The June 2025 Air India crash in Ahmedabad, which claimed 260 lives, is caught up in a maze of conspiracy theories and alleged technical failures, leading to gross lack of clarity. This is not the first crash where activists and official assessments are not on the same page

Despite meticulous multi-headed investigation by civil aviation authorities, many air crashes contain uncertainties that niggle away at investigators and nourish conspiracy theorists alike, even when there is broad agreement on what could have happened.

It is precisely this ambiguity that surrounds the June 12, 2025, Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner crash in Ahmedabad, India, shortly after taking off en route to London, killing 260 people.

Since then, it has meant a series of conflicting assessments of what went wrong. They range from varying preliminary reports focusing on pilot error (fuel switches moved to “CUTOFF”) versus potential technical and manufacturing defects in the Dreamliner, amid serious charges of a cover-up.

Some key reasons for the vagueness surrounding this crash, one of the worst in Indian aviation history, are the following: 

Fuel Switch Controversy: Preliminary findings indicated that engine fuel control switches were briefly moved to “CUTOFF” shortly after take-off. However, it is unclear if this was an inadvertent, panicked action by the pilots or an uncommanded movement caused by a system malfunction.

Contradictory Reports: While initial reports pointed to pilot action, some experts argue this narrative ignores potential electrical faults, with others viewing the investigation as a “cover-up”. Others suggest a latent design defect might be involved, referencing previous safety bulletins about fuel switch locking mechanisms.

System Fault Potential: The investigation has examined if a faulty “ground-air logic system” or “air-ground sensor” failed to register that the plane was in the air, preventing proper system operation.

Whistleblower Allegations: Reports from a whistleblower a year before the crash claimed “glaring safety issues” with the 787 Dreamliner manufacturing, fuelling suspicions about the aircraft’s integrity. 

The investigation by Air India and the country’s civil aviation regulator, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is ongoing, with significant scrutiny on whether this was a case of pilot error or a mechanical/software failure in the Boeing 787.

A month after the crash, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), a division of India’s Ministry of Civil Aviation, published a preliminary report on what caused the tragedy. The report mentioned a conversation between Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kundar. The report stated that the cockpit audio confirmed one pilot asking, “Why did you cut off?” And the other replied, “I didn’t.” This led to speculation that a pilot error was behind the mishap. 

The central point of contention is why the aircraft’s two fuel control switches moved from “RUN” to “CUTOFF“ just three seconds after liftoff, starving the engines of fuel. Experts say that Boeing 787 fuel switches require a deliberate two-step action—pulling up before flipping—making accidental movement nearly impossible, according to experts.

At the crash site, both switches were found in the “RUN” position, suggesting a desperate attempt to restore power before impact. 

Reports in early 2026, including those from Italian and US media, suggest that some investigators believe the crash was a deliberate act by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who was allegedly struggling with depression, though his family strongly disputes this narrative.

According to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, sources say black box data indicates manual movement of engine fuel control switches, shutting down both engines shortly after take-off. 

While US experts assisting in the probe called the findings a “breakthrough,” officials stress that conclusions remain preliminary until the DGCA releases its final report, which may also address pilot psychological monitoring. 

In the meantime, the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) has sent a legal notice to the AAIB, after the latter summoned a pilot related to Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, in connection with the probe into the tragedy. Air India has informed Captain Varun Anand that the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau has summoned him.

The Federation of Indian Pilots has objected to this and pointed out that the bureau has not clarified why Captain Varun Anand has been summoned, according to media reports. 

The Federation said that Captain Anand has no link to AI-171; nor was he part of the flight planning or present at the crash site. He is neither a factual witness, nor a technical witness, and was not an expert witness in relation to the mishap. 

The Federation has said Captain Anand has been summoned because he is related to Captain Sumit Sabharwal, the flight’s pilot in command. The pilots’ organisation suspects that the investigators may already have a preconceived narrative and is trying to shift the responsibility to the dead flight crew. 

The Federation cited rules under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and pointed out that it is unlawful to call family members as part of the investigation. It said, however, Captain Anand is still willing to appear through video conferencing.

In the battle between global corporate goliaths and a lone pilot, who is not there to defend himself, the narrative is getting foggier by the day. 

Following the preliminary report, Captain Sabharwal’s 88-year-old father, Pushkaraj Sabharwal, and the Federation of Indian Pilots approached the Supreme Court, saying the report is “profoundly flawed”. The probe team, they said, is predominantly focusing on the pilots, who can no longer defend themselves. The Supreme Court had said such a narrative is “unfortunate”.

