It was 1:38 p.m. on June 12 when Air India Flight AI 171—a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner—took off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. Forty seconds later, the aircraft slammed into the densely populated Meghani Nagar neighborhood, killing all but one on board and leaving 19 dead on the ground. The devastation was immediate, and the impact, both physical and emotional, reverberated across India and beyond. It was the deadliest air crash in the country in over a decade and the first fatal crash involving a Dreamliner globally.
As smoke cleared from the wreckage, the questions began. What caused such a catastrophic failure so soon after takeoff? The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India released its preliminary findings just weeks later, citing the transition of both engine fuel cutoff switches from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” as the pivotal moment in the sequence of disaster. Engine performance data showed a rapid decline just seconds after liftoff, consistent with the engines being starved of fuel. The report also noted that the cockpit voice recorder had captured one pilot questioning the other—“Why did you cut off?”—with the reply, “I didn’t.”
The fuel cutoff levers are not only critical but also designed to be fail-safe. In modern commercial aircraft like the Boeing 787, these switches are positioned in such a way that they cannot be moved accidentally. Each switch must be manually pulled up and deliberately flipped. There are built-in protective guards and detents, making it nearly impossible to bump or slide them unintentionally. Aviation expert Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a veteran of India’s aviation industry, stated unequivocally that such a movement must have been intentional. “It has to be done manually,” he said. “It cannot be done automatically or due to a power failure. The switches are designed with precision and redundancy.”
This technical certainty has left families and experts wrestling with an impossible reality. Was the fuel cutoff a mistake? A mechanical fault? Or a deliberate act?
Captain Ranganathan’s blunt assertion that the act “had to be deliberate” has fueled theories that the crash may have been pilot-induced. When pressed on whether one of the pilots could have knowingly cut off fuel while fully aware of the risks, his response was clear: “Absolutely.” The implications of such a statement are difficult to overstate, potentially pointing toward a murder-suicide or sabotage scenario—a horrifying proposition in any aviation investigation.
Flight AI 171 was under the command of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a senior pilot with over 10,000 hours of flying experience on wide-body aircraft. His co-pilot, Clive Kunder, had logged over 3,400 hours. Both men had passed all required health and rest checks prior to takeoff. The AAIB report also stated that there were no signs of fatigue, intoxication, or emotional distress. The cockpit door was locked from within, as per standard operating procedures, and there was no evidence of unauthorized entry.
If a mechanical failure is still on the table, investigators are also examining whether the aircraft’s electronic control systems might have inadvertently activated the cutoff switches. While rare, such a scenario was hinted at by a former AAIB investigator, Captain Kishore Chinta, who questioned whether a malfunction in the plane’s Electronic Control Unit could have caused the switches to trip. “Can the fuel cut-off switches be triggered electronically without pilot movement?” he asked. “If so, that’s a serious design concern.”
This line of inquiry has taken investigators back to a 2018 Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin issued by the US Federal Aviation Administration. The bulletin warned that certain Boeing aircraft, including the 737 and 787, may have been delivered with improperly configured fuel control switch guards. Although the advisory stopped short of mandating inspections, it recommended airlines check their fleets. Air India, however, did not carry out these inspections, citing the optional nature of the directive.
If the switches had been improperly installed or maintained, it could raise questions about Boeing’s oversight and the adequacy of its responses to safety recommendations. However, the preliminary report has so far cleared Boeing and engine manufacturer GE of direct fault, stating that no immediate recommendations were issued to either company and that the aircraft was within all operational limits at the time of takeoff.
At the crash site, both fuel switches were later found in the “RUN” position, suggesting they may have been toggled back in a last-ditch attempt to relight the engines. The Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder confirmed this, noting that one switch returned to “RUN” just seconds before the aircraft hit the ground. The data also showed that the Auxiliary Power Unit had begun starting automatically—a response consistent with a total dual-engine failure, suggesting the crew had initiated emergency recovery procedures. But the aircraft was flying too low, and time ran out.
Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline investigator and aviation safety researcher at Ohio State University, said the deployment of the aircraft’s Ram Air Turbine, or RAT, added weight to the theory that both engines had shut down. The RAT is an emergency power generator deployed when all engines fail or when pressure in all three hydraulic systems drops. It is a last resort. “The deployment of the RAT strongly supports the conclusion that both engines had failed,” he said.
The fuel cutoff occurred at an altitude of only 625 feet—barely above the airport perimeter. According to preliminary flight data from Flightradar24, the plane had just begun its climb when thrust dropped and airspeed fell. Within seconds, the plane nosed down and crashed into a student hostel in the heart of a busy residential district. Video footage and eyewitness accounts describe a fireball engulfing the area, followed by screams and confusion.
In the wake of the tragedy, families of the victims have expressed frustration and confusion. Bhaval Shah, a family friend of 23-year-old Kinal Mistry who perished in the crash, spoke to reporters in disbelief. “If these switches can’t be turned off easily, and if no software glitch could be responsible, then it is deliberate, isn’t it? Then it’s sabotage or suicide.”
Deepti Sawhney, who lost three relatives, called for an “uncompromisingly honest” probe. “There are a lot of heavyweights involved—Air India, Boeing—who will want to save their skin. The families must get the truth.”
Others echoed her sentiment. The family of Akeel Nanabawa, his wife Hannaa Vorajee, and their four-year-old daughter Sara described the report as a “first stepping stone.” In a statement, they wrote: “We seek justice and answers, both of which are essential for us to find any sense of closure. Above all, we hope that by pursuing the truth, no other family will ever have to endure the shock, uncertainty, and profound sorrow that we have lived through.”
Ishan Baxi, whose cousins Dhir and Heer Baxi were also on the flight, voiced similar demands. “We’re still hoping for a more transparent and honest investigation that doesn’t shy away from addressing possible mechanical flaws or lapses in protocol. More than anything, it should push for real changes so this never happens again.”
Although Indian officials have promised a full and transparent inquiry, the investigation has not been without tension. The US National Transportation Safety Board is assisting the AAIB, with technical support from the FAA, Boeing, and GE. However, reports suggest disagreements have emerged between US and Indian investigators, particularly over access to the aircraft’s black boxes and the speed at which data is being analyzed.
At one point, the US team reportedly considered withdrawing from the investigation but later returned to complete the data recovery and analysis phase. The final report is expected to be months away, but it is already clear that the Air India tragedy will have wide-reaching consequences—not only for aviation safety protocols but also for public trust in major airlines and aircraft manufacturers.
Report so far shows that each lever has to be pulled upwards to be unlocked, before it can be flipped and they also have further protective guard brackets to safeguard against any bumps and nudges.
‘It has to be done manually, it cannot be done automatically or due to a power failure,’ Captain Ranganathan said of the fuel levers. ‘The fuel selectors they aren’t the sliding type they are always in a slot.
‘They are to pull them out or move them up or down, so the question of them moving inadvertently out of off position doesn’t happen. It’s a case of deliberate manual selection.’
He later said ‘nothing else’ would explain why both switches were moved into the off position just after take off, alleging: ‘It had to be deliberately done.’
When questioned if he was suggesting one of the pilots ‘deliberately’ switched off the fuel lever, while fully aware of the possibility of a crash, he answered: ‘Absolutely’, before asserting they were looking at a potential ‘pilot-induced crash.’
It comes shortly after the final words of the pilots before the devastating crash were published by the Indian authorities, detailing how one was heard asking the other why ‘did you cut off’ the fuel supply, while the other responded he ‘didn’t’.
It did not identify which remarks were made by the flight’s captain Sumeet Sabharwal and which by the co-pilot, Clive Kunder, nor which pilot immediately transmitted the distress call: ‘Thrust not achieved… falling… Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!’
The grieving families of the Air India victims have been left confused, with some left angered by the preliminary report’s findings, as they call for transparency into how the tragedy happened.
