Arabian Post Staff -Dubai
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.
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.
