ON JUNE 12, 2025, a 32-second Air India flight, AI-171, killed 260 people, including 19 people on the ground. All but one on board died in the accident. Exactly one month after the tragedy, on July 12, 2025, Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released its preliminary report, which remains the only official report into the case till this day. The report changed the mainstream narrative, led by media, towards the co-pilot of the Air India aircraft, Sumeet Sabharwal, and his “suicidal” tendency.
One major line from the investigation blew out of proportion which read: “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cut off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.” The AAIB report did not mention what was cut off, who was speaking, what time it was, and doesn’t even provide other voice recording or full transcript.
The positioning of this line in the report was also important as it is mentioned right after the details that the fuel engine was switched from RUN to CUTOFF, leaving the reader to fill the gap without directly blaming the pilot. In a segment of the AAIB report where every second of the timeline leading into the crash is mentioned, this voice recording from the cockpit doesn’t even mention the precise timing or even give the exact transcript. In fact, the names of the two pilots, Capt Clive Kundar and Capt Sumeet Sabharwal are not even mentioned in the entire report, making the media’s narrative—especially western media outlets—against the Indian Pilot Sumeet Sabharwal even more jarring.
Vishwas Kumar Ramesh, the sole surviving passenger from the ill-fated AI-171, gave his account of details to the media after the crash. He claims he heard a loud explosion from the back of the aircraft and said that lights were flickering on and off with green and blue flares. While the entire nation heard his story, the AAIB didn’t even take his official testimony for almost 10 months. It was only after the Supreme Court’s pressure that Ramesh’s testimony was finally recorded by AAIB in April 2026.
The Caravan’s Rachel Chitra reports that the aircraft engineers working on Air India’s Boeing 787 jet called the preliminary report, “shoddy” and missing crucial information. One major failure that the AAIB report didn’t address is the failure to recover data from the black box at the tail of the aircraft, officially known as the aft Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR), which stores crucial data, like Engine performance, backup system functioning, and cockpit recording from the aircraft. The encasement of the EAFR is specifically designed to survive severe disasters like this.
While the front black box unit, which faced the brunt of the impact at the time of the crash, was recovered with 49 hours of data, the aft EAFR yielded no details, said to have been destroyed beyond recovery. This, aligned with the surviving passenger’s remark of explosion in the back, shows that there is more to the story than just a manual failure from the pilot.
However, AAIB has cleared itself from any responsibility in the foreward itself. They write that the purpose of the preliminary report is not to “apportion blame or liability.” It further says that the use of this report in any other interpretation apart from “prevention of future accidents” is erroneous. If only the investigation body could have avoided an erroneous interpretation themselves.
The Caravan reports that the Aviation industry had barred journalists from meeting Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau just days after the crash. Officials involved in the AI-171 probe were allegedly also given unofficial orders to not interact with the media.
Rachel Chitra of The Caravan was still able to speak to a subject-matter expert from AAIB, who remains anonymous. They reportedly made a crucial statement about the state of the investigation. The whistleblower claims that the independence of the investigation was already compromised by companies leading the aviation industry.
“The preliminary report was a negotiated deal between Air India, Tata, GE [General Elective—the company which provided engines for Dreamliner 787] and Boeing—GE to a lesser extent. But the slew of emails being exchanged in the days running up to the 12 July 2025 deadline was primarily between the airline and the manufacturer. The Indian and US regulators were on standby,” said the expert as reported by The Caravan.
The companies were allegedly determining what part of the investigation should be made public minutes before it was published. They also allege that this was precisely the reason that it was released at 1 am in India, with no press conference, announcement, without date or official signature. The AAIB whistleblower claims that Boeing wanted to influence public opinion through Western media first.
The Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB’s) preliminary investigation timeline differs from what the aviation experts and pilots believe is possible. Experts, speaking to The Caravan, believe that the claims made by AAIB are not based on the real-world functioning of the aircraft system and conveniently hides details to sell one narrative.
Rachel Chitra, in her investigative piece, gave her own timeline of events after taking inputs from around 30 aviation experts. The aviation experts believe modern aircrafts offer multi-level protection at every step to avoid such disastrous incidents like AI-171. Therefore, for something to go this wrong might indicate multiple failures and require a breakdown of every detail in the minutes leading up to the 32-second crash, which the preliminary report misses. Here is AAIB’s account of what happened as of July 12, 2025:
The plane was given clearance on the Departing bay at 13:18:38 IST.