Earlier this year, the BBC reported aviation safety campaigners in the United States as saying they have evidence a plane that crashed in India had previously suffered a series of technical failures, including an in-flight fire.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety (FAS), a US campaign group, has sent a presentation to the US Senate outlining its findings, which it says are based on documents that have come into its possession.

The campaigners say they have documents that reveal that the plane experienced system failures from its very first day in service for Air India. It alleges these were caused by “a wide and confusing variety of engineering, manufacturing, quality, and maintenance problems”.

The failures included electronics and software faults, circuit breakers tripping repeatedly, damage to wiring, short circuits, loss of electrical current, and overheating of power system components.

In January 2022, the FAS said there was a fire in the P100 power distribution panel. This is one of five such panels that take high-voltage power generated by the engines and distribute it around the aircraft.

The pilots started receiving fault messages during a descent into Frankfurt Airport – and the damage was discovered afterwards. Itwas so severe, the FAS says, that the entire panel had to be replaced.

The 787 relies more heavily on electrical systems than previous generations of passenger aircraft. In an effort to improve efficiency, its designers got rid of numerous mechanical and pneumatic components, and replaced them with electrical ones, which were lighter. 

The Foundation says its concerns about Boeing 787 go beyond the aircraft involved in the India accident. It says it has also examined some 2,000 reports of failures on hundreds of other aircraft in the US, Canada and Australia.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety is led by Ed Pierson, a former senior manager at Boeing’s Renton factory in Seattle, who has been an outspoken critic of the aerospace giant’s safety and quality control standards for years.

He has previously described the preliminary report into the Air India crash as “woefully inadequate… embarrassingly inadequate”.

The indirectly reported conversation by the AAIB between the flying crew, prompted several commentators in the US and India to suggest that the accident had been caused by one of the pilots, either deliberately or inadvertently.

Since then, there has been a backlash from lawyers for the accident victims, safety campaigners, a pilots’ association and some technical experts, both in India and the US. They believe the focus on the pilots is misleading and has diverted attention away from the possibility of a technical problem with the aircraft.

Boeing has always maintained that the 787 is a safe aircraft with a strong record. Prior to the Ahmedabad crash, it had operated for nearly a decade-and-a-half without a single fatality.

Investigations about air crashes are unusually long winded. Queries continue to be raised as to what caused TWA Flight 800 to explode and crash into the Atlantic in 1996. A group called the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organisation (FIRO) is dedicated to helping official investigators determine the cause of the as yet unresolved disaster. There was even a documentary produced questioning the cause of the crash.

Some 47 years after the Pan Am 944 accident, a newspaper publisher and history professor continue to investigate the causes of the crash.

Unresolved aviation disasters where the cause remains unknown, or the wreckage was never found, defy explanation, despite official investigations. 

Notable unsolved aviation mysteries: 

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (2014): A Boeing 777 vanished over the Indian Ocean during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Despite extensive searches, the main wreckage and the reason for its deviation remain unknown.

Flying Tiger Line Flight 739 (1962): A military charter flight carrying 93 U.S. Army Rangers and 11 crew members disappeared over the Pacific Ocean without a distress call.

Varig Flight 967 (1979): A Boeing 707 cargo aircraft disappeared over the Pacific Ocean 30 minutes after taking off from Tokyo, with neither the aircraft nor its cargo of paintings ever found.

EgyptAir Flight 990 (1999): While the flight data recorder showed the plane plunged into the Atlantic, the motivation behind the actions of the relief first officer remains heavily debated.

Helios Airways Flight 522 (2005): Known as the “ghost plane” it crashed in Greece after the crew became incapacitated due to a failure to pressurize the cabin, but the specific actions leading to the, or lack thereof, are a subject of intense analysis. 

Since 1994, there have been only six confirmed instances globally involving commercial planes, where investigating agencies attributed the accident to actions by the pilot. Within these, only four have published reports and analyses. 

In two out of four fatal aircrash probes studied by academic researchers, the investigators from the national agencies disagreed with the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on whether the pilots intentionally crashed their planes.

Clearly then, the question to ask is this: will the India Boeing 787 crash go the way of other air crashes and be shrouded in perpetual mystery? Until the DGCA submits its final findings, that is the billion-rupee question being asked in India’s aviation circles, the world’s third-largest civil aviation market by passenger traffic, holding approximately 4% of total global air traffic, despite representing 18% of the global population. Domestic air traffic is growing at nearly 6.9% annually, with 211 million passengers in 2024, as reported by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). 

© Eurasia Review