Bhaval Shah, a family friend of Kinal Mistry, 23, who died in the crash, told The Times: ‘If these switches can’t be turned off easily and if no software glitch could have been responsible, then it is deliberate, isn’t it? Then it’s sabotage or suicide.’
Deepti Sawhney, whose three relatives were killed in the disaster, told NTDV that she wanted all the findings to be made public.
‘We must have a free, fair and transparent investigation,’ she said. ‘There are a lot of heavyweights involved — Air India, Boeing — who will want to save their skin. The families must get the truth.’
In a statement, relatives of Akeel Nanabawa, his wife Hannaa Vorajee and their four-year-old daughter Sara Nanabawa, who died in the crash, described the report as ‘the first stepping stone’ and said the family are still ‘working our way through the weight of our loss.’
They added: ‘Moving forwards, we require honesty, transparency, and an unwavering commitment to uncovering the full truth.
‘We seek justice and answers, both of which are essential for us to find any sense of closure.
‘We accept God’s fate, but knowing what happened will help ease our hearts and allow us to begin the long journey of healing.
‘Above all, we hope that by pursuing the truth, no other family will ever have to endure the shock, uncertainty, and profound sorrow that we have lived through this past month.’
The cousin of sisters Dhir and Heer Baxi, who were flying home to London after surprising their grandmother for her birthday and died in the crash, said he was ‘not satisfied’ by the report.
Ishan Baxi, who lives in Ahmedabad, said: ‘We’re still hoping for a more transparent and honest investigation that doesn’t shy away from addressing possible mechanical flaws or lapses in protocol to avoid future potential accidents.’
He added: ‘I just hope the final report brings full clarity on what exactly failed and who’s accountable. It shouldn’t hide behind vague terms.
‘More than anything, it should push for real changes so this never happens again.’
The plane only ever reached as high as 625ft, immediately beginning to lose thrust and sink down moments after setting off to London, later exploding into a fireball after smashing into a hostel on the ground in Gujarat, killing all but one on board.
Investigators’ early assessments indicate no apparent fault with the Boeing or its engines, suggesting that Boeing and engine maker GE had no apparent responsibility for the accident.
The report from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, published late on Friday, said the jet was carrying 54,200kg of fuel, which was within the ‘allowable limits’. Fuel samples retrieved from the aircraft’s refuelling tanks were also deemed ‘satisfactory’.
‘The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec,’ the report said.
‘The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.
‘In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.’
But the report does not say how the switch – which is used to start or shut down the engines and are left on during flight – could have flipped to the cutoff position.
Investigators are currently focusing on a previous Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) by the US Federal Aviation Administration in 2018, which said some Boeing 737 fuel control switches were put into the aircrafts with the locking feature disengaged.
Although the problem was never deemed unsafe, an Airworthiness Directive (AD), which is legally enforceable, was issued to correct the problem with some of the levers.
Boeing 787-8 aircrafts, as well as the Air India plane, use the same design switch. And due to the SAIB only being recommended, Air India did not carry out advised inspections.
All pilots and crew had passed breathalyser and were deemed fit to fly, according to the report, which detailed how both Sabharwal and Kunder had enough rest before taking to the skies.
At the crash site, both fuel switches were found in the run position with the report detailing there had been indications of both engines relighting before the low-altitude crash.
An ex-investigator with India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) speculated whether the switch may have tripped due to possible issues with the plane electronic control unit.
Capt Kishore Chinta told the BBC: ‘Can the fuel cut-off switches be triggered electronically by the plane’s electronic control unit without movement by the pilot? If the fuel cut-off switches tripped electronically, then it’s a cause for concern.’
Referring to data recovered from the plane’s two Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFR), it continues: ‘As per the EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic.
‘Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN.
‘When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engine’s full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction.’
Flipping to cutoff almost immediately cuts the engines, and is most often used to turn engines off once a plane has arrived at its airport gate and in certain emergency situations, such as an engine fire.
The preliminary report does not indicate there was any emergency requiring an engine cutoff.
