EVIDENCE BURIED: Was the Truth About Air India Flight AI-171 Suppressed?
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI-171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed just 32 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, killing 241 of 242 passengers and crew, along with at least 39 people on the ground. The tragedy, the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787, sent shockwaves through the aviation industry and raised urgent questions about safety protocols, maintenance practices, and corporate accountability. Now, a chilling claim from an ex-employee of Air India’s maintenance team has emerged, alleging that a faulty part on the aircraft was replaced off-record before the flight and that the real crash investigation report was destroyed within 48 hours of the incident. If true, this could point to a cover-up with far-reaching implications.
The Crash: A Catastrophe Unfolds
Flight AI-171, bound for London Gatwick, took off at 13:39 IST with 230 passengers, 12 crew members, and nearly 100 tonnes of fuel. Seconds after liftoff, the pilots issued a Mayday call, reporting a loss of power and thrust. The aircraft struggled to climb, reaching only 625 feet before nosediving into a medical hostel in Ahmedabad’s Meghani Nagar, triggering explosions and a massive fireball. The sole survivor, a British citizen seated next to an emergency exit, described the aircraft breaking apart upon impact, allowing his escape. The crash, described as a “controlled flight into terrain” by former AAIB investigator Captain Kishore Chinta, was unprecedented for the Dreamliner, which had maintained a fatality-free record since 2011.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), supported by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, immediately launched a probe. Both black boxes—the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)—were recovered, though damaged, complicating data extraction. Initial findings pointed to a sudden power failure, possibly due to fuel contamination, engine failure, or electrical system malfunction. Video evidence suggested the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), an emergency power generator, may have deployed, indicating a catastrophic loss of power.
The Whistleblower’s Claim
In a shocking development, an anonymous ex-employee, claiming to be a former Air India maintenance engineer, has come forward with allegations that could upend the official investigation. The whistleblower, who says they were sacked weeks before the crash for raising safety concerns, claims that a critical component in the aircraft’s right engine—a fuel control valve—was found to be faulty during a routine inspection on June 10, 2025, after the plane’s return from a Tokyo-Delhi round trip. According to the ex-employee, the part was replaced without proper documentation, bypassing standard protocols to avoid delays and scrutiny.
“They didn’t want it in the logs,” the whistleblower told an investigative journalist. “The valve was sourced from an unverified supplier, and the replacement was done overnight. No one reported it to the DGCA [Directorate General of Civil Aviation]. I warned them it could cause a fuel delivery issue, but they told me to keep quiet.” The ex-employee further alleges that a preliminary crash report, compiled within 24 hours and pointing to this undocumented repair, was destroyed 48 hours after the crash. A sanitized version, omitting the faulty part, was allegedly prepared to protect Air India and Boeing from liability.
These claims, while unverified, align with reports of maintenance irregularities. The right engine of AI-171 had been overhauled in March 2025, and the aircraft underwent a major check in June 2023. However, the whistleblower’s account raises questions about the integrity of Air India’s maintenance records, especially given the Tata Group’s recent cost-cutting measures, including outsourcing C-inspections to a Singapore firm.
The Investigation: Clues and Contradictions
The AAIB’s preliminary report, expected within 30 days per ICAO protocols, has yet to be released as of June 25, 2025. Early speculation focused on engine failure, possibly due to fuel contamination or a bird strike, though experts like Marco Chan dismissed double engine failure as “very rare.” The recovery of intact turbine blades suggested the engines were rotating at impact, but the FDR will confirm whether they were producing thrust. A 2020 incident at Gatwick, where an Air India 787 suffered engine failure due to fuel system contamination, has also drawn scrutiny, prompting investigators to examine AI-171’s fuel logs from its Paris-Delhi and Tokyo-Delhi flights on June 11-12.
The whistleblower’s claim of an off-record repair adds a new layer of complexity. If true, a faulty fuel control valve could have disrupted fuel delivery, leading to the power failure reported by the pilots. The lack of documentation would explain why enhanced inspections of Air India’s 787 fleet, ordered by the DGCA, found no systemic issues. The ex-employee’s allegation that the real report was destroyed is particularly troubling, as it suggests an attempt to suppress evidence that could implicate maintenance lapses or corporate negligence.
Corporate and Regulatory Fallout
The crash has reignited concerns about Boeing’s safety culture, already battered by the 737 MAX crises of 2018-2019. The Dreamliner’s flawless record was a point of pride, but production issues, including structural defects at Boeing’s South Carolina plant, have raised doubts about quality control. Boeing’s CEO, Kelly Ortberg, has deferred to the AAIB, but the company faces intense pressure as investigators probe whether design flaws or manufacturing errors contributed to the crash.
Air India, under Tata Group management since 2022, has also come under fire. Union leader Kiran Pawaskar accused the airline of prioritizing cost-cutting over safety, citing reduced pilot crews and outsourced maintenance. The whistleblower’s claims bolster these allegations, suggesting that pressure to maintain schedules may have led to shortcuts. Tata Sons Chairman N. Chandrasekaran has defended the airline, emphasizing the aircraft’s “clean history” and the pilots’ “exceptional” records, but public trust is eroding.
The DGCA’s role is equally contentious. Critics argue that the regulator’s oversight of Air India’s maintenance practices has been lax, especially post-privatization. The decision to keep black box analysis in India, despite reports of damaged devices, has fueled speculation about political interference. If the whistleblower’s claims are substantiated, the DGCA could face accusations of complicity in concealing safety violations.
The Path Forward
The AI-171 crash demands a transparent and rigorous investigation. The AAIB must verify the whistleblower’s claims by cross-referencing maintenance logs, interviewing ground staff, and analyzing fuel system components from the wreckage. International partners like the NTSB and UK AAIB can lend credibility, but the decision to decode black boxes in India raises concerns about impartiality. The ex-employee’s allegations, if proven, could lead to criminal charges against Air India personnel and spark lawsuits against Boeing and its suppliers.
For the families of the 279 victims, the truth is paramount. The Tata Group’s promise of compensation and an AI-171 Trust for long-term support is a start, but it cannot replace accountability. The aviation industry, too, must confront systemic issues—fuel safety, maintenance oversight, and corporate pressures—that may have contributed to this tragedy. Until the full report is released, the whistleblower’s claims will hang over the investigation like a dark cloud, a reminder that buried evidence, if uncovered, could change everything.
