The preliminary 15-page report on the crash of Air India flight AI171 was made public by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Saturday. The document offers a forensic reconstruction of the June 12 disaster—from engine performance and flap configuration to cockpit voice exchanges and the timeline of relight attempts. As is standard with aviation reports, it presents no conclusions, no blame, just facts, timings, and data. But before the black box could cool, some of the most influential newsrooms in the West had already finished their own reports—fictional ones. The BBC ran a breaking banner declaring: “Air India Crash: Pilot cut off fuel to engines – no fault with plane.” Reuters followed suit, highlighting that the fuel switches were moved but skipping over the fact that the cause remains undetermined. CNN chimed in with a piece that quoted analysts who suggested a “possible manual error” and described the incident as a “catastrophic lapse in cockpit protocol”—a term the official report never uses. American magazine Barron’s made it simpler, noting the fuel switch had a locking mechanism, and that no mechanical defect was found—a neat setup for the assumption that one of the pilots “must have” done it. Al Jazeera ran with: “Fuel switches cut off just before deadly Air India crash, early report says”, and helpfully added in the subtext that “accidental movement is highly unlikely”, according to experts. The New York Post, never one to underplay a mystery, quoted aviation commentators who “strongly suspect” cockpit error. Across the board, the story became the same: the plane was fine, the airline was fine, so it had to be the pilots. Why wait for an investigation when you can skip straight to the ending? No Blame In The Report, Plenty In The Coverage The AAIB report clearly documents that both engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF within a second. One pilot asked, “Why did you cutoff?” The other responded, “I didn’t.” Seconds later, both switches were moved back to RUN. One engine began to relight. Then the recording ends. The report does not say who moved the switches. It does not speculate on whether it was accidental, mechanical, or electrical. It simply notes what happened. Yet many of the Western headlines skipped the nuances entirely. The presence of a spring-loaded locking gate on the switch, meant to prevent accidental movement, was treated not as a safety feature but as a smoking gun. Domestic Voices Push Back The skewed coverage has drawn sharp reactions from across the political aisle in India. Amit Malviya, BJP IT Cell chief, called out what many saw as posthumous character assassination: “This isn’t journalism. It is opportunistic narrative-peddling at the cost of truth, dignity and basic decency.” The Western media’s coverage of the preliminary Air India crash report has, as usual, been a disgrace. Headlines like this one, and others including Reuters, border on slandering deceased pilots who are no longer here to defend themselves. This isn’t journalism. It is… https://t.co/8gNFOnXjKD — Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) July 12, 2025 Priyanka Chaturvedi, MP from Shiv Sena (UBT), was more scathing. She referred to the BBC as the “Boeing Bacchao Corporation”, a term that struck a chord in a year already littered with Boeing-related controversies—whistleblower claims, missing bolts, and federal probes. Boeing Bacchao Corporation aka BBC pic.twitter.com/nCSlHBpzLF — Priyanka Chaturvedi?? (@priyankac19) July 12, 2025 We’ve Seen This Film Before: MH370 If the framing feels familiar, it’s because it is. Back in 2014, when Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared, speculation filled the vacuum left by a missing aircraft. CNN aired round-the-clock theories implicating Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah. The Atlantic suggested the pilot’s depression was the motive. The New York Times leaned into unconfirmed simulator data. 60 Minutes assembled an entire special built on the pilot-as-villain narrative. There was one common problem: no evidence. And yet, in public imagination, largely shaped by Western headlines, the pilot became the prime suspect—and stayed that way, even as debris washed up and doubt mounted. More than a decade later, MH370 remains unsolved. But the media trial concluded long ago. What The Report Says (And What It Doesn’t) The AAIB report is a preliminary statement, not a final conclusion. It documented engine performance, voice recordings, control inputs, and relight attempts. It confirmed that one pilot appeared confused about the switch movement, but it stopped short of assigning blame or suggesting intentional action. It also noted: That the fuel switch locking mechanism has been subject to an FAA advisory, not a directive. That Air India replaced the throttle module twice in the past five years, but without any link to the fuel switch. That the crew acted to relight the engines within seconds. It does not say the aircraft was faultless, only that no technical fault has been found so far. It does not exonerate Boeing or General Electric (manufacturer of the GEnx-1B engines that power the Boeing 787 Dreamliner), only that no safety action has yet been recommended. In other words, it sticks to what it knows. Which is more than can be said for some of the coverage. ‘Don’t Rush To Conclusions,’ Says Aviation Minister The need for caution was also underlined by Union Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu, who told CNN-News18 that the AAIB’s findings were based on preliminary data, and that it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions at this stage. “Till the final report doesn’t come out, we should not reach any conclusion,” he said. Naidu praised the AAIB for handling a technically demanding investigation entirely within India, calling it a “mature and transparent job” that followed all international protocols. “It was a very challenging task—securing the black boxes, retrieving the data, and conducting the investigation entirely in India for the first time,” he noted. He also extended support to India’s aviation workforce, saying: “I truly believe we have the most wonderful workforce in terms of pilots and the crew in the whole world. Pilots and crew are the backbone of the aviation industry.” Verdict First, Evidence Later The black box data is still being examined. Interviews, metallurgical tests, systems analysis—all ongoing. Yet some media houses seem to have mistaken preliminary findings for final closure. As the investigation continues, a few desks overseas have already filed the final chapter, not based on the AAIB’s findings, but on their own flight of imagination. Because if a plane crashes and you don’t blame Boeing, someone else still has to take the fall.