Capt. CS Randhawa, president of the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), argued that blaming a dead pilot is a convenient way for regulators and manufacturers to escape accountability. He stated, "When a pilot is alive he can defend himself... When the pilot is dead, all the agencies can collude - and they put the blame on the pilot, to save the manufacturer." The FIP, representing 6,000 pilots, condemned the preliminary report as "irrevocably compromised" and joined Sabharwal’s father in demanding a judicial investigation.

Despite the backlash, some aviation professionals maintain that the evidence points unequivocally to foul play. Former UK air accident investigator Tim Atkinson agreed that blaming a pilot is convenient for all parties but personally believed there was no other credible explanation. He expressed absolute doubt that the incident was anything other than a homicide-suicide, warning that attempting to frame it as an aviation accident would fail because it was not one.

Conversely, campaigners propose an alternative theory: a major electrical failure caused the aircraft’s main flight computers to reboot after takeoff. They argue this created a scenario where systems mistakenly believed the plane was on the ground, triggering a safety mechanism that cut the fuel supply. Under this scenario, the flight data recorder would have registered an electronic command rather than physical switch movement by the pilots.

Support for the mechanical failure theory comes from the Foundation for Aviation Safety, led by whistleblower Ed Pierson. The foundation claims the aircraft, registered as VT-ANB, had a history of serious electrical problems since its delivery in 2014. Documents seen by the BBC revealed an incident of "burning" in a main power panel in 2022. Although Air India stated repairs were conducted per Boeing-approved procedures, the preliminary report noted the aircraft was allowed to fly with a known fault in its core network.

The investigation has drawn international attention, with the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sending experts from Boeing and GE Aerospace. Under Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, India holds primary responsibility for the inquiry, while other nations act as accredited representatives to ensure objectivity. The stated objective is accident prevention, not apportioning blame, yet the stakes remain incredibly high for Boeing’s reputation regarding the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which has previously suffered safety scandals.

Air India Flight 171 Investigation Remains Contested

The ongoing dispute over the cause of the crash highlights significant tensions between official narratives and independent safety advocacy. As the final conclusions of the investigation remain unpublished, the aviation industry faces mounting pressure to address concerns about transparency and impartiality. If mechanical defects are indeed ignored in favor of blaming the crew, it could undermine trust in global aviation safety standards and the regulatory frameworks governing major manufacturers. The outcome of this inquiry will likely influence future protocols for investigating complex air disasters, particularly those involving automated systems and pilot accountability.