The preliminary report into the tragic crash of Air India Flight 171, which claimed 260 lives in June, has raised more questions than it has answered, deepening the mystery over what transpired in the cockpit seconds before the aircraft went down.
The 15-page report, released by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), was expected to provide some clarity on the cause of the crash. Instead, it has stirred speculation and international media scrutiny, particularly around a cryptic exchange between the pilots moments before the aircraft lost all engine power.
According to the report, just after take-off from Ahmedabad airport, both fuel-control switches on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner were manually moved to the “cut-off” position—an action typically performed only after landing. This sudden move cut fuel supply to both engines, resulting in total power loss.
A brief excerpt from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) included in the report captures one pilot asking the other: "Why did you do the cut-off?" The response: "I didn’t." The recording, however, does not clarify which of the two pilots made the statement.
At the time of take-off, the co-pilot, Clive Kunder, 32, was flying the aircraft while Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, was monitoring the flight. Both were experienced, with over 19,000 flight hours combined—nearly half of which was on the Boeing 787.
The CVR revelation has led to widespread speculation about whether the incident was caused by human error, a deliberate act, or a technical malfunction.
The engines attempted to relight automatically once the switches were reset to normal. While one engine began to regain thrust, the other had not recovered when the aircraft crashed into a densely populated neighbourhood in western Ahmedabad. The entire flight lasted less than a minute.
Media leaks, mounting speculation
Reports in The Wall Street Journal and Reuters have suggested that the investigation may be focusing on the captain’s actions in the cockpit. Italian daily Corriere della Sera, citing unnamed sources, claimed the co-pilot had repeatedly questioned the captain about why the engines were shut down.
The AAIB has criticised what it described as “selective and unverified reporting” by some international media outlets. In a strongly worded statement last week, the bureau called the reports “irresponsible” and warned against drawing premature conclusions.
Jennifer Homendy, chair of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is assisting in the probe, also condemned the speculation, calling it “premature and speculative” in a post on social media platform X.
Back in India, pilot associations have pushed back against efforts to assign blame before the final report. The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association denounced the focus on crew error as “reckless” and “deeply insensitive,” while Captain Sam Thomas, president of ALPA India, said the lack of transparency had led to “speculation triumphing over facts.”
“This isn’t just about what happened in those last seconds,” he said. “We must look at the aircraft’s maintenance logs, flight history, and system data before jumping to conclusions.”
Unanswered questions
At the heart of the ongoing controversy is the limited detail in the preliminary report. Only a single line from the cockpit conversation has been disclosed. Aviation experts say this selective release may indicate that investigators are either unsure about the identities of the voices or are withholding sensitive information until it can be corroborated.
A Canada-based accident investigator told the BBC that the ambiguity presents multiple possibilities. “If the person who moved the switches did so unconsciously, their later denial might be genuine,” he said. “Alternatively, if someone acted deliberately, they might have posed the question to confuse investigators.”
He noted that even if authorities eventually determine who spoke which line, that might not reveal who actually operated the switches.
Some pilots have floated the possibility of a glitch in the aircraft’s Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system, which manages engine operations. In rare cases, faulty sensor signals could trigger automatic fuel shutoff. However, if the “cut-off” question was uttered after the switches had moved—as the report suggests—that theory may not hold.
Peter Goelz, former NTSB managing director, has urged the AAIB to release a full CVR transcript with speaker identities. “Any malfunction during take-off would trigger alerts and be discussed by the crew. If those discussions are missing, that’s telling,” he said.
Theories persist
Indian newspapers have reported alternative theories, including the possibility of an electrical fire in the aircraft’s tail section. But the preliminary findings make clear that engine shutdown occurred before impact and was directly tied to the fuel switches being manually turned off.
Independent experts have said any fire near the tail likely resulted from post-impact damage, not a pre-crash system failure.
GVG Yugandhar, chief of the AAIB, stressed that the preliminary findings are limited in scope. “This report is meant to inform the public about what happened, not why it happened,” he said, promising that the final report would provide a thorough explanation of root causes and recommendations.
With no clear indication of pilot error, sabotage, or mechanical failure, experts caution that it may take many more months to piece together a definitive account.
“In the end, this comes down to three possibilities,” said Dr Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline investigator and aviation expert at Ohio State University. “Deliberate action, confusion, or an automation anomaly.”
