Ahmedabad plane crash: A nation in mourning, an industry under scrutiny

On the morning of 12 June, Air India Flight AI171 — a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner bound for London — plummeted to the ground seconds after take-off from Ahmedabad airport. The disaster claimed the lives of 241 passengers and crew on board (with one survivor), as well as more than 20 people on the ground, many of whom were inside a nearby medical college.

The tragedy has sent shockwaves through the nation, sparking grief, anger and a renewed scrutiny of Indian aviation. The flight’s black box has since been recovered, and an official investigation is underway.

Decoding the black box — comprising the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder — is a detailed process that can take weeks. While initial data is often retrieved within 48 hours, full analysis to determine the cause involves cross-checking with other evidence and may take months. In the AI171 crash, preliminary findings are expected in a few weeks, with a final report likely to take longer, involving the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), Boeing and global aviation experts.

But even as the probe unfolds, the public is left asking questions that go beyond what caused the crash. Could it have been prevented? Can it happen again? Is Indian aviation as safe as it claims to be?

End of a dream run

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has been heralded since its 2011 debut as a revolutionary aircraft due to its fuel efficiency, lighter build and reduced noise. With advanced electrical systems replacing many pneumatic and hydraulic functions and improving efficiency, the B787 has maintained a strong global safety record. Over 1,100 Dreamliners operate worldwide — and AI171 marks the first time one has been involved in a fatal crash.

But the aircraft’s history hasn’t been without blemish. In 2013, the entire Dreamliner fleet was grounded due to lithium-ion battery fires, including aircraft operated by Air India. A Boeing engineer and whistleblower, John Barnett, had raised concerns about potential safety issues with the Dreamliner’s electrical systems and battery components. He highlighted risks related to system redundancies and failure modes that might not have been fully addressed.

Rising skylines squeeze airport safety buffers

For Air India, which operates over 30 Boeing 787 Dreamliners with 20 more on order, these warnings are particularly relevant. They underscore the need for rigorous maintenance, thorough inspections and transparent communication between Boeing, the regulators and the airlines.

Investigations at the time found internal short circuits in the battery design, prompting the American Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other regulators to enforce a global grounding — the first such action since 1979. Boeing redesigned the battery systems with greater insulation, fire containment and venting solutions.

Air India — then heavily dependent on the Dreamliner for international expansion — saw its operations severely disrupted. While the 787 returned to service and regained confidence, the battery crisis underscored how even cutting-edge aircraft can harbour hidden risks.

Boeing’s nightmare returns

The Ahmedabad crash has placed renewed pressure on Boeing, a manufacturer already facing questions over its quality control and safety culture. Still recovering from the 737 MAX debacles — crashes caused by design flaws and insufficient pilot training that claimed 346 lives in 2018–19 — Boeing has also been hit by recent headlines involving parts falling off in-flight and quality issues in newer jets.

Even as the investigation proceeds, the incident has reignited global scrutiny — not just of Boeing or Air India, but of the aviation industry as a whole. From manufacturing standards and maintenance practices to regulatory oversight and pilot training, a multitude of systemic issues are now back in the spotlight.

Is DGCA equipped to respond?

This crash has not only raised questions about Boeing but has also exposed potential vulnerabilities in India’s own aviation oversight. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), India’s apex aviation regulator, often relies on certifications and safety findings from foreign counterparts like the FAA and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Captain Amit Singh, a veteran pilot and aviation safety advocate, believes this is insufficient.

Singh calls India’s regulatory framework “cosmetic”, warning that without building independent technical expertise and enforcement capability, the country risks simply inheriting the oversight gaps of others. As Indian skies become busier, the need for homegrown regulatory strength has never been greater.

Ahmedabad plane crash: Centre’s probe panel to submit report in 3 months, says minister

An independent aviation authority for India?

A longstanding recommendation that has gained renewed urgency is the creation of an autonomous aviation authority — modelled on America’s FAA or UK’s Civil Aviation Authority.