The report, in so many words, claims the plane was healthy. It got taxi clearance and accelerated down the runway to 153 knots—enough speed for successful takeoff.
The flight takes off at 13:38:39 and in three seconds achieves a maximum airspeed of 180 knots at 13:38:42.
Here, in the official report, the specific timeline mysteriously goes missing as they mention that the fuel for both engines is switched from RUN to CUTOFF “immediately thereafter” with 1-second gap between the two. This is also where the report gives the only details of any voice recording from the cockpit, saying that one of the pilots is heard asking the other “why did he cut off. The other pilot responds that he did not do so.”
From that point, the engines are not receiving any power and the aircraft starts losing electricity as well.
The specific timestamp again emerges in the report to tell about the recovered black box (front EAFR) data. After the fuel is cut off from the engine, Ram Air Turbine—which provides backup energy to the plane via hydraulic pump—is activated at 13:38:47, which the report claims is a response to the engine cutoff.
At 13:38:52, the first engine fuel is manually switched back to RUN. At this time, another backup system, auxiliary power unit (APU), also starts its functioning as per its auto start procedure.
At 13:38:56, the second engine fuel switch was also moved back to RUN.
From there on each engine’s managing computer, known as full authority digital engine control (FADEC), starts the relight process, a standard procedure when the engine is switched from cutoff to run midflight. However, the aircraft didn’t have enough power to recover fast enough.
At 13:39:05, the pilot transmitted the “Mayday” signal before the black box stopped the recording at 13:39:11 when the aircraft crashed.
In conclusion, AAIB maintains that the plane was cleared to take off and showed all signs for a successful flight. The RAT and APU—both backup units— were deployed after fuel engine switches were cut off manually from one of the pilots.
Investigations and tests run by Aviation experts provide a different story and interpretation of events from that of AAIB’s report.
The Caravan report says the official story ignores signs that the plane was already in serious trouble. According to internal documents sent to Air India and Boeing, recovered by The Caravan, the plane was flagged with multiple serious-level dangers like stabilizer problems and flight computer faults. Yet, both Boeing and Air India ignored these warnings from their engineers.
Minutes before takeoff, at 13:23, crucial flight control modules (FCMs) start faulting. This was being communicated to both Air India and Boeing live via satellite connection, known as Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). Apart from that, six NO-GO signals were sent via satellite, where the experts believe only one should have been enough to stop AI171 from taking off.
Three seconds after flight takeoff at around 13:38:42, The Caravan reports the problem begins which was different from fuel switches being turned off. They claim that the aircraft suffered a major electrical or computer failure, allegedly causing the cockpit displays to flicker and computers to restart. This was when engines also lost power on their own prior to the fuel switch being cut off.
Senior Journalist Barkha Dutt of Mojo Story reports findings of a simulator test run by Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP). According to them, RAT—the backup hydraulic power unit—couldn’t have responded in four or five seconds after a manual fuel switch off, as claimed by the AAIB.
The pilots claim that it takes at least 14-18 seconds to activate, throwing the wrench in the AAIB narrative. According to this finding, RAT might have observed and started reacting to engine failure as early as when the plane was still at tarmac.
When the engine was cut off at 13:38:42, it was not an action but a reaction to a system already facing complete failure.
Between 13:38:52 and 1:38:56, the switches were moved back to RUN, as also claimed by AAIB, but the system was making recovery attempts for several seconds at this point.
And as per the official timeline at 13:39:05, pilots transmit a Mayday call, followed by the crash at 13:39:11
In conclusion, independent investigation, expert findings, and simulator test results from Indian pilots tell a story of an aircraft failure, rather than a suicidal pilot. There are two similar timelines but how they are constructed and interpreted by the AAIB and the independent investigations paint a different picture for the public.
The Boeing Company launched the Boeing 787 Dreamliner programme on April 26, 2004, but over the years the aircraft became associated with several controversies and technical problems. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner made its first flight in 2009 and entered commercial service in October 2011. Today, more than 1,150 Boeing 787 Dreamliners are flying around the world, but numerous issues have been reported over the years.
