SH0CKING REVELATION: Why Did Air India Flight 171 Really Crash?

Imagine being on a plane, soaring into the sky, when suddenly—BOTH engines stop. A chilling cockpit recording from Air India 171 reveals a mystery that’s sparking outrage worldwide. Who flipped the fuel switches to OFF? Was it human error, a fatal glitch, or something darker? 🤔 The truth will leave you speechless.

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, took off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad, India, bound for London Gatwick. Just 32 seconds later, the aircraft plummeted into a densely populated suburb, crashing into the BJ Medical College hostel, killing 260 people, including 241 of the 242 passengers and crew onboard, and 19 on the ground. The sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, a 40-year-old British national of Indian origin, emerged from the wreckage in a state of shock, describing the plane as feeling “stuck in the air” before the catastrophic descent. A preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), released on July 12, 2025, revealed a chilling detail: the fuel-control switches for both engines were moved to the “cutoff” position seconds after takeoff, starving the engines of fuel and triggering the disaster. This revelation has ignited fierce debate, with questions swirling about whether this was a mechanical failure, human error, or something more sinister. This article delves into the details of the crash, the ongoing investigation, and the broader implications for aviation safety.

The Tragic Timeline

Air India Flight 171 departed Ahmedabad at 1:38 PM IST (08:08 UTC) on June 12, 2025, carrying 230 passengers, 10 cabin crew, and two pilots: Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a seasoned veteran with over 15,600 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, a 32-year-old pilot with 3,400 hours of experience. The aircraft reached its takeoff decision speed (V1) at 153 knots and lifted off at 08:08:39 UTC. Just three seconds later, at 08:08:42 UTC, the fuel-control switches for both engines transitioned from “run” to “cutoff” within a one-second gap, halting fuel flow to the engines. The Boeing 787’s engines began to decelerate, and the plane lost altitude rapidly. CCTV footage captured the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a backup power system activated during total power failure, as the aircraft struggled to climb. Despite attempts to restore fuel flow—evidenced by the switches being returned to the “run” position roughly 10 seconds later—only one engine partially restarted. At 08:09 UTC, a pilot issued a desperate “Mayday, Mayday, Mayday” call, but communication was lost seconds later as the plane crashed 1.85 kilometers from the runway, erupting into flames upon impact.

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured a haunting exchange during those final moments. One pilot asked, “Why did you cut off?” to which the other responded, “I did not do so.” This cryptic conversation, first reported by the AAIB and later detailed by The Wall Street Journal on July 17, 2025, has fueled speculation about what—or who—caused the switches to move.

The Fuel-Control Switches: A Critical Clue

Fuel-control switches are a vital component of the Boeing 787’s cockpit, located on the central console just below the thrust levers. These switches regulate fuel flow to the aircraft’s two engines, with two positions: “run” for normal operation and “cutoff” to stop fuel delivery. Designed to prevent accidental activation, the switches are spring-loaded, requiring a deliberate upward pull before they can be toggled. According to aviation experts, moving these switches to “cutoff” during flight is highly unusual and catastrophic, as it immediately halts engine operation.

The AAIB’s preliminary report noted that both switches moved to “cutoff” almost simultaneously, causing both engines to shut down within one second. This rapid sequence raises questions about whether the action was intentional, accidental, or the result of a system malfunction. The switches were found in the “run” position at the crash site, indicating an attempt to restore fuel flow, but the brief 10-second window was insufficient for the engines to regain full thrust.

Theories and Speculation

The mystery of the fuel switches has sparked three primary theories: human error, mechanical or software failure, and deliberate action.

