Picture File : ANI/X
Everything seemed normal and routine on June 12, 2025 while Air India Flight 171 was preparing itself to fly to London’s Gatwick from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Airport in Ahmedabad with 230 passengers – including 169 Indian nationals and 53 Britons, along with 10 cabin crew. For some it was their life’s first flight, some were excited about their vacations in London, while some flying back to their families. Sadly, what transpired within few seconds of the take-off, was scary and unbelievable till date.
On the flight deck were Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a pilot with decades of experience, and his younger colleague, first officer Clive Kunder. Just 32 seconds after take-off the plane crashed, killing all but one of those on board. Another 19 people on the ground were also killed. CCTV footage from the airport and a social media video show the aircraft taking-off in what looks like a normal fashion, but rather than gain height it appears to hang in the air, before gliding gently downwards. It disappears from view behind buildings and trees. Seconds later a huge cloud of flame and black smoke appears, and the magnitude of the disaster becomes apparent. What is not at all clear from the footage, however, is what actually caused the crash.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), part of the country’s Ministry of Civil Aviation has still not come out with any substantial report. Under international law, as set out in Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the country in which an accident occurs is directly responsible for the official investigation. Other parties, including the country where the aircraft or its engines were built, can also take an active part as “accredited representatives”. In the case of AI171, that means the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB sent a delegation which included technical experts from Boeing, which made the plane itself and GE Aerospace, which built the engines, as well as the US aviation regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration. Nevertheless, there is a great deal at stake, both for the Boeing and Air India.
Though the final conclusions of the investigation have yet to be published, it has already generated intense controversy, triggering a major backlash from safety campaigners, pilots’ groups and lawyers acting for the bereaved relatives. The preliminary report issued by the AAIB a month after the accident did not draw any conclusions about the causes of the crash, or make any recommendations. However, just two short paragraphs generated a great deal of controversy.
First, it was noted that according to the aircraft’s flight data recorder, the two fuel cut-off switches – normally used when starting the engines before a flight and shutting them down afterwards – transitioned from the run to the cut-off position seconds after take-off. This would have deprived the engines of fuel, causing them to lose thrust rapidly. The report then says: “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut-off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”
This brief statement, provided without a transcript or any indication of who was speaking, sparked intense speculation about the actions of the pilots. Citing people familiar with the matter, it claimed that recordings of dialogue between the pilots suggested it was the Captain, Sumeet Sabharwal, who had flipped the fuel switches.
Though, merely a preliminary report, the AAIB issued a statement condemning “selective and unverified reporting” in the international press as “irresponsible”. It urged the public and the media to “refrain from spreading premature narratives that risk undermining the integrity of the investigative process.” By then, arguably, the damage had already been done. “When a pilot is alive he can defend himself” says Capt. CS Randhawa, president of the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP). “When the pilot is dead, all the agencies can collude – and they put the blame on the pilot, to save the manufacturer. And this is seen the world over. It’s not the first time”.
His organisation, which represents around 6,000 pilots, condemned the preliminary report as “irrevocably compromised”. Together with Sumeet Sabharwal’s 91-year-old father, Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, they took their concerns to India’s Supreme Court, demanding a judicial investigation into the crash.
The plane – registered as VT-ANB – was delivered to Air India in 2014. According to the Foundation for Aviation Safety, a US body led by the former senior Boeing manager turned whistle-blower, Ed Pierson, it suffered from serious electrical problems throughout it’s lifetime. Air India denies this. Further, The Foundation for Aviation Safety says documents show that the plane experienced system failures from its very first day in service for Air India. It alleges these were caused by “a wide and confusing variety of engineering, manufacturing, quality, and maintenance problems”. The failures included electronics and software faults, circuit breakers tripping repeatedly, damage to wiring, short circuits, loss of electrical current, and overheating of power system components.
In an earlier incident, “burning” in one of the plane’s main power panels in 2022 was seen. Air India says repairs were “carried out in accordance with Boeing-approved maintenance procedures” and that “the aircraft was returned to service only after applicable airworthiness requirements had been satisfied”.
The preliminary report, meanwhile, notes that the aircraft had been permitted to fly with a known fault in its “core network”, a framework that links the aircraft’s computers and associated electronics and is often described as the “central nervous system” of the plane.
However, under Annex 13, those investigating a serious air accident are meant to publish a final report within 12 months. If a final report cannot be issued, an interim report must be published on the anniversary of the accident. This means India’s AAIB should have published an update of some kind by Friday, 12 June. In May, India’s civil aviation minister muddied the waters when he told reporters the investigation into the crash was into its “last stage”, and that the final report would “mostly…come after a month”. Whatever report is published, it looks highly unlikely to reverse the wave of controversy and cynicism that has already engulfed the AI171 investigation.
Today, as we mark one year since the tragic Air India Flight AI-171 accident, we remember with profound sorrow those who lost their lives and extend our heartfelt condolences to their families and loved ones.
The investigation continues with diligence and professionalism in…
— Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu (@RamMNK) June 12, 2026
A great deal of that stems from perceptions that the companies involved are being protected from blame. Boeing, certainly, can’t afford to see questions raised about the safety of the 787. Although it suffered severe teething problems in its early days, AI171 was the first time a 787 had been lost due to an accident. However, production of the plane has proved deeply problematic over the years with reports of defects and manufacturing problems.
Air India, meanwhile, has struggled for years, racking up heavy losses. After being taken over by the giant Tata Group., it was expected to herald a turnaround, but it has continued to struggle. This is not the first time the current system for investigating major air accidents has faced criticism. It has however highlighted ongoing concerns about the integrity of high-profile and often politically sensitive inquiries.
