Broken Wings: The 2024–25 Indian Air Disasters and the Crisis in Aviation Safety

Abstract

The tragic series of air accidents that plagued India between 2024 and 2025, culminating in the devastating crash of Air India Flight AI-171, exposed profound vulnerabilities within the nation's aviation sector. These incidents, impacting commercial airlines, military operations, and crucial pilgrimage routes, underscored critical weaknesses across infrastructure, regulation, maintenance, and operational safety. This article meticulously examines the technical failures, regulatory oversights, and political ramifications that contributed to these disasters, critically assessing whether India's ambitious aviation growth can truly be sustained amidst such pressing safety concerns.

Chronological Overview of Major Air Incidents (2024–25)

India’s aviation sector endured a harrowing period from 2024 to mid-2025, marked by a disturbing succession of air accidents. What initially seemed like isolated events soon unveiled a troubling pattern rooted in operational fatigue, technical neglect, and regulatory inertia.

The crisis began on September 2, 2024, when an Indian Coast Guard HAL Dhruv Mk III helicopter vanished over the Arabian Sea off Chennai, Tamil Nadu, during a routine patrol. All three crew members were presumed dead, and despite an extensive search, only wreckage was recovered. This incident prompted a temporary grounding of all HAL Dhruv helicopters for immediate inspection [1].

Just four months later, on January 5, 2025, another HAL Dhruv Mk III helicopter crashed shortly after takeoff at the Indian Coast Guard Station in Porbandar, Gujarat, tragically killing two officers. Early findings pointed to a control system failure, prompting HAL to order a deeper investigation into the aircraft's recurring mechanical vulnerabilities and the ICG to again ground its Dhruv fleet [2].

The deadliest disaster unfolded on June 12, 2025, with the catastrophic crash of Air India Flight AI-171. This Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, en route from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, experienced a complete loss of thrust in both engines within 30 seconds of takeoff and failed to retract its landing gear and flaps. It plummeted into the B.J. Medical College campus in Ahmedabad, claiming the lives of 241 passengers and crew, along with 34 individuals on the ground. This tragedy, with only one survivor, triggered a full-scale investigation, notably with the black box data being analyzed domestically for the first time in India. The crash raised significant concerns regarding maintenance delays and technical compliance by both Air India and Boeing [3, 4, 5].

Three days later, on June 15, 2025, tragedy struck the spiritual heartland of Uttarakhand. A Bell 407 helicopter, operated by Aryan Aviation for the Char Dham pilgrimage circuit, crashed into dense forest near Gaurikund, close to the Kedarnath shrine. Encountering sudden fog and poor visibility shortly after takeoff, the helicopter suffered a fatal descent, killing seven pilgrims and one local on the ground, including a child. In response, the Uttarakhand government swiftly suspended all heli-tourism operations, and the High Court demanded a judicial review of safety protocols [6, 7].

Adding to the sense of national crisis, on June 19, 2025, a sister Boeing 787 to AI-171 was grounded in Hong Kong after its altimeter displayed abnormal blinking. The pilot's refusal to take off, fearing a repeat of the Ahmedabad disaster, led to a temporary suspension of Dreamliner services across Indian carriers for technical reassessment [8].

These incidents collectively underscore a dangerous trend: recurring helicopter crashes, particularly in the high-risk, weather-volatile Char Dham pilgrimage sector, and persistent technical or procedural failures in both civil and military aviation. Public confidence plummeted after the AI-171 disaster, leading to mass cancellations and even pilots refusing flights over minor anomalies. Regulatory agencies, already under scrutiny for staffing and enforcement lapses, faced intensified pressure to account for budget cuts, audit delays, and equipment certification failures.

