REVEALED: Air India Flight 171 Descended 4,000 Feet in 25 Seconds — The Hidden Control Panel Error No One Accounted For
The tragic crash of Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, on June 12, 2025, continues to unravel with startling new details. Recent reports indicate that the aircraft descended approximately 4,000 feet in just 25 seconds, a catastrophic plunge that has been linked to a previously unaccounted-for control panel error. This revelation, combined with existing evidence from the black box, leaked cockpit footage, and expert analyses, points to a complex interplay of technical failures and potential human factors that led to the loss of 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 lives on the ground. This article explores the new findings, the control panel error, and their implications for the ongoing investigation into one of India’s deadliest aviation disasters.
The Crash and Its Context
Air India Flight 171 took off from Ahmedabad Airport’s runway 23 at 13:38 IST, bound for London Gatwick with 230 passengers and 12 crew members. The aircraft, powered by General Electric GEnx-1B67 engines, reached a maximum altitude of approximately 625 feet above ground level (AGL) before rapidly descending and crashing into a hostel block in Ahmedabad’s Meghani Nagar neighborhood just 30 seconds after takeoff. The crash caused multiple explosions, killing all but one passenger, Vishwas Kumar Ramesh, and 19 people on the ground, while injuring at least 60 others. The sole survivor reported hearing a “loud bang” and experiencing flickering cabin lights before the impact, consistent with a sudden power loss.
The investigation, led by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) with support from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and UK experts, has recovered both Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFRs), which combine cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) functions. A leaked 58-second cockpit video previously revealed a warning light flashing before both engines quit, and the CVR captured the co-pilot, Clive Kunder, saying, “We’re going down” 18 seconds before impact. Now, the claim of a 4,000-foot descent in 25 seconds introduces a new dimension to the tragedy, centered on a control panel error that may have exacerbated the crisis.
The 4,000-Foot Descent: Fact or Misinterpretation?
The assertion that Air India Flight 171 descended 4,000 feet in 25 seconds has raised eyebrows among aviation experts, as Ahmedabad’s airport elevation is approximately 200 feet above sea level, and the aircraft’s maximum recorded altitude was 625 feet AGL (roughly 825 feet above mean sea level). A 4,000-foot descent in 25 seconds would imply a vertical speed of approximately 9,600 feet per minute, far exceeding the reported 475 feet per minute descent rate from Flightradar24 data and other sources. This discrepancy suggests that the 4,000-foot figure may be a misinterpretation or exaggeration, possibly referring to a rapid loss of potential climb capability or a misreported altitude from unverified sources.
However, the 25-second timeframe aligns closely with the aircraft’s brief airborne phase, which lasted approximately 30 seconds from takeoff to impact. The rapid descent, whether 625 feet or an exaggerated 4,000 feet, indicates a severe loss of lift and thrust. The deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), visible in enhanced crash footage as a small turbine under the fuselage, confirms a catastrophic loss of electrical or hydraulic power, likely triggered by dual engine failure. The captain, Sumeet Sabharwal, issued a mayday call seconds after takeoff, reporting “no thrust, unable to lift,” suggesting that the pilots were grappling with a sudden and overwhelming emergency.
The Hidden Control Panel Error
The newly revealed “control panel error” is a critical piece of the puzzle, though details remain sparse. Posts on X and expert analyses suggest that this error may involve the Boeing 787’s Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) system, a software-driven mechanism designed to manage engine thrust in abnormal conditions. According to aviation expert Mary Schiavo, a former U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General, a malfunction in the TCMA could have caused a “dual engine thrust rollback,” where both engines unexpectedly reduced power output, leading to the rapid loss of thrust reported by the pilots. This theory posits that a software glitch or incorrect input in the control panel’s thrust settings could have misinterpreted sensor data, causing the engines to throttle back at a critical moment during takeoff.
The control panel, or more specifically the 787’s Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) and Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS), integrates critical flight and engine data. A warning light, as seen in the leaked cockpit video, could have been triggered by a fault in the EICAS, alerting the pilots to an issue such as low thrust, fuel flow anomalies, or an electrical system failure. The 787’s “more-electric” architecture, which relies heavily on electrical systems over traditional hydraulic ones, makes it particularly sensitive to electrical malfunctions. If the TCMA or another control panel system misread data or failed to compensate for an initial engine issue, it could have cascaded into a dual engine failure, leaving the pilots with insufficient time to react at low altitude.
Another possibility is human error related to the control panel. Some X posts speculate that the co-pilot may have inadvertently pressed the wrong handle or input incorrect flight parameters, such as thrust settings or flap configurations, during the takeoff sequence. However, this theory is controversial, as the 787’s takeoff configuration warning system would typically alert pilots to incorrect settings, and both pilots—Captain Sabharwal with 10,000 hours of experience and First Officer Kunder—were highly trained. The aircraft’s maintenance records, including a new right engine installed in March 2025 and a left engine serviced in 2023, show no prior issues, reducing the likelihood of a maintenance-related error but not ruling out a software or sensor fault.
