Conspiracy theories are swirling around the preliminary report into the Air India crash, after some of its findings were published by The Wall Street Journal hours before the report’s official release by the Indian government. 

The 15-page report – subject to change – has triggered controversy: While it appears to give a clean chit to technical faults, several airlines are now carrying out checks on a key component mentioned in the document.

That component is the fuel control switch. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) report states that both engines on Air India flight AI 171 lost power moments after take-off, when the switches were moved from ‘Run’ to ‘Cutoff’ within a second of each other. The report doesn’t specify how or why this happened, but includes a paraphrased cockpit exchange where one pilot asks the other why the fuel was cut off – only to be told it wasn’t.

Despite giving no direct blame to either Boeing or GE Aerospace, the report flags a 2018 warning from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about a possible fault in the locking mechanism of these switches on Boeing 787s and 737s. This warning, issued as a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), was advisory – not mandatory – and Air India never inspected the aircraft as a result, it says. No defects had been reported since 2023, the report said, and all other technical directives had been followed.

Still, the fact that multiple airlines are now proactively inspecting their Boeing fleets has added to the mistrust. And the media’s handling of the story, particularly coverage that leaned toward pilot error while downplaying or omitting the FAA’s 2018 bulletin, has only intensified the backlash.

At least two pilot unions in India have strongly rebutted speculation that pilot error or intentional action caused the crash. On social media, many have accused sections of the international press of bias. Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi has publicly questioned why the report was leaked to the western media before its official publication.

In this report, Newslaundry examines how the crash and its early findings have been covered in the media – how a tragedy still under investigation is being shaped in the court of public opinion.

UK: BBC gaffe, questions about pilots

A BBC video received backlash for its suggestive framing and its headline, “Pilot cut off fuel to engines - no fault with plane”. The anchor noted, “While the investigation is continuing, it is clear that attention is now focused on the actions of the pilots.” The report didn’t mention the 2018 SAIB report. Its title has since been changed to “Fuel switches cut off before Air India crash, preliminary report says.” 

In a text report, the BBC dissected the preliminary findings, which included the part about the 2018 SAIB. Other text reports by the BBC included one on the pilot associations’ dissatisfaction with the “speculative narratives” and the reactions of the victims’ relatives.

Meanwhile, reporting on the pilots’ interaction about the fuel supply, a report in The Telegraph read, “While the initial report does not draw any conclusion, it has raised questions about the actions of Sumeet Sabharwal, the lead pilot, and Clive Kundar, the co-pilot.” Other than an infographic about the findings that read, “No sabotage evident, but troublingly, Air India had skipped inspections despite an FAA alert over a known fuel switch vulnerability,” the comprehensive article did not mention the 2018 SAIB.

In another article, The Telegraph reported on how the families of victims responded to the preliminary report. “Relatives of some of the 260 victims of last month’s Air India disaster have hit out at the airline and the Indian government over the initial investigation report, saying they have rushed to blame pilots while hiding failings that led to the crash.”

The Guardian said human error “cannot be excluded”, in a report headlined “Why did he cut off?’: what the report on the Air India Flight 171 crash found”. “Turning off the fuel requires the operation of two switches, centrally located on the flight deck – neither of which is the kind of simple push-button that could be brushed against accidentally or moved without force. Deliberate, malicious intent from either pilot would appear unthinkable given the record of the Air India officers in the cockpit. Switching off by mistake would also seem incredible. And yet human error cannot be excluded: as a pilot who flew Boeing jumbos for many years says, turning the switches on and off is something that pilots do – at the correct moment – on every flight, with the kind of muscle memory that makes a movement automatic. But this time the fuel was cut off after takeoff, while the landing gear was not raised.” 

Meanwhile, news agency Reuters published a report, republished by several others, about notifications by the FAA and Boeing after the preliminary report about the switches being “safe”.

US: In WSJ, anonymous sources say no problem with aircraft

On July 10, an “exclusive” report published by the Wall Street Journal said the investigation “so far” hasn’t pointed to problems with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner or its GE Aerospace engines, quoting anonymous sources. It had no mention of the 2018 advisory. “So far, US officials’ early assessments of the crash probe don’t indicate a problem with that model aircraft or its GE engines, people familiar with the matter said. Neither the FAA nor the plane and engine makers have issued any service bulletins or safety directives to address a potential problem with the fleet. Such moves are typical in response to investigation findings if they point to deficiencies in designs, maintenance or operating procedures.”

