Air India finds itself under intense regulatory, technical, and international scrutiny following two major operational crises: the catastrophic crash of Flight 171 in Ahmedabad and a severe in-flight altitude drop on Flight 2379. As technical agencies and civil aviation authorities continue their inquiries, the incidents have raised complex questions regarding regulatory enforcement, international passenger rights, and competing readings of technological causality.

Briefing: How the Two Cases Are Being Handled

Flight 171 (Ahmedabad Crash)

On June 12, 2025, Flight 171—a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner bound for London Gatwick—crashed seconds after takeoff into a BJ medical college hostel complex, killing 241 on board and 19 on the ground. Notably, in the history of commercial aviation, no other Boeing 787 Dreamliner has suffered a fatal hull-loss crash.

Preliminary findings by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) confirmed both engine fuel control switches moved to "CUTOFF" seconds after liftoff, severing fuel supply. In response, the Director General of Civil Aviation India has ordered an audit of all 787 aircraft operated by Air India, while procedure itself is in all likelihood what requires closer scrutiny.

Flight 2379 (Phuket–Delhi In-Flight Occurrence)

On August 4, 2026, Flight 2379 experienced a sudden 300-foot altitude drop during cruise, injuring 20 passengers and four crew members. One passenger hit their head against the roof of the cabin so hard that a panel cracked. Post-flight screening revealed the pilot-in-command tested positive for marijuana in a confirmatory test. Under Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) protocols, both flight crew members were off-rostered immediately, and the DGCA initiated license revocation proceedings alongside an AAIB serious incident investigation into the aircraft's flight computer logs. Apparently official accountability has not yet been finalised.

Foreign Scrutiny and the Multi-Jurisdictional Framework

With 53 British citizens, 7 Portuguese nationals, and 1 Canadian national aboard Flight 171, foreign scrutiny from the UK and global regulatory bodies has intensified. Under ICAO Annex 13 and international civil law, jurisdiction over the investigation and legal proceedings is distributed across specific domains:

• US NTSB: State of Aircraft/Engine Manufacture (Boeing/GE). |
| Civil Compensation | UK & Indian Courts | Governed by the Montreal Convention, enabling victim families to file civil claims in destination or home courts. |
| Products Liability | US Federal Courts | Potential venue if technical findings point to design or manufacturing flaws in aircraft components. |

Technical Probes & Philosophical Readings of Causality

The BBC Investigation: Human Action vs. Avionics Shorting

Investigations highlighted by the BBC center on a key dispute: did human hands physically manipulate the switches, or did a digital fault falsely register the "CUTOFF" command?

• Human Intervention Hypothesis: Cockpit voice logs recorded one pilot asking why the fuel switches were cut, to which the other replied he had not done so. Proponents argue the mechanical switches require a "lift-and-turn" motion, pointing toward manual activation.
• Systemic Glitch Hypothesis: Defense teams and US lawsuits highlight potential electrical shorting, signal path corruption, or switch locking mechanism defects that could send an uncommanded digital signal shutting down both engines simultaneously.

Slavoj Žižek’s Critique: The Paradox of Digital Logic

In his philosophical critique on technological causality Liberal Fascisms: Essays on Capitalist Realism and Automated Violence, Slavoj Žižek rejects both simple human error and random hardware failure. Instead, he traces the rigorous internal logic of how automated systems collapse through conflicting internal parameters:

1. Premature Gear and RAT Deployment: Physical evidence confirms that immediately upon liftoff, the landing gear remained deployed, and the Ram Air Turbine (the emergency wing-mounted wind propeller) deployed into the slipstream before engine thrust was lost.
2. Contradictory Digital Signals: The flight computer received simultaneously conflicting sensor inputs—air/ground sensors registered weight-off-wheels while airspeed and altitude data lagged. The system interpreted this state as an abnormal, critical flight envelope failure.
3. The Automated Cascade: Based on this corrupted state, automated fail-safe logic commanded the deployment of emergency power assets (the RAT). This emergency bus override subsequently executed an automated fuel cut command.

For Žižek, this is the core mechanism: the crash was a pure digital contradiction, where two independently correct software subroutines collided, producing a fatal command chain that no human pilot could override.

Current Status

Investigative alignment remains active under ICAO rules, with the UK AAIB and US NTSB integrated as accredited representatives. Meanwhile, civil liability claims under the Montreal Convention continue to advance in UK and US courts independently of the multi-year timeline required for the AAIB's final technical report.

Regulatory Questioning

Has the Director General of Civil Aviation, in instituting an audit for Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet, taken into consideration the structural possibility of contradictory mechanical and digital signals leading to platform failure—or is the regulatory apparatus operating on the assumption of isolated human error and routine mechanical degradation, noting that the platform in question, Boeing 787 Dreamliner has otherwise an impeccable aviation record?