Don't expect any answers today. One year after the catastrophic Air India crash that killed 260 people, investigators are set to miss a key deadline for explaining why one of the airline's Boeing 787 Dreamliners plunged from the sky just 32 seconds after takeoff.
Instead of the long-awaited final report, India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is expected to issue a status update explaining why the investigation remains unfinished.
Under international aviation rules, investigators must publish a final report within a year if possible. When that deadline cannot be met, they should provide an interim statement outlining the progress of the inquiry.
The main obstacle is the continuing examination of the aircraft's GE Aerospace engines in the US. A final report is now expected within the next three months, Bloomberg reports. The work is being carried out at specialist facilities capable of dismantling and analysing modern jet engines, a process that investigators say is crucial to understanding the disaster.
Air India Flight AI171 crashed 32 seconds after departing Ahmedabad for London on June 12 last year. Moments after takeoff, the aircraft lost thrust and plunged into a densely populated area beyond the airport perimeter. The crash killed 241 passengers and crew aboard the aircraft and 19 people on the ground. Only one passenger survived.
Despite a year of forensic analysis involving investigators from India, the US, Boeing, GE Aerospace and the US National Transportation Safety Board, the central questions remain unanswered.
Attention has focused intensely on events that unfolded inside the cockpit. In December, Indian officials travelled to Washington to review evidence recovered from the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder.
Investigators have reportedly ruled out mechanical failure and found no evidence of sabotage, leading them to increasingly focus on possible pilot actions.
But that conclusion has become the most fiercely contested aspect of the inquiry.
The Federation of Indian Pilots has emerged as one of the strongest critics, arguing that authorities have concentrated too heavily on pilot actions while failing to fully explore technical explanations. It has urged the AAIB not to issue an interim report.
"We have requested the Indian government and India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) not to come out with any interim report," C.S. Randhawa, the union's president, told reporters in Ahmedabad ahead of the crash anniversary.
"It will cause more speculation and more misunderstanding," Randhawa said.
The union has called on investigators to obtain more technical data from Boeing and Air India to allow for a "rebuttal of the pilot suicide theory being explored by the AAIB".
The controversy stems from the AAIB's preliminary report, released in July 2025, which revealed that two fuel-control switches in the cockpit moved from the "run" position to the "cut-off" position shortly after takeoff.
The switches control fuel flow to the engines and are not normally moved during flight. The effects of moving the switches would have been immediate and catastrophic, starving both engines of fuel as the aircraft climbed from the runway.
The preliminary report failed to answer the question at the centre of the investigation: who moved the switches, and why?
According to the preliminary findings, one pilot was heard asking the other why he had flipped the switches. The other replied that he had not done so. The report did not identify which pilot made either statement.
Reuters later reported that an early assessment by US officials concluded cockpit recordings suggested that the captain may have cut fuel to the engines. Indian investigators afterwards stated that it was still "too early to reach any definite conclusions."
The captain's family has strongly rejected suggestions of deliberate action. The pilot's father asked the Supreme Court for an independent investigation that would look at other explanations rather than focusing mainly on the pilots’ actions.
Meanwhile, investigators continue to scrutinise the aircraft's engines and engine management systems. Randhawa said investigators should take a close look at Air India's maintenance record, pointing to audits by India's aviation regulator that highlighted recurring technical glitches across Air India's fleet.
Randhawa argued that investigators should not ignore the possibility that maintenance issues may have been a factor. Air India strongly rejected suggestions that maintenance concerns had been overlooked.
The airline also noted it introduced a safety pause following the crash, reducing flights while inspecting its Boeing 787 fleet under the DGCA’s supervision.
The stakes extend far beyond Air India.
For Boeing, which has been struggling to rebuild public confidence after years of safety and manufacturing controversies, the reputation of its Dreamliner programme is on the line. Before the Ahmedabad disaster, the 787 had never been involved in a fatal crash.
The aircraft entered service in 2011 and became a more fuel-efficient aviation success story and was praised for its quieter engines and larger windows. But its history has been chequered.
The global Dreamliner fleet was grounded in 2013 following a series of lithium-ion battery failures, while production has repeatedly been disrupted by manufacturing defects, quality-control concerns and regulatory investigations.
Whistleblowers including former Boeing quality manager John Barnett alleged that production pressures sometimes compromised safety standards, claims the company strongly denied.
Barnett died in 2024 from what authorities ruled was a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Months later, another Boeing whistleblower, Joshua Dean, died following a severe bacterial infection. While both deaths spawned huge online speculation, investigators found no evidence linking either death to their whistleblowing.
For Air India, the disaster struck at a particularly sensitive moment. The carrier has been attempting a turnaround under Tata Group ownership following its privatisation. But it has faced challenges from supply-chain problems to the Iran conflict, which has hit international flights.
The victims' families, meanwhile, want answers. The lone crash survivor, British national Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, called for "honesty, transparency and answers" on the first anniversary of the crash. Ramesh, who lost his brother in the disaster, told the British press about his "significant psychological scars".
Paul McClorry of the UK's Hudgell Solicitors told The Guardian that relatives are considering civil claims against a number of potential defendants.
"We are awaiting the findings of the investigations and we should finally start to see some clarity as to how and why this awful disaster happened, and crucially, how it could have been avoided."
Tata Group and Air India say they have distributed the Rs 1 crore ex-gratia payment announced by chairman N. Chandrasekaran to 96 per cent of families affected by the crash. The payment is not considered a final legal settlement.