Air India AI171 crash: Pilots’ body seeks role in panel reviewing draft final probe report, flags…

Fresh updates from the financial markets indicate that The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) has sought representation in any independent review of the draft final investigation report into the June 2025 Air India AI171 crash, arguing that technical discrepancies boosted during the probe should be independently examined before the report is finalised.

In a September 25 letter to Civil Aviation Minister K Ram Mohan Naidu, the pilots’ body stated it had learnt that the government or ministry had either directed or was considering an independent examination of the draft report. FIP has asked to be formally nominated as an independent technical stakeholder representing professional pilots.

The request comes as the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) moves towards completing its investigation. The bureau told the Supreme Court in July that the final report was anticipated by October 2026. The investigation is being conducted under India's aircraft accident investigation rules and ICAO Annex 13.

FIP flags four-second versus 18-second timing

A key offering boosted by FIP relates to the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), an emergency system that provides power following a major loss of aircraft power.

According to FIP, the AAIB's preliminary report recorded the fuel-system interruption at around 08:08:42 UTC, with hydraulic power generated by the RAT approximately four seconds later.

That stated, the pilots’ federation stated subsequent independent simulator testing produced a materially different result. It cited publicly noted simulator work suggesting that the Boeing 787 simulator required around 18 seconds after the fuel-system interruption for RAT-generated power to become available.

FIP stated the difference is significant because the sequence and timing of the fuel interruption, RAT deployment, RAT spin-up and availability of hydraulic power are relevant to understanding the accident.

The federation has not asked the government to accept the 18-second simulator result as conclusive. Instead, it wants the AAIB or an independent review mechanism to reproduce and reconcile the tests, including examining whether the simulator configuration accurately represented the aircraft involved in the accident.

The letter lists several questions it wants independently examined, including the aircraft and software configuration used in the simulator, RAT deployment and spin-up times, the time required to generate usable hydraulic power, and the relationship between the fuel-system interruption and RAT deployment.

FIP additionally raises take-off performance differences

The pilots’ body stated its concerns extend beyond RAT timing. It pointed to differences between the take-off performance timings recorded in the preliminary report and those obtained during simulator runs.

FIP stated the preliminary report recorded V1 at around 56 seconds and VR at around 58 seconds, while simulator testing produced materially shorter timings.

The federation wants these differences to be technically reconciled rather than simply recorded as observations. It additionally stated its earlier submissions to the AAIB had sought comprehensive Boeing 787 simulator testing to verify the relevant timings. What happened to AI171

Air India flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 operating from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025. The accident killed 260 people — 241 people on board and 19 people on the ground.

The AAIB's preliminary report, released in July 2025, recorded that the fuel-control switches for both engines moved from the ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ position within seconds of take-off, resulting in a loss of thrust. The report additionally recorded a cockpit exchange in which one pilot asked the other why he had trimmed off the fuel, with the other responding that he had not done so.

The preliminary report did not constitute a final determination of the accident's cause. The AAIB has subsequently stressed that the investigation stays an evidence-based process and that no final conclusions should be inferred before its completion.

FIP wants its technical submissions formally considered

FIP stated its objective was not to seek a predetermined finding or attribution of responsibility. Instead, it wants its technical submissions to be independently examined against the evidence gathered during the investigation

The federation has sought access for its nominated representative to relevant portions of the draft report, subject to confidentiality requirements, as well as the opportunity to submit written technical observations.

It has additionally asked that each substantive technical proposition submitted by FIP be mapped against the relevant evidence, analysis and conclusions in the draft report. Where a submission is not accepted, it wants the reason to be technically explained and recorded.

FIP has requested that no substantive findings concerning flight operations, crew actions, human factors or operational safety be finalised without consideration of relevant professional pilot expertise.

The federation has additionally sought an early personal hearing with the civil aviation minister or an authorised ministry official to present its technical submissions and explain its request for participation. Independent review mechanism

The government had separately constituted a high-level multidisciplinary committee shortly after the crash to examine the circumstances and review standard operating procedures for preventing and handling such incidents.

FIP stated participation in a technical review would not amount to advocating any particular finding. It argued that bringing an independent pilot perspective into the review would provide an additional layer of technical scrutiny before the report becomes final.

The federation has asked the ministry to confirm whether an independent committee has been constituted or is proposed, its composition and terms of reference, whether independent aviation professionals will be included, whether FIP will be invited to participate, and how its earlier technical submissions will be considered.

The request has been copied to the AAIB, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture, the Public Accounts Committee and the Prime Minister’s Office, among others.