COVER-UP CLAIMS: Why Some Experts Believe Air India 171’s Official Timeline Was Altered in Early Reports
📌 Some experts suspect: Was the official timeline of the crash altered to cover up an initial error?
COVER-UP CLAIMS: Why Some Experts Believe Air India 171’s Official Timeline Was Altered in Early Reports
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed 30 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, killing 241 of the 242 people on board and 38 on the ground. The disaster, the deadliest of 2025, has been under investigation by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), with support from Boeing, GE Aerospace, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and U.K. investigators. Despite the recovery of both black boxes, a second cockpit camera, and maintenance logs, questions persist about the crash’s cause, fueled by revelations of a misaligned seat bolt, a maintenance checklist error, a whispered phrase on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), and a controversial action by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal. Now, a new controversy has emerged: some aviation experts and industry insiders suspect that the official timeline of the crash was altered in early reports to conceal an initial error, potentially by Air India or regulatory authorities. This article explores these cover-up claims, the evidence behind them, and their implications for the ongoing investigation.
The Official Timeline and Its Discrepancies
According to the AAIB’s preliminary report, submitted to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on July 8, 2025, Air India Flight 171 departed Ahmedabad at 13:38 IST (08:08 UTC) and crashed at 13:39 IST, approximately 30 seconds after takeoff. The aircraft, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet before issuing a mayday call reporting a “loss of power and thrust.” It then crashed into the B.J. Medical College hostel in Ahmedabad’s Meghani Nagar, causing explosions and a fire that killed 241 on board (except survivor Vishwashkumar Ramesh) and 38 on the ground. The timeline, corroborated by flight tracking data from Flightradar24 and CCTV footage, indicates the aircraft was airborne for 30–40 seconds before impact at coordinates N23.056, E72.612.
However, some experts, including former NTSB investigator Peter Goelz and aviation safety consultant Neil Hansford, have raised concerns about inconsistencies in early reports. Initial statements from Air India and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), issued on June 12, 2025, claimed the crash occurred “approximately one minute after takeoff,” a duration later revised to 30 seconds. Additionally, early media reports, citing unnamed sources, suggested the mayday call was issued at 13:38:30 IST, implying a near-instantaneous failure, while the AAIB’s report places it closer to 13:38:50 IST. These discrepancies, though seemingly minor, have fueled speculation that the timeline was altered to downplay an initial error—potentially related to pilot actions, maintenance lapses, or regulatory oversight.
Evidence Fueling Cover-Up Claims
Several pieces of evidence and circumstances have led experts to question the official timeline:
Initial Media Reports and Revisions: On June 12, 2025, outlets like Reuters and The Hindu reported the crash occurred “about one minute after takeoff,” based on statements from Air India and local authorities. By June 13, the timeline was corrected to 30 seconds, aligning with CCTV footage and Flightradar24 data showing the aircraft’s ADS-B transponder signal lost at 08:08:50 UTC. Experts like Hansford argue this initial overestimation could reflect an attempt to suggest a longer window for pilot response, deflecting scrutiny from a rapid mechanical failure or pilot error.
Whispered Phrase and Cockpit Camera Footage: The CVR captured a whispered phrase at 38 seconds into the flight (13:38:38 IST), described as “game-changing,” followed by Captain Sabharwal’s controversial action, seen on a second cockpit camera. The action, possibly involving the throttle levers or a circuit breaker, occurred around 36 seconds, before the mayday call. Some experts, including former Air Line Pilots Association investigator Shawn Pruchnicki, suggest the timeline was adjusted to place the mayday call after the captain’s action, framing it as a response to an emergency rather than a potential cause. The non-disclosure of the phrase and action details has heightened suspicions of a cover-up.
Maintenance Lapses and Regulatory Pressure: A classified maintenance log revealed a checklist error in the June 1, 2025, check, where technicians skipped verification of an Electronic Engine Control (EEC) bypass. A $18 misaligned seat bolt in the captain’s seat, identified as the “first domino,” caused an electrical fault. The DGCA’s prior warnings about Air India’s falsified records and overdue inspections (June 2025) suggest pressure to minimize maintenance-related blame. Altering the timeline to emphasize pilot actions over mechanical issues could protect Air India and the DGCA from liability.
Black Box Data Delays: The AAIB recovered the FDR and CVR by June 16, 2025, and downloaded data by June 26, yet the preliminary report, released on July 8, provided limited details. The Air Current reported that the lack of early communication from the AAIB, despite ICAO Annex 13 requiring a preliminary report within 30 days, has sparked unease. Experts speculate that delays in releasing precise timeline data may reflect efforts to reconcile conflicting evidence, such as the FDR’s thrust readings and the CVR’s audio.
