Exclusive Analysis: Aviation Expert’s Mathematical Breakdown of Air India 171 Crash Raises Crucial Questions

The tragic crash of Air India flight 171 has prompted intense investigation and speculation, but a recent exclusive analysis by seasoned aviation expert Captain Khaled sheds fresh light on the sequence of critical cockpit events, challenging prevailing narratives and urging a rethink of the official findings.

.

.

.

Captain Khaled was invited on a news discussion to scrutinize the cockpit data and timeline of fuel switches transitioning from “run” to “cutoff” mode and back during the final moments before the crash. His observations focus heavily on the speed and timing of these switch movements, narrating a scenario that could rewrite how the incident is understood.

At the 42-second timestamp, Captain Khaled identifies the fuel switches’ transition within a single second—from run to cutoff—a feat he equates to “fastest fingers” in the cockpit, capable of flipping both switches out in 500 milliseconds. This indicates an extremely rapid intentional action rather than a mechanical failure or inadvertent movement.

His central argument questions why, after this swift shutdown, the other pilot waited a full 10 seconds before attempting to reverse the action by switching the controls back on. In high-stress situations involving engine failure, any delay can be catastrophic, particularly when both pilots are expected to respond instantly to emergencies.

Further dissecting the timeline, he highlights anomalies such as the four-second interval between the switches being put back into “run” at 52 seconds and subsequent switch movements up to 56 seconds, a curious gap in a situation where every millisecond counts.

Captain Khaled also demonstrates with a simple hand test how physically switching these levers typically requires over a second per movement, underscoring how the initial shutdown was exceptionally fast, and the restoration sluggish—a puzzling inconsistency in an emergency protocol.

The expert suggests that an electrical glitch likely caused an automatic fuel cutoff, which the crew then interpreted as a manual switch-off, leading them to execute a checklist procedure for dual engine failure. This theory is supported by data indicating that switch positions were perhaps not actually moved multiple times, but the engine behaved as if powered down and restarted electronically.

Drawing parallels with fighter pilot actions—where pulling the ejection handle is immediate and decisive—he explains that while switching fuel from “run” to “cutoff” represents a drastic emergency response akin to that, switching it back is a simpler, less deliberated act. Yet this sequence remains contested by recorded data.

Captain Khaled’s mathematical analysis exposes discrepancies that conventional reports might have overlooked, stirring debate over pilot actions, technical malfunctions, and cockpit communication at critical juncture points.

These insights emphasize the complexity of investigating aviation disasters, demanding not only black boxes but nuanced expert interpretation to unravel the truth.

As official inquiries proceed, such rigorous analytical perspectives help fuel more informed discussions, providing clues that may prevent future tragedies and enhance flight safety protocols.