The fallout from Air India Flight 171’s catastrophic crash in June is now moving into American courtrooms.
The families of four victims have filed the first U.S. lawsuit over the tragedy, alleging that Boeing and Honeywell bear responsibility for the disaster that killed 260 people.
The crash occurred just seconds after the Dreamliner lifted off from Ahmedabad on its way to London. According to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India, both engines failed when the fuel cutoff switches flipped from run to cutoff. That dual-engine flameout left the 787 powerless at an altitude too low to recover.
The plaintiffs are pointing to a 2018 FAA advisory as a key piece of evidence. The advisory, SAIB No. NM-18-33, warned operators of Boeing models—including the 787—that the locking mechanism on fuel switches should be inspected to prevent accidental movement. Crucially, the FAA’s notice was non-mandatory. Air India never carried out the suggested checks.
Court filings argue the switches’ design was inherently unsafe: located in such a way that “normal cockpit activity could result in inadvertent fuel cutoff.” If true, the design flaw would be damning, effectively turning a routine cockpit action into a death sentence.
But experts are already raising questions about that claim. Aviation safety specialists told Reuters that based on the switch’s location and design, they cannot be flipped accidentally. This aligns with a chilling detail in the AAIB’s preliminary findings: on the cockpit voice recorder, one pilot asked the other why he cut off the fuel. The response? “I did not do so.”
The maintenance history of the doomed aircraft adds another wrinkle. Records show its throttle control module—the system containing the fuel switches—was replaced twice in recent years, in 2019 and again in 2023. The AAIB report also stated that the aircraft had complied with all mandatory airworthiness directives and service bulletins.
That leaves the families’ lawsuit navigating a difficult path. If the switches functioned as designed, blame may shift toward human error in the cockpit. But if the plaintiffs can prove the design made inadvertent cutoff possible—or that Boeing and Honeywell knew of risks flagged by the FAA but didn’t act forcefully enough—they may have a viable claim.
Boeing has declined further comment, pointing back to the AAIB report. Honeywell has yet to respond.
