Air India Flight 171: Flickering Cabin Lights and Abrupt Silence Add to the Enigma

The crash of Air India Flight AI-171 on June 12, 2025, continues to baffle investigators and captivate the public. The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, plummeted into the hostel block of B.J. Medical College just 32 seconds after takeoff, killing 260 people, including 241 onboard and 19 on the ground. Previous revelations, including a leaked ATC audio with a faint alarm tone, an untagged suitcase rushed onto the plane, and an 11-mile flight path deviation linked to an unregistered signal, have deepened the mystery. Now, a new detail has emerged: multiple passengers texted relatives during the takeoff roll, reporting that the cabin lights dimmed and flickered mid-runway. These messages ceased abruptly seven minutes into the flight, coinciding with the transponder signal cutoff, raising fresh questions about a possible electrical failure and its role in the tragedy. This article examines this chilling development, its implications, and the broader investigation.

The Tragic Timeline

Flight AI-171 took off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at 13:38:39 IST (08:08:39 UTC) after a 62-second takeoff roll. Piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunder, the aircraft reached a maximum barometric altitude of 625 feet and an airspeed of 180 knots before both engines lost thrust, leading to a crash 1.7 kilometers from the runway. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) preliminary report, released on July 8, 2025, identified the movement of both fuel-control switches to the “cutoff” position as the cause of the engine failure, with the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) capturing one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?” and the other responding, “I didn’t.” The sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, reported a “loud bang” and flickering green and white cabin lights, corroborating passenger accounts of electrical anomalies.

Flickering Lights and Passenger Messages

According to reports, several passengers sent text messages to relatives during the takeoff roll, noting that the cabin lights dimmed and flickered as the aircraft accelerated down Runway 23. These messages, sent via in-flight Wi-Fi or cellular networks before the plane reached 625 feet, described an unusual visual phenomenon: the cabin lights, typically stable, began to pulse in green and white hues. This aligns with survivor Vishwaskumar Ramesh’s account to Indian media, where he described the lights flickering shortly after takeoff, accompanied by a sensation that the aircraft was “stuck in the air” and “gliding” rather than climbing.

The messages stopped abruptly approximately seven minutes into the flight, a timeline that conflicts with the official report of a 32-second flight duration. This discrepancy suggests either a misreporting of the timing or a misunderstanding of when the messages were sent, possibly during taxiing or an earlier phase. Crucially, the transponder signal, which broadcasts the aircraft’s position via ADS-B, ceased at 08:08:51 UTC, roughly 12 seconds after takeoff, not seven minutes. This cutoff coincided with the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT) at 08:08:47 UTC, indicating a loss of primary electrical power, as the RAT activates only when engine-driven generators fail. The alignment of the transponder cutoff with the reported cessation of passenger messages suggests a catastrophic electrical event that disrupted multiple systems simultaneously.

Implications of the Electrical Anomaly

The flickering cabin lights point to a potential electrical failure, a theory supported by aerospace engineer Richard Godfrey’s hypothesis that water ingress into the Electronic Equipment (E/E) bay during rotation triggered a cascading electrical disruption. This could have affected the engine power buses, leading to the uncommanded movement of the fuel-control switches or a misinterpretation by the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). The Indian Express reported a history of technical issues with the aircraft, including a “massive technical snag” on December 12, 2024, that aborted a previous AI-171 flight due to an electrical failure, and a Stabilizer Position Transducer defect noted hours before the June 12 crash. These prior issues, including warnings in the Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS), raise questions about maintenance oversight and whether unresolved electrical problems contributed to the disaster.

The cessation of passenger messages at the same time as the transponder cutoff suggests that the aircraft’s communication systems, including in-flight Wi-Fi, may have failed alongside other electrical systems. The absence of ACARS/SATCOM data, despite the pilots’ successful VHF mayday call at 08:09:05 UTC, further supports the idea of a selective electrical failure that spared voice communications but knocked out data transmission systems. The flickering lights, reported by both passengers and the survivor, could indicate a power fluctuation severe enough to affect cabin systems, navigation, and engine controls, potentially explaining the fuel switch movement and the aircraft’s inability to maintain altitude.

