The Air India AI171 crash, which occurred a year ago, has left investigators with more questions than answers. While the preliminary report identified a sudden movement of the fuel-control switches as the primary cause, the full picture remains elusive. This incident, involving a 12-year-old Boeing 787 Dreamliner, raises several intriguing questions that demand further investigation. In my opinion, the delay in the final report is not just a matter of complexity, but also a reflection of the contentious nature of the inquiry. The preliminary report's focus on the cockpit has sparked a backlash from various stakeholders, including pilots' groups, safety campaigners, and lawyers for victims' families. Personally, I think the investigation has become mired in controversy due to the vested interests of multiple parties involved. The families of the deceased pilots are defending their loved ones' reputations, pilot unions are resisting conclusions that implicate the crew, the airline is keen to demonstrate its safety standards, and the Indian authorities have a broader interest in preserving confidence in the country's aviation system. What makes this particularly fascinating is the unusual nature of the crash. While take-off and landing are the riskiest phases of flight, fatal accidents immediately after lift-off are uncommon. According to Boeing, just 14% of global jet crashes between 2004 and 2013 occurred during take-off and initial climb. This rarity makes the AI171 crash even more intriguing. One key question that remains unanswered is the timing of the engine failure. Did it occur during the take-off roll and continue through lift-off, or did it develop only after the aircraft had become airborne? This question is crucial in determining the cause of the crash. Another intriguing aspect is the role of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT). According to the preliminary report, the RAT was providing hydraulic power within about five seconds of the fuel switches being cut off. If this is correct, it raises the question of whether the RAT deployed earlier than investigators currently believe, perhaps before the engines lost power. This would suggest that the RAT was triggered by a separate electrical or hydraulic failure, rather than by both engines losing power simultaneously. The mystery of the emergency turbine is further complicated by the possibility that the engines may have already lost power before the RAT deployed. This would imply that the RAT was triggered by a separate electrical or hydraulic failure, rather than by both engines losing power simultaneously. The preliminary report does not mention this possibility, leaving the question of the RAT's deployment time open to interpretation. The investigation has also raised questions about the possibility of a major electrical fault triggering a reboot of the aircraft's flight computers seconds after take-off. According to this hypothesis, the systems briefly misidentified the aircraft as being on the ground, prompting a protection system to interpret high engine thrust as a malfunction and cut fuel to both engines. If this theory is correct, it would mean that the cockpit fuel switches were never physically moved, but rather, the flight data recorder captured an electronic fuel-cutoff command. This theory has been championed by Indian investigative journalist Rachel Chitra, who has highlighted inconsistencies in the preliminary report, including questions surrounding the engines' attempted relight after fuel was restored. The preliminary report does not mention fire or technical problems, instead presenting a different picture. It states that the aircraft held a valid certificate of airworthiness, had logged nearly 42,000 flight hours, complied with all mandatory airworthiness directives and service bulletins, and was current on scheduled maintenance. The engines, built in 2012 and 2013, were well within the expected service life of modern jet engines. However, reports by Reuters and Bloomberg suggesting that the final report is being delayed due to continued engine analysis are intriguing. Dual-engine failures on modern airliners are exceptionally rare, and when they occur, investigators usually search for a common cause. No such cause has yet been publicly identified in the Air India crash. If fuel starvation caused the engines to lose power, the question is whether the switches explain the entire sequence of events. Experts like Cox and Hradecky believe that the moment Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) began to fall may hold the key. By comparing the moment EGT began to fall with the recorded movement of the fuel switches, investigators may be able to establish whether the engines started losing power before or after the switches were moved. The full cockpit voice transcript may yet hold the key to unlocking the mystery of the AI171 crash. In my opinion, the investigation has become a complex puzzle, with multiple possibilities and competing interpretations. The delay in the final report is not just a matter of complexity, but also a reflection of the contentious nature of the inquiry. As the investigation enters its second year, the answers to these questions may yet emerge, shedding light on the tragic events of that fateful day.
