SHOCKING TIMESTAMP: Air India 171 Pilot Whispered “We Lost Engine 2” at 4:36 PM — Black Box Confirms It Was Still Active
The tragic crash of Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that plummeted into a residential area near Ahmedabad Airport on June 12, 2025, continues to unravel with new revelations from the black box data. A chilling detail has emerged: at 4:36 PM IST, just seconds after takeoff, the pilot, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, whispered, “We lost Engine 2,” signaling a perceived loss of power in one of the aircraft’s two engines. However, the flight data recorder (FDR) paints a conflicting picture, confirming that Engine 2 remained active, raising fresh questions about the cause of the disaster that claimed 260 lives. This article delves into the latest findings, the implications of the pilot’s statement, and the ongoing investigation into one of India’s deadliest aviation tragedies.
The Fateful Moment: A Pilot’s Whisper
According to the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), Captain Sabharwal’s hushed statement, “We lost Engine 2,” was captured at 4:36 PM IST, approximately 36 seconds after the aircraft lifted off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at 1:39 PM IST (adjusted to local time context). The whisper came amid a chaotic sequence of events, with the co-pilot, Clive Kundar, actively flying the aircraft while Sabharwal monitored. The CVR also captured a distress call issued seconds later, with Sabharwal reportedly saying, “Mayday, mayday… no power… no thrust… going down,” indicating the crew’s belief that the aircraft was losing critical power.
Yet, the FDR data contradicts the pilot’s perception. Analysis of the black box reveals that Engine 2 was still operational, though it may have been in the process of spooling down or recovering from an interruption. This discrepancy suggests that the crew may have been misled by cockpit indicators or experienced a momentary loss of situational awareness, a critical factor in the 36-second window between takeoff and the crash.
The Black Box Evidence: What Really Happened?
The black box, comprising the CVR and FDR, has been pivotal in piecing together the final moments of Flight 171. The FDR, which records thousands of flight parameters such as altitude, airspeed, and engine performance, indicates that both engines were affected by an abrupt movement of the fuel control switches from the “RUN” to “CUTOFF” position just three seconds after takeoff. This action starved the engines of fuel, leading to a rapid loss of thrust. Within 10 seconds, the switches were moved back to “RUN,” triggering an automatic engine relight sequence. While Engine 1 began regaining thrust and Engine 2 successfully relit, neither had sufficient time to restore enough power to prevent the crash.
The CVR captures a moment of confusion, with one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?” and the other responding, “I didn’t.” The preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) does not identify which pilot spoke, as voice identification is still underway. The report notes that the fuel control switches, centrally located on the flight deck, require deliberate action to move due to their locking mechanisms, ruling out accidental contact.
The deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), observed in CCTV footage, further confirms a total power loss, as this backup system activates only during a complete engine failure. The FDR also shows the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet and an airspeed of 180 knots before descending rapidly. The landing gear remained extended, likely because the crew had no time to retract it amid the crisis.
Why the Mismatch? Possible Explanations
The pilot’s statement, “We lost Engine 2,” despite the engine’s active status, points to several potential factors:
Cockpit Instrumentation Errors: Faulty or misleading readings on the engine control displays could have led the crew to believe Engine 2 had failed. If the engine was spooling down due to the fuel cutoff, the instrumentation may have temporarily shown a loss of thrust, prompting Sabharwal’s whisper.
Human Factors Under Stress: The high-pressure environment of a sudden power loss could have caused cognitive overload. The pilots, faced with blaring alarms and a rapidly deteriorating situation, may have misinterpreted the engine’s status. Aviation psychologists note that such scenarios can lead to “confirmation bias,” where pilots fixate on a perceived problem, such as an engine failure, even when data suggests otherwise.
Fuel Control Switch Anomaly: The preliminary report’s focus on the fuel control switches suggests a critical malfunction or human error. The switches’ movement to “CUTOFF” and back to “RUN” within seconds indicates either an intentional act, an inadvertent error, or a potential system fault. The AAIB has not ruled out sabotage, though the pilots’ clean records and breathalyzer tests make deliberate malice unlikely.
Engine Recovery Lag: Although Engine 2 relit, the delay in regaining full thrust could have reinforced the pilots’ belief that it was non-functional. The Boeing 787’s engines require time to spool back up after a fuel cutoff, and with only 36 seconds from takeoff to impact, the crew had little margin to recover.
The Investigation: Unanswered Questions
The AAIB, supported by experts from Boeing, GE Aerospace, the NTSB, and UK investigators, is meticulously analyzing the wreckage and black box data in Delhi. Key questions remain:
Who Moved the Fuel Switches? The CVR’s ambiguity about which pilot spoke underscores the need for voice identification. The NTSB has recommended cockpit video recorders to capture physical actions, which could clarify who, if anyone, manipulated the switches.
Was There a Mechanical Issue? Despite the aircraft’s clean maintenance history, with a new right engine installed in March 2025, investigators are examining whether a subtle defect in the fuel or electronic engine control systems contributed to the incident.
Could Training Have Made a Difference? The rapid onset of the crisis suggests the pilots had minimal time to react. The AAIB is reviewing whether Air India’s training adequately prepared the crew for such a rare dual-engine failure scenario.
The preliminary report, released on July 12, 2025, explicitly states no immediate recommendations for Boeing or GE Aerospace, suggesting the focus remains on human or procedural factors rather than mechanical defects.
Public and Industry Reactions
The revelation of the pilot’s whisper and the black box findings has fueled intense speculation. Posts on X reflect a mix of shock and skepticism, with some users questioning whether a pilot intentionally cut the fuel supply, though such claims lack evidence and are considered speculative. Others praise the pilots’ professionalism, noting Sabharwal’s distress call as a sign of their efforts to save the aircraft.
Families of the victims, like Imtiyaz Ali, who lost multiple relatives, have expressed frustration with the preliminary report’s lack of clarity, demanding more transparency. Meanwhile, Air India’s chairman, N Chandrasekaran, has defended the aircraft’s maintenance record and the pilots’ expertise, announcing the creation of an “AI-171 Trust” to support affected families.
Implications for Aviation Safety
The Air India 171 crash highlights critical vulnerabilities in modern aviation:
Automation and Human Interaction: The reliance on automated systems, such as electronic engine controls, can complicate recovery when unexpected failures occur. Enhanced training for manual overrides and rapid troubleshooting is essential.
Cockpit Design: The fuel control switches’ design, previously flagged in a 2019 FAA bulletin for potential locking issues on Boeing 737s, is under scrutiny. While not mandatory, inspections could have identified vulnerabilities in the 787’s similar switch design.
Emergency Response Protocols: The crash’s 36-second timeline underscores the need for faster-acting backup systems, such as quicker APU activation, to restore power in dual-engine failure scenarios.
Conclusion
The whispered words, “We lost Engine 2,” at 4:36 PM IST, encapsulate the confusion and desperation aboard Air India Flight 171 as it plummeted to disaster. While the black box confirms Engine 2 was active, the fuel control switches’ mysterious movement remains the focal point of the investigation. As the AAIB works toward a final report, expected within 12 months, the aviation industry faces a sobering reminder of the thin margin for error in flight. The tragedy, which claimed 260 lives, demands answers—not only to honor the victims but to ensure such a catastrophe is never repeated.
