&w=3840&q=100)
Air India crash: Pilots Sabharwal, Kunder remembered as calm, skilled men
The Airlines Pilots Association of India disagreed with the report, saying the investigation is "shrouded in secrecy" appears to be biased against the pilot and has come to a conclusion hastily.
The report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AIIB) neither concluded any reason for the switches moving nor apportioned explicit blame for the crash. It also did not identify the pilots in the voice recording.
At the controls was First Officer Clive Kunder, 32, while Sumeet Sabharwal, a veteran with 30 years of experience at Air India, was the senior cockpit occupant in command monitoring the flight.
Below are brief profiles of the two pilots:
Captain Sumeet Sabharwal: The 56-year-old veteran with 30 years of experience at Air India had logged 15,638 flying hours, including 8,596 on the Boeing 787. He was also an Air India instructor.
Sabharwal had called his family from the airport on the fateful day, assuring them that he would contact them again after landing in London.
His colleagues and co-pilots in Mumbai remembered him as a gentleman, known not just for his flying skills, but for his grounded nature.
Co-pilot Clive Kunder: The 32-year-old had 3,403 hours of flying experience, with 1,128 on the Dreamliner.
A resident of Goregaon in Mumbai, Kunder had worked for a year as an aeronautical engineer before successfully chasing his dream to be a pilot.
His neighbours remembered him as a good-natured man fond of sports who used to play cricket in the building compound.
On June 12, the London-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner began to lose thrust almost immediately after taking off from the Ahmedabad airport and ploughed into a medical college hostel, killing all but one of the 242 onboard and another 19 on the ground in the deadliest aviation accident in a decade.
The AAIB report said the aircraft took off at 08:08:39 UTC (13:38:39 IST) and at about 08:09:05 UTC (13:39:05 IST) one of the pilots transmitted 'MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY'.
According to a chronology laid out in the report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, both fuel control switches - which are used to turn the engines off - were moved to the cutoff position almost immediately after takeoff.
At the Jal Vayu Vihar housing complex in Mumbai's Powai area, where Captain Sabharwal lived, his family members refused to speak to media persons.
Security personnel at the entrance stopped journalists from entering.
Captain Sabharwal's 92- year-old father Pushkaraj Sabharwal was seen entering the building.
A senior citizen, who lives in the same complex, said the media should not bother Sabharwal's aged father and other family members, as they know nothing.
"Do you think the pilots will give up their lives deliberately," he asked.
"Whatever information you want to collect, you should collect it from Ahmedabad," the man said, adding that the "owner of the airline company" should be asked about what went wrong with the plane.
In Goregaon's Ram Mandir locality, family members of Co-pilot Clive Kunder were not present in their home.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
'Raises more questions, doesn't give answers': Global pilots' body warns against speculations over Air India crash probe
The AAIB said the fuel switches to the engines were cut off within a gap of 1 second immediately after takeoff, causing confusion in the cockpit of the plane read more The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has said AAIB's preliminary report into the Air India plane crash, by its very nature, raises many questions and does not provide answers and urged all parties to refrain from speculations. In its preliminary report on the Air India's Boeing 787-8 accident on June 12 that killed 260 people, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on Saturday said the fuel switches to the engines were cut off within a gap of 1 second immediately after takeoff, caused confusion in the cockpit of the plane before crashing into a building. The AI 171 was en route from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Citing cockpit voice recording, the 15-page preliminary report, released on Saturday, said one pilot asked why the switch was cut off and the other pilot responded that he did not do so. While the initial report does not provide any conclusions, there are speculations in certain quarters that a possible pilot error could be a reason for the crash. 'Whilst this preliminary report by its very nature raises many questions, it does not provide answers, and any extrapolation of its content can only be regarded as guesswork, which is not helpful to the good conduct of the investigation,' IFALPA said in a statement on July 14. According to IFALPA, the report clearly states that no safety recommendations are being provided at this stage and stresses that the federation remains committed to supporting the efforts of the AAIB of India as they work to determine the contributing factors of the accident. IFALPA claims to have 1 lakh pilots as its members from across 100 countries. On Saturday, Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA), an IFALPA member – said the tone and direction of the investigation suggest a bias towards pilot error and rejected this presumption as it insisted on a fair, fact-based inquiry. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the statement on July 14, IFALPA also highlighted that a preliminary report is merely the means of communication used for the prompt dissemination of data obtained during the early stages of the investigation and only contains factual information and an indication of the progress of the investigation. Urging all parties to refrain from speculation, allow the investigation to run its full and proper course, IFALPA said everyone should avoid drawing conclusions from preliminary information. 'The victims, including the families of the crew and passengers of Air India 171, deserve our collective professionalism while the full investigation is conducted,' it added. Two pilot bodies of Air India – Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA) representing narrow-body pilots and Indian Pilots Guild (IPG) representing wide-body pilots – have also warned against speculations based on the preliminary report. .