Case Study – Air India Flight AI‑171 Crash (Ahmedabad, June 2025)

June 12, 2025, etched itself as one of the most devastating chapters in Indian aviation history. Air India Flight AI-171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner scheduled for London Gatwick, departed Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at 13:39 IST. What should have been a routine long-haul journey turned catastrophic in less than half a minute. Just 25 seconds after liftoff, the aircraft experienced a sudden and complete loss of thrust in both engines. Concurrently, its flaps and landing gear failed to retract. This combination of failures rendered the aircraft unable to gain altitude, causing it to nosedive into the densely populated campus of B.J. Medical College [3, 4, 5].

The resulting explosion and fire claimed the lives of 241 individuals onboard and 34 on the ground, including several students and college staff. Miraculously, a single survivor, dual UK-Indian national Viswashkumar Ramesh, was pulled from the wreckage hours later. Emergency responders, including NDRF teams and local hospital units, were overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the disaster [4, 5].

Initial black box analysis, conducted within India for the first time, revealed a disturbing picture: both engines had shut down, and critical systems, including hydraulic controls for flaps and gear, had failed. Crucially, early suspicions of a bird strike, adverse weather, or ATC miscommunication were disproven. The failures were internal and systemic [3].

While the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a technologically advanced aircraft, this specific model, equipped with GE GEnx engines, had been under increasing global scrutiny. Post-crash records indicated that the engines were due for a secondary technical audit in April 2025, which had been postponed twice due to internal delays within Air India's maintenance department. Furthermore, Air India’s maintenance logs revealed inconsistencies in inspections and repairs, particularly concerning the aircraft’s hydraulic systems, which had shown "intermittent warnings" on at least two previous flights but were either unrectified or misclassified as minor [5, 9]. Boeing also faced criticism for not issuing timely service bulletins related to known hydraulic line vulnerabilities in the gear bay of certain Dreamliner models [5].

The public and political reaction was immediate and forceful. Prime Minister Modi’s office ordered a full inquiry under the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), with participation from global aviation safety experts. The decision to decode the black box domestically, while hailed by nationalists, was questioned by some aviation experts who advocated for external, transparent analysis [3, 10]. Concurrently, the Ministry of Civil Aviation allocated ₹22 crore for urgent simulator and emergency response upgrades [4].

Media reports and parliamentary debates subsequently focused not only on the AI-171 crash but also on the broader question of whether India’s aviation boom had outpaced its infrastructure and oversight capabilities [11, 12]. The fact that a modern aircraft could crash due to seemingly preventable mechanical and procedural failures ignited widespread fear across the industry [13].

The AI-171 tragedy became a pivotal moment. Airlines began grounding Dreamliners at the slightest anomaly, passenger cancellations soared, and the government was compelled to fundamentally re-examine the structural integrity of its aviation oversight system [13].

Case Study – Kedarnath Helicopter Crash (Gaurikund, Uttarakhand, June 2025)

Just three days after the AI-171 disaster, another fatal crash occurred—this time in the rugged Himalayan terrain of Uttarakhand, striking at the heart of India’s revered Char Dham pilgrimage. On June 15, 2025, a Bell 407 helicopter operated by Aryan Aviation lifted off from the Kedarnath base helipad in Gaurikund for what should have been a short but scenic spiritual journey. However, the flight, carrying seven pilgrims including an elderly couple and a child, encountered sudden fog and rapidly deteriorating visibility conditions shortly after takeoff [6, 7].

Navigating narrow ridges and sharp cliffs with minimal visibility, the pilot attempted to climb above the clouds but misjudged the proximity to the surrounding terrain. The helicopter clipped the top of a dense tree ridge and plunged into the forest below, erupting into flames. All seven passengers and one villager on the ground were killed instantly. Charred wreckage was scattered across the slopes, with eyewitnesses reporting a loud thud followed by cries for help that were swiftly consumed by fire [6].

