Introduction
The BBC’s recent coverage of the tragic Air India crash, which resulted in the deaths of at least 270 individuals aboard flight AI171, has sparked public concern and scrutiny—particularly surrounding statements made by Air India’s chairman, N Chandrasekaran. A specific concern raised by readers revolves around the implementation and data capture capabilities of FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control), especially since both engines were reported to have “clean” histories. In this fact-check, we investigate the accuracy and completeness of the claims made regarding the engines’ condition, FADEC functionality, and the investigation’s current transparency.
Historical Context
Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner departing from Ahmedabad to London, crashed shortly after takeoff in June 2025. The GEnx-1B engines used on Boeing 787 aircraft have been a technological leap in aviation, known for fuel efficiency and digital monitoring capabilities through FADEC systems. As India’s air travel industry expands rapidly, incidents like these bring heightened attention not only due to scale and tragedy but because airline safety practices are under increased scrutiny post-privatization and amidst added geopolitical turbulence affecting flight operations.
Fact-Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: “Both engines of the aircraft had ‘clean’ histories.”
N Chandrasekaran stated in an interview that both engines—one newly installed in March 2025 and the other last serviced in 2023—had “clean histories.” In aviation terminology, a “clean history” typically refers to a lack of flagged anomalies or maintenance issues prior to the incident. However, the use of this term can be misleading without transparency around FADEC data and physical inspections.
Public FAA and engine manufacturer guidelines for the GEnx-1B engines confirm that these engines are monitored continuously through FADEC systems, which detect and log irregularities in performance metrics. Reuters and FlightGlobal both report that investigations are still underway into the data pulled from the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, and no official statement has yet confirmed that the engines performed normally up until the crash.
While there’s no public record suggesting prior reported faults with either engine, labeling them as “clean” preemptively without full FADEC diagnostics disclosed is premature. Therefore, this statement lacks context and oversimplifies ongoing technical analyses.
Claim #2: “FADEC determines when servicing is needed by continuously monitoring engine health.”
True. The article correctly explains that FADEC supersedes traditional fixed maintenance intervals by using real-time data to monitor engine performance. According to technical manuals from General Electric, which manufactures the GEnx-1B engines, FADEC automatically adjusts engine parameters and provides alerts when components show signs of degradation or impending failure.
What’s missing from the article is a clarification on whether FADEC had flagged any unusual data prior to the crash. Since the flight recorders have been recovered, this information will become publicly available through the official crash report. But as of now, the system’s functionality is correctly described in the article, albeit lacking the most important piece: what FADEC actually recorded for flight AI171.
Claim #3: “The age of the engine has no bearing on its health, particularly in the case of Genx-1B engines.”
Accurate. This point was attributed to aviation expert Kishore Chinta, and it aligns with established industry norms. For modern jet engines like the GEnx-1B, condition-based maintenance—determined through both onboard digital monitoring systems like FADEC and scheduled physical inspections—are more relevant metrics of safety than age alone.
Engines even older than the ones on AI171 can perform flawlessly if maintained properly, while newer engines could still suffer faults due to manufacturing defects or unforeseen wear. Additionally, Life Limited Parts (LLPs), as mentioned by Chinta, are indeed managed on cycle counts—not age—verifying this aspect of the report as factually sound and appropriately explained.
Conclusion
The BBC article provides reasonably accurate technical descriptions regarding the engines and the FADEC monitoring system but stops short of offering critical information that would resolve growing public concerns—namely, did FADEC flag any anomalies before the crash? The claim that both engines had “clean histories” is technically plausible but lacks transparency and context about what FADEC recorded in real-time. Moreover, the article rightly notes the distinction between engine age and performance health, which helps readers understand the complexity of aircraft maintenance.
However, the framing of these points subtly downplays the possibility of mechanical fault or pre-existing performance issues—possibly to avoid public panic before investigators release conclusive findings. While bias here is not overtly partisan, the selective use of language like “clean history” introduces uncertainty if not backed by full disclosure. Until the black boxes are analyzed and data is publicly shared, taking assurances at face value calls for caution.
Take Action Now
Don’t let uncertainty cloud your understanding of important news. Download the DBUNK App to stay ahead of misinformation and gain access to trusted, real-time fact-checks and media insights.
Download the DBUNK App
