REVEALED: Air India Flight 171 Cleared to Land 4 Minutes Before Total Systems Failure — Captain’s Final Decision Under Scrutiny
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed just 32 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground. The flight, bound for London Gatwick, suffered a catastrophic dual-engine failure, leading to a sudden left-bank dive that ended in a fiery crash into B.J. Medical College. Recent revelations, including posts on X and preliminary reports, indicate the aircraft was cleared to land four minutes before the incident, raising questions about Captain Sumeet Sabharwal’s final decisions. This article explores the timeline, the captain’s actions, and the ongoing investigation into one of India’s deadliest aviation disasters.
The Fateful Flight
Air India Flight 171 was a routine international flight carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members. The aircraft, powered by General Electric GEnx-1B engines, was piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, with 15,638 flight hours, including 8,596 on the Boeing 787. First Officer Clive Kunder, 32, with 3,403 hours, was the pilot flying, while Sabharwal monitored. The flight was cleared for takeoff on Runway 23 at 13:37:33 IST (08:07:33 UTC) and lifted off at 13:38:39. It reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet at 180 knots before both engines lost power, leading to a crash at 13:39:11.
A critical detail has emerged: four minutes before the crash, at approximately 13:35 IST, air traffic control (ATC) cleared Flight 171 to land, likely referring to a clearance for a future landing at London Gatwick or a miscommunication during taxiing. This clearance, reported in posts on X, has fueled speculation about whether it influenced the pilots’ actions or reflected procedural errors at Ahmedabad. The aircraft’s rapid descent and left-bank dive, captured on CCTV, have placed Captain Sabharwal’s final decisions under intense scrutiny.
The Catastrophic Failure
The preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), released on July 8, 2025, revealed that both fuel control switches moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” seconds after takeoff, starving the engines of fuel. This action, typically performed post-landing, caused a dual-engine failure at low altitude. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured a tense exchange: one pilot asked, “Why did you cut off?” and the other replied, “I didn’t.” The switches were flipped back to “RUN” within 10 seconds, initiating an automatic engine relight, but only Engine 1 began regaining thrust before the crash.
CCTV footage showed the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deploying, indicating a major systems failure, and the landing gear remained down, suggesting insufficient time to retract it. The aircraft’s sudden left-bank dive, observed in video evidence, has raised questions about whether Sabharwal, as the monitoring pilot, made a critical decision to maneuver the plane, possibly to avoid a more densely populated area. The sole survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, reported a “sudden application of thrust” before impact, possibly reflecting the pilots’ desperate recovery attempt or a somatogravic illusion during the dive.
The Captain’s Final Decision
Captain Sabharwal’s actions are now a focal point. As the monitoring pilot, he was responsible for systems oversight while Kunder flew the aircraft. Posts on X, including one by @ari_maj citing Italian outlet Corriere della Sera, suggest Sabharwal may have moved the fuel switches to “CUTOFF” at 13:38:42, prompting Kunder’s question, “Why did you shut off the engines?” Sabharwal’s alleged response, “I didn’t do it,” recorded a second later, has deepened the mystery. U.S. officials, quoted by The Wall Street Journal, noted Kunder was occupied with flying, making it unlikely he manipulated the switches. Sabharwal, with a freer hand, is suspected by some sources of inadvertently or deliberately cutting the fuel, though no motive has been established.
The left-bank dive, occurring seconds before impact, suggests a deliberate control input, likely by Sabharwal, as Kunder was managing the yoke. Aviation experts speculate this maneuver may have been an attempt to steer the aircraft toward a less populated area, though it crashed into a medical college hostel. The AAIB has not confirmed who initiated the dive, but the CVR’s full transcript, expected in 2026, may clarify Sabharwal’s intent.
Theories and Controversies
Several theories have emerged to explain the fuel cutoff and the dive:
Pilot Error or Intentional Action: The fuel switches’ locking mechanisms make accidental movement unlikely, leading to speculation about Sabharwal’s actions. Reports of his bereavement leave after his mother’s death and Kunder’s alleged mental health issues have fueled unverified claims of deliberate intent, strongly rejected by the Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association (ICPA) as “reckless and unfounded.” Both pilots were medically cleared, and the Federation of Indian Pilots has criticized media speculation.
Mechanical or Software Issue: A 2018 FAA advisory noted potential flaws in Boeing 737 fuel control switches, also used in the 787, where locking mechanisms could disengage. Air India did not inspect these switches, as the advisory was not mandatory. A similar 2019 incident on an All Nippon Airways 787 involved a software glitch causing a fuel cutoff, but the AAIB found no mechanical faults in Flight 171’s engines or fuel system.
Miscommunication or Procedural Error: The reported landing clearance four minutes before takeoff, if accurate, suggests possible ATC confusion or miscommunication. This could have distracted the pilots or led to procedural deviations, though no evidence links it directly to the fuel cutoff.
Investigation Challenges
The AAIB, aided by the NTSB, Boeing, GE Aerospace, and UK investigators, faces a complex probe. The CVR’s ambiguity about who spoke and who moved the switches complicates attributing responsibility. Experts like Peter Goelz, former NTSB managing director, advocate for cockpit video recorders to visually confirm actions, a feature absent on the 787. The investigation is also reviewing maintenance records, pilot training, and simulator tests, which failed to replicate a dual-engine failure via electrical faults.
The NTSB has called Western media reports blaming Sabharwal “premature and speculative,” urging reliance on the AAIB’s findings. The AAIB criticized “irresponsible” reporting, particularly after claims in The Wall Street Journal and Corriere della Sera suggested Sabharwal’s involvement. The full CVR transcript and voice identification are critical to resolving these discrepancies.
Impact and Aftermath
The crash, the first fatal incident involving a Boeing 787, has raised concerns about the aircraft’s systems and Air India’s maintenance practices, though no systemic issues were found in inspections of its 33 Dreamliners. Families of victims, like Imtiyaz Ali, demand transparency, while survivor Vishwash Kumar Ramesh’s account offers limited clues. Air India CEO Campbell Wilson and Chairman N. Chandrasekaran have pledged support for victims’ families, establishing an “AI-171 Trust” for long-term care.
Conclusion
The revelation that Air India Flight 171 was cleared to land four minutes before its catastrophic failure adds a layer of intrigue to an already baffling tragedy. Captain Sabharwal’s final decision to initiate a left-bank dive, possibly to mitigate greater loss of life, remains under scrutiny, with the fuel cutoff’s cause—human error, mechanical failure, or otherwise—still unclear. As the AAIB continues its investigation, the aviation community and grieving families await answers to ensure such a disaster is never repeated. The haunting question lingers: what drove the sequence of events that turned a routine flight into a 32-second nightmare?