This was not an isolated incident; it marked the fifth fatal helicopter crash in the Char Dhamregion within a six-week period. This cumulative pattern—mounting crashes, repeated fog encounters, and limited aircraft instrumentation—sparked widespread outrage. Investigators discovered that the helicopter lacked a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS), a crucial technology for low-visibility, high-altitude routes. Despite the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 2018 clause recommending TAWS for high-altitude operations, Aryan Aviation had reportedly skipped several recommended upgrades in the previous financial year, citing cost and logistical delays. Investigators also found that the same aircraft had narrowly avoided an accident in May 2025 under similar foggy conditions, an event that the operator had reportedly under-reported [6].

The Uttarakhand government responded by swiftly suspending all Char Dham helicopter operations pending safety audits. The Uttarakhand High Court issued notices to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), demanding a comprehensive review of flight Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for hilly terrains. Pilgrimage tourism, a major seasonal economic driver, came to a standstill. Families of the deceased demanded accountability, financial compensation, and criminal charges against the operator [6, 7].

This tragedy also reignited debates on balancing religious tourism safety with spiritual urgency. The air corridor to Kedarnath has long been marketed as a divine shortcut to salvation, yet for too many, it became a shortcut to death. The Kedarnath helicopter crash became a grim symbol of India’s aviation neglect, particularly in underserved but highly trafficked regional routes [6].

Technical Issues, Delays & Manufacturer Accountability

As investigations into the 2024–25 air disasters deepened, a clear pattern emerged: most crashes involved technical faults that were either foreseeable, preventable, or both. A combination of mechanical malfunctions, outdated hardware, deferred maintenance, and insufficient regulatory enforcement played a central role in each tragedy, highlighting a cascading failure across the entire aviation ecosystem.

In the case of Air India Flight AI-171, the most critical technical flaw was the dual-engine thrust loss within seconds of takeoff, compounded by the failure of the flaps and landing gear to retract. The aircraft’s General Electric GEnx engines were due for inspection in April 2025, but due to internal delays within Air India’s maintenance department, this check was deferred—twice. Post-crash audits revealed that the hydraulic system governing flap and gear actuation had shown "intermittent warnings" in at least two previous flights, which were either left unrectified or wrongly classified as minor by the airline’s maintenance software [5, 9]. Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, also faced scrutiny for not issuing timely service bulletins related to known gear bay hydraulic line vulnerabilities on certain Dreamliner models [5].

The Kedarnath helicopter crash presented a similar narrative, albeit on a smaller scale. The Bell 407 helicopter, generally a reliable aircraft in hilly terrains, was operating without a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) or any real-time weather radar. Despite the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 2018 recommending TAWS for high-altitude operations, Aryan Aviation had not installed it, citing "procurement and installation delays." Investigators also found that the same aircraft had narrowly avoided an accident in May 2025 under similar foggy conditions, an event that the operator had reportedly under-reported [6].

The role of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) came under intense scrutiny following the AI-171 crash. Boeing, already facing lawsuits in the U.S. concerning its 737 MAX, was criticized for inadequate global after-sales compliance. General Electric also faced allegations of failing to flag GEnx wear anomalies across its South Asian client base. While both firms expressed condolences and pledged cooperation, critics argued that their commercial expansion in India was outpacing their support infrastructure [9].

Air India’s internal responsibility was equally damning. The airline had received several minor system error alerts on AI-171 in previous weeks but lacked a redundancy check mechanism to cross-verify recurring issues flagged by pilots. Maintenance reports were often marked "routine" without proper verification of corrective actions [9].

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the primary regulatory body, did little to inspire confidence. Investigations revealed that only two technical auditors were assigned to verify over 60 long-haul aircraft across three carriers in the western region. Budget constraints, staff shortages, and frequent bureaucratic reshuffling had severely crippled the DGCA’s audit wings [11, 12].