In 2013, the Indian government had proposed a Civil Aviation Authority of its own. The aim was to replace the DGCA with an institution that would be financially and administratively independent, capable of setting and enforcing safety standards free from political or commercial interference. It would also oversee accident investigations, environmental concerns and consumer grievances under a unified structure.

However, despite detailed planning and budgetary estimates, the idea was shelved, largely due to political hesitation and bureaucratic inertia. With the AI171 crash drawing attention to longstanding structural flaws, experts argue that only such an independent authority can ensure impartial, expert-led oversight in a sector critical to national infrastructure and public safety.

The warnings we ignored: Revisiting the 1997 J.K. Seth report

The crash has also reignited interest in one of the most revealing — and buried — documents in Indian aviation history: the 1997 report by Air Marshal J.K. Seth. This report highlighted systemic deficiencies within the DGCA, including poor coordination, lack of independent investigation bodies and regulatory capture due to the DGCA and AAIB operating under the same ministry.

The report recommended structural reforms, functional independence for investigators, better training and modern safety audit mechanisms. Most of these proposals remain ignored.

Today, nearly three decades later, many of the issues flagged in that report remain unresolved, a haunting reminder of opportunities lost.

Are safety plans just paper promises?

India’s current strategic roadmap for aviation safety, the National Aviation Safety Plan (NASP) 2024–2028, outlines comprehensive goals aligned with international safety protocols. While the DGCA has developed this in consultation with industry stakeholders, implementation has lagged. Audit backlogs, limited manpower and budgetary constraints have impeded progress. Critics warn that unless the NASP is backed by real enforcement and capacity-building, it risks becoming a tokenistic document rather than a transformative one.

The AI171 crash has made one thing clear: piecemeal reforms and delayed implementation no longer suffice.

Are India’s pilots getting enough rest?

Pilot fatigue is a globally acknowledged risk factor in aviation incidents. India has historically lagged behind in enforcing stringent duty hour norms. However, new Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rules, effective from June 2024 and under phased implementation, aim to address this. These include increasing rest periods, limiting night landings and capping flying hours.

Despite resistance from airlines concerned about staffing and operational costs, courts and pilot associations are pushing for full implementation by November 2025. Experts believe these reforms are a critical change, but only if enforced in both letter and spirit.

The encroachment threat

The crash site just beyond Ahmedabad airport has exposed another chronic issue in Indian aviation: the encroachment of urban development into critical flight zones. Airports like Ahmedabad and Mumbai suffer from limited runway flexibility and rising concrete jungles around their perimeters. High-rise buildings near runways compromise safety margins and restrict emergency response operations.

Even greenfield airports like Bangalore, Navi Mumbai or Mopa in Goa are no longer at a safe distance from habitation due to urban expansion. While height restriction norms do exist, their enforcement is often weak, especially when city planning priorities clash with aviation safety needs. With air traffic rising, India must urgently balance development with airspace safety.

The Tata Group, now stewarding Air India, has pledged full compensation to victims’ families and aid to the medical college struck by debris. But compensation cannot mend the anguish of those who have lost loved ones in this catastrophe.

For passengers, the tragedy is a sobering reminder: flying remains one of the safest ways to travel — but safety is not a static metric. It must be earned, preserved and constantly improved.

A moment of reckoning

The Air India Dreamliner crash has revealed that beneath the surface of India’s aviation boom lies an undercurrent of neglected reforms, overstretched regulators and system vulnerabilities. While this crash does not inherently make flying less safe it does emphasise the importance of vigilance, regulatory oversight and continuous improvement in safety standards.

This is a moment of reckoning — not only for Boeing or Air India, but for every institution tasked with keeping the skies safe. If lessons from this tragedy are taken seriously — if India finally empowers its regulators, enforces fatigue rules, reconsiders the Civil Aviation Authority and builds a true safety culture—then something lasting and positive may still emerge from this dark hour.