On June 12, an Air India flight originating from Ahmedabad and bound for London met with a catastrophic accident, leading to the tragic loss of 260 lives and leaving numerous others injured . A month later, on July 12, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released a preliminary report, attributing the crash to an unexpected cessation of fuel supply, specifically stating that the fuel switch had been turned off.
However, the narrative surrounding this devastating incident has grown increasingly complex, with a new, highly controversial report emerging that casts a shadow of suspicion over the pilot’s actions. Compounding this, Air India’s own report maintains that there was no defect in the fuel switch, fueling a myriad of speculations regarding the true cause of the crash.
Let’s delve into the intricate details of the various claims and official reports:
The Wall Street Journal’s Startling Allegation
On July 16, the Wall Street Journal published an exclusive report that sent shockwaves through the aviation community. The report claimed that senior pilot Captain Sumit Sabarwal was responsible for stopping the fuel supply to the engines. This assertion was reportedly based on cockpit voice recordings, where co-pilot Clive Kundar was heard questioning Captain Sabarwal about moving the fuel switch to the cutoff position. The report noted that Kundar’s voice conveyed fear, while Captain Sumit remained conspicuously calm.
Crucially, the Wall Street Journal report, which cited American officials involved in the investigation, did not specify whether the switches were turned off accidentally or intentionally. Captain Sumit Sabarwal was a highly experienced pilot with 15,638 hours of flight time, while co-pilot Clive Kundar had 3,403 hours. Neither India’s AAIB, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Boeing, nor Air India had issued a response to this report.
The AAIB’s Initial Findings (July 12)
The AAIB’s report, released on July 12, confirmed that the aircraft’s fuel switches unexpectedly transitioned from the ‘run’ position to ‘cutoff’, leading to the shutdown of both engines. However, a critical omission in this report was any explanation as to how these switches were turned off. The report did include a snippet of a cockpit conversation where one pilot asked, “Why did you cut off?” and the other responded, “I didn’t do so”. The AAIB report, however, refrained from identifying which pilot posed the question or who provided the response.
Air India’s Internal Inquiry
Following the AAIB’s findings, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) mandated that all Boeing 737 and 787 series aircraft undergo an inspection of their fuel switches by July 21. Air India’s subsequent inspection report, released on July 16, asserted that no defects were found in their fuel switches. Air India further claimed that the Total Control Modules (TCMs), which include the fuel control switch, had been updated across all their Boeing aircraft.
Expert Opinion: Captain Mohan Ranganathan’s Stance
Adding another layer to the mystery, Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a prominent Indian aviation expert, put forth a compelling claim: the accident was a result of deliberate actions. He emphasized that fuel selectors are not designed as sliding switches and do not turn off automatically. Instead, they are engineered to remain in a specific slot and are equipped with locks. This design, he argued, suggests that the switches cannot be operated without direct manual intervention by a pilot, strongly implying a deliberate act.
The Federation of Indian Pilots’ Objection
In response to the Wall Street Journal report, the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) voiced strong objections. The FIP stated that prematurely blaming pilots without a thorough and transparent investigation is unjust and detrimental to their professional image. FIP President C.S. Randhawa specifically criticized the one-sided and incomplete nature of such reports, accusing them of attempting to tarnish the pilots’ reputations by selectively releasing partial cockpit conversations.
The Technical Glitch Counter-Claim
Adding to the complexity, another report by the Indian Express, citing a senior official, introduced the possibility of a pre-existing technical malfunction. This report claimed that the aircraft had a technical glitch even before it reached Ahmedabad . A pilot who flew the same plane from Delhi to Ahmedabad on June 12 reportedly noted a fault in the stabilizer position transducer in the technical log. This sensor is crucial for controlling the movement of the aircraft’s nose, and a defect could indeed heighten the risk of an accident . However, the pilot also clarified that this defect was investigated and subsequently repaired by engineers in adherence to Boeing’s established procedures.
The multiplicity of conflicting claims and reports surrounding the Air India Flight 101 crash continues to deepen the mystery, particularly concerning the role of the pilot. A comprehensive and transparent investigation is critical to uncover the truth behind this tragic incident.