Explained: The AI-171 Crash, ICAO Rules, and Why Transparency Has Become the Central Question

Nearly two decades ago, in March 2006, the Chairman of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Assad Kotoite, delivered a warning that now reads like prophecy. Aviation safety, he said, could survive only on one unbroken thread — transparency. Weakness in one state, he cautioned, inevitably becomes weakness for all.

That warning has returned to haunt India after the crash of Air India flight 171 at Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025 — an accident that killed 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 more on the ground, within seconds of take-off. More than the tragedy itself, it is the handling of the investigation that is raising questions about India’s commitment to global aviation safety norms.

The crash that triggered international scrutiny

Flight AI-171 went down less than a minute after departure from Ahmedabad. The sheer speed of the sequence left no room for pilot recovery. Given the scale of casualties and the involvement of a wide-body aircraft, the investigation automatically fell under ICAO Annex 13, which governs how aircraft accidents must be probed — independently, transparently, and with international cooperation.

As a signatory to ICAO, India was obligated to follow these standards. Accordingly, the investigation involved the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the United Kingdom, alongside India’s own AAIB.

Black boxes recovered — but not decoded in India

The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) were recovered by June 16. Crucially, Indian authorities lacked the technical capability to extract all the data independently. The task of downloading and decoding both recorders was therefore carried out with NTSB assistance.

By that point, the NTSB and the UK AAIB were fully aware of the cockpit conversations and flight parameters from the final seconds. The Indian government’s decision to provide commando-level security to the chief investigator was widely interpreted as an indication that the findings were sensitive and potentially explosive.

A preliminary report that raised more questions than answers

The preliminary report released a month after the crash was strikingly sparse. It made two key disclosures:

• Both engine fuel control switches moved from “run” to “cut-off” three to four seconds after lift-off.
• One pilot was heard asking, “Why did you do that?”, to which the other replied, “I did not do that.”

Aviation experts point out that these switches are spring-loaded mechanical devices. They cannot move due to electrical failure or software malfunction; they must be physically lifted and placed into the cut-off gate. The CVR and DFDR together would clearly show who was flying, who was handling controls, ambient cockpit sounds, and the exact sequence of events during those crucial 15 seconds.

Fractures between investigators behind the scenes

According to reports in “The Wall Street Journal” in mid and late 2025, serious disagreements emerged between US and Indian authorities over the interpretation of evidence. The NTSB’s role in any investigation is strictly technical — it neither speculates nor accepts political filtering of conclusions.

Former senior safety officials in the US have described this breakdown as one of the worst they have witnessed in an international investigation. The promise of a “transparent and truthful” report, publicly made by India’s Civil Aviation Minister on the day of the crash, now appears increasingly distant.

A troubling pattern in India’s aviation safety record

The controversy around AI-171 has revived memories of earlier failures. India has suffered three fatal commercial aviation accidents in the last 15 years. After the 2010 Mangalore crash, the then Civil Aviation Minister publicly declared the airport ICAO-compliant — a claim later contradicted by evidence of serious safety violations, including flawed runway infrastructure and failed emergency response.

In 2020, the Kozhikode crash again exposed unsafe operating conditions, yet meaningful corrective action has remained elusive. Despite repeated warnings, operations continue at airports flagged as hazardous.

At the centre of this pattern stands the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), often accused by critics of yielding to political and commercial pressure rather than enforcing safety standards rigorously.

Scene contamination and procedural lapses after AI-171

Concerns deepened immediately after the Ahmedabad crash. The site was not sealed properly. Television crews were seen walking through wreckage before investigators could document it, potentially destroying crucial evidence. Within three hours, the airport was reopened — despite the absence of rescue and firefighting services.

Every flight that operated during this window did so without mandatory emergency cover, placing passengers and people on the ground at risk. For investigators familiar with global norms, this was an extraordinary breach of protocol.

How silence fuels misinformation

The delay and opacity of official findings have created fertile ground for speculation. Social media and YouTube channels have cited ACARS and Inmarsat data to suggest systemic aircraft failures. In reality, such data is encrypted and accessible only to authorised operators and investigators.

To its credit, Air India has largely refrained from responding to these narratives, avoiding public conjecture while the investigation remains incomplete. But the absence of authoritative, detailed briefings has allowed misinformation to flourish.

What global best practice looks like

A comparison with recent US cases is instructive. When a UPS MD-11 cargo aircraft crashed in November 2025, the NTSB held daily press briefings within 48 hours. Within days of analysing CVR and DFDR data, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive grounding the aircraft type.

By contrast, despite having access to AI-171’s black-box data within a week, neither the FAA nor any other regulator grounded the Boeing 787 fleet. For investigators, this is a strong signal that no systemic aircraft fault was identified — regardless of public speculation.

Why isolation is a dangerous path

The AI-171 crash has drawn global attention not just because of the fatalities, but because of what it reveals about India’s investigative credibility. ICAO’s system rests on mutual trust: states share findings openly so others can act before another accident occurs.

By appearing to sideline foreign experts or dilute uncomfortable conclusions, India risks isolating itself from that system. The cost is not reputational alone; it directly affects passenger safety worldwide.

As Assad Kotoite warned years ago, aviation safety collapses when transparency fails. In the case of AI-171, the choice before India is stark: reaffirm its commitment to global norms, or allow secrecy and delay to erode trust in one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation markets.