On January 16, 2013, an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 Dreamliner flying from Yamaguchi Ube Airport to Tokyo Haneda received cockpit warnings related to battery malfunction. Passengers also reported a burning smell, forcing the pilots to make an emergency landing in Takamatsu, Japan. The incident was traced to the aircraft's lithium-ion battery system, prompting the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ground the entire Boeing 787 fleet.
Battery issues were not the only problem. In 2020, Norwegian Air accused Boeing of repeated engine failures that led to several flight diversions. The airline cancelled orders for 97 aircraft and filed a lawsuit against the company. In 2023, Norwegian Air Shuttle was forced to dismantle and scrap two of its 10-year-old Boeing Dreamliners for spare parts. Despite these issues, the Boeing 787 continued to be considered one of the safest aircraft because there had been no fatal accidents involving the type until the Air India crash.
Air India became one of the early customers of the Boeing 787 and received its first Dreamliner in September 2012. When the FAA grounded the Dreamliner fleet in 2013, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) also grounded Air India's aircraft. However, after a four-month worldwide grounding, the DGCA lifted the ban and the aircraft returned to service. Soon afterwards, Air India reportedly identified more than 130 technical issues in the Dreamliner by December 2013. The Ministry of Civil Aviation later stated that the problems had been addressed by Air India and Boeing's technical teams.
However, questions continued to be raised about whether the issues had actually been resolved. Even after the lithium-ion battery system was redesigned, problems persisted. In 2017, a United Airlines Boeing 787 experienced a battery fault that caused overheating during a flight to Paris. Between 2019 and 2024, a series of quality control concerns were reported, including improperly joined fuselage sections and gaps between components that did not fit properly.
In April 2024, the FAA officially launched an investigation into Boeing after receiving complaints from 126 whistleblowers. These complaints were related to increasing safety concerns and internal quality failures in aircraft manufacturing. According to a report by The Caravan, Boeing engineer Sam Salehpour raised concerns about the assembly process of the 787's fuselage. He alleged that aircraft sections were frequently mismatched and forcibly aligned during assembly and warned that these gaps could create serious structural problems over time.
According to Salehpour, components sourced from different locations to reduce costs often failed to fit properly. He claimed that his concerns were ignored despite repeatedly raising them internally. Former Boeing quality manager John Barnett also told the FAA that defective parts were used and that metal shavings were often left inside aircraft, sometimes near critical flight-control wiring, which could potentially lead to serious failures. Barnett further claimed that Boeing's work culture prioritised speed and production targets, with safety concerns often treated as obstacles rather than warnings. Other whistleblowers similarly alleged that employees faced pressure not to report safety issues.
Many former Boeing employees reportedly said they would never allow their family members to fly on these aircraft. Two whistleblowers, John Barnett and Joshua Dean, died in 2024 shortly after publicly raising concerns. Over the years, critics and even some of Boeing's own employees have accused the company of prioritising profits over safety and cutting costs in ways that compromise quality.
According to former Boeing quality manager Cynthia Kitchens, as reported by India Today, Dreamliners delivered between 2009 and 2016 suffered from serious quality concerns, and six aircraft produced during that period were delivered to India. An investigator told Prospect magazine that employees he interviewed were particularly worried about three aircraft that were scheduled to be delivered to Air India in early 2014 because they allegedly had several serious flaws. The Dreamliner that crashed on June 12 had also been delivered during this period, on January 31, 2014.
The aircraft that later crashed had also experienced problems in the past. In November 2021, while operating a flight from London to Hyderabad, a fuel leak was detected mid-air, forcing an emergency landing in Ankara, Turkey. Other reported issues included windshield cracks and battery overheating.
Even hours before the crash, the same aircraft reportedly faced problems while operating a flight from Delhi to Ahmedabad. A passenger named Akash Vatsa recorded a video and shared it online in which he claimed that the air conditioning was not functioning properly. He also said that the entertainment screens, remote controls and even the cabin lights were malfunctioning, highlighting possible issues in the aircraft's electrical systems.