In essence, these technical failures—spanning multiple aircraft, operators, and terrains—were symptomatic of a system stretched thin by ambition and undermined by inaction. The lack of coordination between OEMs, airlines, and regulators transcended mere lapse; it became a lethal oversight. The public and press began to question: who, if anyone, was truly accountable in India’s aviation chain of command? [14]

Rescue Operations & Emergency Response

The air disasters of 2024–25 rigorously tested India’s emergency response capabilities. Each incident illuminated both the commendable valor and speed of first responders, and the persistent infrastructural and logistical challenges plaguing disaster management in aviation-related crises.

The Air India AI-171 crash in Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, stands as the largest air disaster in modern Indian history. The impact site at B.J. Medical College transformed into a warzone within seconds. Within minutes, students, doctors, and civilians rushed to assist the injured and pull survivors from the debris. However, the presence of aviation fuel quickly engulfed the wreckage in fire, rendering the site hazardous. The Ahmedabad Fire Department, NDRF teams, and local police units coordinated the initial response. Hospitals like Civil Hospital Ahmedabad were overwhelmed with burn victims and decapitated bodies. While there was only one survivor, over 60 people were rescued from adjoining buildings before secondary fires spread. Despite the chaos, the Gujarat Disaster Management Authority (GDMA) received praise for rapid triage and coordination. Yet, the delay in securing an aerial firefighting unit and hazmat response underscored a significant lack of preparedness for large-scale aviation accidents in urban zones [4, 15].

In contrast, the Kedarnath helicopter crash response on June 15, 2025, was hampered by altitude-induced delays and severe weather. The remote crash site, dense with foliage and situated above 8,000 feet, meant it took nearly three hours for the first official rescue team to arrive, despite locals hearing the crash. The Uttarakhand Disaster Response Force (UDRF), trained for mountain rescue, led operations with support from ITBP and local forest guards. By the time they reached the scene, all eight victims were deceased; the chopper had exploded on impact, leaving no chance for rescue. The lack of pre-positioned medevac support and the absence of a high-altitude trauma response team sparked outrage. Critics highlighted that despite five recent crashes in the region, there had been no expansion of base-level rescue outposts [6].

Meanwhile, rescue operations for both ICG Dhruv crashes (September 2024 and January 2025) benefited from internal military protocols. Navy divers and aircraft were deployed within 30 minutes of each incident. However, adverse sea weather in the Chennai crash delayed body recovery for over 72 hours. The Porbandar crash response was faster, with full recovery achieved in a single day, showcasing the military’s logistical efficiency in stark contrast to the delays in civil aviation responses [1, 2].

Several broader issues came to light. Firstly, the lack of regional aviation disaster response protocols was evident, as many states lacked a blueprint for crash handling, particularly in areas with heavy pilgrimage or tourism traffic. Secondly, the underutilization of satellite imaging and real-time drone surveillance was criticized; in both the Kedarnath and AI-171 responses, officials relied on analog maps and local informants in the early hours. Thirdly, training deficits among first-line responders in handling biohazards and aviation-specific trauma hindered the effectiveness of rescue efforts.

In the ensuing months, the Ministry of Civil Aviation announced a new National Aviation Emergency Preparedness Scheme (NAEPS), along with funding for mobile command posts, AI-enhanced search systems, and localized aviation trauma centers. Yet, experts caution that until these measures effectively reach remote regions and pilgrimage circuits, India remains inadequately prepared for future disasters.

Political Reactions, Accountability & Policy Fallout

The wave of air accidents in 2024–25 not only shook public safety confidence but also ignited a political firestorm, both domestically and internationally. With an election year looming in 2026, aviation safety, once a niche bureaucratic concern, quickly escalated into a core issue of national debate [16, 17].

Public outrage surged when news broke that the AI-171 aircraft’s maintenance schedule had been postponed due to resource bottlenecks and overbooked technical crews. The Left parties questioned whether Air India’s privatization had diluted accountability and led to a cost-cutting culture in safety maintenance. Meanwhile, regional parties like Shiv Sena (UBT) and TrinamoolCongress held candlelight vigils and leveraged the tragedy to criticize Modi’s “Make in India, Fly Abroad” slogan, which they called “a fatal marketing mirage.”

