Regulations & Safety
Air India Boeing 787 Fleet Grounding Demand Amid Safety Concerns
FIP calls to ground Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet after technical incidents and fatal crash raise safety and maintenance concerns.

Grounding Demands for Air India’s Boeing 787 Fleet: Analyzing Safety, Maintenance, and Industry Response
The recent call by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) to ground Air India’s entire fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft has brought the airline’s operational safety practices into sharp focus. This demand comes in the aftermath of a series of technical incidents, most notably the tragic crash of Air India flight AI-171 in June 2025, which was the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 787. The FIP’s letter to the Ministry of Civil Aviation highlights concerns over recurring technical malfunctions and questions the effectiveness of current maintenance regimes.
As India’s flagship carrier and one of the largest operators of the Boeing 787 in the region, Air India’s response and the ensuing regulatory scrutiny are of significant interest not just to the aviation sector, but to the traveling public and international regulators. The situation underscores the vital importance of robust safety oversight, transparent incident reporting, and the need for industry-wide dialogue on best practices in aircraft maintenance and operations.
This article examines the sequence of recent incidents, the divergent perspectives of pilots and airline management, and the broader implications for aviation safety standards in India and beyond.
Recent Incidents and the Federation of Indian Pilots’ Demands
Technical Events Triggering the Grounding Request
The immediate catalyst for the FIP’s demand was a pair of technical incidents involving Air India’s Boeing 787-8 aircraft in October 2025. On October 4, flight AI-117 from Amritsar to Birmingham experienced an “uncommanded” deployment of its Ram Air Turbine (RAT) during final approach. The RAT, an emergency power system, is designed to deploy only in the event of significant power loss. Despite the unexpected deployment, the aircraft landed safely and was cleared for service after inspection.
Just five days later, on October 9, flight AI-154 from Vienna to Delhi faced a sudden failure of its autopilot system, leading to multiple technical malfunctions. The aircraft was diverted to Dubai, where it underwent checks before resuming its journey. The FIP described these incidents as symptomatic of “poor serviceability” and “continuous electrical problems” within the fleet.
These incidents came on the heels of the catastrophic crash of flight AI-171 in June 2025. According to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), both engines on the 787-8 Dreamliner lost thrust after the fuel control switches moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” shortly after takeoff. The reason for this switch movement remains under investigation, but the event resulted in 260 fatalities, including 19 people on the ground.
The FIP contends that “repeated failures of Air India’s Boeing 787 planes, especially after the AI-171 crash, indicate deeper issues in the aircraft’s electrical systems and maintenance practices.”
Pilots’ Association Demands and Rationale
In its letter to Civil Aviation Minister K. Ram Mohan Naidu, the FIP articulated three primary demands: a thorough investigation into the recent incidents, grounding of all Boeing 787 aircraft for comprehensive inspection, and a special audit of Air India’s maintenance procedures by senior Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) officials. The pilots’ body argues that these steps are necessary to address what they describe as systemic technical issues and to restore confidence in the safety of the Dreamliner fleet.
The FIP has linked the rise in technical issues to Air India’s decision to bring maintenance operations in-house, suggesting that this transition may have contributed to lapses in aircraft serviceability. While the FIP’s concerns are rooted in operational experience, their position has sparked debate over whether the incidents reflect isolated events or deeper systemic challenges.
Notably, the FIP’s call to ground the entire fleet is an extraordinary measure, rarely seen in the industry outside of clear patterns of risk. The scale of the request, affecting 33 aircraft as of October 2025, underscores the seriousness with which the pilots’ body views the situation.
Air India’s Response and Preliminary Findings
Air India has categorically denied that flight AI-154 experienced an electrical failure, describing the diversion to Dubai as a response to a “technical issue.” Regarding the RAT deployment on AI-117, the airline’s preliminary investigation found that the event was “neither due to a system fault nor pilot action,” and characterized the deployment as “uncommanded,” consistent with similar events reported by Boeing across other airlines.
The airline emphasizes that safety remains its top priority and asserts that all incidents were promptly reported to the DGCA, with preliminary findings submitted as required. Air India has also highlighted that the aircraft involved in both incidents were inspected and cleared for service without identifying major faults.