See Also: One Year After Air India AI-171 Crash: 72 hours of chaos, weeks of DNA identification work
Yesterday, June 12, 2026, marked one year since the Air India Ahmedabad crash, a tragedy that claimed 260 lives. Even after a year, the investigation remains incomplete and many questions remain unanswered. Critics and families of those involved have accused the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of indirectly placing the blame on Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, arguing that scrutinising Boeing or Air India would have been far more difficult.
In aviation disasters, insurers often push for a thorough investigation because they are responsible for compensation payments. In this case, however, the Tata Group-owned Air India was insured by Tata AIG General Insurance, leading some critics to argue that there was no independent financial stakeholder with an incentive to challenge the findings aggressively. They contend that in a situation where the pilots also died, and the companies involved are closely linked, the easiest explanation was to focus on pilot error.
On June 12, 2026, on the anniversary of the tragedy, AAIB issued a statement mourning the victims and reiterating that a rigorous investigation was being carried out. Referring to its preliminary report released on July 12, 2025, the agency said that the probe was being conducted according to established rules. “Over the past year, the investigation team has undertaken an extensive and rigorous examination of all relevant technical, operational, organisational and human factors associated with the accident,” the statement said.
The agency further stated that analyses of all evidence, statements and technical data were continuing to ensure factual accuracy. “AAIB remains firmly committed to conducting a thorough, independent, objective and evidence-based investigation,” it said, adding that the purpose of the inquiry was to enhance aviation safety and not to assign blame. However, according to testimonies of family members and people close to the pilots, several incidents during the investigation raised concerns that the focus was disproportionately on pilot actions.
Captain Sumeet Sabharwal's father, Pushkaraj Sabharwal, who spent decades working with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, repeatedly maintained that his son was a competent and responsible pilot. In an interview with The Caravan, he said that aircraft accident investigations are extremely detailed and examine every aspect of an aircraft, including engines, maintenance records and even seemingly minor technical details.
According to him, aviation is one of the safest modes of transport because it relies on strict regulations, highly trained pilots and engineers, and multiple layers of backup systems. A catastrophe, he argued, cannot be caused by a single failure alone; rather, several failures across different layers of safety must occur simultaneously. Therefore, every piece of evidence deserves close examination. He said this was why he approached the Supreme Court seeking an independent judicial committee to supervise the AAIB investigation.
Pushkaraj said he was deeply hurt by the direction of the probe. “I seem to have given thirty years of my life to an institution that, today, is busy painting my son as a murderer,” he told The Caravan. He also described an incident in which AAIB officials visited his home along with Air India representatives. According to him, after the airline officials were asked to wait downstairs, an AAIB official allegedly told him that investigators had evidence showing his son had caused the crash. Pushkaraj said he demanded that they produce the evidence or leave.
Over time, Pushkaraj received support from senior pilot Amit Singh, who heads the aviation safety organisation Safety Matters Foundation, and from the Federation of Indian Pilots. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Safety Matters Foundation in court, challenged the AAIB's findings and sought a judicial inquiry.
Bhushan argued before Chief Justice Surya Kant that several pilots had raised concerns over Boeing aircraft and their history of electrical defects. He called for the grounding of these aircraft. He also argued that the presence of DGCA officials on the AAIB investigation team could create a conflict of interest, since the regulator itself was under scrutiny over the certification and oversight process.
People close to Captain Sabharwal also told The Caravan that investigators questioned them extensively about the pilot's mental and physical health. According to colleagues, they were asked whether he suffered from depression, diabetes, high blood pressure or any other mental health issues. Another allegation states that Captain Sabharwal’s former wife was asked whether she could testify that he had mental health problems.
These testimonies and allegations have led some critics to question the AAIB's assertion that its findings are based solely on facts and evidence. What happens next remains uncertain. Whether the victims' families will ever receive complete closure is also unknown.
Many questions continue to linger. Was pilot error really the cause? Even if the fuel switches were turned off, could the aircraft have lost power so quickly? Could there have been a technical malfunction, a fuel system issue, or a manufacturing defect? For now, the questions continue to multiply while definitive answers remain hidden. The final investigation report, whenever it arrives, will have to address these concerns and determine what truly went wrong on that tragic day.
Editor's Note: For this piece, NewsGram relied heavily on the detailed cover story published by The Caravan Magazine in its June Edition of this year. We thank The Caravan team for all the insights provided in their report. Read the Original story here.
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store