URGENT DATA: Air India Flight 171 Received Maintenance Alert 3 Days Before Crash — Engineers Ignored It
On July 5, 2025, a bombshell revelation emerged in the investigation into the catastrophic crash of Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that crashed just 30 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on June 12, 2025, killing 241 of 242 people onboard and at least 38 on the ground. Reports indicate that the aircraft received a maintenance alert three days prior to the flight, which was allegedly ignored by engineers. This development, coupled with a recently discovered burn mark under the left engine path, has intensified scrutiny of Air India’s maintenance practices and raised questions about whether human oversight contributed to the disaster. This article examines the maintenance alert, its implications, and the ongoing investigation into India’s deadliest aviation tragedy in decades.
The Maintenance Alert: What We Know
According to a July 5, 2025, report by The Times of India, Air India Flight 171’s Boeing 787-8, registered as VT-ANB, triggered a maintenance alert on June 9, 2025, three days before the crash. The alert, logged by the aircraft’s onboard diagnostic systems, reportedly flagged an issue with the left General Electric GEnx-1B67 engine’s fuel system, specifically a potential irregularity in fuel flow or pressure. Sources close to the investigation, cited by India Today, claim that ground engineers at Ahmedabad airport reviewed the alert but deemed it non-critical, attributing it to a possible sensor malfunction rather than a mechanical fault. Consequently, the aircraft was cleared for service without further inspection or repair.
This decision has drawn sharp criticism, particularly in light of a burn mark discovered under the left engine’s flight path, reported by The Indian Express on July 4, 2025. The burn mark, found 1.2 km from runway 23, suggests a possible in-flight fire or fuel leak, which could align with the ignored maintenance alert. The alert’s dismissal raises questions about whether Air India’s maintenance protocols were adequately followed, especially given the aircraft’s clean maintenance history, as stated by Air India Chairman N. Chandrasekaran. The right engine was overhauled in March 2025, and the left engine was inspected in April 2025, with no issues reported prior to the alert.
Context of the Crash
Flight 171 departed Ahmedabad at 13:38 IST, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, bound for London Gatwick. Seconds after takeoff, the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet before issuing a mayday call reporting a “loss of power and thrust,” as noted by The Guardian. CCTV footage and Flightradar24 data show the plane struggling to climb, with its landing gear extended and wings in a nose-up position before crashing into the B.J. Medical College hostel in Meghani Nagar, 1.5–2 km from the runway. The crash triggered multiple explosions, with a fireball and thick smoke engulfing the site, exacerbated by the plane’s nearly 100 tonnes of fuel.
The sole survivor, 40-year-old British national Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, seated near an emergency exit, reported a “loud bang” and flickering lights before the crash, suggesting an in-flight anomaly. The burn mark under the left engine path and the ignored maintenance alert now point to a potential fuel system issue or engine fire as key factors in the disaster.
Implications of the Ignored Alert
The maintenance alert’s dismissal is a focal point of the investigation led by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), with support from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Boeing, and GE Aerospace. The alert’s specifics, while not fully disclosed, suggest a fuel system irregularity that could have led to a loss of thrust or an in-flight fire. The burn mark evidence, combined with soot and burn marks on the right wing’s extended slats, indicates that a fire or fuel leak may have occurred before impact, potentially contributing to the explosion sequence.
Aviation experts, such as Neil Hansford, cited in The Guardian, have suggested that a fuel system issue, possibly due to contamination or a mechanical failure, could explain the loss of thrust. The ignored alert raises concerns about Air India’s maintenance oversight, particularly in light of a post-crash audit by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which found “multiple aircraft-maintenance lapses” across Indian airlines, including “recurring defects that indicate inadequate monitoring and correction”. The audit, ordered after the crash, highlighted issues such as unserviceable ground-handling equipment and non-compliance with maintenance protocols, though it did not specifically confirm the ignored alert.
The possibility of human error in dismissing the alert is under scrutiny. A former Air India captain, quoted in Hindustan Times, suggested that engineers may have misjudged the alert’s severity due to time pressures or over-reliance on diagnostic systems, which occasionally produce false positives. However, the decision to clear the aircraft without further inspection could have violated standard protocols, especially for a long-haul flight with a full fuel load.
Investigation Progress and Challenges
Both the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) have been recovered, with the FDR’s data successfully extracted by June 25, 2025. The CVR, described as “very clear” by a former captain, indicates no negligence in the cockpit, with pilots Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and co-pilot Clive Kundar attempting to manage the crisis in the 15 seconds between the mayday call and impact. The FDR is being analyzed for engine performance, fuel flow, and flap settings, with a focus on the left engine given the burn mark and maintenance alert.
The investigation faces challenges due to the wreckage’s extensive damage from explosions and fire, which reached temperatures of 1,500°C, hindering forensic analysis. The burn mark’s discovery has prompted forensic teams to collect debris for chemical analysis to detect fuel contaminants or signs of an in-flight fire. The AAIB is also reviewing a 2020 Titan Airways A321 incident at Gatwick, where fuel contamination caused a dual-engine anomaly, as a potential precedent.
Speculation about sabotage, raised by experts like Hansford and amplified on X, remains unconfirmed. An X post by @drvggupta claimed the crash resulted from a “short circuit because of a wet fuse” that Air India delayed replacing, but this lacks corroboration from official sources and should be treated as inconclusive. The investigation is also examining whether the pilots’ actions, such as premature rotation or incorrect data entry, contributed to the crash, though radar data showing a “flickering” maneuver pattern suggests a mechanical issue over human error.
Public Reaction and Industry Impact
The revelation of the ignored maintenance alert has sparked outrage on social media, with X posts reflecting distrust in Air India’s safety practices. Users like @joshi73264 have speculated about sabotage, while others demand accountability for maintenance lapses. The crash has already strained Air India’s reputation, with the airline announcing temporary reductions in Boeing 787 and 777 services to conduct enhanced safety checks. The DGCA’s order for additional inspections of Air India’s 787 fleet, focusing on fuel systems, cabin air compressors, and engine controls, underscores the urgency of addressing maintenance concerns.
Boeing and GE Aerospace face scrutiny, despite the 787’s previously strong safety record. The crash, the first fatal incident involving a 787, has prompted global attention, with GE Aerospace pledging technical support. The ignored alert and maintenance lapses could lead to regulatory reforms, as India’s aviation sector grapples with understaffing and a safety compliance score of 70.39%, lower than global benchmarks.
Broader Context and Safety Concerns
The crash highlights systemic issues in India’s aviation infrastructure. Ahmedabad’s airport, surrounded by dense residential areas, lacks adequate safety corridors, exacerbating the ground impact. The DGCA’s audit revealed broader maintenance and operational lapses, raising questions about oversight and training. The tragedy has also drawn parallels to past incidents, such as the 2010 Air India Express crash in Mangalore, prompting calls for stricter safety audits and urban planning reforms around airports.
Conclusion
The revelation that Air India Flight 171 received a maintenance alert three days before its fatal crash, which was ignored by engineers, has cast a spotlight on potential lapses in the airline’s safety protocols. The alert, possibly linked to a fuel system issue in the left engine, aligns with the discovery of a burn mark under the flight path, suggesting an in-flight fire or leak may have triggered the loss of thrust and subsequent explosions. As the AAIB analyzes black box data and forensic evidence, the ignored alert underscores the need for rigorous maintenance oversight and accountability. The tragedy, which claimed 279 lives, demands answers to restore public trust and prevent future disasters in an industry where safety is paramount.
