutoff switches "moved" which is a statement of physical transition. The language used in the preliminary report is "transitioned" which is more accurate as the interpretation of the state of the switch as logged by the EAFR. This difference in language is important as "move" implies a physical event, and implies human action, neither of which was established in the preliminary report. Amitrao17 (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Transitioned and moved mean the same thing here. Movement does not always imply human action. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 19:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Movement indeed does not always imply human action, but it does imply a physical change of position. The EAFR does not measure physical position, it measures a voltage. This is why the word "transition" is explicitly used in the reports. Amitrao17 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There are at least two issues here: 1. What the preliminary report says about the possible cause of the crash. 2. Whether the word "moved" is a fair paraphrase of the word "transitioned". I agree with Prothe1st that there is no good reason to remove what is said about cause. There is a separate thread below about the word "transitioned". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The preliminary report does not attribute cause to the crash. Why is it ok to use the word "cause" in the context of the preliminary report, and in the article more broadly? Amitrao17 (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the preliminary report points out anomalies that may have been involved in the causation of the crash? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair to say; the preliminary report is surprisingly low-quality, so it would be better not to make any inferences about causation. On the other hand, it may turn out that the mention of the SAIB and the two pilots' statements are included because they have more information that the switches indeed moved on their own, which has been documented on other crafts. But there is not enough certainty in the preliminary report to infer that either. Amitrao17 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You are suggesting that "the switches moved on their own"? I wonder could you tell us where this has been documented elsewhere (even if this may be towards the realms of WP:OR)? Did those other instances involve a second pilot asking a first pilot why he had moved them? This issue has been widely discussed in the public domain (see at 58s). Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the switches moved on their own. Have no concern about Wikipedia:No original research

It is not safe to claim that the word "cause" should not be used in this article?

However, consider this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/air-india-grounds-a-dreamliner-after-pilot-reports-possible-defect-in-fuel-control-switch-on-landing-in-bengaluru-from-london/articleshow/127864253.cms

And this: https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/NM-18-33.pdf/SIB_NM-18-33_1 Amitrao17 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

Crashed shortly after takeoff; fuel cutoff causing both engines to shut down; under investigation

To

Crashed shortly after takeoff; under investigation Amitrao17 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason was given or sources provided to support the proposed change. Day Creature (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the reason:

The last line in the preliminary report states "Investigation is continuing and the investigation team will review and examine additional evidence, records and information that is being sought from the stakeholders." and the article text "fuel cutoff causing both engines to shut down" is inconsistent with the preliminary report. the phrase "fuel cutoff" is ambiguous and implies an event at the fuel cutoff switches which has not been established to be correct. in addition, the engine shutdown could have been triggered by an event earlier than the transition of the fuel cutoff switches.

Making definitive statements in a summary box about an investigation which is underway is misleading. A final report is expected in the next few days, and there will be more traffic to this article. The article should not speculate, and should not deviate from the preliminary report

Source: https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf Amitrao17 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the preliminary report doesn't attribute any direct causes. But the only anomalous events noted in the report are: "... the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off."? Both switches later transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN, but too late to save the flight. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent observation! However, noting anomalous events cannot be characterized as a "cause" right? Amitrao17 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the PR offers no other anomalous events that might have caused the accident. There is an open question as to why the "fuel cut-off" happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Another excellent observation! Nevertheless, there has been no cause identified, so this article should not say there was, right? Amitrao17 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This statement in the article:

According to a preliminary report released on 12 July 2025 by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the aircraft's front enhanced airborne flight recorder revealed that the crash was caused by the loss of thrust in both engines after their fuel control switches were moved from RUN to CUTOFF three seconds after liftoff.

is supported by two links:

https://www.corriere.it/economia/trasporti/aerei/26_febbraio_10/volo-air-india-precipitato-perche-il-pilota-ha-spento-i-motori-ora-gli-indiani-ammettono-il-gesto-intenzionale-f04a268f-c157-42fe-a9c8-1c7bb4adexlk.shtml https://www.khaleejtimes.com/world/asia/air-india-flight-171-crash-pilot-deliberately-cut-fuel-switch-report-says

The statement in the article should be changed to:

A preliminary report was released on 12 July 2025 by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). The crash remains under investigation. A final report is expected by 12 June 2026.