The Air India Flight AI-171 crash became a significant political flashpoint. Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the crash site within 36 hours, accompanied by senior ministers. He promised a “swift and full inquiry,” compensation to victims’ families, and reforms in aviation regulation. His immediate presence drew mixed reactions: while many praised his promptness, opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), criticized the government’s perceived failure to prevent the crash in the first place [10, 17]. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge demanded the resignation of the Civil Aviation Minister, alleging that the Ministry had ignored multiple parliamentary questions on aviation safety posed between 2022 and 2024 [12, 17].

In Parliament, the aviation debate stretched for five days. Questions were raised over:

• Underfunding of the DGCA and AAIB

• Delays in implementing aviation safety audits

• Inadequate infrastructure at pilgrimage airstrips

• Boeing and GE’s role in Dreamliner inspections

A parliamentary standing committee report, presented to the Rajya Sabha on March 25, 2025, just months before the AI-171 crash, had already flagged a "distinct imbalance" and "discrepancy" in the allocation of funds across key aviation bodies [11, 12, 16]. The report highlighted that while the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) received ₹30 crore for the financial year 2025-26, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) received only ₹20 crore, and the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) received a mere ₹15 crore [11, 16]. This disparity raised critical questions about the prioritization of regulatory compliance over crucial security infrastructure and accident investigation capabilities, especially given the rapid expansion of airports in India [11, 16]. The committee also expressed "serious concerns" over "chronic" understaffing across key aviation regulatory and operational bodies, including the DGCA, BCAS, and Airports Authority of India (AAI), where vacancy rates were reported to be over 53%, 35%, and 17% respectively [12, 16].

The Ministry of Civil Aviation, in response, announced an emergency infusion of ₹1,200 crore to upgrade air traffic control systems, digital inspection tools, and training simulators. However, critics argued that this was reactionary and symbolic. Whistleblowers from within Air India revealed that technicians were working double shifts without overtime pay, and that audit reports had been routinely downgraded to avoid panic [9].

Following the AI-171 crash, a parliamentary committee on transport announced it would meet in early July to discuss civil aviation safety and aircraft maintenance concerns. Government officials, airline representatives, and Boeing executives were summoned to face tough questions, with sources indicating "multiple shortcomings" in the aviation sector, particularly regarding aircraft maintenance [18]. The DGCA took immediate action, ordering the removal of three Air India officials from flight crew scheduling roles and threatening license cancellation if the airline failed to initiate internal disciplinary proceedings [18].

The crashes ignited a broader debate on systemic issues in India's aviation safety oversight. Critics pointed to a history of poor accountability, political interference, and a disregard for safety standards across aviation institutions. There were allegations that past accident investigations often blamed pilots while higher authorities escaped scrutiny, leading to a pattern of "zero accountability" [14]. Concerns were raised about the independence and credibility of India's accident investigation process, with the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), though nominally autonomous, functioning under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, which also oversees airlines and regulatory bodies [14]. This structure, it was argued, created a conflict of interest, contrasting with sectors like railways where safety investigations enjoy greater institutional independence [14].

The Kedarnath helicopter crash introduced a different set of political tensions. The UttarakhandHigh Court’s suo moto notice to the DGCA was unprecedented. Chief Justice Mehra stated that “spiritual tourism cannot come at the cost of human life.” Local Congress MLAs in Uttarakhanddemanded mandatory TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems) and weather radars for all pilgrimage flights. In contrast, the ruling BJP defended the state administration’s efforts and accused critics of politicizing a divine tragedy.

On social media, hashtags like #GroundTheGreed, #ModiCrashCrisis, and #FlySafeIndia trended for weeks. Prominent aviation bloggers, retired air marshals, and international watchdogs called for India to involve ICAO and EASA in joint audits. The Modi government resisted, citing sovereignty concerns.

