The final report on Air India Flight 171 reveals that both engines lost power seconds after takeoff because the fuel control switches were found set to “CUTOFF,” a finding that explains the deadly crash but leaves investigators, experts, and grieving families shaken and anguished by the unresolved question of whether it was a tragic failure or something far more disturbing.

The long-awaited final report into the crash of Air India Flight 171 has been released, and instead of delivering closure, it has reopened wounds and ignited fierce debate across the global aviation community.

On the morning of June 21, 2025, the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner lifted off from Ahmedabad bound for London with 260 people on board.

Less than a minute later, it plunged back to the ground in a catastrophic fireball, leaving no survivors and marking one of the deadliest aviation disasters in India’s modern history.

According to the report, the aircraft lost thrust in both engines just seconds after liftoff.

Data from the Flight Data Recorder shows a sudden and near-simultaneous drop in engine parameters, followed by deployment of the Ram Air Turbine, an emergency system designed to provide minimal power when both engines fail.

The most explosive revelation comes from the cockpit configuration recorded in those final moments: both fuel control switches were found in the “CUTOFF” position.

“These switches are protected, guarded, and deliberately designed to prevent accidental movement,” said one senior investigator involved in the analysis, speaking during the report’s closed briefing.

“They are not known to move themselves.”

The implication was immediate and unsettling.

In commercial aviation, placing fuel control switches to CUTOFF shuts down the engines.

Doing so seconds after takeoff, at low altitude and high workload, leaves virtually no chance of recovery.

Almost as soon as the preliminary findings leaked earlier this year, rumors began circulating that the crash may have been the result of a deliberate act from inside the cockpit.

Families of the victims reacted with shock and anger.

“My brother was a pilot.

He trusted the system,” said Rajesh Mehta, who lost a relative in the crash.

“To even suggest this without absolute proof is unbearable.”

The final report, however, stops short of naming a culprit.

Investigators emphasize that while the switch positions are factual, intent is not.

The Cockpit Voice Recorder captured confusion and alarm but no explicit admission of deliberate action.

One recorded exchange, played for investigators, reportedly includes a pilot asking, “Why did we lose thrust?” followed by an urgent attempt to diagnose the failure as the aircraft began to sink.

Aviation analysts have pointed out inconsistencies that complicate the suicide narrative.

The aircraft was properly configured for takeoff with Flaps 5, and there was no indication of abnormal crew behavior in pre-flight procedures or air traffic control communications.

Maintenance logs reviewed in the report show no unresolved critical faults, though investigators acknowledge the possibility of a rare system interaction or design vulnerability.

“What troubles many of us,” said a former Boeing systems engineer familiar with the 787 architecture, “is the absence of a clearly documented failure mode that could move both switches to CUTOFF without human input.

But absence of evidence is not evidence of intent.”

The report also details contradictions that continue to puzzle experts.

Sensors indicated gear-door anomalies inconsistent with standard retraction timing, and engine control logic showed asynchronous data points that some specialists believe warrant deeper independent review.

Several international pilot unions have formally requested access to the raw flight data, arguing that transparency is essential to maintaining trust.

Air India, in a brief statement, expressed condolences once again and said it would cooperate with any further reviews but urged the public not to jump to conclusions.

Boeing echoed that sentiment, stating that no systemic fault has been conclusively identified and that the aircraft model remains safe to operate.

Meanwhile, conspiracy theories have flourished online, fueled by the report’s ambiguities and the emotionally charged question it raises: if not mechanical failure, then what? Aviation history offers painful precedents, but it also warns against premature judgment.

Investigators themselves acknowledge that the final report may not be the final word.

Standing before reporters, the lead investigator concluded with a carefully chosen statement: “The data tells us what happened in the last seconds.

It does not tell us why.

Our responsibility is to facts, not speculation.”

For the families of the 260 victims, that distinction offers little comfort.

As memorials continue across India and abroad, Air India Flight 171 has become more than a tragedy—it is now a symbol of how modern aviation, for all its technology, can still leave humanity grappling with unbearable uncertainty.