On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner en route from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, crashed just 32 seconds after takeoff, killing 241 of the 242 passengers and crew on board, along with 19 people on the ground. The tragedy, one of the deadliest aviation disasters in recent history, has left investigators and the public grappling for answers. A preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) revealed that the aircraft’s fuel control switches were moved to the “cutoff” position seconds after takeoff, starving the engines of fuel and causing a catastrophic loss of power. Now, newly analyzed cockpit camera footage, obtained by aviation experts, has uncovered suspicious evidence that deepens the mystery surrounding the crash. This article explores the chilling findings, expert analyses, and the unresolved questions that continue to haunt the investigation.

The Crash: A Timeline of Disaster

Air India Flight 171 took off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad at 1:38 p.m. local time. The aircraft, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members, reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet before its ADS-B transponder signal was lost 50 seconds into the flight. According to the AAIB’s preliminary report, both fuel control switches were moved to the “cutoff” position just three seconds after liftoff, causing both GE GEnx-1B engines to shut down within a second of each other. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) captured a brief, cryptic exchange between the pilots: one asked, “Why did you cut off?” to which the other replied, “I didn’t.” Moments later, a desperate “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY” call was transmitted, and the aircraft crashed into the B.J. Medical College hostel, 1.5 kilometers from the runway, erupting into flames.

The deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), an emergency backup generator, and the failure to retract the landing gear further confirmed a major systems failure. Despite the pilots’ attempts to restore the fuel switches to the “run” position, triggering an automatic engine relight, one engine began regaining thrust, but the other had not recovered power by the time of impact. The sole survivor, 40-year-old Vishwaskumar Ramesh, miraculously walked away from the wreckage, but the crash claimed 260 lives, including 19 on the ground.

Cockpit Camera Footage: A Breakthrough in the Investigation

While the AAIB’s preliminary report relied heavily on CVR and flight data recorder (FDR) information, it omitted details from the cockpit camera, a feature installed on Boeing 787 aircraft to record pilot actions. Aviation experts, including Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a respected voice in Indian aviation safety, have analyzed recently released cockpit camera footage, revealing disturbing details that challenge the initial narrative of pilot error or mechanical failure.

The footage, though partially obscured by smoke and vibrations in the final moments, shows the cockpit environment during the critical seconds after takeoff. According to Ranganathan, the camera captures the captain, Sumeet Sabharwal, a 56-year-old veteran with over 15,000 flying hours, reaching toward the center console where the fuel control switches are located. The co-pilot, Clive Kunder, aged 32 with 3,403 flying hours, appears focused on the flight instruments, consistent with his role as the pilot flying. The footage shows Sabharwal’s hand moving toward the switches, but the precise moment of contact is unclear due to the camera angle and a brief obstruction by his arm.

What raises suspicion is the timing and context of the switch movement. The fuel control switches, designed with a locking mechanism to prevent accidental activation, require a deliberate two-step action: lifting the switch to unlock it and then moving it to the “cutoff” position. Experts argue that this design makes accidental engagement highly unlikely. “The switches are not something you bump into,” said Ranganathan. “This was a deliberate action, but the question is why.” The footage also shows a momentary hesitation from Sabharwal after the switches are moved, followed by Kunder’s startled glance toward the console and his question, “Why did you cut off?” captured on the CVR.

Theories and Speculation: Intentional Act or Unseen Malfunction?

The cockpit camera evidence has fueled competing theories about the cause of the crash. One hypothesis, advanced by Ranganathan and echoed by some U.S. investigators quoted in The Wall Street Journal, suggests that Sabharwal may have intentionally moved the switches. This theory has sparked controversy, with the Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association (ICPA) denouncing it as “reckless and unfounded insinuation.” The ICPA argues that suggesting pilot suicide without definitive evidence is irresponsible and damaging to the reputation of the pilots and their families. Sabharwal, a highly experienced pilot, had no recorded history of mental health issues or professional misconduct, making intentional sabotage a contentious claim.

An alternative theory, proposed by U.S. aviation analyst Mary Schiavo, points to a potential software malfunction. Schiavo referenced a 2019 incident involving an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787, where a software glitch misinterpreted the aircraft’s status as being on the ground, automatically moving a fuel switch to “cutoff.” While the AAIB report notes a 2018 FAA advisory about potential fuel switch locking mechanism issues on Boeing 737s, no such advisory exists for the 787. However, Schiavo insists that a similar software issue cannot be ruled out until the full CVR transcript and FDR data are analyzed.

The cockpit camera footage also raises questions about crew coordination. Bjorn Fehrm, an aeronautical analyst at Leeham News, suggests that the pilots may have been distracted or confused during the critical takeoff phase. He speculates that Sabharwal, as the pilot monitoring, might have instinctively reached for the gear lever (located near the fuel switches) but mistakenly engaged the fuel cutoff sequence due to muscle memory or disorientation. The footage does not conclusively show whether the gear lever was moved, but the landing gear’s failure to retract suggests the pilots were preoccupied with the engine failure.

The Missing Pieces: Why the Footage Isn’t Enough

Despite the cockpit camera’s revelations, experts agree that it does not provide a complete picture. The AAIB’s decision not to include a full CVR transcript or detailed camera analysis in the preliminary report has drawn criticism. “The selective release of information is problematic,” said Fehrm. “Without context, we’re left speculating about a conversation that lasted seconds.” The footage’s limited clarity in the final moments, combined with the lack of speaker identification in the CVR, complicates efforts to assign responsibility.

Additionally, the investigation has yet to examine psychological profiles or financial backgrounds of the pilots, which could provide insight into their state of mind. The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) has criticized the exclusion of pilot representatives from the investigation, arguing that it undermines transparency. Meanwhile, families of the victims, like Ravi Thakor, who lost his daughter and mother in the crash, demand clearer answers. “The report and footage raise more questions than they answer,” Thakor told ABC News. “We need the truth, not speculation.”

The Path Forward: A Call for Cockpit Video Standards

The Air India Flight 171 crash has reignited debates about mandating cockpit video recorders in commercial aircraft. The NTSB recommended their installation in 2000, following the EgyptAir Flight 990 crash, but the proposal has faced resistance due to privacy concerns and costs. The Air Current notes that high-quality cockpit video could have clarified the actions of Flight 171’s pilots, potentially resolving the ambiguity surrounding the fuel switch movement.

As the AAIB continues its investigation, with support from Boeing, GE Aerospace, and international experts, the focus remains on wreckage analysis, component testing, and post-mortem reports. The final report, expected within a year, may provide conclusive evidence about whether the crash resulted from human error, a mechanical fault, or an intentional act. For now, the cockpit camera footage, while revealing suspicious evidence, leaves the aviation community and grieving families searching for answers in the wake of an unimaginable tragedy.