Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

The June 2025 crash of Air India Flight 171 is now a moment that will define aviation—a tragic loss that has shaken the public’s confidence and put Boeing’s safety culture in the spotlight like never before. Nearly everyone on board, 242, perished along with at least 19 on the ground. The aircraft crashed barely seconds after taking off from Ahmedabad, sending shockwaves among regulators, financial markets, and the whole aerospace industry.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

At the center of the investigation is a disturbing technical mystery: what happened to the Boeing 787’s engine fuel control switches? Prosecutors, digging through flight information and voice recordings from the cockpit, are examining whether those switches were flipped—accidentally or deliberately—seconds before the plane powerlessly plummeted to the ground. Those switches control the flow of fuel to the engines and carry with them a number of protections against accidental operation, including guarded brackets and locks. Flipping one from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” midway during a flight would shut down that engine instantaneously, severing thrust and electrical power to essential systems.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

But so far, the evidence has not resolved the key question: Were the switches flipped by error, failure, or design defect? Investigators have not eliminated anything, yet they also have not uncovered definitive proof of a switch or a GE Aerospace engine mechanical failure. As much speculation as has occurred, Boeing, GE, and regulators haven’t issued any safety bulletins or warnings. India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation ordered other Boeing 787s to be tested immediately, but those tests uncovered nothing new. India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau will release a preliminary report soon that will shed some light on what occurred, though full analysis—most specifically of the fuel control system—likely will take dozens more months.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

The slow leakage of information and lack of concrete answers have only increased the public’s stress, with social media and automated reports filling the gaps with hearsay rumors.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

Looking for final judgments, regulators and markets haven’t. Everywhere across the globe, nations such as Singapore, South Korea, and the United States are reconsidering the safety of the 787. Boeing’s shares lost 5% of their value in a day, taking suppliers such as GE Aerospace and Spirit AeroSystems down with it. But as initial indications started to suggest human mistake instead of a fundamental design problem, Boeing’s shares staged a small recovery. Nevertheless, the crash reopened grand arguments—about installing cockpit video recorders, tightening pilot training, and subjecting manufacturers and regulators to higher standards.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

To Boeing, this catastrophe is yet another agonizing addition to a long list of recent disappointments. All of its last five major airliner projects—the 787, 747-8, 737 MAX, 777X, and the KC-46A tankers for the military—have experienced significant issues: delays, faults, or, in some cases, deadly crashes. The 737 MAX plane crashes, which killed 346 people and have cost Boeing more than $20 billion, were blamed on a faulty software system and company culture that valued cost reduction over safety. The KC-46A, a military plane based on the 767, has been beset by quality problems and costly delays, infuriating even the U.S. Air Force.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

This isn’t simply a roll of bad luck. It suggests a more profound, unsettling change within Boeing. As writer Peter Robison examined in Flying Blind, Boeing’s culture has evolved significantly in recent decades. Following its 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas, authority began to drift away from engineers and toward fiscal managers. Shareholder value trumped safety. Engineers’ cautionary voices were sometimes disregarded. Cost-cutting became the chief priority. In addition, Boeing was given additional power to approve its planes, courtesy of its clout as a lobbying force, which left the FAA with less control and fewer resources to guarantee safety.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

The Air India crash has compelled everyone–regulators and investors alike–to face these harsh realities. A 2018 FAA advisory had cautioned over possible weaknesses in the 787’s fuel control switches but did not mandate any modifications. That advisory is now the best example of how things can go wrong when safety advice isn’t enforced. Pressure is growing on the FAA and international regulators to release firmer directives and be more proactive.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

For investors, the crash is a lesson that safety risks and company culture are important—not only engineering specs and profit margins. Boeing’s healthy order book and war chest provide some buffer, but its long-term recovery hinges on something more profound: honesty, cooperation with regulators, and a genuine commitment to fixing systemic safety problems. Airlines are paying attention, too, with some rethinking their dependence on Boeing and turning toward Airbus to diversify their fleets.

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons

But the lessons learned extend beyond commercial airliners. In the military world as well, taking shortcuts or skimping on quality can have deadly, even lethal, results—whether refueling tankers or new fighter aircraft. The crash of Air India is a painful reminder that safety must not be treated as an afterthought compliance box to tick, but as a non-negotiable principle—one that demands round-the-clock attention, responsibility, and doing the right thing, even when it’s unpopular.

Related images you may be interested in:

Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons
Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons
Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons
Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons
Image Source: Bing Image. License: All Creative Commons