The investigation into Air India flight 171, the Boeing 787-8 that crashed shortly after departing Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, is now as much about process and credibility as it is about causation. What began as a technical inquiry into a catastrophic loss of thrust on both engines has widened into a dispute between investigators, fuelled by restricted access to evidence, competing interpretations of flight data, and the political sensitivities that surround both Boeing and India’s aviation ambitions.The underlying sequence remains stark. The aircraft departed normally, climbed through its initial altitude, and within seconds both engines lost thrust after fuel-control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF. On the 787, these switches are guarded. They require a deliberate, physical movement. There is no known failure mode in which both move simultaneously without human action. The aircraft then descended and impacted a residential area, killing more than 250 people, including several on the ground. One passenger survived.Those facts create a narrow and highly sensitive investigative space. They do not yet answer why the switches moved, but they constrain the set of plausible explanations. This is where the divergence between the United States and India has become pronounced.Investigators from the United States — involved due to Boeing’s role as the aircraft manufacturer — have signalled concern that the data captured on the flight recorders does not align with a mechanical or software malfunction. Their position has not been expressed through press conferences, but through quiet, consistent briefings that suggest no corroborating evidence of engine-system anomalies. These interpretations do not amount to a final conclusion, but they have shaped the US delegation’s insistence on full, unimpeded access to wreckage, components, and documentation.Indian authorities have taken a different path, emphasising the need for further reconstruction work, simulation, and component testing before attributing causation. They have not endorsed any theory that points to deliberate cockpit action and remain cautious about drawing inference solely from the switch movement. Their communication has been deliberate, careful, and constrained — a reflection of the wider context in which this investigation takes place.India is expanding its aviation sector at a pace unmatched anywhere in the world. Air India is undergoing one of the largest fleet renewals in modern aviation history, rebuilding its long-haul network and projecting itself as a global carrier. A finding that attributes a major crash to pilot action, whether intentional or the result of procedural deviation, would carry significant domestic consequences. Questions would surface around training culture, oversight, and systemic resilience at a moment when the country is positioning itself as a future aerospace hub. That reality means every word from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and the AAIB is shaped by reputational and political pressures, even if unintentionally.The friction between the two investigating states has sharpened because of how evidence has been handled. Several points of tension are now publicly known: Access to high-value cockpit debris was restricted at certain stages; some items were moved before every investigative party had documented them; and there was early resistance to transferring the flight recorders to a laboratory typically used for complex international investigations. None of these issues necessarily imply intent, but each undermines confidence in procedural exactness. Aviation investigations rely on chain-of-custody standards that leave no room for ambiguity. Once those standards are questioned, even briefly, interpretations become harder to reconcile.That difficulty is heightened because the stakes for Boeing are significant. If the crash is attributed to a mechanical or software malfunction, the consequences would ripple across the global 787 fleet. Airlines operating the aircraft would face the prospect of inspections, potential operational limits, and regulatory intervention at a time when long-haul capacity worldwide is already tight. Boeing, still working to rebuild trust after a decade of scrutiny, would face another cycle of political, commercial, and financial pressure. The United States, as the state of design, is highly sensitive to misattribution — especially when the available data points toward the cockpit.For India, the stakes sit elsewhere. A determination of intentional crew action would not only be an operational crisis for Air India but would also trigger political scrutiny at home. It would open questions about the recruitment, screening, and oversight of pilots at a time when growth, not introspection, dominates the national aviation discourse. India is in the middle of transforming its carriers, modernising airports, and reshaping airspace structures. A finding of deliberate pilot action would require a recalibration of that narrative at a moment when the country is seeking global recognition as a rising aviation power.This is why the two sides are approaching the same data from different vantage points. Both are operating within their mandates; both are responding to pressures that extend beyond the wreckage itself. The result is an investigation that is technically complex, diplomatically sensitive, and unusually exposed to public interpretation.None of this alters the core requirement: The investigation must produce a conclusion that withstands scrutiny and can be trusted internationally. Whether the ultimate cause is human action, mechanical failure, or a combination, the credibility of the outcome will depend on the openness of the remaining process. That includes full access for all accredited parties, transparent handling of the flight recorders, and clear explanations for any anomalies in evidence management.History offers reminders of how difficult that can be. The early phases of investigations into Air France 447, Germanwings 9525, and the Lion Air and Ethiopian 737 Max crashes were marked by disagreements between states, regulators, or manufacturers. Yet those investigations ultimately converged on findings that were broadly accepted because the process remained anchored in international co-operation and rigorous documentation.Air India 171 has reached a point where those same principles must guide the next steps. The families of the victims deserve clarity grounded in evidence, not geopolitics. The global flying public deserves the assurance that the investigative process meets the standards that aviation safety depends on. Airlines, regulators, and manufacturers need conclusions they can act upon, not a fractured narrative shaped by national sensitivities.This investigation will define more than the cause of one crash. It will influence how India is perceived as a rapidly expanding aviation nation, how Boeing’s long-haul fleet is evaluated globally, and how states co-operate when commercial and political interests intersect. The facts of the accident are already clear. The challenge now is ensuring that whatever conclusion follows is reached through a process that commands trust beyond national borders.In aviation, the truth matters not only for what happened, but for what comes next.The author is an aviation analyst. X handle: @AlexInAir.
