UNCONFIRMED REPORT: The Air India 171 Captain’s Smartwatch May Have Recorded Something No Black Box Did — And It’s Now in Expert Hands
The tragic crash of Air India Flight AI-171 on June 12, 2025, which claimed 274 lives, continues to captivate global attention as investigators probe the cause of the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner’s catastrophic plunge just 36 seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. Amid the ongoing investigation, a startling new claim has emerged: the captain’s smartwatch, recovered from the wreckage, may have captured critical data that even the aircraft’s black box failed to record. This unconfirmed report, circulating on platforms like X and in aviation circles, suggests that the device, now in the hands of experts, could provide unprecedented insights into the final moments of the flight. If true, this could mark a groundbreaking development in aviation accident investigations, raising questions about the role of personal devices in unraveling aviation mysteries.
The Crash of Air India Flight AI-171
Flight AI-171, en route to London Gatwick, took off at 13:38 IST with 230 passengers and 12 crew members, piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a veteran with 8,200 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, with 1,100 hours. Seconds after takeoff, the aircraft issued a mayday call reporting “no thrust,” before crashing into a hostel complex at B.J. Medical College in Ahmedabad’s Meghani Nagar neighborhood, killing 241 onboard and 33 on the ground. The sole survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, described a “loud bang” and flickering lights before the crash, which investigators initially attributed to a possible dual-engine failure or a cockpit malfunction.
The black box, comprising the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR), was recovered by June 16, with data extraction beginning on June 24. While the black box revealed a mysterious data spike and confirmed the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), indicating a loss of primary power, it has not yet provided a definitive cause. Theories ranging from a micro-fire in the cockpit to a cyberattack have been explored, but the latest unconfirmed report about the captain’s smartwatch introduces a new dimension to the investigation.
The Smartwatch Revelation
According to unverified posts on X and aviation discussion forums, the smartwatch worn by Captain Sabharwal was recovered intact from the crash site and is now being analyzed by forensic experts in Delhi. Modern smartwatches, equipped with sensors like accelerometers, gyroscopes, heart rate monitors, and GPS, can record detailed data about movement, altitude, and physiological responses. Unlike the black box, which captures aircraft-specific parameters, a smartwatch could provide a unique perspective on the pilot’s physical actions and environment in the cockpit during the critical seconds before the crash.
The claim suggests that the smartwatch recorded a sudden spike in the captain’s heart rate, possibly indicating extreme stress or a reaction to an unexpected event, such as a cockpit alarm or system failure. Additionally, the device’s motion sensors may have captured rapid movements or gestures, potentially corroborating or challenging earlier findings from a cockpit camera that showed First Officer Kunder making a critical hand gesture, initially linked to a faulty captain’s seat mechanism. If the smartwatch data aligns with the timeline of the mayday call and the FDR’s data spike, it could offer a granular view of the pilots’ actions, potentially revealing whether they were responding to a mechanical issue, an electrical fault, or an external interference.
Why the Smartwatch Matters
The significance of the smartwatch lies in its ability to capture data not recorded by the aircraft’s systems. The CVR, while critical for capturing pilot conversations and cockpit sounds, is limited to audio, and the FDR focuses on flight parameters like altitude, speed, and system inputs. A smartwatch, however, could provide:
Physiological Data: A spike in heart rate or stress indicators could reveal the exact moment the pilots realized something was wrong, potentially pinpointing the onset of the crisis.
Motion Data: Accelerometer and gyroscope readings could indicate whether Captain Sabharwal was struggling with controls, reaching for switches, or affected by a physical disruption, such as a seat malfunction or a micro-fire.
Environmental Data: Some smartwatches record ambient conditions like temperature or barometric pressure, which could hint at a cockpit fire or electrical arcing not detected by the aircraft’s sensors.
If the smartwatch’s data is intact and admissible, it could serve as a novel source of evidence, complementing the black box and cockpit camera findings. For instance, it might clarify whether the captain’s seat sliding backward, as noted in the AAIB’s preliminary report, was the primary cause or a secondary factor exacerbated by other failures.
