Tragic Final Moments of Air India Flight 171: Cockpit Audio Reveals Fuel Panic and Desperate Struggle

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner bound for London Gatwick from Ahmedabad, India, crashed just 32 seconds after takeoff, killing 241 of the 242 passengers and crew onboard and 19 people on the ground. The catastrophic event, marking the deadliest aviation disaster in a decade and the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787, has left investigators, families, and the global aviation community grappling for answers. A preliminary report by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), released on July 11, 2025, alongside newly surfaced details from cockpit voice recordings, has deepened the mystery surrounding the crash. Most chillingly, audio reveals the co-pilot’s haunting whisper, “We’re not gonna make it,” just four seconds before the plane slammed into a densely populated neighborhood near Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. This article explores the timeline of events, the critical findings from the investigation, and the lingering questions about what caused this tragedy.

The Fateful Flight: A Timeline of Disaster

Air India Flight 171, commanded by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, with 15,600 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, 32, with 3,400 hours, took off at 13:38 IST (08:08 GMT) on June 12, 2025. The aircraft, carrying 230 passengers, 10 cabin crew, and nearly 100 tonnes of fuel for its long-haul journey, reached a maximum altitude of 625 feet and an airspeed of 180 knots (330 km/h) within seconds. However, at 13:38:42, just three seconds after liftoff, both engine fuel control switches inexplicably moved from the “run” to “cutoff” position, one second apart, starving the engines of fuel and causing an immediate loss of thrust.

Cockpit voice recordings capture a moment of confusion as one pilot—later identified as First Officer Kunder—asked, “Why did you cut off?” to which Captain Sabharwal replied, “I didn’t.” The switches were returned to the “run” position 10 and 14 seconds later, triggering an automatic engine relight. Engine 1 began spooling up, but Engine 2 failed to recover thrust. At 13:39:05, a pilot issued a desperate “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY” call, followed by First Officer Kunder’s whispered, “We’re not gonna make it,” just four seconds before the aircraft crashed into the BJ Medical College hostel, 1.85 km from the runway. The impact ignited a fire, destroying parts of five buildings and leaving only one survivor, Vishwaskumar Ramesh, a 40-year-old British national.

The Preliminary Report: Fuel Cutoff and Cockpit Confusion

The AAIB’s preliminary report, released 30 days after the crash, points to the movement of the fuel control switches as the primary cause of the dual engine failure. These switches, located on the center console between the pilots’ seats, are designed with a spring-loaded locking mechanism to prevent accidental movement. Moving them to “cutoff” is a deliberate action typically performed only after landing to shut down the engines. Aviation experts, including U.S. safety expert Anthony Brickhouse, emphasize that these switches cannot be flipped inadvertently, raising questions about whether the action was intentional, erroneous, or caused by a mechanical fault.

The report notes that the aircraft’s systems were functioning normally until the moment of takeoff, and no significant mechanical faults have been identified in the engines or airframe. CCTV footage from the airport captured the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), an emergency power source, immediately after the engines lost power, confirming a total loss of thrust. The flight data recorder shows the thrust levers remained at takeoff power until impact, despite being found in the idle position post-crash, suggesting the pilots did not intentionally reduce power.

A 2018 FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) highlighted a potential issue with fuel control switches on some Boeing 737s, where the locking mechanism was disengaged. This same switch design is used on the Boeing 787, but Air India did not conduct the recommended inspections, as the SAIB was advisory, not mandatory. While the report notes throttle module replacements in 2019 and 2023, no defects in the fuel control switches have been reported since. This raises speculation about whether a mechanical flaw could have contributed, though the data suggests the switches were physically moved.

Cockpit Dynamics: Who Moved the Switches?

The cockpit voice recording has become a focal point of the investigation, particularly the exchange between Kunder and Sabharwal. A U.S. media report, citing sources familiar with the investigation, indicates that Kunder, the pilot flying, asked Sabharwal, the monitoring pilot, why he turned off the fuel switches. Sabharwal’s denial suggests either a misunderstanding, a mechanical anomaly, or an unacknowledged action. U.S. pilots quoted in The Wall Street Journal noted that Kunder, occupied with controlling the aircraft during takeoff, was unlikely to have manipulated the switches, pointing suspicion toward Sabharwal, who had easier access as the monitoring pilot.

However, the Airline Pilots’ Association of India has strongly rejected suggestions of human error, emphasizing the experience and professionalism of both pilots. Sabharwal, a veteran with over 8,600 hours on the 787, was known for his meticulous habits and mentorship, while Kunder was a capable first officer. The lack of a “speaker-stamped” voice recording—identifying which pilot spoke—complicates the narrative, as does the absence of a verbatim transcript. Aviation psychologist input is being sought to analyze the pilots’ demeanor, with reports indicating Kunder sounded panicked while Sabharwal remained calm.

Speculation about intentional action, such as sabotage or a murder-suicide, has surfaced, fueled by unverified rumors of Sabharwal’s personal struggles, including a divorce and treatment for depression. However, experts caution that such scenarios are rare and unlikely, given the pilots’ clean records and the fact that both passed pre-flight breathalyzer tests and were deemed fit to fly. The AAIB has not ruled out any possibilities, but the data does not conclusively support malicious intent.

Families’ Grief and Demand for Answers

The crash’s devastating toll—260 lives lost, including 19 on the ground—has left families in anguish, demanding clarity. Sameer Rafik, who lost his cousin Faizan, called the preliminary report vague, likening it to a “product description” and questioning why experienced pilots would cut off the fuel supply. Badasab Syed, who lost four family members, expressed frustration over the lack of concrete answers, echoing a sentiment shared by many. Families have called for the release of the full cockpit voice recording, though Indian authorities have resisted, citing the ongoing investigation.

India’s Civil Aviation Minister, Ram Mohan Naidu, urged the public not to jump to conclusions, emphasizing the need to await the final report, expected in 2026. Air India issued a statement expressing solidarity with the victims’ families and pledging full cooperation with the investigation. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, assisting the AAIB, stressed that the focus remains on following the facts.

Theories and Unanswered Questions

The crash of Flight 171 has sparked intense debate among aviation experts. Some hypothesize a mechanical or electronic fault, possibly related to the fuel control system or the throttle control module, though the flight data recorder shows no evidence of such a glitch. Others suggest a “brain fart”—an instinctive, erroneous action by a pilot accustomed to flipping the switches post-landing. Simulator tests by Air India 787 pilots found no single-engine failure or flap misconfiguration that could replicate the crash, reinforcing the dual engine failure as the critical factor.

The four-second gap between Kunder’s warning and the crash, coupled with the pilots’ confusion, suggests a frantic attempt to recover. The automatic relight system’s partial success on Engine 1 indicates the plane might have narrowly missed a survivable outcome had it gained just a few more seconds of altitude. The deployment of the RAT and the APU’s auto-start reflect the crew’s adherence to emergency procedures, but the low altitude and rapid descent left no margin for recovery.

Implications for Aviation Safety

The crash raises critical questions about the Boeing 787’s fuel control system and the adequacy of existing safety protocols. If a mechanical fault is confirmed, it could prompt mandatory inspections across the global 787 fleet. If pilot error is deemed the cause, it may lead to enhanced training or cockpit monitoring systems, such as video surveillance, as suggested by some analysts. The tragedy underscores the vulnerability of the takeoff phase, where even seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

As the investigation continues, the aviation community awaits the final report, which will include forensic analysis of fuel samples, post-mortem reports, and detailed recorder data. For now, the haunting words of First Officer Kunder, “We’re not gonna make it,” serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of flight and the urgent need for answers to prevent future tragedies.