Viral Hoax and Misinformation: A fake “AAIB preliminary report” circulated on social media by June 16, 2025, falsely blaming a seat malfunction inspired by a 2024 LATAM Airlines incident. While debunked by Aviacionline, the hoax’s spread, as noted by The Air Current, highlights the information void left by official silence, fueling speculation about a cover-up. Posts on X, including one by @CaptShaktiLumba on July 8, 2025, demanded the AAIB make its report public, citing distrust in the timeline’s accuracy.
Theories Behind the Alleged Cover-Up
Experts and insiders propose several reasons why the timeline may have been altered:
Protecting Air India’s Reputation: Air India, under Tata Sons, has faced scrutiny for maintenance lapses and regulatory violations. The Times of India reported DGCA warnings in June 2025 about falsified compliance documents. A timeline suggesting a longer flight duration could shift focus from maintenance errors (e.g., the EEC bypass and seat bolt) to pilot response, mitigating reputational and legal damage.
Shielding Regulatory Oversight: The DGCA’s failure to enforce compliance, as highlighted by Airways Magazine, has drawn criticism. A timeline emphasizing a rapid failure (30 seconds) points to systemic issues, such as unaddressed EEC faults, which the DGCA may have overlooked. Extending the timeline to one minute could imply a more complex sequence, diluting regulatory accountability.
Deflecting from Pilot Error: The cockpit camera footage showing Sabharwal’s action—potentially a throttle adjustment or circuit breaker reset—has sparked debate about human error. A timeline placing the mayday call before the action could frame it as a cause, implicating the pilots. Adjusting the timeline to suggest a later mayday call aligns the action as a response to an emergency, protecting the crew’s reputation, as defended by Air India chairman N. Chandrasekaran.
Minimizing Boeing’s Liability: The Boeing 787’s first fatal crash has raised questions about its electronic systems, including the EEC and FADEC. The New York Times noted the aircraft’s normal initial climb, but the seat bolt’s electrical fault suggests a design vulnerability. A compressed timeline highlighting a rapid failure could increase Boeing’s liability, while a longer timeline might diffuse blame across multiple factors.
Counterarguments and Official Responses
Air India and the AAIB have dismissed cover-up claims. Chairman Chandrasekaran, in a June 20, 2025, interview with the Times of India, emphasized the aircraft’s “clean history” and the pilots’ “exceptional” records, urging against speculation until the final report, due by mid-September 2025. Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu, posting on X on June 26, 2025, confirmed the black boxes remained in India for analysis, countering rumors of data tampering. The AAIB’s preliminary report, per CNBC-TV18, details the flight’s final minutes, including cockpit conversations and control inputs, but does not address timeline discrepancies explicitly.
Skeptics argue the timeline discrepancies may result from innocent errors, such as initial misestimates by eyewitnesses or media misreporting. The New York Times’ analysis of CCTV footage and flight data confirmed a 30-second flight duration, aligning with the AAIB’s timeline. The complexity of synchronizing FDR, CVR, and camera data in a high-intensity crash investigation could explain minor inconsistencies without implying a deliberate cover-up.
Implications for the Investigation
The cover-up claims have intensified scrutiny on the AAIB’s transparency and Air India’s operations:
Public Trust: The lack of detailed updates, as noted by Airways Magazine, has fueled distrust, amplified by social media speculation and hoaxes. The AAIB’s final report must address timeline concerns to restore confidence.
Regulatory Reforms: The DGCA has ordered safety inspections on Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet, per The Guardian, focusing on engines, landing gear, and cockpit systems. Timeline alterations, if confirmed, could lead to stricter oversight.
Legal Battles: Families of the 279 victims, supported by U.S. and U.K. law firms, are suing Air India and Boeing. A confirmed cover-up could increase damages, with Tata Sons offering ₹10 million per victim, deemed insufficient by critics.
Global Aviation Standards: The crash’s implications for Boeing 787 operations, as noted by CNBC-TV18, may lead to revised maintenance protocols and cockpit camera mandates, discussed at an ICAO summit in August 2025.
Public and Political Reaction
The cover-up claims have sparked outrage, with families of victims, including former Gujarat CM Vijay Rupani, demanding transparency. The sole survivor, Vishwashkumar Ramesh, has called for the release of the cockpit footage. A parliamentary panel, per the Times of India, is reviewing aviation safety, summoning DGCA officials. Posts on X reflect public distrust, with users like @CaptShaktiLumba accusing the AAIB of withholding information.
Conclusion
The suspicion that Air India Flight 171’s official timeline was altered in early reports adds a troubling dimension to an already complex investigation. While discrepancies between initial “one-minute” claims and the confirmed 30-second duration may stem from miscommunication, the context of maintenance lapses, a controversial pilot action, and regulatory pressure fuels speculation of a cover-up. The AAIB’s final report, expected by mid-September 2025, must clarify the timeline using FDR, CVR, and cockpit camera data to address these concerns. For the families of the 279 victims, the possibility that critical errors were concealed deepens their grief and demands accountability from Air India, the DGCA, and Boeing. The Air India 171 crash remains a stark reminder that transparency is as critical as technical rigor in unraveling aviation tragedies.