India Today
6 hours ago
- India Today
Was Air India crash mechanical, accidental or…? FAQs answered
The preliminary report of the ongoing investigation into the June 12 crash of the London-bound Air India Flight AI171, soon after take-off from Ahmedabad, has raised various worrying questions, most critically around fuel cut-off to the engines of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane and whether this fatal development occurred from a mechanical malfunction or some other cause. INDIA TODAY breaks down the report for answers:Q. What caused both engines of the plane to fail mid-take-off?advertisementA. Three seconds after being airborne, both engine fuel-cut-off switches abruptly moved from 'RUN' to 'CUT-OFF', starving the engines of fuel. Crucially, the pilots denied touching the switches, as per cockpit voice recorder data, and the plane's wreckage showed the switches physically back in 'RUN' some observers, this points strongly to a catastrophic failure of the small latches meant to lock those switches in place—a specific risk flagged in an advisory by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) back in 2018. But to some others, it suggests human error. Q. Why wasn't the risk flagged by the FAA over six years ago fixed on the Air India plane that crashed?A. That critical FAA warning was only an advisory, not a mandatory directive. Air India had the throttle-control module of this plane replaced twice (2019 and 2023), but maintenance logs show that no inspections for the faulty latch mechanism were performed either time. However, the advisory was that in some 737 (not 787) aircraft, it had been found that those switches were installed with faulty locking. The 787 series of aircraft was also mentioned in the FAA advisory because its switches were similar. From images of the wreckage, it would seem that was not the case with Flight AI171. Then again, deeper material analysis is underway to conclude either way.Q. What was so crucial about the FAA advisory?A. To quote a portion of it: 'The Boeing Company (Boeing) received reports from operators of Model 737 airplanes that the fuel-control switches were installed with the locking feature disengaged The fuel control switch has a locking feature to prevent inadvertent operation that could result in unintended switch movement between the fuel supply and fuel cut-off positions. In order to move the switch from one position to the other under the condition where the locking feature is engaged, it is necessary for the pilot to lift the switch up while transitioning the switch the locking feature is disengaged, the switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting the switch during transition, and the switch would be exposed to the potential of inadvertent operation. Inadvertent operation of the switch could result in an unintended consequence, such as an in-flight engine shutdown.'The advisory also says that based on the limited data at that time, it was considered not to turn it into a mandatory check for airline operators. Now, India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has asked all airlines that have aircraft mentioned in that advisory to carry out an inspection and furnish a report of the findings by July Could the highly experienced pilots have accidentally shut off the fuel supply?A. Both the pilots' credentials and flying experience, as well as common sense strongly suggest otherwise. The two pilots were highly experienced on this specific plane. The cockpit voice recorder data has one of them expressing shock when the plane lost upward thrust and questioning the fuel switch cut-off, while the other denies doing the physical thrust levers were found jammed full forward (take-off position), supporting flight data showing maximum power was commanded until impact. The switches themselves were found in 'RUN' mode after the crash. This combination makes a simple pilot error of bumping the switches incredibly unlikely.Q. Why do modern aircraft, especially the Dreamliner, allow cut off of fuel supply manually when the aircraft is airborne? Isn't there failsafe tech to prevent such a thing?A. Experts cite a variety of reasons. For example, the pilot might need to switch off fuel to one or both engines during landing, based on the dynamic landing environment. The engine does not need full power during taxiing. So, the fuel is cut off then as well. Then there is the scenario of an engine catching fire. In such a case, the pilot might have to cut off fuel supply to that engine to save the aircraft. So the existence of the switches and the behaviour of the aircraft are not in switches are designed in a way that makes the act of turning them a deliberate, 2-3 second job. Moreover, metal guards are installed on either side of the switches to prevent accidental bumping. Some experts have also talked about failure/malfunction of a chip (microprocessor) linked to the GE engine of the Air India plane. But the report does not talk about such a thing.Q. If not a mechanical malfunction or something accidental, what other reason could be attributed to the switches turning off?A. In that case, only one possibility remains—human error. Some global aviation experts seem to be veering towards this theory. Captain Steve Scheibner, a commercial pilot and leading aviation expert with a wide following on YouTube, is of the view that the only way the switches could be off is if someone manually switched them off, and not by accident. He also points out that India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau has onboarded, among others, an 'aviation psychologist'—perhaps to assess the mental health and stress levels of the Flight AI171 pilots during switches are designed in a way that it takes three fingers and a bit of force to turn them. Thus, it's being argued that it's unusual for them to change position because of cockpit vibration or turbulence. The aviation community is also often quoting the infamous Germanwings Flight 9525 crash of 2015.Q. What happened in the Germanwings crash? Are there similarities to the Air India tragedy?A. On March 24, 2015, Germanwings Flight 9525, from Barcelona to