If additional detail about what was stated in the preliminary report is included that's fine, but it should be accurate. Amitrao17 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The article no longer has this text? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Already fixed that's why. Amitrao17 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The text:

Fuel control switches On the Boeing 787, the two fuel control switches are part of the throttle control module and are located just below their respective throttle levers. Moving a switch to CUTOFF immediately halts fuel flow to that engine, causing a loss of thrust, as well as the electrical and hydraulic power that engine supplies. These switches are normally only used on the ground for engine startup and shutdown. In flight, cutting off the fuel to an engine is only done in emergencies such as an engine fire or some other malfunction warranting a shutdown or restart. To prevent accidental activation, each switch is fitted with a metal stop-lock mechanism that requires the switch be pulled up before it can be moved. Additionally, brackets on either side guard the switches from unintentional contact.

Does not require any of the three footnotes associated with it, and should be removed.

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/ai171-investigation-fuel-control-switches/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/india-finds-engine-switch-movement-fatal-air-india-crash-no-immediate-action-2025-07-11/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gy78gpnqo Amitrao17 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Which part/s of this text do you think is/are erroneous? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The presence of the footnotes/citations Amitrao17 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced as per WP:V? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't the sources have to be applicable to the text, or nah? Amitrao17 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The text shown has a single source, which is numbered [12], and is this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Good eye! That was the fix. Amitrao17 (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Citing a non-english article behind a paywall is not appropriate and it should be removed. Amitrao17 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

the WSJ article speculation in the beginning of the paragraph should also probably be removed... Amitrao17 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The source for that claim is not defined in the article, and so is essentially unsourced. I have therefore removed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

In the preliminary investigation section, the word "moved" is used 3 times to describe the fuel cutoff switch however the AAIB Preliminary report uses the word "transitioned". This is important because "move" implies an actual physical action, whereas "transitioned" is referring to the entry in the EAFR log. The word "moved" should be changed to "transitioned"

Preliminary report On 12 July, the AAIB released a preliminary report outlining its initial findings. After a 62-second takeoff roll, the aircraft rotated at an airspeed of 155 knots (287 km/h; 178 mph), and lifted off 4 seconds later at 13:38:39 IST. As the aircraft reached its maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots (330 km/h; 210 mph) 3 seconds after lifting off the runway, both fuel control switches sequentially moved from RUN to CUTOFF, 1 second apart. Both engines immediately shut down and stopped producing thrust. Airport CCTV showed no significant bird activity in the flight path, and the aircraft began losing altitude before crossing the airport perimeter. One pilot was heard on the cockpit voice recording asking the other why he had "cut off", with the other pilot answering that he "did not"; the report did not specify who said what. According to flight recorder data and airport CCTV footage, the ram air turbine (RAT) deployed automatically and began producing emergency hydraulic and electric power 5 seconds after the first switch moved. The first switch returned to RUN about 10 seconds after it had moved to CUTOFF, and the second switch returned to RUN about 4 seconds after that. Each engine's full authority digital engine control (FADEC) then automatically attempted to restart them. Amitrao17 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the evidence from the EAFR log alone cannot necessarily show there was any physical movement of the cockpit controls. But we are left with the question: "why was one pilot heard on the cockpit voice recording asking the other why he had "cut off", with the other pilot answering that he "did not""? If the first pilot did not see any physical movement of the controls by the second pilot, what prompted the question? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

the question could have been prompted by an audio alert, a message on the display, or from the sudden lurch forward from loss of thrust... Amitrao17 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Are these given as possibilities in the PR? If not, it's just personal WP:OR. They might be given as examples of speculation, if they have widespread coverage in WP:RS sources, but it's probably safer to await a final official investigation report. But I agree that "moved" and "transitioned" are not necessarily synonyms in this context. All we really know is that signals for both fuel switches changed. And that the second pilot assumed (or possibly saw?) that the first pilot had moved them. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

you asked; I answered. I'm not suggesting these possibilities belong in the article. Amitrao17 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought it was clear from the get-go, but you're welcome! Amitrao17 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that one of the pilots moved the switches to crash the plane. However, as the preliminary report states only "transitioned", we cannot use "were moved" unless we have a proper source to that (and apparently Indian AAIB is withholding the final report as they don't want to put into print the obvious). IlkkaP (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

after removing an incorrect footnote, this statement is looking very unsubstantiated:

