Turkey Rejects Alleged Maintenance Role in Air India Crash
Turkish authorities have clearly denied that Turkish Technic conducted any maintenance on the Boeing 787‑8 Dreamliner of Air India Flight 171, which crashed on 12 June 2025 near Ahmedabad, resulting in 279 fatalities. The Directorate of Communications' Centre for Countering Disinformation labelled the claims 'false' and 'disinformation', emphasising that existing agreements with Air India in 2024–25 strictly covered Boeing 777 aircraft—not the 787‑8 model involved in the disaster.
Flight AI 171 had lifted off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport bound for London Gatwick, crashed approximately 30 seconds later into a hostel block of B. J. Medical College in Ahmedabad's Meghaninagar area. Of the 242 onboard, only one passenger survived; the crash also claimed around 38 lives on the ground.
ADVERTISEMENT
Turkish officials reiterated that the maintenance contract signed with Air India was limited to B777 aircraft serviced at Turkish Technic's Istanbul facilities, and never extended to Dreamliner models. They acknowledged awareness of the company that last serviced the crashed aircraft, but refrained from naming it to avoid speculation amid the ongoing investigation.
The denial followed sensational allegations by yoga guru Baba Ramdev, who suggested a Turkish maintenance firm's involvement, describing a possible 'foreign conspiracy.' Turkish agencies sharply rejected his claims as baseless and manipulative.
The crash—the first fatal hull-loss involving a Boeing 787 since its entry into service—has sparked a major international investigation. India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau is leading the probe under Annex 13 protocols, with support from Boeing, GE Aerospace, and UK and US aviation authorities. Investigators are examining multiple lines of inquiry, including engine thrust anomalies, flap alignment, landing gear deployment, possible bird strike, and maintenance protocols.
India's civil aviation regulator has ordered additional inspections across Air India's Boeing 787 fleet, comprising 33 jets, and directed IndiGo to review its single 787. This unprecedented disaster, marking the deadliest global aviation accident involving a 787 in over a decade, has sharpened scrutiny on Air India's maintenance regimes and Boeing's safety standing.
Eyewitness and CCTV footage captured a distressing mayday call: 'Thrust not achieved. Falling,' suggesting a rapid loss of lift. Preliminary observations indicate that the aircraft may have experienced dual-engine thrust failure or malfunctioning flaps or landing gear, heightening the risk of aerodynamic stall.
An aviation expert, retired captain Alok Singh, stressed that while the Boeing 787 platform is broadly reliable, such incidents often arise from a confluence of mechanical issues, procedural errors, or environmental factors such as bird ingestion. Meanwhile, industry analyst Steven Chen has advanced the theory that inadvertent flap retraction by the co‑pilot during take‑off may have disrupted lift, though this remains speculative pending flight data.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau has recovered the flight data recorder. Retrieval of the cockpit voice recorder is still in progress. Both are expected to yield critical insight into procedural actions and system failures. India's government has established a high-level panel with a three-month deadline to issue findings.
In response to the tragedy and international concern, Boeing and GE Aerospace withdrew from the Paris Air Show to concentrate on search and investigative support. Boeing's CEO Kelly Ortberg expressed condolences and pledged full cooperation, even as the company navigates ongoing operational and reputational pressures following prior safety incidents.
Air India, now under Tata Group ownership since 2022, has announced financial compensation packages for victims' families and is working with authorities on victim identification through DNA and dental records. Public anxiety has surged, with many calling for systemic reforms in aircraft maintenance oversight, cross-border service dependencies, and regulatory enforcement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
07-08-2025
- Arabian Post
Titan sub tragedy: Dubai businessman's death deemed avoidable
Arabian Post Staff -Dubai The tragic death of a Dubai-based businessman aboard the Titan submersible could have been prevented, according to a detailed report. The incident, which occurred during a voyage to the wreck of the Titanic, saw all five passengers on board perish when the submersible suffered a catastrophic implosion in the North Atlantic. Among the victims was Shahzada Dawood, a well-known Pakistani-British businessman with deep ties to the Middle East. The new findings from investigations suggest critical lapses in the safety measures that led to the fateful disaster. The Titan submersible, operated by the OceanGate company, was designed for deep-sea exploration and had made several successful expeditions before its ill-fated journey. On June 18, 2023, the vessel, with five people onboard, embarked on a mission to survey the wreck of the Titanic, located approximately 3,800 metres beneath the surface. However, less than two hours into the descent, the submersible lost communication, prompting immediate search and rescue operations. Tragically, the submersible was confirmed to have imploded, likely due to the immense pressure at that depth. No survivors were found. ADVERTISEMENT In the aftermath of the incident, a comprehensive investigation was launched by the US Coast Guard, with the support of OceanGate and other stakeholders. The report issued highlights several disturbing safety concerns that may have contributed to the loss of life. One of the key findings revealed that the design of the submersible was flawed, especially in terms of its pressure resistance. Titan's hull, made of carbon fibre and titanium, was found to be particularly vulnerable to the crushing pressures encountered at the extreme depths of the ocean. The report also raises alarms over the lack of sufficient safety protocols. Despite previous warnings from experts and engineers about the potential risks of operating the submersible at such depths, OceanGate proceeded without addressing these concerns adequately. Furthermore, it was discovered that the company had a limited track record of using its submersible for commercial passenger