This position reflects a broader industry tendency to distinguish between isolated technical events and systemic safety risks. Air India’s management maintains that the Dreamliner fleet remains safe to operate, pending the outcome of regulatory investigations.
“The deployment [of the RAT] was uncommanded and not attributed to a system fault or pilot error. Similar occurrences have been reported with other airlines operating the Boeing 787.”, Air India, preliminary investigation statement.
Regulatory Oversight and Industry Implications
Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) Actions
Following the AI-171 crash, the DGCA conducted a surveillance review of Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet. At that time, the regulator stated that the review “did not reveal any major safety concerns,” but ordered enhanced surveillance and additional maintenance checks as a precaution. The DGCA is reportedly investigating the October incidents involving flights AI-117 and AI-154, though it has not issued a direct public statement in response to the FIP’s latest letter.
The absence of a recent, detailed DGCA statement has contributed to uncertainty within the industry and among the public. Regulatory oversight is a critical component of aviation safety, and the evolving situation will likely test the DGCA’s ability to balance operational continuity with public confidence in air travel safety.
Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, has remained largely silent on the recent incidents, deferring comments to Air India. Following the AI-171 crash, Boeing expressed condolences and offered technical support for the investigation, but has not commented publicly on the October events.
Maintenance Practices and Systemic Concerns
The FIP’s assertion that technical issues have increased since Air India internalized its maintenance operations raises broader questions about best practices in airline maintenance management. While in-house maintenance can offer greater operational control, it also places significant responsibility on the airline to uphold rigorous safety and quality standards.
Industry experts note that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s advanced electrical systems, including its reliance on electrically driven components, require specialized knowledge and equipment for effective maintenance. The complexity of these systems, combined with the aircraft’s relatively recent introduction to service, can present challenges for airlines adapting their maintenance protocols.
While Air India maintains that its maintenance practices meet or exceed regulatory requirements, the FIP’s concerns highlight the importance of transparency, ongoing training, and independent audits in ensuring continued airworthiness.
“The core of the dispute appears to be a disagreement over the nature and severity of the technical issues, with the pilots’ union pointing to systemic electrical problems and the airline maintaining that the incidents are isolated and not due to electrical failure.”
Comparative Industry Perspective and Precedents
Globally, calls to ground entire fleets are not unprecedented, but they are typically reserved for situations where a clear and present danger to safety is established. For instance, the worldwide grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX in 2019 followed two fatal crashes with similar causes. In the case of Air India’s Boeing 787s, regulators have so far opted for targeted inspections and enhanced surveillance rather than a blanket grounding.
Other airlines operating the Boeing 787 have reported technical issues, including uncommanded RAT deployments, but there is no public evidence to suggest a widespread, systemic flaw affecting the global fleet. The situation in India is being closely watched by international regulators, given the potential for broader implications if additional evidence of systemic risk emerges.
The ongoing investigation by the AAIB into the AI-171 crash, and the DGCA’s surveillance of the 787 fleet, will likely shape future regulatory responses both in India and abroad. The case highlights the need for close coordination between airlines, regulators, manufacturers, and pilot associations to ensure that emerging risks are identified and addressed promptly.
Conclusion: Navigating Safety, Accountability, and Public Trust
The demand to ground Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet represents a significant moment in Indian aviation, reflecting heightened sensitivity to safety concerns in the wake of a major accident and subsequent technical incidents. The divergent perspectives of pilots, airline management, and regulators illustrate the complexity of maintaining public trust while ensuring operational continuity.
As investigations proceed, the industry will need to balance transparency, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making. The outcomes of the DGCA and AAIB reviews, as well as any independent audits, will be crucial in restoring confidence and setting benchmarks for future safety oversight. The situation underscores the ongoing evolution of aviation safety culture, where dialogue and vigilance are essential to safeguarding lives and reputations.
FAQ
What prompted the Federation of Indian Pilots to demand grounding of Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet?
The FIP’s demand followed two technical incidents in October 2025 and the fatal crash of flight AI-171 in June 2025. The pilots’ association cited repeated electrical and technical issues as the basis for its call.
