One year after Air India (AI) Flight AI171 crashed 32 seconds after takeoff from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (AMD), Ahmedabad, the families of 260 victims say they remain without answers. The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, registered VT-ANB and bound for London Gatwick Airport (LGW), went down on 12 June 2025, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a 15-page preliminary report in July 2025 but has not yet published its final findings. On the first anniversary of the tragedy, grieving relatives from the United Kingdom, India, and elsewhere say unresolved questions about the cause of the crash, the handling of remains, and a compensation process they regard as opaque are compounding their pain.
_(51811148072).jpg){kind=link}
What The Preliminary Investigation Found About the Fuel Switches
India’s AAIB released its preliminary report on 12 July 2025, one month after the crash. The report confirmed that both engine fuel control switches on the aircraft transitioned from the “RUN” to the “CUTOFF” position within one second of each other, cutting fuel supply to both engines seconds after liftoff.
The report did not establish why the switches moved. India’s AAIB made clear the inquiry was continuing and no specific airworthiness directives were issued against Boeing 787 operators at that stage.
The preliminary findings sparked an immediate controversy over crew accountability. The Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with early US official analysis, that the more experienced captain may have moved the switches. India’s Supreme Court directly addressed this on 13 November 2025, stating that the preliminary report did not apportion blame to the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal.
New Evidence Points Away from Pilot Error
A separate analysis by India’s Safety Matters Foundation (SMF), published in mid-2026, presented evidence that the aircraft’s Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed 2.5 seconds before the fuel switches moved to CUTOFF. The RAT is an emergency power device that deploys automatically when primary power fails.
The SMF said this sequence indicates a systemic failure began almost immediately after liftoff, rather than being triggered by deliberate or inadvertent crew input. The finding directly contradicted early public speculation that placed crew error at the centre of the disaster.
An independent investigation by Indian magazine The Caravan, published in early June 2026, went further. It alleged that a software bug — not crew action — triggered the fuel cutoff, and that the pilots were locked out of manual override before the aircraft hit the ground. The AAIB has not endorsed these findings, and the final report remains pending.
.jpg){kind=link}
Why The AAIB Final Report Has Not Been Released
India’s Supreme Court has intervened multiple times to press for a conclusion to the investigation. On 11 February 2026, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant directed the AAIB to submit its final report within three weeks. The court also asked the government and the AAIB to file a procedural summary.
Despite that order, no final report has been published as of 12 June 2026. A public-interest litigation seeking independent disclosure of technical data from the preliminary report was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1 April 2026.
The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) has separately challenged the AAIB’s investigation process, arguing that the Bureau’s summoning of Captain Varun Anand — a nephew of the late Captain Sabharwal — was “wholly unwarranted” and risked shifting the inquiry from a technical examination to an exercise in assigning blame to the flight crew.
Families Describe Grief Without Closure
On the first anniversary of the crash, the human cost of the unresolved inquiry is stark. Mohammed Shoeb Iproliya, whose wife Nusratjahan Jethara from Leicester was among the 53 British nationals killed, told the BBC he still struggled to sleep. He recalled that the last words his wife said to him from the runway were “I miss you” and a reminder to meet her at London Gatwick.
“It is a very difficult day, 12th of June, 2025. I never forget that day,” he said. After one year, he said he was seeking just one thing: “truth only.”
Seven British families, who lost mothers, fathers, and brothers in the crash, met publicly for the first time in March 2026, speaking to ITV News nine months after the disaster. Each described the experience of the days after the crash in similar terms.
Nick Meek, who lost his brother Jamie — who had been returning from his honeymoon — described the period immediately after the disaster as one of “complete uncertainty.” He said: “There was a complete lack of communication and empathy. You felt completely lost and you don’t know where to turn.”
UK Families Say the British Government Failed Them
A recurring theme in testimonies from British relatives is that the UK’s Foreign Office did not provide adequate support after the crash. Chirag Patel, who lost his mother Manju Patel, said his family received almost no help after registering with the Foreign Office. “There was no phone call,” he said. “They said, ‘we’re overwhelmed’. They were just like deer in headlights.”
Zunairah Master, who lost her 31-year-old brother Mohammed Adnan Master, said the family’s experience was made worse by the absence of consular help. “We had no support from the (UK) government,” she said. “My dad called the British Embassy and they were of no help.”
Several families said they had since written to two successive UK Foreign Secretaries requesting meetings but had not received a response. In reply to ITV News, a UK government spokesperson said the Foreign Office continued to provide support through dedicated consular caseworkers and remained in contact with Indian authorities. Families said that statement did not match their experience.