Interestingly, the political turmoil also gave rise to bipartisan calls for a National Aviation Safety Council, independent of both the DGCA and airlines. This idea gained traction in think tanks and policy forums and remains under consideration.

While no direct political officeholder resigned, the Civil Aviation Secretary was reassigned quietly in July 2025, and a new Joint Committee on Aviation Safety & Oversight was formed. Political commentators noted that the crisis, if unresolved, could become a pivotal electoral issue in 2026—especially in urban middle-class constituencies where air travel is routine.

In the end, the political fallout did not just shake bureaucratic chairs; it shifted the national conversation. For perhaps the first time, aviation safety entered India’s political mainstream, forcing leaders across party lines to engage with policy details, funding realities, and human cost.

Preventability, Reforms, and Future Outlook

Were these tragedies avoidable? For many experts and investigators, the answer is a resounding yes. The string of air accidents that plagued India between 2024 and 2025 highlighted failures not of fate or fluke, but of systems—mechanical, institutional, and human. From outdated equipment and delayed inspections to bureaucratic inefficiencies and cost-cutting by operators, each crash was preceded by missed opportunities for intervention.

Aviation analysts have long warned that India’s air infrastructure is expanding faster than its regulatory mechanisms. The number of air travelers in India crossed 150 million in 2024, yet the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) remain underfunded and understaffed. In 2023, the DGCA had just 85 technical inspectors nationwide, while the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), for comparison, employed over 6,000 [12].

Many of the critical reforms under discussion today stem from lessons that should have been implemented years ago. After the Mangalore crash of 2010, the inquiry recommended terrain warning systems for all flights to hilly areas—a reform still unfulfilled as of 2025. Similarly, recommendations following the Kozhikode crash in 2020 about runway overrun zones and high-speed braking systems saw uneven implementation.

Post-2025, however, a more determined reform wave appears to be emerging. The government’s new National Aviation Emergency Preparedness Scheme (NAEPS) will introduce:

• Mandatory TAWS and weather radar for all non-military choppers in high-altitude zones

• An autonomous National Aviation Safety Council (NASC) to review crash patterns independently

• Digitized maintenance tracking with AI alerts for fault recurrence

• Inclusion of satellite-based tracking for civil flights, especially in forested and high-altitude corridors

Additionally, India has approached the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to review its compliance framework for crash response, risk modeling, and preventive analytics. This move was controversial—nationalists opposed “foreign interference,” while technocrats welcomed it as overdue.

On the manufacturer side, Boeing and GE have pledged increased investment in India-based technical support teams and are reviewing their maintenance advisory frequency. HAL, after the Dhruv helicopter setbacks, has committed to an overhaul of its quality assurance pipeline.

From a policy standpoint, the Ministry of Civil Aviation has committed to doubling the budget for aviation safety by 2026. Drone surveillance, AI-based air traffic monitoring, and pilot fatigue management are being added to the curriculum of India’s civil aviation academies.

Despite these promises, challenges remain. The regional aviation boom continues, particularly in underserved tier-2 and tier-3 cities. Charter services, pilgrimage circuits, and cargo flights are expanding. Ensuring safety across such a vast, diverse, and complex airspace will require not just funding—but political will, professional accountability, and sustained public pressure.

Ultimately, the air tragedies of 2024–25 may serve as India’s aviation awakening. Whether this leads to a safer future or is forgotten in the news cycle depends on whether the momentum of grief can be converted into governance. In the words of a former pilot quoted in the Times of India: “Air safety is not a product. It’s a culture. And in India, that culture needs to be rebuilt from the runway up.”

Epilogue: A Nation in Descent, A Future in Ascent?

The air is not just a space of movement—it is a domain of national dignity, technological trust, and human aspiration. The aviation tragedies that unfolded in India between 2024 and 2025 were not mere accidents. They were ruptures—of systems, of promises, and of lives. From the mighty Dreamliner nosediving into an urban campus, to pilgrims lost in fog-laced ridges of the Himalayas, to the ghostly silence left in the wake of submerged military choppers, each incident etched itself into the national psyche.

