AIR INDIA CRASH

Boeing's History

The birth of a colossal aerospace airliner

The Boeing company or simply the Boeing is amongst the largest aerospace companies and leading manufacturers of commercial jetliners and defense, space and security systems. It siphoned off as building seaplanes to a large commercial aircraft maker like Boeing, some of the greatest aircraft ever the B-17 Flying Fortress, 707 and 747s. Boeing Co. Airbus’s rival, The Dreamliner 787 entered the field in 2011 and represented a giant leap in fuel efficiency and passenger comfort with its pioneering use of composites and advanced technology. By 2025, over 1,200 Dreamliners were in service globally, with a strong safety record until the tragic Air India Flight 171 crash in Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025.

Boeing’s past has not been free of its own struggles. The company came under severe condemnation after two crashes of Boeing 737 MAX planes in 2018 and 2019 that killed approximately 346 people and brought to light problems with the aircraft’s automated systems and the safety culture at Boeing. These were costly events that ultimately resulted in a $1.1 billion penalty from the obstruction of investigations and a new leader, Kelly Ortberg, installed as CEO in 2024 to rebuild trust.”. Despite these efforts the Ahmedabad crash, the first fatal incident involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, reignited concerns about Boeing’s safety oversight and manufacturing processes.

The Air India Ahmedabad Incident

The horrendous misfortune

Five years later(Presently) – On 12 June 2025 – suggesting terror angle and holds firm on 13 May 2020 – Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, Descends to lower altitude crashing 30 seconds post-takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International at London Gatwick Bound flight. The 242 passengers and crew aboard the aircraft achieved an altitude of 625–650 feet before descending and impacting the hostel block of B.J. Medical College; leaving 241 dead on board (with one survivor) and a minimum of 39 fatalities on the ground.The flight team declared mayday due to power and thrust loss, and early analysis points in the direction of the ram air turbine (RAT) being deployed, pointing toward a dual engine or major systems failure. The crash, one of the worst airline accidents in India in decades, has set off a multi-country investigation that has drawn in India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and experts from Boeing.

Initial theories for the crash have suggested engine failure, flaps’ misconfiguration or a bird-strike, given the history of bird activity in Ahmedabad (462 bird-strike cases reported in Gujarat from 2018 to 2023). The aircraft, which was delivered to Air India in 2014, had 39,450 hours of flight and 7,400 cycles, seen as average for the type. The inquiry is analyzing the debris, flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder to determine whether the crash was the result of mechanical failure, human error or outside circumstances.

Irresponsibility of DGCA and Civil Aviation Department

Superficial approach

India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Ministry of Civil Aviation have come under fire for lack of supervision in the wake of the Ahmedabad crash. The DGCA, responsible for regulating aviation safety, has been held accountable for reactive rather than proactive measures. Following the crash, the DGCA ordered extra safety checks on Air India’s fleet of Boeing 787 jets, including checks on one-time takeoff parameters and inspections of an engine control system, but it had conducted a pre-crash inspection on 24 of Air India’s 33. Critics argue this reflects a superficial approach to maintenance oversight, failing to identify potential systemic issues before the incident.

The Civil Aviation Ministry’s rapid expansion of India’s aviation sector, aiming to make it a global hub, has outpaced regulatory capacity. The ministry’s focus on building airports and increasing flight operations has not been matched by investments in safety infrastructure or expertise. Posts on X highlight public frustration, pointing to “oversight lapses” and “failing checks” in India’s aviation system, especially concerning Boeing aircraft. The DGCA’s slow response to known risks, such as bird strikes at Ahmedabad (38 reported in 2022–23, a 35% increase from the prior year), underscores a lack of preventive action.

Case Study: Obstacles Around Mumbai Airport

The airport in Mumbai, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, an important hub, has had pervasive problems with obstacles in its no-obstacle zone, an area that is meant to be free of structures to ensure the safe takeoff and landing of aircrafts. A survey in 2010 found 128 challenges that, amongst other things, violated safety norms, like high-rises, chimneys and trees. They reached 467 in 2018, increasing over the years due to urban growth, lax oversight by AAI and DGCA. Greysky estimates there is over 800 obstacles in 2025, the construction of high-rise buildings in Vile Parle and Santacruz areas remains unstoppable. These obstructions are hazardous for aircraft during takeoff and landings, particularly in low visibility. The inability to remove these encroachments indicates systemic apathy, as local bodies and builders generally give precedence to their commercial projects over aviation concerns.

Bureaucratic hassles and coordination problems with the city’s municipalities are why the DGCA has not been able to enforce any obstruction zones there. Clear zones are mandated by law in the Aircraft Act, 1934, and DGCA rules, while robust in rhetoric but they have been dead in actual outcomes . This reflects more systemic problems in Indian aviation safety oversight which is more fallout from regulatory shortcomings that increase risk.

Lack of Expertise in Indian Civil Aviation

Robust in rhetoric but dead in tangible outcomes

It is well-known that Indian civil aviation lacks experts of technical knowledge and this deficiency is particularly felt in the DGCA. The bureau is usually headed by Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers, generalist bureaucrats not well-versed in aviation. Quality of the regulator The

existing head of DGCA, an IAS officer by and large, might not necessarily have the kind of technical depth to manage sophisticated aviation systems. Such dependence on non-experts impacts regulation, leading to slow response to safety issues, as well as insufficient oversight in maintenance. It caters to a DGCA that needs permanent, professional staff, engineers and operators, which must grow in line with growth of the industry, the aviation analysts say.

The regular and frequent (at short intervals) transfers of IAS officers also leads to lack of continuity and accountability. A new DGCA chief could push short-term gains over long-term safety changes, and his predecessors are seldom held to answer for their lapses because they are conveniently shifted elsewhere.This revolving-door leadership contrasts with global regulators like the FAA or EASA, where career aviation experts drive policy. The lack of accountability was evident in the Ahmedabad crash, where pre-existing maintenance and bird strike risks were not adequately addressed.

Legal Aspects neglected in Civil Aviation

Then again, India’s aviation law, largely under the Aircraft Act, 1934, and Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs), is both obsolete and largely unexecuted . Important legal provisions such as required safety audits, obstacle clearance and operator responsibility, in particular, are disregarded or arbitrarily enforced. Per say, the DGCA’s unwillingness to penalize carriers for maintenance defaults or airports for encroachments displays legal softness. The inquiry into the Ahmedabad crash could shed light on whether Air India followed maintenance procedures, though past accidents, such as the 2020 crash of an Air India Express plane in Kozhikode, suggest a systemic preference for leniency for operators.

The judiciary also finds it difficult to punish the accused as it is trapped up in the cobweb of redtape and legal delay. The Aircraft Act provides for penalties, but prosecutions are rare and fines are usually low. Environmental laws, bird strike prevention among them, are weak and are enforced with had-to-be-proven data and numbers of events. The absence of a robust legal framework to address these issues leaves India’s aviation sector vulnerable, as seen in the unchecked growth of obstacles around Mumbai airport and the delayed response to safety risks at Ahmedabad.

Whether engine failure, flaps’ misconfiguration or a bird-strike, the underlying issue of obsolete laws , inadequate execution and lack of in depth investigation to gain a better perspective shall not be neglected at all costs

DiaaSingh(Nlulucknow)