How has Air India responded to these safety concerns?
Air India has denied claims of systemic electrical failures, stating that the incidents were isolated and that all affected aircraft were inspected and cleared for service. The airline maintains that safety is its top priority.
What actions are regulators taking?
The DGCA is investigating the October incidents and previously conducted enhanced surveillance of the Boeing 787 fleet following the June crash. No public statement has been issued regarding the FIP’s latest grounding demand as of October 2025.
Is there evidence of a global problem with Boeing 787 aircraft?
While technical incidents have been reported by other airlines, there is no public evidence of a widespread, systemic flaw affecting the entire Boeing 787 fleet globally.
What are the next steps?
Ongoing investigations by the AAIB, DGCA, and potential independent audits will determine whether further action, such as grounding or additional inspections, is warranted.
Sources:
Livemint,
India Today
Photo Credit: AFP
Regulations & Safety
Global Aerospace Issues Hangar Foam Suppression Safety Guidelines
Global Aerospace updates hangar fire suppression guidelines, citing 200+ accidental foam discharges and the shift to PFAS-free alternatives.

Global Aerospace has issued updated safety and risk mitigation guidelines for aviation hangar fire suppression systems, highlighting the severe financial and environmental toll of accidental foam discharges. The aviation insurer published the comprehensive best practices on August 24, 2026, detailing the industry transition toward alternative fire protection technologies.
The guidance arrives alongside the introduction of the 2026 edition of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 409. This updated standard governs hangar fire protection and introduces critical changes to align requirements with modern aircraft design and growing environmental concerns regarding chemical suppressants.
The financial and human cost of accidental discharges
Fire suppression standards established in the mid-1970s heavily prioritized foam systems to combat large fuel-spill fires. However, Global Aerospace reports that these systems frequently cause more damage than the fires they are designed to prevent. Over the last two decades, more than 200 unnecessary foam discharges have occurred in aviation facilities.
These accidental activations have resulted in tens of millions of dollars in total damages, with the average per-incident cost reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars. Beyond property damage to aircraft and hangar infrastructure, accidental discharges pose severe life-safety risks to personnel.
The insurer cited a fatal 2014 incident at Eglin Air Force Base as a primary example of these hazards. Following a broken sprinkler pipe, the hangar filled with approximately 17 feet of foam in minutes, resulting in the death of one contractor.
Shifting standards and environmental-impact liabilities
Aviation insurers are increasingly processing claims that extend beyond immediate property damage to include long-term health risks and environmental restoration. This liability shift is largely driven by the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in older aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF).
To mitigate these chemical risks, the aviation industry is actively transitioning toward fluorine-free foams and alternative fire suppression technologies. Global Aerospace highlighted the growing adoption of ignitable liquid drainage floor assemblies and optical flame detection systems, such as multi-spectrum infrared detectors. These alternatives eliminate hazardous chemicals and significantly reduce the likelihood of false alarms.
While the 2026 edition of NFPA 409 provides the framework for these modern systems, the updated standards must be adopted by local fire marshals before facilities can implement the changes.
Operational risk mitigation strategies
For facilities still operating legacy high-expansion foam (HEF) or AFFF systems, Global Aerospace recommends strict operational protocols to minimize the risk and impact of an accidental discharge. The insurer advises operators to protect all aircraft openings and secure sensitive electronics during maintenance operations.
In the event of a discharge, the guidelines stress the importance of keeping hangar doors closed to contain the foam and prevent environmental contamination outside the facility. Additionally, Global Aerospace recommends conducting all system testing and maintenance during off-hours to limit personnel exposure and operational disruption.
AirPro News analysis
The publication of these guidelines by a major aviation insurer underscores a broader industry reality: insurance providers are often the primary catalyst for operational safety upgrades. While regulatory bodies like the NFPA set the baseline standards, the financial pressure of uninsurable environmental liabilities tied to PFAS contamination is forcing hangar operators to modernize. We expect the transition to optical flame detection and drainage floor assemblies to accelerate rapidly as insurers begin pricing the risk of legacy foam systems out of the market.
