Cockpit voice recordings captured a tense exchange as one pilot asked the other, “Why did you cut off?” and the second replied he had not performed the action. The switches, protected by guard brackets and requiring a lift‑and‑move action, are not designed for inadvertent activation during flight. The AAIB’s description of their mechanical design makes an accidental trigger extremely unlikely.
Flight data confirms that the first switch moved to “CUTOFF” at 08:08:42 UTC, followed by the second one second later. Both switches remained in cutoff for approximately 10 to 14 seconds before returning to the “RUN” position, prompting automatic engine relighting that, while partially successful, was too late to prevent loss of altitude.
The AAIB noted no mechanical failures or external factors such as bird strikes. Both pilots were well-rested; the captain had over 15,600 flight hours, including more than 8,500 on the Boeing 787, while the co‑pilot had over 3,400 hours. Emergency systems including the ram air turbine deployed but could not compensate for dual engine thrust loss at low altitude.
Importantly, the report draws attention to a 2018 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin issued by the US Federal Aviation Administration. That bulletin warned that Boeing 737’s fuel control switches might have their locking mechanism disengaged—a potential risk allowing unintended movement. Although this advisory did not mandate inspections, the same switch design is used in Boeing 787‑8 models, including VT‑ANB, which was not inspected following the FAA bulletin.
Air India informed investigators it did not perform any inspections in response to the 2018 bulletin as it was not compulsory. Boeing and GE Aerospace have yet to receive any mandatory directives or issued recommendations regarding this issue. The AAIB report states that no airworthiness directives apply to Boeing 787‑8 or GE GEnx‑1B engine operators at this stage.
Investigation remains open and involves international cooperation. Teams from the US National Transportation Safety Board, FAA, UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch and Boeing have assisted India’s probe. Both enhanced flight and cockpit voice recorders were recovered 24 days after the crash and data retrieval was completed by 25 June.
Ground damage was extensive: debris scattered across five buildings, including a medical college hostel, caused significant structural damage and human casualties. Survivors are rare: only one passenger emerged alive from the wreckage.
Aviation experts say the movement of two guarded switches in flight is virtually impossible without deliberate action, and mechanical failure would be an unprecedented anomaly. Whether pilot error, mechanical fault, or intentional interference is at play remains to be examined. Some analysts suggest the FAA’s bulletin might reflect a systemic oversight in switch installation or maintenance oversight.
Pilots familiar with Boeing cockpit design affirm that the cutoff switches are deliberately tilted and guarded to reduce accidental operation. The AAIB report references an optional design enhancement—stronger protective guard brackets—but lacks proof whether these were fitted on VT‑ANB.
India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation has ordered additional inspections across Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet, focusing on fuel-parameter monitoring, FADEC systems and fuel actuator testing.
This crash marks the first fatal incident involving a Boeing 787. Boeing shares have seen slight volatility, reflecting investor concern over potential mechanical or regulatory implications. GE Aerospace, engine supplier, is also monitoring any fallout amid ongoing review of design and maintenance procedures.
Ahead lies a detailed final report expected within a year, tracing whether mechanical defect, inadvertent activation or deliberate pilot action caused the fuel cutoff. For now, the spotlight remains firmly on fuel control switch integrity, training protocols, and whether advisory-level bulletins carry sufficient regulatory weight.