The crash of Air India's Boeing 787-8 aircraft in Ahmedabad has raised several critical questions. Just four weeks prior to this incident, the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued a significant warning about the fuel control switch, directing daily checks on five models, including the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. However, Air India chose not to inspect the fuel switch, considering it unnecessary.
On May 15, the UK's CAA issued a security alert, stating that the actuators of the fuel shutoff valve in certain Boeing aircraft could pose a potential safety risk. Consequently, all airline operators were instructed to review the FAA's Airworthiness Directive (AD) to determine its applicability to their aircraft.
Read more: Air India had changed the crash Dreamliner's TCM twice, the fuel control switch is part of it
The crashed aircraft model was also on the warning list
This warning included Boeing 737, 757, 767, 777, and 787 models, and airlines were instructed to inspect, test, or modify the actuators of the fuel shutoff valves on their aircraft as needed.
Air India did not implement this warning. According to Air India, the special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB) issued by the FAA in 2018 was merely advisory and not mandatory, which is why they did not inspect the fuel control switch.
Was the bulletin not taken seriously by Air India?
The initial investigation report by the AAIB states, "According to the information received from Air India, the suggested inspection was not carried out because the SAIB was only an advisory, not mandatory. The throttle control module on the VT-ANB aircraft was changed in 2019 and 2023, but this modification was unrelated to the fuel control switch."
Read more: Major revelation in Air India crash, unexpected events after takeoff... even pilots were surprised
Additionally, the report stated that since 2023, no fuel control switch-related malfunctions had been recorded in the VT-ANB aircraft. The pressing question now is whether Air India did not take the CAA's May 15, 2025, safety warning seriously? This warning was clearly actionable for operators, not just a suggestion.