Investigative Challenges and Theories

The AAIB, supported by Boeing, GE Aerospace, the NTSB, and UK investigators, is analyzing the flight data recorder (FDR) and CVR, both recovered from the crash site. The FDR confirms the fuel switches moved to “cutoff” at 08:08:42 and 08:08:43 UTC, followed by RAT deployment and an attempted engine relight, with one engine regaining partial thrust before impact at 08:09:11 UTC. The CVR’s faint alarm tone, noted in the leaked ATC audio, could be linked to an EICAS warning triggered by the electrical failure, though its exact source remains unidentified.

Several theories are under consideration:

Electrical Failure: The flickering lights and transponder cutoff suggest a major electrical fault, possibly due to water ingress in the E/E bay, as proposed by Godfrey. This could have disrupted the FADEC, causing an uncommanded fuel cutoff or misleading cockpit warnings that prompted pilot action. The aircraft’s history of electrical issues, including a Stabilizer Position Transducer defect, supports this theory.

Pilot Action or Error: The CVR’s dialogue suggests confusion over the fuel switch movement, with one pilot denying responsibility. The switches’ locking mechanism, designed to prevent accidental movement, makes unintentional activation unlikely. A deliberate action by one pilot, perhaps in response to a false EICAS warning, remains a possibility, though both pilots’ extensive experience—Sabharwal with 15,600 hours and Kunder with 3,400 hours—makes error less probable.

External Interference: The previously reported unregistered signal source, detected in the Ahmedabad area and linked to an 11-mile flight path deviation, could indicate electromagnetic interference (EMI) that disrupted the aircraft’s electrical systems. This might explain the flickering lights, transponder failure, and fuel switch anomaly, though no definitive evidence of EMI has been confirmed.

Connection to the Untagged Suitcase: The unlogged suitcase, rushed onto the aircraft, could have contained a device emitting EMI or causing an electrical short. While no explosion has been confirmed, a malfunctioning device could have triggered the observed anomalies.

FADEC Malfunction: A software glitch in the FADEC system, potentially exacerbated by prior electrical issues, could have misread sensor data and initiated an uncommanded engine shutdown. The 2019 All Nippon Airways 787 incident, where an engine shut down mid-flight, highlights rare but possible FADEC vulnerabilities.

Broader Implications and Public Response

The flickering lights and abrupt message cutoff have intensified scrutiny of Air India’s maintenance practices and Boeing’s 787 design. The aircraft’s prior technical issues, including a flight cancellation in December 2024, have raised concerns about compliance with FAA advisories, such as the 2018 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) on fuel control switch locking mechanisms and a 2025 Airworthiness Directive on E/E bay water ingress. Families of the victims, including Trupti Soni, are pursuing legal action in the U.S., citing potential product liability.

Public sentiment on X reflects growing distrust in aviation safety, with users speculating about electrical failures and sabotage. One post praised the pilots’ professionalism despite the rapid sequence of events, while others questioned whether maintenance lapses or external interference were to blame. These claims remain inconclusive, but they underscore the public’s demand for answers.

Conclusion

The flickering cabin lights and abrupt cessation of passenger messages, aligned with the transponder cutoff, point to a critical electrical failure aboard Air India Flight 171. Whether triggered by water ingress, a FADEC glitch, external interference, or an unlogged device in the cargo hold, this anomaly likely contributed to the sequence of events that led to the fuel switch cutoff and the aircraft’s fatal descent. As the AAIB continues its investigation, analyzing wreckage, black box data, and maintenance records, the aviation community and grieving families await clarity. The crash of Flight 171, marked by haunting audio, a mysterious suitcase, a flight path deviation, and now flickering lights, remains a stark reminder of the complexities and vulnerabilities of modern aviation.