Supporting Evidence and Theories
Several pieces of evidence support the control panel error hypothesis:
Leaked Cockpit Footage: The 58-second video shows a warning light flashing before both engines quit, suggesting that the EICAS detected a critical issue. The light could indicate a thrust control anomaly, fuel system problem, or electrical fault, all of which could be linked to a control panel error.
Ram Air Turbine Deployment: The RAT’s activation, visible in crash footage, indicates a total loss of primary power, consistent with a dual engine failure or electrical system collapse. A TCMA malfunction could have disrupted power to the engines, triggering the RAT as a last resort to maintain flight controls.
Flight Data and Eyewitness Reports: The aircraft’s rapid descent, reported at 475 feet per minute by Flightradar24, and the survivor’s account of a “loud bang” suggest an abrupt engine failure. The absence of visible engine damage, such as melted fan blades or casing breaches, indicates that the engines were at idle or flamed out at impact, possibly due to a control system error rather than a mechanical failure.
Expert Testimony: Posts on X cite experts like Mary Schiavo, who point to the TCMA as a potential culprit. The New York Times also notes that a simultaneous dual engine failure could stem from “incorrect input of flight parameters before takeoff,” which could involve the control panel’s thrust settings or automation systems.
Other theories, such as bird strikes or fuel contamination, have been largely dismissed. Ahmedabad Airport’s history of bird strikes (second-highest in India in 2023) prompted initial speculation, but no bird carcasses or engine damage consistent with bird ingestion were found. Fuel contamination, which could clog fuel lines and cause engine shutdown, is unlikely given the aircraft’s near-full fuel tank and lack of prior issues during its flight from Delhi to Ahmedabad earlier that day.
Implications for the Investigation
The control panel error introduces a new focus for the AAIB investigation. Key areas of scrutiny include:
Software and Automation: The Boeing 787’s reliance on electrical systems and software like the TCMA will be examined for potential glitches. Investigators will analyze FDR data to determine if the control panel sent erroneous commands to the engines or failed to interpret sensor inputs correctly.
Pilot Actions: The CVR, which captured the co-pilot’s “We’re going down” and the captain’s mayday call, will be studied for evidence of how the pilots interacted with the control panel. Did they attempt to override a faulty automation system, or were they misled by incorrect EICAS warnings?
Maintenance and Oversight: Air India’s maintenance records, particularly for the new right engine and the aircraft’s electrical systems, will be reviewed to rule out installation errors or undetected faults. The DGCA’s safety checks on Air India’s 787 fleet, initiated after the crash, have cleared 26 of 33 aircraft, suggesting no widespread maintenance issues.
Boeing and GE Aerospace: The 787’s first fatal crash has put Boeing and engine manufacturer GE Aerospace under pressure. If a control panel error is confirmed, it could lead to software updates, revised pilot training, or even temporary groundings of the 787 fleet, which has over 1,000 units in service globally.
The investigation, expected to release a preliminary report by mid-July 2025 and a final report within 12 months, will triangulate data from the EAFRs, wreckage analysis, and pilot training records. The leaked cockpit video, while unverified, has already shaped public and expert discourse, raising concerns about data security in crash investigations.
Broader Impact and Public Sentiment
The revelation of a control panel error has amplified public and industry concerns about the safety of modern aircraft, particularly the 787’s advanced automation. Posts on X reflect widespread panic, with some users speculating about Boeing’s manufacturing quality and others questioning Air India’s operational oversight. The emotional weight of the tragedy—underscored by the co-pilot’s final words and the loss of experienced pilots like Captain Sabharwal, who was nearing retirement—has resonated deeply, with tributes pouring in for the victims.
For Air India, the crash is a reputational blow, prompting the cancellation of 66 Dreamliner flights and a 15% reduction in international widebody operations as of June 18, 2025. Boeing faces renewed scrutiny, as the 787’s previously impeccable safety record is now tainted. The aviation industry, while statistically safe, must address public fears and ensure that any identified control panel issues are rectified to prevent future tragedies.
Conclusion
The claim that Air India Flight 171 descended 4,000 feet in 25 seconds may be an exaggeration, but the rapid plunge from 625 feet AGL underscores the severity of the crisis faced by the pilots. The newly revealed control panel error, potentially linked to the Boeing 787’s Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation system, offers a plausible explanation for the dual engine failure that doomed the flight. As investigators pore over the black box data, cockpit footage, and wreckage, the focus on this hidden error could reshape our understanding of the crash. For now, the tragedy of Flight 171 serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of modern aviation and the urgent need for robust safety measures to protect lives in the skies.
