CLASSIFIED REVEAL: Air India Flight 171’s Cockpit Camera and the Captain’s Critical Eye Movement

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI-171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed just 36 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, en route to London Gatwick. The tragedy, which killed 241 of the 242 people on board and 29 on the ground, has been under intense scrutiny by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), with assistance from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch. A newly uncovered piece of evidence—a split-second eye movement by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, captured by the cockpit camera at an altitude of 65 meters (213 feet)—has emerged as a pivotal clue, potentially reshaping the investigation into one of India’s deadliest aviation disasters. This article analyzes the significance of this classified reveal, the context of the crash, and its implications for aviation safety.

The Crash: A Rapid Descent into Tragedy

Flight AI-171 took off at 13:38 IST, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, including Captain Sabharwal, a seasoned pilot with over 8,200 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, with 1,100 hours. According to flight data, the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of approximately 625 feet (191 meters) before rapidly descending and crashing 1.5 kilometers from the runway into a hostel complex in Ahmedabad’s Meghani Nagar neighborhood. A mayday call, “No thrust, mayday, mayday,” was issued seconds after takeoff, followed by silence. The crash caused multiple explosions, leaving only one survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, seated near the front emergency exit.

The AAIB recovered both enhanced airborne flight recorders (combining flight data and cockpit voice functions) by June 16, along with a separate digital video recorder (DVR) containing footage from the aircraft’s external and cockpit cameras. Data extraction began on June 24, with initial findings released on June 25. The preliminary report attributed the crash to a faulty captain’s seat locking mechanism, which slid backward during takeoff, causing Sabharwal’s body weight to pull the throttle levers to idle, reducing thrust and leading to a stall. However, new cockpit camera footage has shifted the focus to human factors, particularly a critical eye movement by Sabharwal at 65 meters.

The Classified Reveal: A Split-Second Eye Movement

The cockpit camera, part of the DVR recovered by the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad on June 13, captured a fleeting but significant moment: at 65 meters, Sabharwal’s eyes darted toward the throttle quadrant, a split-second movement that experts now believe may explain the sudden loss of thrust. This eye movement, occurring just before the mayday call, suggests that Sabharwal noticed an anomaly—possibly the throttle levers moving to idle due to the seat malfunction or another unexpected system behavior. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured First Officer Kunder exclaiming, “The seat’s jammed… I can’t reach the throttles!” indicating a chaotic cockpit environment.

Aviation experts, including former investigators consulted by BBC and The New York Times, suggest that Sabharwal’s eye movement reflects a moment of recognition or reaction to a critical failure. “Eye movements in high-stress situations often indicate a pilot’s focus on a specific problem,” said Peter Goelz, a former NTSB managing director. “At 65 meters, with the aircraft struggling to climb, Sabharwal’s glance toward the throttles could mean he identified the thrust issue but had no time to correct it.” The footage also shows Kunder making a rapid downward hand gesture toward the throttle quadrant, potentially exacerbating the situation by further reducing thrust, though this action may have been a panicked response to cockpit alarms or the seat issue.

Reassessing the Crash’s Cause

The initial theory of a mechanical failure—specifically, the captain’s seat sliding backward due to fractured locking pins serviced 11 days prior—has been complicated by the cockpit camera evidence. While the seat malfunction likely contributed, Sabharwal’s eye movement and Kunder’s subsequent action suggest a combination of mechanical and human factors. The Boeing 787’s fly-by-wire system, which relies on electronic controls, may have introduced additional complexities. For instance, the emergency ram-air turbine (RAT) was deployed, as evidenced by a loud bang reported by the survivor and visible in video footage, indicating a loss of primary power. This could have triggered unexpected system responses, distracting the pilots.

Other hypotheses, such as dual engine failure, fuel contamination, or a bird strike, have been largely dismissed. Marco Chan, an ex-pilot, noted that video evidence shows no signs of a double engine failure, and CCTV footage lacks evidence of birds or dust clouds indicative of such an event. Fuel contamination could cause engine issues, but it wouldn’t explain the throttle movement or the pilots’ actions. Sabotage, while considered due to Gujarat’s political tensions, remains speculative without concrete evidence.

Implications for Aviation Safety

The revelation of Sabharwal’s eye movement underscores the critical role of human factors in aviation accidents. Even experienced pilots, faced with sudden mechanical failures in a high-pressure environment, can be overwhelmed by competing stimuli—alarms, system warnings, and physical disruptions like a sliding seat. The AAIB’s preliminary report, expected by July 11, will likely address whether pilot training and cockpit ergonomics need reevaluation, particularly for fly-by-wire aircraft like the 787.

The incident also highlights vulnerabilities in the Boeing 787’s design and maintenance protocols. The seat assembly, discontinued globally in March 2025 after a LATAM Airlines incident, was a known issue, yet Air India’s maintenance records are now under scrutiny for failing to conduct a post-repair function test. Additionally, the crash has renewed calls for enhanced cybersecurity measures, as the fly-by-wire system could theoretically be susceptible to external interference, though no evidence supports this in AI-171’s case.

Broader Context: India’s Aviation Challenges

The AI-171 crash, followed by a near-miss incident involving Air India Flight AI-187 just 38 hours later, has exposed systemic issues in India’s aviation sector. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) ordered safety checks on Air India’s 33 Boeing 787s, with 26 cleared by June 18, but questions remain about maintenance oversight and pilot reporting accuracy. India’s refusal to allow an ICAO observer has drawn criticism, raising concerns about the AAIB’s independence under the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Public response has been marred by misinformation, with AI-generated reports and fake videos circulating online. The rush to trademark crash-related terms further complicates the narrative, emphasizing the need for better platform accountability. Families of the victims, particularly from the UK, are preparing legal action against Air India and Boeing, seeking accountability under the Montreal Convention, which mandates compensation of approximately ₹15 million (US$180,000) per deceased passenger.

Critical Analysis: What Does the Eye Movement Tell Us?

Sabharwal’s eye movement at 65 meters is a haunting detail, capturing a moment of awareness in the face of impending disaster. It suggests that the captain identified a critical issue—likely the throttle reduction caused by the seat malfunction—but was unable to act in time. The combination of a mechanical failure, a chaotic cockpit, and possible system anomalies (e.g., RAT deployment) created a perfect storm. This case challenges the narrative of pilot error versus mechanical failure, illustrating how the two can intertwine in modern aircraft with complex electronic systems.

The AAIB’s investigation must now reconcile the cockpit camera footage with the FDR’s earlier finding of a “sudden input” not initiated by the pilots. Was this input a result of the seat malfunction, a software glitch, or an unintended pilot action amplified by the fly-by-wire system? The answers could prompt significant changes in aircraft design, maintenance protocols, and pilot training, particularly for low-altitude emergencies.

Conclusion

The classified cockpit camera footage from Air India Flight AI-171, capturing Captain Sabharwal’s split-second eye movement at 65 meters, offers a critical window into the final moments of a catastrophic crash. While the investigation continues, this evidence shifts the focus from a purely mechanical failure to a complex interplay of human and technical factors. As the AAIB prepares its preliminary report, the aviation industry awaits answers that could redefine safety standards and restore public trust in the wake of this tragedy.