The new findings appear to tally with theories reportedly put forward on the US side of the investigation, which also noted that the switches controlling fuel flow to the aircraft’s twin engines were turned off shortly after takeoff.
It remains unclear why they were turned off, and investigators have been left wondering whether it was deliberate, accidental or corrected too late.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, one potential sign that the switches were off was the deployment of the plane’s emergency power system, a Ram air Turbine or RAT.
The RAT usually comes into action when both engines lose power or if pressure in all three hydraulic systems are critically low – both essential components of keeping a flight going. The landing gear was also found in a downward position.
Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline accident investigator and aviation expert at Ohio State University said: ‘The deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) strongly supports the conclusion that both engines had failed’
He believes the pilot at the helm of the aircraft had no time to think. According to investigators, crew tried to act but the crash transpired to quickly.
If the preliminary findings hold, that would exonerate the Dreamliner’s manufacturer Boeing and engine developer GE Aerospace.
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau said: ‘At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to Boeing 787-8 and/or GE GEnx-1B engine operators and manufacturers.’
The agency, an office under India’s civil aviation ministry, is leading the probe into the world’s deadliest aviation accident in a decade.
Last month, the tragic crash claimed the lives of 169 Indian passengers on board, 53 British, seven Portuguese and a Canadian, as well as 12 crew members and left only one survivor – British national Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, 40.
At least 19 people were also killed on the ground as the doomed Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner came down in a residential area moments after takeoff.
Air India, the nation’s oldest airline, has been trying to revitalise its operations after several years under government control.
The airline company says Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who was flying the plane, had more than 10,000 hours of experience on wide-body jets, while co-pilot Clive Kunder had logged over 3,400 hours.
The crash marked the first fatal incident involving a Dreamliner and was a major setback for Boeing, which is facing ongoing scrutiny over its aircraft safety standards.
The US National Transportation Safety Board is assisting with the Indian-led investigation, while the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing and GE Aerospace are providing technical support. It declined to comment on the release of the report.
Reports indicate there have been tensions building between American and Indian officials.
One of the biggest points of contention is the delay in accessing and analysing the plane’s black boxes.
The Americans are not pleased with the slow pace at which data is being extracted from the cockpit voice and data recorders.
The US team at one point even considered pulling out of the probe before eventually deciding to carry on.
The US investigators have since returned home.
The Dreamliner, which was first delivered to Air India in 2012, has been used for many international routes.
Although officials have initially focused on the fuel control switches, they have cautioned nothing has yet been ruled out yet.
Sole survivor Vishwash Kumar Ramesh had been in the country on a business trip with his brother Ajaykumar, 35, before they boarded the doomed flight travelling from Ahmedabad to Gatwick on Thursday.
In what has been described as a miracle, Viswash – seated in 11A by the exit – survived, but his sibling who was sat on the other side of the aisle in seat 11J perished in the fireball explosion.
Before the discovery of the British survivor, authorities said that they believed no one had escaped the flight alive.
Eleven of those on board were children, including two newborns.
The Boeing jet crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad Airport in Gujarat at around 1.40pm (0810 GMT), officials said.
Ahmedabad, the main city of India’s Gujarat state, is home to around eight million people, and the busy airport is surrounded by densely packed residential areas.
Preliminary flight tracking data from flightradar24 reveals the plane reached an altitude of just 625ft after takeoff – a height far below standard for a commercial aircraft even 30 seconds after takeoff.
According to data logs, recorded at 30-second intervals, the plane remained on the ground or was taxiing slowly for over four minutes after it first registered on public trackers.
The plane took off and reached 625ft, but no further gains in altitude were recorded before the crash.
An Air India spokesman said: ‘Air India stands in solidarity with the families and those affected by the AI171 accident. We continue to mourn the loss and are fully committed to providing support during this difficult time.’
The spokesman added: ‘Air India is working closely with stakeholders, including regulators.
‘We continue to fully co-operate with the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) and other authorities as their investigation progresses.
‘Given the active nature of the investigation, we are unable to comment on specific details and refer all such enquiries to the AAIB.’
Discussion about this post