Depressed’ Air India pilot ‘deliberately crashed plane killing 260 people because his mother died’

In the early hours of June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171 took off from Ahmedabad bound for London. Minutes later, it fell from the sky, crashing into a residential area and killing 260 people—241 passengers and crew, and 19 civilians on the ground. What should have been a routine international flight became one of the deadliest aviation disasters in India’s recent history. As investigations unfold, a complex and unsettling narrative has emerged—one that touches not only on technical malfunctions and cockpit behavior, but also on mental health, regulatory oversight, and the human toll of institutional gaps.

The initial findings have fueled a mix of grief, outrage, and uncertainty. While a preliminary report points to the manual shutdown of both engine fuel switches shortly after takeoff—a move that would require conscious effort—debate continues over whether this action was intentional, accidental, or symptomatic of deeper systemic failures. Layered into the technical analysis are questions about the pilot’s mental health, the airline’s responsibilities, and whether safety warnings were ignored. As facts slowly emerge, so too does the realization that this tragedy may be less about a single catastrophic error and more about the vulnerabilities built into a system expected to be infallible.

The Circumstances of the Crash

On the morning of June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner operating a scheduled service from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, crashed into the Meghani Nagar residential area just moments after takeoff. The impact killed all 241 people on board, along with 19 individuals on the ground, marking one of the most fatal aviation incidents in India’s recent history. Preliminary findings released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) indicate that the aircraft lost engine power seconds into its ascent. Critical to this failure were the positions of both engine fuel control switches, which were discovered to have been manually moved to the “off” position shortly after takeoff—an action that investigators say would require deliberate manipulation due to their built-in safety features. These switches, protected by guard brackets and requiring upward movement before activation, are specifically designed to prevent accidental shut-off.

The cockpit voice recorder captured an exchange between the two pilots shortly after the power loss, during which one queried why the engines had cut out, and the other responded in apparent confusion, denying any action. Despite an attempt to restore engine function—both switches were flipped back to the “run” position within seconds—the aircraft failed to regain sufficient thrust. One engine had begun the relighting process, but the other had not yet recovered power. A “Mayday” distress call was transmitted two minutes after takeoff, and CCTV footage confirmed the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a device that provides emergency electrical power during total engine failure. The aircraft subsequently plummeted into the neighborhood, creating a fireball visible across the city. The sole survivor, 36-year-old Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, had been seated by an emergency exit and was ejected during the crash. His brother, sitting across the aisle, was among the deceased.

Both pilots—Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a seasoned aviator with over 8,200 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kunder, a younger pilot with over 3,400 hours—had cleared their mandatory Class I medical assessments and passed breathalyzer checks prior to the flight. The aircraft carried no dangerous cargo, remained within permitted weight limits, and weather conditions were not considered a contributing factor. Given the secure design of the fuel switch system, aviation experts have questioned how both switches could have been turned off without intentional input. Investigators are continuing to evaluate all possible scenarios, including pilot error, mechanical failure, or a deliberate act. The precise cause remains under investigation, but the technical and human factors involved have raised urgent questions within the aviation community and among the families of those lost.

Mental Health, Pilot Screening, and Industry Oversight

As the investigation into the Air India Flight 171 tragedy unfolds, growing attention has turned toward the mental health history of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal. Reports indicate that the experienced pilot had taken medical and bereavement leave in the years preceding the crash, including time off after the death of his mother—a loss that colleagues say deeply affected him. According to Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a prominent aviation safety expert in India, several pilots within Air India were aware of Sabharwal’s struggles with mental health. While it is confirmed that Captain Sabharwal was medically cleared by the airline to return to duty, the adequacy and depth of these assessments are now being called into question, particularly regarding the screening for psychological resilience and mental well-being, not just physical fitness.

Air India has stated that both pilots had passed their Class I medical examinations, which assess psycho-physical health, within the last two years. However, experts argue that these exams, though standardized, may not always capture underlying psychological distress or situational mental health challenges that could emerge between certification intervals. The broader aviation industry has faced similar scrutiny in the past. High-profile incidents, such as the 2015 Germanwings crash—where a co-pilot with a history of depression intentionally downed the plane—have already spurred regulatory bodies in Europe and North America to revisit mental health protocols. In India, however, mental health remains a stigmatized subject, often underdiscussed within high-responsibility professions like aviation. This silence can discourage pilots from seeking help, fearing professional repercussions.

Critics now urge a more nuanced, proactive approach that balances confidentiality with safety, including regular mental health check-ins, peer reporting systems, and enhanced post-leave evaluations. The fact that the co-pilot in this case was flying the aircraft at the time of takeoff while Captain Sabharwal was monitoring only adds complexity to the timeline of decisions made in the cockpit. Still, with no definitive conclusion about intent, any assumption must remain provisional until final reports are released. For now, the tragedy underscores a systemic blind spot in how the aviation industry assesses and responds to pilot mental health—one that could have life-or-death consequences when overlooked.

