Families of victims from the tragic Air India Flight 171 disaster have launched a high-stakes lawsuit hits Boeing in the United States, raising questions about aviation safety flaws that could ripple across global carriers. The Air India crash families lawsuit, filed by relatives of four passengers killed in the June disaster, accuses Boeing and Honeywell of negligence over a faulty fuel switch design that allegedly doomed the Boeing 787 Dreamliner shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad.
This Air India crash families lawsuit underscores critical vulnerabilities in international aviation supply chains, particularly for South Asian airlines reliant on Western-manufactured aircraft. As Air India, a flagship carrier undergoing privatisation-led revival under the Tata Group, faces scrutiny, the case could prompt enhanced safety protocols across the region, potentially affecting routes to Europe and beyond while highlighting the human cost of unaddressed engineering risks.
The lawsuit was lodged on Tuesday, 16 September, 2025, in Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County, by the families of Kantaben Dhirubhai Paghadal, Naavya Chirag Paghadal, Kuberbhai Patel, and Babiben Patel, all passengers aboard the ill-fated flight. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful death, claiming the defendants’ inaction on known defects directly contributed to the catastrophe that claimed 260 lives.
Lawsuit Hits Boeing
The plaintiffs, represented by The Lanier Law Firm, argue that a defective fuel cutoff switch which was manufactured by Honeywell and integrated by Boeing positioned too close to the thrust levers, facilitated an inadvertent shut-off of engine fuel supply moments after departure. This, they contend, stripped the aircraft of vital thrust, transforming it into what one lawyer likened to a “250,000-pound lawn dart” hurtling towards disaster.
Benjamin Major, co-counsel at The Lanier Law Firm, emphasised the foreseeability of the tragedy. “It is shocking that Honeywell and Boeing both knew of this danger and did absolutely nothing to prevent the inevitable catastrophe that occurred on 12 June,” he stated in a firm release. He further compared the flaw to an unprotected emergency brake beside a car’s radio knob, noting that unlike automobiles, restarting jet engines demands precious minutes time the Air India flight sorely lacked.
The Air India crash families lawsuit draws on a 2018 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory, which flagged risks of the locking mechanism disengaging on fuel control switches across Boeing models, including the 787. Although non-mandatory, the bulletin urged inspections, yet the suit alleges neither Boeing nor Honeywell notified operators like Air India nor supplied corrective parts, despite awareness of the issue since the Dreamliner’s development.
Boeing has yet to respond directly to the Air India crash families lawsuit, but in the wake of the incident, the company deferred to India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). Boeing President andCEO Kelly Ortberg said on 12 June, 2025: “Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of the passengers and crew on board Air India Flight 171, as well as everyone affected in Ahmedabad. I have spoken with Air India Chairman N. Chandrasekaran to offer our full support, and a Boeing team stands ready to support the investigation led by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.”
Honeywell similarly offered no immediate comment on the proceedings, as per reports surrounding the Air India crash families lawsuit filings.
Background on the Air India Crash
Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner registered VT-ANB, departed Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad bound for London Gatwick on Thursday, 12 June, 2025, at 1:39 PM local time. The aircraft, aged 12 years with over 41,000 flight hours, lifted off from Runway 23 but plummeted less than a minute later, crashing 0.9 nautical miles from the runway end into buildings and trees, igniting a fierce blaze.
The AAIB’s preliminary report, released in July 2025, pinpointed the fuel cutoff as the pivotal failure: both engines’ switches flipped from “run” to “cut-off” within one second post-lift-off, slashing thrust. Cockpit voice recordings captured pilot confusion, with one querying, “Why did you cut off?” and the other retorting, “I did not do so.” One engine partially recovered, but deceleration proved irreversible, leading to impact at 8:09 AM UTC.
Of the 242 souls aboard, 230 passengers and 12 crew. 241 perished, including both pilots Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and co-pilot Clive Kundar, who had rested adequately pre-flight. An additional 19 ground fatalities brought the toll to 260, with one British passenger surviving serious injuries. Weather was clear, visibility 6,000 metres, and no bird strikes or maintenance lapses were evident.
Air India, in a statement, affirmed its co-operation: “We continue to fully co-operate with the AAIB and other authorities as their investigation progresses. Given the active nature of the investigation, we are unable to comment on specific details and refer all such enquiries to the AAIB.” The carrier has since curtailed wide-body international operations for safety reviews.
The FAA, addressing switch safety amid the Air India crash families lawsuit scrutiny, maintained: “The FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing airplane models, including the Model 787.” Air India’s CEO, Campbell Wilson, cautioned against hasty judgements, noting post-crash fleet checks revealed no anomalies.
This marked the first fatal hull loss for the 787 since 2011, amplifying calls for rigorous oversight in the Air India crash families lawsuit context.
Allegations and Broader Implications of the Air India Crash Families Lawsuit
Central to the Air India crash families lawsuit is the assertion that the fuel switch’s “high traffic” cockpit placement invited accidental activation, a risk exacerbated by potential absent or faulty locks. The suit posits Boeing and Honeywell prioritised costs over corrections, failing to issue warnings or replacements despite the 2018 advisory.
Legal experts view this Air India crash families lawsuit as a test case for holding manufacturers accountable under US tort law, potentially influencing similar claims from the 256 other bereaved families. It echoes past aviation litigations, like those post-Boeing 737 MAX crashes, but zeroes in on component-level culpability.
In South Asia, where Air India dominates long-haul travel, the lawsuit spotlights dependency on imported tech, urging regional bodies like the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to advocate for mandatory global fixes.
What’s Next
As the Air India crash families lawsuit advances, a comprehensive AAIB report slated for mid-2026 could furnish pivotal evidence, possibly spurring FAA-mandated upgrades and settlements. Meanwhile, the bereaved pursue justice, ensuring the memory of Flight 171 catalyses safer skies.
The Air India crash families lawsuit not only seeks redress but may redefine accountability in aviation, compelling Boeing and Honeywell to confront lingering design shadows from the 12 June tragedy.
Published in SouthAsianDesk, September 18th, 2025
Follow SouthAsianDesk on X, Instagram, and Facebook for insights on business and current affairs from across South Asia.