Cash settlements were offered by Air India (of undisclosed amounts) to families of the victims, on the condition that they do not initiate legal action against the airline and the aircraft manufacturer.

unless someone has a reference, the sentence should probably be removed... Amitrao17 (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not yet looked for any supporting sources, but in my view the claim looks very likely to be true. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The reverted edit is:

| summary = Crashed shortly after takeoff; fromfuel apparentcutoff losscausing ofboth thrustengines to shut down; under investigation

@MartinEvans123 can you please let me know why you reverted this? My intention was to remove causation attribution where the preliminary report did not make any. Amitrao17 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that the reversion violates this principle: Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

I think any change there requires a consensus of interested editors which, as far as I can see, we don't yet have. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It is incorrect to think that any change there requires a consensus of interested editors (whatever that means). Edits are supposed to be BOLD, and only reverted when necessary. Your revert was not only not necessary, it made the article worse and less correct. Unless I don't understand something about Wikipedia and the AI 171 specifics? Amitrao17 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the summary in the infobox is accurate as it stands and reflects the content of the article. I will not revert again, however, so as to avoid WP:EDITWAR, mainly because the final report is due to be published tomorrow. But other editors may have stronger views. By "interested editors" I mean editors who have made edits to the article or here at the Talk page. As far as I know, Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia categorically does not work on the basis of consensus. See Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle

Further the summary does not reflect the content of the article, or of the official information that the article is based on.

I'll reinstate the edit since you've indicated you won't revert it again. Amitrao17 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I find your above claims alarming, misguided and predictable, respectively. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Amitrao17 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this aspect of policy at your Talk page. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss is the going in approach. Consensus comes only after a disagreement. And, incidentally, before reverting edits. Amitrao17 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I see you've now removed my post as "irrelevant text" which "junks up" your Talk page. Good job we didn't have "a disagreement", then. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, it was the right thing to do. Why don't you think so? Amitrao17 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You were wrong. Let's just move on. No need to junk up this talk page with more observations Amitrao17 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I changed my mind about not reverting again. Hope you won't remove my comment as "junk". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You're now edit warring. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you like me to report you to WP:3R or would you like to self-revert to the stable version? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've asked you a question at your Talk page here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's continue to discuss it if that's ok with you?

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Amitrao17 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The comment in the lede section stated to check Talk:Air India Flight 171/Archive 5#Lede section (which is now archived) before editing, just wanted to make sure i'm fine to add information from this reuters article (https://www.reuters.com/world/india/air-india-crash-report-delayed-due-unfinished-engine-examination-bloomberg-news-2026-06-11/) regarding the delay & delay reason on the final report.

Amended text would be along the lines of "The crash remains under investigation and an interim is expected to be released by 12 June 2026.[1] The final report release is expected to be delayed due citing a need to complete analysis on the plane's engines.[reuters citation]"

As a note for context, a final or interim report has to be released within 12 months as per ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 6.6. Atmois (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

In view of that latest Reuters source, this report The Independent seems to be incorrect? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Martinevans123

Which part in particular appears to be incorrect? If it is incorrect should we consolidate the two references to the newer Reuters article? Atmois (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The version I can see now seems to have been updated in line with the Reuters report. So no problem. I think your proposed update is a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the Interim statement. It essentially says nothing. It doesn't even give a possible date for a final report to be issued. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I suspect some readers might be surprised at the relatively small proportion of major accident investigations that produce a Final Report within a year. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

What proportion is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Considerably fewer than half. DaveReidUK (talk)@ DaveReidUK (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I thought there were international agreements about this. I’m very surprised. I’d be very interested to see your source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

There are SARPS (Standards and Recommended Practices), in this case to be found in ICAO Annex 13. That's the nearest you'll get to rules or regulations. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. So what is your source? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

An ICAO analysis a few years ago. I don't have it to hand. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh I see. I guess it wouldn’t help us predict when we might see a final report for this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it won't. Fortunately, Wikipedia editors aren't in the prediction business. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The title of page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_171 appears to have been vandalized. ~2026-34725-59 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The page move vandalism been reverted. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 22:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)