Air India 171 crash: A father's plea for his dead son

In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

That single, context-free sentence became the noose around Captain Sumeet Sabharwal’s neck, after a crash that resulted in more than 260 dead. His father Pushkaraj Sabharwal, 88-years-old and himself a former DGCA official, calls it what it is: “narrative framing to blame the dead pilots.”

In a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India, the grieving parent accuses the AAIB of violating international law, suppressing key evidence, and shielding Boeing and General Electric from scrutiny.

His plea — which asks for examination of the technical reasons behind the crash — will be heard along with another Public Interest Litigation, filed by Captain Amit Singh in the Supreme Court and a petition filed by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) on November 13.

'Release whole CVR or none of it'

The petition’s central charge is that AAIB weaponised selective disclosure admitting that, “the recovered audio was two hours in length and captured the event. Initial analysis of the recorded audio and flight data has been done.”'

“The above paraphrased conversation does not reveal which pilot queried and which pilot responded,” Pushkaraj Sabharwal noted in his petition; whether it was Capt Sumeet or First Officer Cliver Kunders. Capt Sumeet's father says the AAIB should have published the full transcript or withheld it entirely.

He slammed the AAIB for lifting and paraphrasing one line, without naming which pilot spoke or at what time stamp the exchange occurred.

“This insinuation is nothing but narrative framing… hiding more than it actually reveals," said the petition.

"Imagine, this person whom we admired and held in such high regard in the community was suddenly being trashed. All kinds of absurdities were getting printed and aired. He's mentored so many young pilots; always came first in class— unbeatable in his technical knowledge; scoring a 100 per cent in tests. Quiet, understated, the perfect gentleman," said his batchmate Capt Rajneesh Sharma.

Also read: Exclusive | Did Boeing’s machine fail in Air India 171 crash? A chilling sequence of possibilities

The Federation of Pilots president CS Randhawa also expressed concerns on the public discourse in the aftermath of the tragic crash of Air India flight AI-171 in Ahmedabad.

“The report released does not have comprehensive data. There has also been selective release of cockpit voice recordings; and even these have been paraphrased. This approach is neither objective nor complete,” FIP president Randhawa told The Federal.

Pilot error narrative

Pilots said they were unhappy that western media from the likes of Reuters to BBC were quick to jump on the "pilot error bandwagon."

Capt Sumeet's father Pushkaraj also cited the Wall Street Journal report titled, "New Details in Air India Crash Probe Shift Focus to Senior Pilot." The captain's father asked how the newspaper managed to have sources who could tell them the contents of the conversation — information that is as on date unavailable to the Indian public.

The July 17,2025 WSJ article, quoted sources to claim: “A black box cockpit recording of the two pilots suggests that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal was responsible for moving the fuel switches to the “cutoff” position seconds after the London-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner lifted off the runway in..."

The Federal has heard a similar allegation from a former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) official and long term crash investigator.

He told The Federal on August 21 that he had personally heard the cockpit recordings along with a select group of others. "I'm sorry you are barking up the wrong tree. I can say for a fact that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the plane. I've heard the recordings; and it's clearly the pilot. And I could hear the First Officer panicking,” he said.

The investigator, however, when pressed could not give more information on ambient sound in the cockpit; ATC calls, engine spooling down or RAT deployment.

Also read: Air India pilot not to blame for Ahmedabad crash, says SC; issues notice to Centre

Capt Sumeet's father being a former DGCA official himself, said he understands that there can be "systemic shortfalls." But still "by law, under Rule 17(1) of the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules 2017, cockpit recordings may not be disclosed for any purpose other than investigation — unless the government expressly determines that the benefits of disclosure outweigh the harm, he says.

Conflict of interests

The petition named a deeper rot: the presence of Boeing and General Electric personnel as part of the investigation itself.

The AAIB report stated that “the NTSB, USA appointed an accredited representative and technical advisers from Boeing, GE and the FAA to assist in this investigation.”

Calling that a textbook conflict of interest, Sabharwal said in the petition: “While the NTSB may join as the accredited representative, the presence of technical advisers from Boeing and GE is a clear case of conflict of commercial interests.”

The same companies whose equipment is under suspicion, he argued, were sitting at the AAIB’s table helping shape the evidence.

No pilot on board probe team

Sabharwal listed every member of the AAIB’s investigative panel — all air-safety officers from the DGCA, not one a pilot, aeronautical engineer, or aircraft-maintenance engineer.

He quoted ICAO Doc 9756 verbatim: “Experts seconded from the civil aviation authority may fear retribution when they return to their normal duties… State should take steps to alleviate any possibility of retribution...It is beneficial for investigators to have some piloting experience.”

Instead, he wrote, “the individuals appointed have no practical experience… This non-presence of qualified personnel vitiates the entire investigation process.”

He contrasted this with past precedents: the 2010 Mangalore crash inquiry led by Air Marshal BN Gokhale and the 2020 Kozhikode probe headed by Capt. Surender Singh Chahar — both professionals with operational credibility.

“The AAIB’s July 12 report suffers from serious procedural and technical infirmities,” he asserts.

Framing narratives

Eight days after its criticised report, on 21 July 2025, news broke — not through an official AAIB circular but through a “sly plant in the media,” as Sabharwal pointed out— that veteran Air India pilot Capt RS Sandhu had been added as a domain expert.

Also read: AI-171 crash: Pilot’s father seeks SC probe

“The inclusion of a domain expert after preliminary findings have been released and a certain narrative already framed vitiates the investigation and lends immense discredit to the entire process.”

The preliminary document itself, he noted, was unsigned and undated, yet carried a categorical conclusion: “At this stage of investigation, there are no recommended actions to B787-8 and/or GE GEnx 1B engine operators and manufacturers.”

Sabharwal called that an “attempt to provide a clean chit to the aircraft and the engine manufacturers on one hand, and insinuate pilot error on the other, at a stage where only bare facts were meant to be revealed.”

Instead of confining itself to “what happened,” the AAIB strayed into “why it happened,” violating ICAO Annex 13, which limits preliminary reports to factual data. “Rather than laying all the bare facts, the AAIB insinuates that the accident could be a result of pilot error by selective paraphrasing,” the petition says.

He says such a narrative "....is aimed at maligning and tarnishing the reputation of a highly qualified professional pilot in a situation where he is not even alive to plead his own case.”

Call for court-monitored probe

Sabharwal seeks a court-directed formal investigation under Rule 12 of the 2017 Rules, with powers of a civil court and independent experts—not bureaucrats. His prayer includes:

Also read: Air India Ahmedabad crash: Pilot’s father seeks formal probe, slams AAIB report

“Only an independent accident-investigation board can ensure professional, fair, transparent, interference-free and time-bound probes… and make our skies safer,” he writes.

The Supreme Court will be hearing his plea on Thursday; along with two other matters.