Challenges in Validating the Smartwatch Data
While the prospect of smartwatch data is intriguing, several hurdles remain. First, the report is unconfirmed, and neither the AAIB nor the Civil Aviation Ministry has officially acknowledged the device’s recovery or analysis. The smartwatch’s condition after the crash, which involved intense heat and explosions, is uncertain. Even high-end devices may not withstand such extreme conditions, and data corruption could render the information unreliable.
Second, the admissibility of smartwatch data in an aviation investigation is uncharted territory. Unlike black boxes, which are designed to ICAO standards and rigorously tested, consumer-grade smartwatches lack certification for accident investigations. Experts would need to verify the device’s accuracy and ensure its data aligns with other evidence, such as the CVR’s audio or the FDR’s timeline. Privacy concerns could also arise, as accessing personal health data from the captain’s device may require legal clearance.
Finally, the investigation’s transparency has been questioned, with delays in black box decoding and reported tensions between Indian and Western authorities. If the smartwatch data is being analyzed, its findings may not be disclosed until the preliminary report, expected by mid-July 2025, adding to public and industry speculation.
Competing Theories and Contextual Clues
The smartwatch report emerges amid a flurry of theories about AI-171’s crash:
Micro-Fire Hypothesis: A previous theory suggested a cockpit micro-fire, supported by the RAT deployment and survivor reports of flickering lights, could have disrupted avionics. Smartwatch temperature or motion data might confirm or refute this.
Cockpit Camera Evidence: A cockpit camera revealed First Officer Kunder’s hand gesture, initially linked to a seat malfunction reducing throttle. Smartwatch motion data could clarify whether Captain Sabharwal was also attempting to adjust controls.
Cyberattack Speculation: An unexplained FDR data spike led to theories of a cyberattack, but a smartwatch is unlikely to provide direct evidence of digital interference.
Pilot Error: Experts like Captain Steve Scheibner suggested the co-pilot may have mistakenly retracted flaps instead of landing gear, reducing lift. Smartwatch data could indicate whether the pilots were actively manipulating controls during the crisis.
The smartwatch’s potential to capture the captain’s physiological and physical responses could help distinguish between human error, mechanical failure, or an external factor, offering a human-centric perspective on the cockpit’s chaotic final seconds.
Implications for Aviation Investigations
If the smartwatch data proves reliable, it could set a precedent for using personal devices in crash investigations. Pilots and crew increasingly wear smartwatches or fitness trackers, which could inadvertently record valuable data during critical events. This raises questions about standardizing the collection and analysis of such devices, balancing their utility against privacy concerns. The aviation industry may need to develop protocols for integrating non-traditional data sources, especially as wearable technology becomes more advanced.
The crash has already prompted scrutiny of Air India’s safety practices and the Boeing 787’s systems. The smartwatch findings, if substantiated, could shift focus to pilot workload, cockpit ergonomics, or undetected environmental hazards, influencing future safety regulations.
Public Reaction and Misinformation Risks
The unconfirmed nature of the smartwatch report has fueled speculation on X, with some users hailing it as a breakthrough and others dismissing it as a distraction. Misinformation, including AI-generated fake reports, has plagued the AI-171 investigation, complicating public understanding. The AAIB’s silence on the smartwatch claim underscores the need for official updates to counter unverified narratives.
Conclusion
The unconfirmed report of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal’s smartwatch recording critical data about Air India Flight AI-171’s final moments introduces a novel angle to a complex investigation. If experts can validate the device’s data, it could offer a unique window into the pilots’ actions and the cockpit environment, potentially revealing details missed by the black box. As the AAIB, with support from the NTSB and UK investigators, continues its work, the world awaits the preliminary report in mid-July 2025. For now, the smartwatch remains a tantalizing, if uncertain, piece of the puzzle in unraveling one of aviation’s most perplexing tragedies.
