On June 12, 2025, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner operating as Air India Flight 171 crashed just 32 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground. The tragedy, one of India’s deadliest aviation disasters in decades, has reignited haunting memories of a similar catastrophe nearly 50 years ago. On October 12, 1976, Indian Airlines Flight 171, a Sud Aviation Caravelle, crashed while attempting an emergency landing at Bombay Airport (now Mumbai), claiming all 95 lives aboard. The eerie coincidence of the flight number has thrust it back into the spotlight, prompting speculation about whether history is repeating itself and who bears responsibility for these recurring failures.
The 2025 Ahmedabad Crash: A Modern Tragedy
Flight 171, bound for London Gatwick with 230 passengers and 12 crew members, lifted off at 13:39 IST (08:09 UTC) on that fateful June day. Within moments, the aircraft struggled to gain altitude, reaching only 625 feet before plummeting into the B.J. Medical College hostel complex, 1.5 kilometers from the runway. The impact and subsequent fire destroyed the fuselage and killed medical students and residents, including a tea seller’s son and a grandmother with her granddaughter. Only Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, a British national of Indian origin seated in 11A, survived, escaping with severe injuries. The crash marked the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 787 since its 2011 debut, shattering Air India’s safety narrative under the Tata Group’s ownership since 2022.
Preliminary findings from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), released on July 12, 2025, revealed a chilling detail: both engine fuel control switches were flipped to “CUTOFF” seconds after takeoff, cutting fuel supply and causing total power loss. Cockpit voice recordings captured a pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?” with the other denying responsibility, deepening the mystery. The switches were later returned to “RUN,” triggering an engine relight, but the plane crashed before power could be restored. The intense heat, reaching 1,500°C, complicated DNA identification, leading to further distress as families in the UK received wrong or commingled remains.
The 1976 Mumbai Crash: A Foreboding Precedent
The historical echo of Flight 171 traces back to October 12, 1976, when Indian Airlines Flight 171, a domestic flight from Bombay to Madras (now Chennai), met a tragic end. The Sud Aviation Caravelle, substituted for a Boeing 737 with engine trouble, suffered an uncontained failure in its No. 2 engine’s compressor disk due to metal fatigue. Fragments severed fuel lines, igniting an engine fire that compromised control surfaces, leading to a loss of control during an emergency landing attempt at Bombay Airport. The plane struck trees and a high-tension pylon 2.54 kilometers from the runway, killing all 95 aboard, including six crew members. Five initially survived but succumbed to injuries, marking it as Indian Airlines’ deadliest crash at the time.
Investigations attributed the disaster to pilot error and poor visibility, compounded by the crew’s failure to adhere to minimum descent altitudes despite inadequate approach lighting. The parallel with Ahmedabad—both involving fuel-related issues and rapid post-takeoff crashes—has fueled speculation about systemic vulnerabilities in Indian aviation, even across different eras and aircraft types.
A Shared Flight Number, A Shared Fate?
The recurrence of the “171” designation is more than a numerical quirk. Air India retired the flight number post-2025 crash, replacing it with AI159 on the Ahmedabad-London route, mirroring the discontinuation of Indian Airlines’ 171 after 1976. This practice, also seen in the 2020 Air India Express Kozhikode crash, reflects a cultural acknowledgment of loss. Yet, the repetition raises questions about whether the number carries an ominous legacy or if it simply highlights a pattern of oversight. Both incidents involved fuel system failures—1976’s ruptured lines versus 2025’s switched cutoff valves—suggesting a persistent Achilles’ heel in fuel management or crew training.
The Ahmedabad crash’s proximity to tall buildings, just 300 meters from the runway, echoes concerns about Mumbai’s airport layout in 1976, where dense settlements posed risks. Critics argue that India’s aviation boom, driven by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s infrastructure push, may prioritize expansion over safety, a critique echoed by aviation consultant Mohan Ranganathan. The 2018 FAA bulletin on 787 fuel switch vulnerabilities, unaddressed by Air India, adds weight to this narrative, though the airline insists it followed protocols.
Responsibility: A Tangled Web
Who is to blame? The 2025 investigation points to human error or a technical glitch, with the AAIB’s inconclusive report leaving room for doubt. The 1976 inquiry similarly faulted the pilots, though poor visibility and inadequate airport infrastructure shared culpability. In Ahmedabad, the Tata Group’s rapid fleet integration and Boeing’s design oversight are under scrutiny, especially given the 787’s locking switch mechanism, intended to prevent accidental activation. The lack of a mandated inspection post-2018 FAA warning suggests regulatory lapses by India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).
Families of the 270+ victims, including British-Indian communities in Leicester and Wellingborough, demand accountability. The misidentification scandal—where coffins contained multiple remains—has intensified calls for UK-India dialogue, with lawyers urging Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to press the issue. Air India’s $115,000 compensation offer has been overshadowed by accusations of insensitivity, while Boeing’s silence post-crash fuels suspicion. The DGCA’s failure to ground the 787 fleet for comprehensive checks, despite 83 flight suspensions, highlights a reactive rather than preventive approach.
A Critical Lens on the Narrative
The official stance—that both crashes were isolated incidents—strains under scrutiny. The AAIB’s delayed final report, expected in a year, and the lack of transparency about the fuel switch anomaly suggest a reluctance to confront systemic issues. The 1976 crash exposed pilot training deficiencies and airport safety gaps, yet similar problems persist, from Ahmedabad’s runway proximity to Mumbai’s ongoing risks. Posts found on X reflect public sentiment, with users questioning maintenance standards and regulatory complacency, though these remain unverified claims.
The Tata Group’s turnaround narrative, boasting profit gains since 2022, is now tainted by this disaster. Boeing’s track record—marred by 737 MAX crashes—adds pressure, yet the company deflects to Indian investigators. The DGCA’s ambition to rival global hubs like Dubai may have outpaced safety infrastructure, a concern underscored by the Ahmedabad hostel’s vulnerability. The historical parallel suggests not just bad luck but a recurring failure to learn from past mistakes.
The Lingering Shadow
As of July 24, 2025, the investigation into Flight 171 continues, with black box analysis ongoing. The 1976 tragedy faded into history, but its lessons appear unheeded. For families like Anil Ambalal Patel’s, who lost his son and daughter-in-law, and the 1976 victims’ relatives, the pain endures, amplified by bureaucratic failures. The retirement of “171” offers symbolic closure, but the real test lies in preventing future echoes.
This dual tragedy—spanning decades and technologies—challenges India’s aviation aspirations. If fuel system flaws or human error are confirmed, responsibility may span pilots, airlines, manufacturers, and regulators. Until the full truth emerges, the shadow of Flight 171 will loom, a grim reminder of lives lost and lessons ignored.