Technical Safeguards and Regulatory Gaps

The unusual failure of both engines shortly after takeoff has put a spotlight on the aircraft’s technical systems and whether mechanical safeguards were adequately enforced. Central to the investigation is the design of the fuel control switches, which are not simple toggles but are equipped with locking mechanisms and protective guard brackets intended to prevent accidental disengagement. For these switches to be moved to the “off” position, they must be deliberately lifted and then flipped—an action considered highly unlikely to occur inadvertently, especially not with both switches simultaneously. Investigators have emphasized that such safeguards are built precisely to avoid human error during critical phases of flight, raising the question of how they could have been overridden unless by manual and intentional operation.

Adding to the concern is a 2018 bulletin issued by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which warned that in some Boeing aircraft, the locking feature on fuel switches had been found disengaged. While the FAA recommended that airlines inspect these systems to ensure proper functioning, the guidance was classified as “advisory” rather than mandatory. Air India has stated that it did not implement additional inspections following the bulletin, citing the non-binding nature of the advisory. This lack of mandatory compliance highlights a regulatory gray area in international aviation oversight, where responsibility for proactive safety checks is often deferred to airlines unless a directive is issued. In the case of Flight 171, no mechanical fault has been confirmed, but the potential for a vulnerable design or overlooked maintenance remains under review.

The crash has reignited debate over whether aviation authorities and manufacturers are doing enough to anticipate edge-case failures—particularly when the line between human error, technical design, and regulatory omission is so fine. The deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), the relighting of one engine, and the discovery of both fuel switches returned to “run” position at the crash site all suggest a desperate final attempt to save the aircraft. Yet those efforts proved too late. As the investigation continues, the case of Flight 171 may become a pivotal example of how gaps in system redundancy and regulatory enforcement—no matter how narrow—can align with tragic consequences.

Conflicting Narratives and the Search for Accountability

As investigators work to establish the root cause of the crash, a growing divide has emerged between official reports and public perception—particularly among the victims’ families. Some relatives have accused authorities and the airline of prematurely pointing to pilot error or even intent, in what they view as an attempt to deflect blame from institutional or mechanical failings. Ameen Siddiqui, who lost his brother-in-law, sister, and young niece in the crash, rejected the preliminary findings, calling them a “cover-up to protect Air India and the government.” He questioned how both fuel switches could be disengaged at such a critical moment without a more detailed explanation of mechanical integrity or systemic oversight. His frustration reflects a broader concern: that in high-stakes aviation disasters, blame may fall most easily on those who are no longer able to defend themselves.

While experts like Captain Ranganathan argue that the operation of the fuel switches suggests a deliberate act, others caution against rushing to conclusions without comprehensive forensic and psychological assessments. The cockpit voice recordings raise more questions than they answer—particularly the exchange in which one pilot expresses confusion over the engines cutting off. Until the final accident report is released, these moments remain open to interpretation. Meanwhile, Air India has maintained a reserved stance, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation and deferring all technical inquiries to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau. The airline has publicly pledged full cooperation with regulatory bodies and expressed its commitment to supporting affected families, though some believe these responses fall short of genuine transparency.

This tension between technical findings and public trust is not unique to this case. Aviation disasters often produce complex narratives shaped by incomplete data, emotional trauma, and institutional self-preservation. What sets the Flight 171 tragedy apart is the convergence of possible pilot mental health issues, unexplained technical anomalies, and regulatory ambiguity—all coalescing into a murky picture with no easy answers. As calls grow louder for independent oversight and greater transparency, the investigation’s credibility will depend not only on its technical rigor but also on its willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, wherever they may lead.

A Reckoning for Aviation Safety and Mental Health

The crash of Air India Flight 171 is more than a singular aviation tragedy—it is a stark reminder of the multifaceted vulnerabilities in modern air travel, from cockpit protocols to mental health oversight and regulatory gaps. While investigators have yet to issue a conclusive report, the early findings underscore how multiple systems—technical, psychological, and institutional—can fail simultaneously, with devastating consequences. The fact that a pilot with possible mental health challenges was medically cleared to fly, combined with evidence suggesting that critical aircraft safeguards may not have been fully inspected or enforced, paints a troubling picture of systemic fragility. It is a scenario in which even state-of-the-art equipment and experienced personnel are not sufficient buffers against disaster when broader safeguards fall short.

This incident should prompt a recalibration of how aviation authorities approach pilot wellness, not as a secondary concern but as a core pillar of flight safety. International aviation regulators, airlines, and unions must address the persistent stigma that deters pilots from disclosing mental health concerns. Confidential psychological support, mandatory post-leave mental health assessments, and improved peer-reporting systems can form part of a more humane and pragmatic framework—one that protects both pilots and passengers without compromising safety or dignity. At the same time, advisory technical bulletins such as the FAA’s 2018 warning must carry more weight globally, particularly when they pertain to essential aircraft systems. Treating them as optional guidance rather than serious flags may no longer be acceptable in a risk-averse industry.

For the families who lost loved ones, no regulation or reform will undo the pain of what happened that day. But the legacy of Flight 171 must not be defined solely by loss. It should compel aviation stakeholders—governments, airlines, regulators, and the flying public—to confront the uncomfortable intersections between human vulnerability and technological complexity. If the industry fails to act decisively in the wake of this tragedy, it risks not only repeating history but also eroding public trust in air travel’s most fundamental promise: safety above all else.