Human Error: A Wall Street Journal report, citing sources close to U.S. investigators, suggested that Captain Sabharwal, the pilot monitoring the flight, may have inadvertently moved the switches. As First Officer Kunder was the pilot flying, his hands were occupied with the yoke and throttle, making it unlikely he could have manipulated the switches. Sabharwal, however, had a freer hand as the monitoring pilot. The CVR reportedly captured Kunder expressing surprise and panic, while Sabharwal remained calm, denying he had touched the switches. Pilot groups, including the Airline Pilots’ Association of India and the Indian Commercial Pilots Association, have strongly rejected claims of human error, calling them “speculative” and “irresponsible” without conclusive evidence.
Mechanical or Software Failure: A 2018 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory highlighted potential issues with the fuel-control switch locking mechanism on some Boeing aircraft, including the 787 Dreamliner. The advisory noted that the locking feature could become disengaged, though it was not deemed a mandatory fix. Air India did not conduct the recommended inspections, as they were advisory. Additionally, a 2021 FAA and GE service bulletin pointed to potential issues with the MN4 microprocessor in the Engine Control Unit (ECU), which could disrupt fuel flow due to solder ball fatigue from thermal cycling. Experts like Mary Schiavo have cautioned against ruling out a software malfunction, citing a 2019 incident on an All Nippon Airways 787 where a software glitch mistakenly interpreted the plane as being on the ground, triggering an automatic fuel cutoff.
Deliberate Action: Aviation expert Melissa Chen, in a post on X, suggested the possibility of deliberate action, noting that the switches’ design makes accidental movement unlikely. She speculated about “cockpit confusion or one of the pilots committed suicide,” though she emphasized this was not conclusive. Such claims have drawn sharp criticism from pilot groups, who argue they cause undue distress to the pilots’ families and lack evidence. The AAIB has not endorsed this theory, and experts like Michael Daniel, a retired FAA inspector, suggest the CVR’s multiple microphones could clarify who, if anyone, manipulated the switches.

The Investigation and Broader Implications

The AAIB, supported by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Boeing, GE Aerospace, and other international stakeholders, is conducting a detailed investigation into the crash, the deadliest aviation incident in a decade. The probe focuses on engineering, human factors, and system interactions. Fuel samples from the aircraft were tested and found satisfactory, and the plane was deemed airworthy with no reported mechanical issues before takeoff. The investigation is also examining why the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) failed to activate, despite the high-impact crash.

The crash has prompted India’s civil aviation authority to order inspections of fuel-control switches on all Boeing 737 and 787 aircraft operating in the country. This move reflects concerns about potential equipment failures, especially given the 2018 FAA advisory. Air India has reduced international services by 15% in the aftermath, and the airline’s CEO, Campbell Wilson, urged employees to avoid premature conclusions, emphasizing that the investigation is ongoing.

The tragedy has also reignited discussions about aviation safety standards. A post on X by aviation expert Richard Godfrey suggested the RAT’s deployment before the fuel cutoff indicates a possible pre-existing power issue, potentially ruling out pilot error. Meanwhile, pilot associations have criticized the investigation’s reliance on paraphrased CVR excerpts and called for greater transparency, including the release of the full cockpit transcript.

The Human Toll and Public Reaction

The crash’s devastating toll—260 lives lost, including 19 on the ground, and 67 injuries—has left families and communities reeling. The sole survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, described witnessing “people dying in front of my eyes” as he escaped the wreckage. Families of the victims have demanded clarity, expressing frustration with the preliminary report’s lack of definitive answers. Air India has established the AI-171 Memorial and Welfare Trust to support affected families, but public outrage persists, fueled by media reports and speculative narratives on platforms like X.

Posts on X reflect a mix of sentiment, with some users like @surveilz alleging a cover-up and others like @FlyersRights attributing the crash to a pilot mistake due to the 10-second gap between the switches being turned off and on. These claims remain inconclusive, but they underscore the public’s demand for answers.

Conclusion

The Air India Flight 171 crash remains a complex puzzle, with the fuel-control switches at the heart of the investigation. Whether the cause lies in human error, a mechanical flaw, or an unthinkable deliberate act, the tragedy underscores the fragility of aviation safety and the need for rigorous oversight. As the AAIB and its partners continue their work, with a final report expected by June 12, 2026, the aviation industry and the public await answers that could prevent future disasters. For now, the haunting question lingers: how did those switches move to “cutoff,” and why?

The crash of Flight 171 serves as a stark reminder of the stakes in aviation, where seconds and small actions can mean the difference between life and death. As investigations proceed, the focus must remain on uncovering the truth, honoring the victims, and ensuring such a tragedy never happens again.