A report in the Washington Post quoted multiple perspectives, one of which suggested human error. While a former Indian pilot was quoted as saying that a preliminary report “has no business giving Boeing and [General Electric] a clean chit”, an aviation consultant said that “based on the preliminary findings, the crash was probably caused by human error,” adding that he would wait for a final report to render judgment. 

A New York Times report said the preliminary report says “there are no recommended actions to the aircraft and engine manufacturers, Boeing and GE Aerospace”. “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off” the fuel, said the report. “The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”

Meanwhile, a Fox TV report focussed on how the crash has triggered renewed scrutiny over the design and placement of the critical fuel cutoff switches, pointing to the FAA bulletin. “However, the issue was not considered hazardous enough to require mandatory repairs or actions under federal aviation rules.”

It also said that “Air India did not perform inspections”. “The same switch design was used in Air India’s doomed aircraft, but Air India did not perform inspections as the alert was advisory…Air India confirmed in a statement that the airline had received the AAIB’s preliminary report and said it would continue cooperating fully with investigators.”

Canada and Portugal

The air crash had left several Canadian and Portuguese citizens dead.

Prominent Canadian daily The Globe and Mail republished a Reuters report with the headline: “Preliminary report finds pilot confusion over engine switch in fatal Air India crash”. It included inputs from experts who pointed out that normally, a pilot would never turn the switches off in flight, especially when the plane was starting to climb. It also added, “Experts have said a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches.” The report did not make any mention of the FAA advisory. 

Meanwhile, CBC News anchor Johanna Wagstaffe said the AAIB report ruled out “a lot of other speculations we had a month ago” and acknowledged the pilots’ experience. But the report later speculated, “Were these switches deliberately turned off?” She also asked whether switches were locked in their gate prior to take off, acknowledging that Air India did not perform the voluntary inspection procedure after the 2018 SAIB. 

The Toronto Sun, National Post and Toronto Star republished an Associated Press article that explained the contents of the preliminary report. It included the bits about the pilots’ conversation, as well as the fuel cut-off to the engines, but missed out the the FAA’s 2018 SAIB. 

In Portugal, news daily Publico published a Reuters report that mentioned that Air India has been under scrutiny since the crash. “The European Union Aviation Safety Agency said it plans to investigate its low-cost carrier, Air India Express, after Reuters reported that the carrier failed to comply with a directive to timely replace engine parts on an Airbus A320 and falsified records to demonstrate compliance.” The report did not include the point about the 2018 SAIB. 

Another prominent Portuguese daily, Diario de Noticias, reported on the fuel being cut shortly after takeoff. The report did not include information about the 2018 FAA’s SAIB, but there was no speculation about human error or action.

Australia: The Sun jumps the gun

In one of its reports, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation quoted American aviation experts Anthony Brickhouse and John Cox. Brickhouse raised concerns as to why the switches were moved, “and if they were moved because of a pilot, why?” Cox said “a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches that feed the engines”.

A report on the YouTube channel of The Sun said the initial investigation “indicates a possibility that the pilots may have made an error while operating the flight bound for London”. Quoting “sources”, the anchor said the black box analysis has “so far been unable to rule out improper, inadvertent or intentional action that caused them to be flipped. Interestingly, the report points out that the US Federal Aviation Administration in 2018 issued a special airworthiness information bulletin highlighting that a few Boeing 737 fuel control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged, but it was not deemed unsafe.”

Sky News speculated on the possibility of human error as the cause of the crash. “The aircraft’s fuel control switches are designed in such a way that they are unlikely to be transitioned accidentally, pointing towards human error,” it said, adding that the final report is yet to come out and may take a year to complete. “The report mentions the aircraft maintenance checks were on schedule, and showed no signs of fuel contamination or bird strike, and that both pilots had both adequate rest and breathalyser tests done in the morning.”

France: Le Monde puts focus on Boeing past

Navodita Kumari of France 24, in her report, explained the confusion between the pilots that possibly led to the crash by citing the preliminary report. “It (the report) also says that after a gap of 10 seconds, the pilots turned on the switch to run position. And that's why engine one started showing recovery and gained some altitude. But engine two failed to do so, possibly leading to the crash. So this is one of the main findings.”