Dsseldorf, had crashed into the French Alps, killing all 150 people on board. Investigations revealed that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz intentionally caused the the captain left the cockpit, Lubitz locked him out and then deliberately set the autopilot to descend rapidly into the mountains. Despite efforts by the captain to regain entry and calls from air traffic control, Lubitz maintained control and drove the plane into the ground. It was later discovered that Lubitz had a history of severe depression and had concealed his mental health issues from his is no direct similarity of the Germanwings tragedy to the Flight AI171 crash. However, investigators and experts are drawing parallels in terms of exploring all possibilities, including pilot intent or mental state. The Airline Pilots Association of India has rejected insinuations of suicide or human error and termed such theories as biased. Their argument is also that the pilots are being made to take the fall because they are not around to defend themselves. In any case, a deeper analysis is underway, with a definite outcome of the investigation at least months to India Today Magazine- EndsTrending Reel


Economic Times
9 hours ago
- Economic Times
Fault within aircraft that jet fuel switch turned off automatically: Civil aviation expert on AI171 preliminary crash report
Synopsis A preliminary report on the Air India AI171 crash indicates a potential aircraft malfunction led to the tragedy, according to aviation expert Sanat Kaul. The report suggests the fuel supply to the engines was unexpectedly cut off during takeoff, causing the crash that killed 260 people. Air India flight AI-171 crash: Aviation expert analyses AAIB's preliminary report, negates captain's fault Civil aviation expert Sanat Kaul has said that the preliminary report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) on the Air India flight AI171 crash suggests that "some fault within the aircraft" led to the jet fuel switches turning off automatically during takeoff, causing the tragic crash that killed 260 people, including 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 people on the to ANI, Kaul said the report indicates that fuel supply to the aircraft's engines was unexpectedly cut off during takeoff."From the report I have seen, there was no other reason for the aircraft to go down but the manufacturing part; the fuel to the engine itself switched off accidentally or there was something that the pilot or the co-pilot was not aware of and the engine lost the thrust," Kaul said. Also Read | Liftoff. Cutoff. Mayday. Crash: 60 seconds that ended in disaster "It appears that the fuel was cut off on takeoff. The voice recorder makes it clear that neither the commander nor the co-pilot switched off the jet fuel switch. This is obviously some fault within the aircraft that the jet fuel switch turned off automatically," he added. Kaul also raised concerns about aircraft manufacturer Boeing. "In Boeing, it is not the first time; there were two instances of that new plane, which, after takeoff, again went down and crashed, and people died. In both these cases, it finally came out that the changes have been made in the max varieties of 737, and the pilot was not aware of the situation, and Boeing deliberately did not give training because training costs money, and they have to bear the cost," he said."There have been whistleblowers from the ones who worked in the Boeing company who said that Boeing is trying to save money on manufacturing and safety aspects," Kaul Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released the preliminary report into the tragic crash of Air India flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 aircraft, which crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on June 12. Also Read: The unanswered questions in govt's 15-page preliminary findings into AI-171 tragedy The report outlines a harrowing sequence of events that unfolded within 90 seconds of takeoff, as both engines of the aircraft shut down unexpectedly during the initial climb, leading to a catastrophic loss of thrust and rapid data recovered from the aircraft's Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) revealed that the fuel cutoff switches for both engines were inadvertently moved from RUN to CUTOFF, one after the other within a 1-second interval, at an altitude just moments after liftoff. One pilot was heard asking the other, "Why did you cut off?" to which the response was, "I did not."This uncommanded shutdown triggered the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), and the aircraft began losing altitude almost immediately, unable to sustain powered to the AAIB, the pilots re-engaged the fuel switches in an attempt to relight both engines. Engine 1 showed signs of recovering thrust, but Engine 2 failed to stabilise. The aircraft, which had briefly reached a speed of 180 knots, was already descending and failed to regain altitude. The final distress call -- a "MAYDAY" -- was transmitted at 08:09 UTC, just seconds before the aircraft crashed into residential buildings outside the airport aircraft struck several buildings, including the BJ Medical College hostel, causing significant structural and fire damage across five structures. The Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) did not activate, and emergency services were mobilised within five minutes of the wreckage trail extended over 1,000 feet, with major components including the vertical stabiliser, engines, and landing gear found embedded in buildings and scattered across the crash aircraft, registered VT-ANB, was delivered in 2013 and had recently undergone routine maintenance. All Airworthiness Directives had been complied with, and the fuel quality was confirmed to be within specifications. There were no reported technical defects linked to the engines or flight control systems immediately before the pilot-in-command, a 56-year-old with over 15,000 flying hours, and the co-pilot, 32, with over 3,400 hours, were both fully qualified and had no recent duty irregularities or medical issues reported. ( Originally published on Jul 12, 2025 )