voyages to the Titanic wreck, with only a few successful trips before the disaster. This limited experience, paired with a lack of comprehensive safety testing, created a dangerous combination. Family members of those who perished in the incident have demanded accountability from OceanGate. Dawood's family, in particular, expressed deep anguish, questioning whether the submersible was subjected to the rigorous safety checks expected of high-risk deep-sea vehicles. They have since called for more stringent regulations surrounding private submersible expeditions, pointing to the inadequacies in the oversight of such ventures. OceanGate, in its defence, has acknowledged the tragic outcome of the mission, yet maintained that its technology was sound. However, the company's CEO, Stockton Rush, who also perished in the implosion, had been previously warned about the unorthodox approach to safety that the firm followed. Rush reportedly ignored concerns from industry professionals and regulators, focusing instead on meeting the growing demand for expeditions to the Titanic wreck. This pursuit of speed and innovation, while admirable, ultimately cost lives. The findings have sparked wider conversations about the regulation of private deep-sea expeditions. While the ocean exploration industry continues to grow, the Titan tragedy has underscored the need for a more robust framework to ensure the safety of passengers and crew alike. Calls for stricter regulatory oversight, including the requirement of more frequent and detailed safety checks, have gained momentum. There is growing consensus among marine engineers and experts that submersibles should undergo rigorous independent inspections before embarking on any mission.
Gulf Today
23-07-2025
- Gulf Today
Families received wrong remains of Air India crash victims: Lawyer
Relatives of a British victim killed in last month's Air India crash received a casket that contained mixed remains, a lawyer representing several families and UK media said on Wednesday. The family of a separate victim received the remains of another person, according to James Healy-Pratt, who is representing 20 British families who lost loved ones in the disaster. A total of 241 people on board the London-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner died when the plane crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad in western India on June 12. Some 169 Indian passengers and 52 British nationals were killed, making it one of the deadliest plane crashes in terms of the number of British fatalities. Several people on the ground also died while only one passenger, British citizen Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, survived the crash. Firefighters carry a victim's body after the Air India flight 171 crashed in a residential area. File / AFP Healy-Pratt told the Press Association news agency that the return of victims' remains had been marred by serious errors, which had been identified following a probe by a British coroner. "In the first two caskets that were repatriated, in one of the caskets, there was co-mingling of DNA which did not relate to the deceased in that casket or the casket that accompanied it," he said. The lawyer added the coroner was then "able to determine that one particular loved one was not at all who the family thought they were." Miten Patel, whose mother Shobhana Patel died along with her husband in the disaster, told the BBC that "other remains" were found in her casket after her body was returned to Britain. Health workers shift the body of a victim, who died in the plane crash, to a cold storage at a hospital, in the aftermath of an Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crash during take-off from an airport, in Ahmedabad, India, June 13, 2025. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi "People were tired and there was a lot of pressure. But there has to be a level of responsibility that you're sending the right bodies to the UK," he told the broadcaster. The Daily Mail newspaper first reported two cases in which the wrong remains were apparently returned to families in Britain. India's foreign ministry said all remains "were handled with utmost professionalism and with due regard for the dignity of the deceased." "We are continuing to work with the UK authorities on addressing any concerns related to this issue," the statement added. Agence France-Presse
Khaleej Times
22-07-2025
- Khaleej Times
Air India says no issues found in Boeing 737 fuel control switches
Air India has completed precautionary inspections on the locking mechanism of the Fuel Control Switch (FCS) on all its Boeing 737 aircraft, with no issues found, the airline said on Tuesday. The probe into the Air India flight that crashed and killed 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground, is centred around the fuel control switches on the Boeing 787 jetliner. A preliminary report into the tragedy depicted confusion in the cockpit shortly before the jetliner crashed, after the plane's engine fuel cutoff switches almost simultaneously flipped, starving the engines of fuel. Days earlier, Air India announced the completion of similar precautionary checks across its fleet of Boeing 787 aircraft and revealed that no issues were detected. Air India operates a fleet of Boeing 787 twin-aisle jets on its long-haul operations, while low-cost unit Air India Express operates the Boeing 737 single-aisle jets. A final report into the incident is expected within a year of the accident. Air India reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the highest standards of operational safety and ensuring full regulatory compliance across its network. What are the FCSs? The FCSs regulate fuel flow into a plane's engines. They are used by pilots to start or shut down engines on the ground or to manually shut down or restart engines if an engine failure occurs during a flight. Aviation experts say a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches that feed the engines. But if moved, the effect would be immediate, cutting off engine power. There are independent power systems and wiring for the fuel cutoff switches and the fuel valves controlled by those switches, according to US aviation safety expert John Cox. The switches are spring-loaded to remain in position. To change one from run to cutoff, a pilot has to first pull the switch up and then move it from run to cutoff or vice versa. There are two modes: 'CUTOFF' and 'RUN'.