A report in Le Monde was headlined: “Boeing faces renewed doubts after Air India 787 Dreamliner crash”. It explains the Boeing aircraft’s commercial debut as “troubled”. “On January 17, 2013, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all 787s worldwide – a rare decision made after a series of battery fires, including one on a Japan Airlines flight. The 787 fleet was grounded for three months while Boeing developed a technical solution – a containment case and exhaust pipe to isolate potentially faulty lithium batteries and vent fumes.” 

French paper Ouest France quoted the Indian pilots associations and their statement that the report was biased.

Turkey

After the crash, there had been rumours about the maintenance involvement of a Turkish firm – a claim denied by Tata, which owns Air India. The preliminary report found a mention on several prominent platforms.

Hurriyet Daily News gave a detailed summary of the preliminary report. “The report, issued by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, did not offer any conclusions or apportion blame for the June 12 disaster, but indicated that one pilot asked the other why he cut off fuel, and the second pilot responded that he had not.” 

Daily Sabah republished a Reuters report. The short report only included that the switches were moved from ‘run’ to ‘cut-off.’ The report neither speculated about human error, nor included the 2018 SAIB.

A report in the news daily Sozcu quoted experts to say it was unlikely that the pilots cut off the fuel. “Experts say it is extremely unlikely that the pilot would accidentally cut off the fuel flow during takeoff. It was announced that captain Sumeet Sabharwal has more than 11,500 hours of flight experience, while co-pilot Clive Kunder has more than 3,400 hours of flight experience. Both pilots were reportedly sufficiently rested and had passed a pre-flight breathalyzer test. The aircraft’s emergency ram air turbine was activated at the time of the incident. It is not yet clear why the switches were shut off, which caused the accident.” The article did not report on the FAA's 2018 advisory. 

Indian media

While the US FAA and Boeing privately issued notifications, according to Reuters, Union Minister of State for Civil Aviation Murlidhar Mohol said on July 12 that the report was preliminary, and conclusions cannot be drawn based on “the pilots’ conversation as it is very brief. Further investigation is necessary.”   

Back home in India, in the primetime television space, most shows defended the pilots and questioned both Western media narratives and regulatory lapses.

Republic’s chief editor Arnab Goswami tried to take credit for the DGCA checks. “What made the DGCA wake up today? Was it the questionnaire that Republic sent... at 12.30 pm?...I think the DGCA should be sacked. I think the civil aviation minister should take action or resign himself.”

Curiously, NDTV, on the day it reported on Western media bias, inadvertently allowed the theory of pilot suicide to slip through in an interview. Speaking to Vishnu Som, civil aviation expert Captain Mohan Ranganathan claimed that some Air India pilots had informed him that one of the flight crew members had a known medical history and had previously been on extended medical leave, though the preliminary AAIB report had cleared both pilots medically. He then drew parallels with earlier pilot-induced crash cases globally – like Germanwings Flight 9525, SilkAir Flight 185, EgyptAir 990, and China Eastern 5735 – to argue that pilot mental health needs more attention in India.

Meanwhile, a few editorials criticised the ambiguity in the report.

In an editorial, Deccan Herald said the report points to the most probable cause but throws no light on what led to the cause. “But there is no word on how this happened and that has given rise to various views. Since it is believed that the switches cannot move from one mode to the other accidentally, questions have been raised about the possibility of human error.”

In an editorial, The Indian Express noted that “in what appears to amount to a clean chit for both companies, the FAA has declared that the preliminary report ‘found no urgent safety concerns’ relating to either the engines or the aircraft systems of the 787-8”. “In this context, the case of the Boeing 737 MAX injects a necessary note of caution. Following the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019 – both linked to similar technical faults – the FAA had initially affirmed the aircraft’s airworthiness, only to ground the entire 737 MAX fleet between March 2019 and December 2020.”

“It would be unwise to draw definitive conclusions from the preliminary report, which acknowledges in the foreword that the findings are provisional and subject to revision.”

With inputs from Ananya Tandon, Shumaila Firoz and Syed Muskan.

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.