He Looked Me in the Eye and Said, ‘It Wasn’t Me’ – Shocking Revelations in Air India Flight 171 Crash
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, claiming 260 lives, including 241 passengers and crew aboard and 19 people on the ground. The tragedy, the deadliest aviation disaster in India in four decades, has gripped the nation and the global aviation community. A preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) revealed that the aircraft’s fuel control switches moved to the “cut-off” position seconds after takeoff, starving the engines of fuel and causing a catastrophic loss of thrust. But a new revelation from a former Air India technician has added a chilling twist to the investigation: the aircraft, registered as VT-ANB, allegedly failed two fuel regulation tests prior to its final flight, with critical documents replaced to conceal the issue.
The Crash and the Cockpit Mystery
The preliminary report, released on July 11, 2025, detailed a haunting exchange captured by the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). One pilot asked the other, “Why did you cut off [the fuel]?” to which the other replied, “I didn’t.” The report did not identify which pilot—Captain Sumeet Sabharwal or First Officer Clive Kunder—made which statement. The fuel control switches, designed with a mechanical lock to prevent accidental movement, were found in the “run” position at the crash site, indicating an attempt to restore fuel flow. However, the low altitude of approximately 400 feet left no time for the engines to recover fully, leading to the crash into a medical college hostel in a densely populated Ahmedabad suburb.
The report noted that the switches flipped to “cut-off” one second apart, a timing that experts like U.S. aviation analyst John Nance suggest aligns with deliberate manual action rather than an accidental bump. The switches require a pilot to lift and move them, making unintentional activation highly unlikely. This has fueled speculation about human error, mechanical failure, or even sabotage, with no clear answers yet.
A Technician’s Bombshell Claim
In a stunning development, a former Air India technician, speaking anonymously due to fear of retaliation, has claimed that the aircraft involved in the crash, VT-ANB, failed two fuel regulation tests in the months leading up to the incident. According to the technician, these tests, conducted as part of routine maintenance, revealed irregularities in the fuel control system, potentially linked to the throttle control module housing the fuel switches. The technician alleges that instead of addressing the issue, certain maintenance documents were replaced or altered to show compliance, allowing the aircraft to continue operating.
“He looked me in the eye and said, ‘It wasn’t me,’” the technician recounted, describing a conversation with a senior maintenance official when confronted about the discrepancies. The technician claims they were pressured to remain silent, citing the airline’s need to maintain schedules and avoid costly grounding of the aircraft. While these claims remain unverified, they cast a shadow over Air India’s maintenance practices and raise questions about oversight by India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).
A History of Overlooked Warnings
The AAIB report referenced a 2018 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) that flagged potential disengagement of the locking feature on fuel control switches in Boeing 737s, a design also used in the 787-8, including VT-ANB. The SAIB recommended inspections but was advisory, not mandatory, and Air India did not conduct them. Maintenance records show the throttle control module was replaced in 2019 and 2023, but not due to fuel switch issues, and no defects were reported since.
The technician’s allegations suggest that the failed tests may have pointed to a deeper issue with the fuel control system, possibly related to the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system, which monitors engine performance. Some experts, including Captain Amit Singh, have questioned whether a microprocessor failure could have disrupted fuel flow, though the CVR’s indication of pilot awareness of the switch movement undermines this theory.
Human Factors or Systemic Failure?
The investigation has focused heavily on the pilots’ actions, given the CVR evidence. Captain Sabharwal, with over 15,000 hours of flying experience, and First Officer Kunder, with 3,400 hours, were both highly qualified and passed pre-flight health checks. The Wall Street Journal reported that Kunder, the pilot flying, likely asked Sabharwal, the monitoring pilot, about the fuel cut-off, as Kunder’s hands would have been occupied with the yoke and throttle. Yet, both pilots’ denial of moving the switches complicates the narrative.
India’s Federation of Indian Pilots has criticized media speculation, arguing that the report’s reliance on paraphrased CVR excerpts lacks context. They assert that assigning blame prematurely is irresponsible, especially given the pilots’ attempt to steer the aircraft away from densely populated areas, minimizing ground casualties.
The technician’s claims shift some focus to systemic issues. If true, the replacement of test documents suggests a failure in maintenance protocols and regulatory oversight. Air India’s post-crash inspection of its 33 Boeing 787s found no issues with fuel switch locking mechanisms, but this does little to address concerns about prior lapses.
Broader Implications for Aviation Safety
The crash has reignited debates about aviation safety in India, the world’s third-largest passenger aviation market. With passenger numbers doubling to 239 million annually over the past decade, the pressure on airlines to maintain schedules is immense. The DGCA’s Faiz Ahmed Kidwai dismissed suggestions that the crash has dented India’s aviation reputation, but the technician’s allegations could prompt stricter scrutiny.
Globally, the incident has implications for Boeing, as the 787 Dreamliner had an impeccable safety record until this crash. The absence of immediate recommendations to Boeing or GE Aerospace in the preliminary report suggests no obvious design flaws, but the FAA’s 2018 bulletin and the technician’s claims keep the focus on the fuel control system.
The Path Forward
The AAIB, supported by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Boeing, GE, and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, continues to analyze black box data, wreckage, and fuel samples. The sole survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, described the plane feeling “stuck in the air” before crashing, corroborating the sudden loss of thrust.
The technician’s allegations, if substantiated, could lead to a broader investigation into Air India’s maintenance practices and the DGCA’s oversight. For now, the aviation community awaits the final report, expected within a year, which will include a full CVR transcript and detailed engine data analysis. Until then, the haunting question remains: was the crash the result of human error, a mechanical failure, or a cover-up that allowed a faulty aircraft to take flight?
Conclusion
The Air India Flight 171 crash is a tragedy that demands answers. The technician’s claim of failed fuel regulation tests and replaced documents adds a disturbing layer to an already complex investigation. As families grieve and the industry grapples with the fallout, the focus must be on transparency and accountability to prevent such a disaster from happening again. The words “It wasn’t me” echo not only from the cockpit but also from a system that may have failed to prioritize safety over expediency.