Sources: Global Aerospace
Photo Credit: Global Aerospace
Regulations & Safety
NTSB Preliminary Report: Ryanair 737-800 Engine Failure
NTSB confirms fan-blade-out on Ryanair 737-800 shattered cabin window, partially ejecting a passenger during climb from Thessaloniki.

This is a developing story. Information may change as official details are released.
This is original reporting and analysis by AirPro News.
On August 13, 2026, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its preliminary report on a July 10 uncontained engine failure aboard a Ryanair Boeing 737-800, confirming that a fan-blade-out event shattered a cabin window and caused a rapid decompression. The incident resulted in a 61-year-old male passenger being partially pulled through the shattered window before being secured by fellow passengers.
The event occurred during climb out from Thessaloniki International Airport (SKG) in Greece. The flight, operated by Ryanair subsidiary Malta Air, was bound for Memmingen, Germany (FMM). The NTSB is currently investigating potential similarities between this event and a fatal 2018 engine failure, while the agency has also publicly addressed premature speculation regarding the cause by Ryanair leadership.
Flight 1879 rapid decompression
According to the NTSB preliminary report, the Boeing 737-800 was climbing when the right-hand CFM56-7B engine experienced a fan-blade-out event. Debris from the engine struck the fuselage and shattered a window at row 11. The resulting rapid decompression pulled a passenger partially outside the aircraft. The passenger sustained neck and shoulder injuries as well as friction burns, but no fatalities occurred.
Reporting by The Air Current indicates the failure happened at an altitude of approximately 15,000 feet. Passengers described a sudden and violent disruption to the flight. A passenger told AP News that the cabin was quiet before a loud noise resembling a bursting tire occurred, adding that they knew immediately the aircraft had lost pressure due to the sudden loss of altitude.
Initial reports following the July 10 incident suggested the failure occurred in the airspace of the Republic of North Macedonia. However, flight path analysis confirmed the event took place in Greek airspace. The Hellenic Air and Rail Safety Investigation Authority officially delegated the investigation to the NTSB on July 16, 2026.
Maintenance history and preliminary findings
The NTSB preliminary report notes that bird remains were found inside the damaged engine. Flight crews had reported four suspected bird strikes to the aircraft’s number two engine in the 12 months preceding the accident. The report states that bird remains were found in two of those previous cases.
Maintenance records indicate that the fan blades on the failed right engine underwent ultrasonic inspections in November 2025 and May 2026. No damage was found during either inspection. The official cause of the July 10 failure remains under investigation by the NTSB, with participation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Boeing, and CFM International, a joint venture between GE Aerospace and Safran.
Regulatory protocols and historical precedent
The investigation has generated friction between the NTSB and Ryanair regarding public communications. On August 7, 2026, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy issued a letter to Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary after he told investors the investigation was focused on foreign object damage rather than aircraft age or maintenance. Homendy stated that the NTSB had made no such determination and noted that O’Leary’s comments violated International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 protocols governing accident investigations.
The aviation industry is closely monitoring the investigation due to the aircraft and engine types involved. The Air Current reported that the event closely mirrors the April 2018 Southwest Airlines flight 1380 uncontained engine failure, which also involved a Boeing 737-700 and a CFM56-7B engine. That incident resulted in one passenger fatality after a shattered window caused partial ejection, leading the FAA to mandate engine inlet redesigns by July 2028.
The NTSB addressed the historical context directly in its preliminary report:
The investigative team is aware of previous … events with similar engine models that resulted in damage to engine inlets or cowlings and fuselage structures. Determination of any relevant similarities or details between this accident and previous events remains under investigation.
AirPro News analysis
We observe that the public rebuke of a major airline CEO by the NTSB is a rare and significant enforcement of ICAO Annex 13 communication protocols. Operators typically defer entirely to the investigating authority to avoid compromising the integrity of an active probe. The NTSB’s swift correction underscores the agency’s zero-tolerance policy for operator speculation, particularly when an event involves high-profile safety concerns like uncontained engine failures.
