Air India’s decision to begin checks on the fuel control switches across its Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet touches on the most sensitive and contested issue emerging from one of the world’s deadliest aviation disasters in a decade.
The move comes after a pilot reported a possible defect in the fuel switch mechanism on a long-haul Dreamliner on Monday, prompting the airline’s engineering team to escalate the matter to Boeing for what it called a “priority evaluation”, according to an internal memo reviewed by Reuters.
Boeing said it was supporting the airline’s review.
While the airline has said the inspections have so far found no issues and do not require grounding the fleet, the development is critical given the central role fuel control switches played a purported role in last year’s crash of an Air India Dreamliner in Ahmedabad that killed 242 people.
Air India operates 33 Boeing 787 aircraft, according to Flightradar24. The carrier, owned by Tata Group and Singapore Airlines, said it had grounded the aircraft involved in the pilot report as a precaution. Boeing said it was supporting the airline’s review.
Fuel control switches regulate the flow of jet fuel to an aircraft’s engines and are among the most critical components in engine operation.
They are used by pilots to start or shut down engines on the ground, and to manually shut down or restart engines in the event of an in-flight emergency. Any concern raised about their functioning therefore carries serious operational and safety implications.
Fuel switches were at the centre of the Air India Boeing 787 crash that occurred seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad last year. The aircraft crashed into a medical college hostel near the airport, killing all but one of the 242 people on board and at least 30 people on the ground.
The disaster, which claimed 260 lives, was the deadliest aviation accident globally in a decade.
A preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) said the fuel control switches for both engines moved from the “run” position to “cutoff” seconds after takeoff, one after the other, with a one-second gap between the two actions.
The switch movements caused the engines to lose power almost immediately.
According to the cockpit voice recorder cited in the report, one pilot was heard asking the other why the fuel had been cut off, with the second pilot responding that he had not done so. Seconds later, the switches were returned to the “run” position, triggering attempts by the crew to relight the engines. Despite emergency measures, only one engine partially restarted before the aircraft struck the ground.
Moments before impact, a “Mayday” call was issued before communications were lost.
The AAIB said it found no evidence of sabotage, bird strike or fuel contamination, and confirmed that both fuel switches were found in the “run” position at the crash site.
The design of the fuel control switches has been highlighted by aviation experts.
Each switch requires a deliberate two-step action — the switch must be pulled upward to unlock it before it can be moved from “run” to “cutoff”.
This mechanism is intended to prevent accidental activation during high-workload phases such as takeoff, making inadvertent movement highly unlikely.
While the airline has not linked the pilot’s report to the earlier crash, any suggestion of a potential defect in the same system that dominated the investigation has intensified scrutiny of both the aircraft and its manufacturer.
The issue has also become entangled in a growing dispute between Indian pilot groups and sections of the international media.
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier, citing sources close to United States officials, that cockpit audio suggested the aircraft’s captain may have turned off the fuel switches.
US officials suspected the crash may be another case of deliberate pilot action — a pattern seen in past incidents like EgyptAir 990 and China Eastern 5735. Foundation for Aviation Safety (FAA) officials, speaking to The Wall Street Journal, said no mechanical fault had been found in the Dreamliner fleet.
US safety officials are participating in the investigation because the aircraft and its General Electric engines were designed and built in the United States.
In July 2025, the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), a nationwide pilots’ body, sent legal notices to both Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, accusing them of publishing misleading reports that were not supported by the AAIB’s preliminary findings.
FIP president Captain C.S. Randhawa said the reports were factually incorrect and risked placing premature blame on flight crew while diverting attention from possible aircraft or system issues.
The controversy has revived wider questions about the Boeing 787 programme itself.
Recently, the Foundation for Aviation Safety says documents show that the plane experienced system failures from its very first day in service for Air India. It alleges these were caused by "a wide and confusing variety of engineering, manufacturing, quality, and maintenance problems".
The failures included electronics and software faults, circuit breakers tripping repeatedly, damage to wiring, short circuits, loss of electrical current, and overheating of power system components.
The 787 relies more heavily on electrical systems than previous generations of passenger aircraft. In an attempt to improve efficiency, its designers got rid of numerous mechanical and pneumatic components, and replaced them with electrical ones, which were lighter.
While the design has delivered performance gains, it has also been associated with early technical problems, including battery fires that led to a temporary global grounding of the 787 fleet in 2013.
For Air India, the fuel-switch checks come at a delicate moment. The airline is in the midst of an ambitious transformation under Tata ownership, seeking to shed its troubled past and position itself as a “world-class airline”. Any renewed safety concerns risk undermining that effort.
For Boeing, already struggling to rebuild confidence after a series of safety and production crises, the renewed focus on a critical cockpit system on one of its flagship aircraft adds further pressure.