The investigation into the catastrophic crash of Air India Flight 171 on June 12, 2025, which claimed the lives of 260 people, has been fraught with tension between Indian and American authorities. The crash, involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, remains the first fatal accident for the aircraft model. Among the victims were 242 people aboard the planeand 19 individuals on the ground, when the aircraft plummeted into a hostel for medical students in Ahmedabad shortly after takeoff. The tragedy immediately drew international attention, not only due to the scale of the disaster but also because of the implications it raised for aviation safety, aircraft design, and investigative jurisdiction.

From the outset, the investigation revealed stark differences in operational approaches between the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India and the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). According to a detailed report by The Wall Street Journal, one of the earliest flashpoints involved the location for analyzing the aircraft’s black boxes—critical devices containing flight data and cockpit voice recordings essential for understanding the sequence of events leading to the crash.

Indian authorities initially proposed that American specialists from the NTSB travel on a late-night military flight to a remote laboratory in Korwa. While the precise state was not specified, the reference is likely to the town of Korwa in Uttar Pradesh. Indian officials considered the Korwa facility ideal for conducting detailed analysis due to its advanced technical equipment and relative isolation, which they believed would limit media intrusion. However, the proposal triggered immediate concerns from American authorities, particularly Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the NTSB, who cited security warnings from the US State Department regarding terrorism threats and regional conflicts. Homendy refused the plan, asserting that it was unsafe for American personnel to travel under such circumstances.

The disagreement escalated rapidly. Homendy reportedly made urgent calls to US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffyand to the chief executives of Boeing and GE Aerospace, emphasizing the critical nature of timely black-box analysis. At her request, State Department officials intervened at Delhi airport, effectively preventing the NTSB specialists from boarding any flights to Korwa. Homendy then issued an ultimatum: if Indian authorities did not make a final decision within 48 hours on whether the black boxes would be analyzed in New Delhi or the United States, the NTSB would withdraw its technical support entirely.

Ultimately, Indian authorities agreed to conduct the analysis in New Delhi, utilizing specialized equipment provided by the NTSB. While this decision resolved the immediate standoff, it marked the beginning of a series of disagreements between the two nations regarding both the procedural and substantive aspects of the investigation.

Underlying the tensions are deeper differences over the probable cause of the crash. According to The Wall Street Journal, American officials and industry insiders privately believe that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal may have deliberately crashed the aircraft, although no official conclusion has been made. In contrast, Indian aviation authorities, pilot associations, and the Supreme Court have urged caution, warning against prematurely attributing culpability to the pilot.

The preliminary report issued by the AAIB provides critical technical insights into the final moments of the flight. Data from the flight recorders indicated that the aircraft’s fuel switches were sequentially moved from the “run” to “cutoff” position, with each transition occurring approximately one second apart. While this technical detail is significant, investigators continue to analyze it in the context of other cockpit and operational data to determine whether it was an intentional action or a result of other factors.

Cockpit voice recordings, which have been reviewed by investigators, further complicated the narrative. According to sources cited by the Journal, the captain reportedly remained calm in the aircraft’s final moments, while First Officer Clive Kunder appeared panicked, exclaiming “Oh s—!” as the aircraft descended uncontrollably. Data also suggest that Sabharwal did not pull back on the yoke during the final seconds, whereas Kunder attempted corrective action. Patrick Lusch, lead investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the probe, remarked that “these ten seconds will be argued, debated, studied, and scrutinized for decades to come,” underscoring the complexity of interpreting the evidence.

The tensions were further fueled by differences in investigative priorities. Indian authorities preferred to conduct certain aspects of the probe sequentially, while American investigators emphasized simultaneous analysis of all available data, particularly the immediate download of black-box recordings to determine if broader safety risks existed for other Dreamliner aircraft. Delays in accessing these recordings frustrated the NTSB, as time-sensitive information was critical to understanding whether the incident indicated a systemic threat.

Publicly, Indian officials asserted confidence in their investigative capabilities. GVG Yugandhar, chief of the AAIB, emphasized the agency’s technical competence in the early stages of the probe. In remarks reportedly made to American investigators, Yugandhar insisted, “We’re not a Third World country. We can do anything you all can do.” The assertion highlighted both national pride and the sensitive diplomatic dimensions of the investigation, as Indian authorities sought to maintain sovereignty over the investigative process.

Despite these reassurances, the AAIB’s operational approach at times frustrated American teams. Concerns were raised over the choice of facilities, the sequence of investigative steps, and the speed at which critical data were processed. NTSB officials expressed particular impatience with the delay in downloading black-box data, which they considered vital for assessing the aircraft’s systems and potential design vulnerabilities. One FAA official described the situation as “champing at the bit to get the data,” illustrating the intense pressure and urgency felt by American investigators.

Efforts to coordinate communications also faced hurdles. Homendy attempted to schedule a virtual meeting with Yugandhar and a senior US safety official, but the Indian official reportedly did not log on, further exacerbating tensions. Such communication gaps highlighted the challenges of international cooperation in high-stakes aviation investigations, particularly when the incident involves sensitive technical, legal, and political dimensions.

The crash of Flight 171 has broader implications for aviation safety worldwide. As the first fatal accident involving a Dreamliner, the incident has prompted scrutiny of Boeing’s design, aircraft systems, and operational protocols. Simultaneously, it has raised questions about the regulatory oversight and investigative processes in different jurisdictions, emphasizing the need for coordination and transparency.

For India, the crash has been a defining moment for civil aviation safety. Authorities face the dual challenge of conducting a thorough investigation while balancing public expectations, pilot associations’ concerns, and international scrutiny. For the United States, the incident has underscored the need to protect the safety of its personnel abroad while ensuring that critical technical expertise is effectively integrated into investigations led by foreign authorities.

The investigation remains ongoing, with both nations working under significant pressure to determine the causes of the disaster accurately. Key areas of focus include pilot actions, aircraft systems, potential mechanical failures, and procedural lapses, if any. The involvement of the NTSB has been critical in providing specialized expertise, particularly in analyzing flight data and cockpit voice recordings.

As the probe progresses, the need for collaboration between Indian and American authorities remains paramount. Experts emphasize that while procedural disagreements and jurisdictional tensions are challenging, the ultimate goal must be a transparent, evidence-based determination of the crash’s causes, to prevent future tragedies and to restore confidence in global aviation safety standards.

The Flight 171 crash stands as a tragic reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in modern aviation and the complexities of conducting an international investigation. Balancing technical rigor, diplomatic considerations, and public accountability will be critical in ensuring that the lessons from this disaster contribute meaningfully to global safety practices.

Ultimately, the investigation of Air India Flight 171 is not only about identifying the immediate causes of a single crash; it is also about establishing a framework for international cooperation in aviation safety, respecting the sovereignty of national investigative agencies, and ensuring that families of victims, aviation authorities, and the global public can trust the findings. The coming months will be decisive as Indian and American authorities work to reconcile differences, analyze critical evidence, and provide definitive answers to one of the most devastating aviation disasters in recent history.