Get you up to speed: Inside the Air India crash simulation that ‘casts doubt on pilot suicide theory’ | News UK
New footage from a law firm has challenged the pilot suicide theory behind the Air India crash that killed 260 people, including 52 British nationals, during its flight from Ahmedabad to London on June 12 last year. The firm, representing 130 victims’ families, stated that their test results refute the timeline provided by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, which suggested the Boeing 787’s fuel switches had cut off immediately after take-off.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has postponed the release of its final report on the crash to October, having previously slated it for June. A law firm representing a group of victims has questioned the accuracy of the AAIB’s findings, citing new simulation data that challenges assertions about the deployment timing of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT).
Mike Andrews has expressed frustration over the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s handling of the Air India crash investigation, stating he doubts the integrity of their findings and has urged the AAIB to reconsider their timeline. The AAIB is set to release its final report in October, and has confirmed it conducted its own flight simulation tests, suggesting a reassessment of their initial claims regarding the crash.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain whether the AAIB will provide truthful final conclusions regarding the crash and the validity of their preliminary findings.
New simulation challenges pilot suicide theory in Air India crash investigation
WTX has obtained new footage showing a simulation of the Air India crash which has cast doubt on the theory that pilot suicide was to blame.
A law firm recreated the Ahmedabad to London flight which went down on June 12 last year, killing 260 people – including 52 British nationals.
Reports have suggested that Indian investigators are leaning towards pilot action being behind the crash, but Mike Andrews told WTX his test results dispute their timeline of events.
The lawyer, who represents 130 victims and their families, said he didn’t know if India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) had told the truth so far about their findings, or if they’d tell the truth in their final report.
The Air India disaster unfolded when the Boeing 787 crashed into a medical hospital just minutes after it took off en route to London.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
In July 2025, India’s AAIB released a controversial preliminary report in which speculation that pilot self-sabotage or error was the cause.
The report said the Boeing’s fuel switches moved to the ‘cut-off’ position ‘immediately’ after take-off, halting fuel supply to the engine.
Conducting the tests
After the AAIB’s initial findings were widely criticised, including by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), Andrews’ law firm Beasley Allen decided to do their own tests.
They brought in pilots into France and conducted a series of flight tests on the highest level D simulator.
Their focus was on one crucial detail: the back-up generator used as an emergency power source on the 787, called the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which rotates in the airstream to provide power when other systems fail.
The AAIB’s preliminary report claims that the RAT was providing hydraulic power within five seconds of the fuel switches being cut off.
However, the bombshell test data analysis appears to show that the RAT would need 14 to 18 seconds to provide power.
That would mean the emergency mechanism was deployed before the fuel was cut off, potentially when the aircraft was even on the ground.
Indeed, grainy footage presented by the lawyers appears to show the RAT extended while the plane was on the runway.
A visible small hump on the underside the plane appears to be the RAT, Andrews suggested
Andrews said the timings of the AAIB report ‘never made sense’ and that the AAIB’s argument about when the RAT deployed was ‘not accurate’.
His continued: ‘We feel confident based on our testing that something else is happening.
‘It’s either going to require the AAIB to revise their timeline or they’re going to have to come out and say they made a mistake.’
The discovery has not allowed Andrews and his team to pinpoint what led to the crash as there are ‘so many things that can cause’ the RAT to deploy.
The lawyer has been sceptical of the pilot suicide theory, calling it ‘just rank speculation and conjecture’ in an interview with WTX last year.
He has now written to India’s AAIB, as well as the US Department of Transportation and UK officials with his findings.
In the letter – seen by WTX – he told investigators: ‘Taken together these pieces of evidence tend to indicate that the RAT deployment (a potential symptom of electrical system failure) was not caused by alleged pilot induced fuel system changes.’
The AAIB was expected to release their final report in June this year, but have now pledged to publish their conclusions on the crash in October.
They have also told India’s Supreme Court that they have conducted their own flight simulation tests, according to India’s The Economic Times.
Mike Andrews says he doesn’t know if India AAIB have told the truth so far (Picture: Luke Alsford)
Andrews said: ‘That is hugely significant because if you are so convinced in the pilot suicide narrative, why are you running expensive testing?
‘It just means they have no faith in their theory. I am glad that they are doing these tests.’
Despite this, when asked if he thought the AAIB would tell the public the truth about the Air India crash, Andrews said: ‘I have no way of knowing.
‘I will say that over a year after the accident, we’ve not heard them backup from this suicide narrative at all. That is troubling to me.
‘If I were confident that they were going to provide us with truth, we would not have had to go do our own tests.’
Asked if he thought the AAIB had told the truth so far, Andrews stayed silent for 16 seconds before answering: ‘I don’t know’.
The lawyer said the victims and their families who he represents were ‘understandably frustrated’ with how the investigation has unfolded.
He added: ‘We’re all looking at the AAIB to see what they’re going to tell us, what their testing is going to show, what position they’re going to take and if their theory is provable or not.’
What has Boeing said?
Boeing has consistently maintained that the 787 is safe, saying the firm’s exhaustive testing procedures on aircraft ensure this is the case.
The company has told numerous outlets it would defer to India’s AAIB to provide information about the investigation.
The AAIB defended its interim report shortly after publication. It insisted that it was not meant to direct blame towards the pilots or to encourage anyone to draw conclusions, which it called ‘irresponsible’.
It said in a statement in July: ‘The purpose of AAIB’s investigation and preliminary report is to provide information about ‘WHAT’ happened. The preliminary report has to be seen in this light.
‘At this stage, it is too early to reach to any definite conclusions. The investigation by AAIB is still not complete. The final investigation report will come out with root causes and recommendations.’
The investigative body said it has a ‘flawless record’ from looking into 92 accidents and 111 serious incidents since 2012.
Air India’s boss also defended the results of the AAIB’s interim report in September, saying: ‘For the moment, the preliminary report indicates nothing wrong with the aircraft, nothing wrong with the engines, nothing wrong with the airlines operation, but we’ve taken a significant safety pause to ensure all of our practices and procedures are fully embedded, and people are fully embracing a new normal of even extra focus on safety, and the focus continues to be on the people that were affected.’
Air India, Tata Group and India’s AAIB have been approached for comment.
Comment now
Comments
Add WTX as a Preferred Source on Google