Once bitten, twice shy, Air India has acted prudently in grounding the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that flew into Bengaluru from London after the pilot reportedly noticed a malfunction in the fuel control switch following a safe landing. The airline’s decision is not merely a routine technical precaution; it reflects a wider and deepening anxiety over the safety of this aircraft type, shared by pilots and passengers alike. The concern is understandable. A similar Boeing 787-8 aircraft crashed in June 2025 within minutes of take-off, killing 260 people onboard. Though the precise details of the latest technical complaint have not been made public, the similarity is disturbing enough to warrant immediate and transparent scrutiny. Air India has said it informed the aviation regulator and that the pilot’s concerns are being examined on a “priority basis”.
Crash probe and regulatory response
The grounding comes against the backdrop of an ongoing investigation into last year’s fatal crash. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is probing the incident, with a final report expected only in a few months. A preliminary report released last July revealed that the aircraft’s engines shut down after the fuel control switches moved from the ‘run’ to the ‘cut-off’ position shortly after take-off. Crucially, it did not establish how or why this happened. After the preliminary findings were made public, the US aviation regulator maintained that fuel control switches in Boeing aircraft were safe. India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), however, ordered inspections of cockpit fuel switches in all the Boeing 787 and 737 aircraft operating in the country. Air India, subsequently, said that its checks found no fault with the locking mechanism of the switches—a position it reiterated this week.
Lingering doubts and whistleblower claims
Yet, doubts refuse to fade. A whistleblower, in a submission to a US Senate committee, claimed that the crashed aircraft had experienced peculiar incidents earlier, including a cockpit fire that required rewiring. If true, this points to the possibility of a deeper systemic fault rather than an isolated error. In such a scenario, it is not unreasonable to fear that vested interests—whether of the airline or the manufacturer—may be tempted to downplay inconvenient details.
Need for transparency and swift action
However, public safety cannot be collateral damage. Investigations do take time, but the lack of clarity in a case involving potential design or systemic flaws is hard to justify. In the present instance, it should not take long to determine what exactly triggered the reported malfunction that alerted the pilot. Public confidence in air travel is fragile. Transparency, speed, and accountability are essential to restoring it. The enquiry report must be released at the earliest, and corrective measures taken without hesitation. If the fault is latent or systemic, the drastic step of grounding the entire fleet cannot be ruled out. Safety must always trump convenience.