The CFM56-7B is one of the most widely used commercial aviation engines in the world. Any investigation involving a fan-blade-out event on this powerplant will naturally draw intense regulatory scrutiny, especially given the precedent set by the 2018 Southwest Airlines accident. While the discovery of bird remains introduces foreign object damage as a variable, we expect investigators will rigorously examine the efficacy of the ultrasonic inspections conducted in November 2025 and May 2026 to understand how the blade failure propagated.
Sources: National Transportation Safety Board
Photo Credit: NTSB
Regulations & Safety
FAA Installs New Surface Radar at Newark Airport
The FAA unveiled a new SMR-4 radar at Newark Liberty as part of a $30 million infrastructure upgrade targeting runway safety.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Bryan Bedford unveiled a new Surface Movement Radar-Systems Model 4 (SMR-4) at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) on August 11, 2026, replacing a 30-year-old legacy system.
The installation is part of a broader $30 million infrastructure upgrade at the New Jersey hub designed to prevent runway incursions and reduce delays. According to the FAA press release, the SMR-4 allows air traffic controllers to track aircraft and ground vehicles across runways and taxiways in all weather and visibility conditions.
Newark’s infrastructure modernization
The $30 million funding allocation for EWR spans a three-year period and targets critical technological vulnerabilities. During the summer of 2025, the Airports experienced severe delays that prompted the FAA to deploy Software patches, expedite fiber deployment, and rebalance flight volumes. To date, 90% of the airport’s legacy copper wiring has been replaced with high-speed fiber.
“Since the start of this administration, we have been working towards building a modern system that will serve America’s skies for generations,” Duffy stated. “From replacing Newark’s ancient copper wire to investing $30 million into new infrastructure and bringing new radar online, we are delivering real safety and efficiency enhancements at one of our nation’s busiest airports.”
The FAA has set a target deadline of summer 2027 for EWR to install new electronic information displays, upgraded voice switches, and a new long-range radar system.
National surface awareness rollout
The EWR installation is one of five SMR-4 systems deployed nationwide to date. The agency has accelerated its broader technological overhaul over the past year, replacing 60% of all copper wires in its national network and converting 363 radio sites. The FAA also transitioned 19 air traffic control towers to electronic flight strips and installed 151 IP voice switches at control towers across the country.
Bedford emphasized the operational volume driving the upgrades. “Newark sees well-over a thousand flights per day, and the new Surface Movement Radar will help controllers keep those flights safe at this major U.S. hub,” Bedford said, describing the deployment as a step toward modernizing the national airspace.
The push for enhanced surface surveillance follows a fatal runway incursion at LaGuardia Airport (LGA) on March 22, 2026. In that event, Air Canada (AC) Express Flight 8646, operated by Jazz Aviation using a Bombardier CRJ900, collided with an airport firefighting vehicle on Runway 4. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) confirmed two pilot fatalities and 39 injuries. The NTSB is leading the ongoing Investigation, and no official cause has been determined.
In response to surface safety concerns, the FAA has installed 96 new Surface Awareness Initiative systems nationwide over the past year to provide controllers with better situational awareness.
AirPro News analysis
The FAA’s rapid deployment of 96 Surface Awareness Initiative systems and the ongoing SMR-4 rollout represent a tangible shift toward proactive technological intervention in ground operations. While the NTSB has not yet concluded its investigation into the March 2026 LaGuardia runway incursion, the agency’s aggressive timeline for replacing legacy copper wiring and installing surface tracking tools indicates that regulators are prioritizing immediate situational awareness upgrades for air traffic controllers. We view the $30 million targeted investment at EWR as a template the FAA is likely to replicate at other high-density hubs where legacy infrastructure limits operational capacity during low-visibility conditions.
Sources: Federal Aviation Administration
Photo Credit: Federal Aviation Administration
-
UAV & Drones6 days agoDufour Aerospace Aero-200 eVTOL Targets 2027 Serial Production
-
Technology & Innovation5 days agoSkyband Systems M100 LRU Validates GNSS Jamming Protection
-
MRO & Manufacturing4 days agoBoeing SPEEA Engineers Reject Contract, Authorize Strike
-
Military Technology4 days agoSaab Unveils A3-001 Supersonic Stealth Drone Concept
-
Business Aviation4 days agoFTAI Aviation Closes $2B Warehouse Financing for 2026 SPV