.jpg){kind=link}
Doubts Over Whether Families Received the Correct Remains
Some British relatives have expressed serious uncertainty about whether the remains they cremated or buried belonged to their loved ones. Miten Patel, who lost both his parents in the crash, said a UK coroner later found that his mother’s repatriated remains had been mixed with someone else’s.
“Every single one of us when we were on the ground, you didn’t know who you were taking back,” he said. “We weren’t allowed to see anything. We weren’t allowed to physically identify anything ourselves.”
Chirag Patel said he could not confirm with certainty that the remains he cremated were his mother’s. “Sadly, I cannot be 100% sure,” he said. Jay Mervana, who lost his father, described police remaining present during funeral rituals to ensure coffins were not opened. “That was confirmation we weren’t going to open them,” he said.
Separately, Gulf News reported that at least one family was forced to abandon a funeral after receiving the wrong remains and that in another case two victims’ remains were found in the same coffin. Indian authorities had used DNA testing, sniffer dogs, and dental records to identify victims, and by 28 June 2025 had officially declared all fatalities positively identified.
The Compensation Dispute Between Air India and Victims’ Families
Air India announced interim payments of Rs 25 lakh (approximately £21,500) per family in June 2025. The Tata Group separately pledged Rs 1 crore (approximately £80,000) per victim through the AI-171 Memorial and Welfare Trust, a public charitable trust established in Mumbai. By late July 2025, Air India had disbursed interim payments to 166 families, with documents verified for a further 52.
The process became contentious. The Independent reported that Air India had been offering an additional final payment to families — reportedly ranging from Rs 1 million (£8,085) to Rs 2 million (£16,170) — in exchange for signing an indemnity waiver that would surrender their right to participate in litigation against the airline.
Radhika Rupani, daughter of former Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani, who was killed in the crash, raised public concerns about families being asked to sign settlement documents before the investigation was complete. She argued that families deserved transparency and clarity before closing their claims. Air India denied that families were under pressure and said there was no deadline forcing them to accept a final settlement.
.jpg){kind=link}
Lawsuits Filed Against Boeing and Honeywell
In September 2025, families of four passengers filed a product-defect and negligence lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court against Boeing and aircraft parts manufacturer Honeywell. The suit alleged that a defective fuel cutoff switch design — placing the switches directly behind the thrust levers — made inadvertent activation during normal cockpit activity foreseeable.
Benjamin Major of The Lanier Law Firm, co-counsel for the families, said in a statement:
“It is shocking that Honeywell and Boeing both knew of this danger and did absolutely nothing to prevent the inevitable catastrophe that occurred on June 12.”
He added that once the engines shut down, the aircraft “basically became a 250,000-pound lawn dart.”
NBC News reported that the AAIB’s preliminary report had itself noted Air India had not conducted the switch inspections recommended in a 2018 FAA advisory. Several further lawsuits have since been filed in UK courts. As of June 2026, neither Boeing nor Honeywell had issued substantive public statements on the litigation.
Air India’s Broader Context Since the Crash
The crash of AI171 was the first-ever fatal hull loss involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner since the type entered service in 2011, and the deadliest aviation disaster in India since the 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision. Air India suspended 83 wide-body flights for six weeks immediately after the crash to conduct government-mandated safety checks, and retired flight numbers AI171 and AI172 on the Ahmedabad–Gatwick route, replacing them with AI159 and AI160.
A separate incident on 2 February 2026 saw Air India ground a different Boeing 787 Dreamliner after a pilot reported that a fuel control switch had moved spontaneously to the CUTOFF position twice on the ground before departure. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) cleared the aircraft the following day, reporting the switches were functional. The incident nonetheless heightened scrutiny of the entire 787 fleet.
For context on the broader investigation dispute between India’s pilots’ body and the AAIB, Aviospace has previously reported on the Federation of Indian Pilots’ challenge to the probe and on the DGCA’s probe into the separate RAT deployment on Air India Flight 117.
.jpg){kind=link}
What The Families of AI 171 Are Asking for Now
One year on, the requests from victims’ families are consistent across jurisdictions. They want the AAIB’s final report published. They want confirmation that the remains in their possession belong to the people they lost. They want the British government to advocate formally on their behalf with Indian authorities. And they want the airline and its manufacturer to face accountability through the courts.
Anisha Patel, whose father Nilkanth had survived cancer before dying in the crash, put it simply: “How did it happen? Why did it happen?”
In a statement to ITV News, Air India said:
“Families have been going through unimaginable grief since this tragedy and our responsibility to support and care for them remains our absolute priority. We have remained in close and regular contact with the families over the last nine months, offering our full support during this difficult time.”
The airline said monetary compensation could never substitute for the loss of a loved one and pledged continued support for every affected family.
The AAIB has not issued a statement on the anniversary. No date has been publicly confirmed for the release of the final investigation report.