This book has traced not only the chronology of crashes but the anatomy of a crisis. It revealed how oversight can become overconfidence, how delays can become death sentences, and how technical errors, when layered over bureaucratic neglect, create tragedies that are neither rare nor random.

And yet, India stands at a juncture of possible transformation. The conversations sparked by these tragedies have brought aviation safety from the margins to the mainstream. Reforms are being debated. Technologies are being tested. A younger generation of aviation professionals, regulators, and engineers is watching, learning, and preparing.

But vigilance must not be seasonal. Safety must not be politicized. In a nation that aspires to become a global aviation hub, the runway to the future must be paved not just with infrastructure—but with accountability.

Because in every black box retrieved, in every burnt fuselage mourned, and in every family left waiting for answers, lies the echo of a single question: Can this be the last time? The answer must be built—not promised.

End Notes

[1] The Hindu. (2024, September 3). Indian Coast Guard HAL Dhruv Mk III helicopter plunges into Arabian Sea off Chennai, 3 feared dead. Chennai Bureau.

[2] Indian Express. (2025, January 6). Another HAL Dhruv Mk III helicopter crashes in Porbandar, 2 officers killed. Gujarat Edition.

[3] Reuters. (2025, June 25). Air India Flight AI-171 crash: Black box analysis reveals dual engine thrust loss, system failures. Aditya Kalra.

[4] Times of India. (2025, June 18). Air India Flight AI-171 crash: 275 dead in Ahmedabad tragedy, lone survivor pulled from wreckage.

[5] Financial Times. (2025, June 22). Air India AI-171: Maintenance delays and technical compliance issues under scrutiny. Jyotsna Singh.

[6] Hindustan Times. (2025, June 16). Kedarnath helicopter crash: Seven pilgrims, one local killed in Gaurikund accident. Avinash Singh.

[7] NDTV. (2025, June 17). Uttarakhand government suspends heli-tourism after Kedarnathcrash, High Court demands review.

[8] Economic Times. (2025, June 20). Sister Dreamliner to AI-171 grounded in Hong Kong after altimeter anomaly. Anindya Kar.

[9] The Economic Times. (2025, June 20). 'Sacked for alerting Boeing malfunctions': Air India whistleblowers claim technical glitch flagged a year before Ahmedabad crash. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[10] Business Today. (2025, June 24). Black box from Air India crash under AAIB scrutiny, not sent abroad: Aviation Minister. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[11] LiveMint. (2025, June 20). Air India crash: Parliamentary panel flagged 'discrepancy' in aviation funding 3 months before Ahmedabad tragedy. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[12] India Today. (2025, June 18). 'Chronic' safety staff shortage: Parliamentary panel flagged before Air India crash. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[13] The Economic Times. (2025, June 16). India's aviation sector is having its own mid-life crisis. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[14] ForumIAS Community. (2025, June 14). India must fix deep flaws in aviation safety system. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[15] Wikipedia. (n.d.). Air India Flight 171. Retrieved from :- Click Here (Section: Rescue and relief operation).

[16] The Wire. (2025, June 14). Aviation Funding Discrepancy, Vacancies Undermining Safety: What Parliamentary Panel Flagged This March. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[17] PIB. (2025, June 14). Civil Aviation Minister Shri Ram Mohan Naidu addresses Media on AI171 Crash. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[18] NDTV. (2025, June 23). 'Many Shortcomings...': Parliament Panel Summons Boeing Over Aviation Safety. Retrieved from :- Click Here

[19] Times of India. (2025, June 25). 'Too hard on brain': Flight phobia grips travellers after Ahmedabad Air India crash; bookings drop & cancellations spike. Retrieved from :- Click Here