A detailed New York Times investigation uncovers more answers than the Indian probe—which still doesn’t have a chief investigator and is led by an underfunded agency.
The basic deets
On June 12, Air India flight AI 171—headed from Ahmedabad to Gatwick airport in London—crashed moments after take-off around 1:39 pm. It was piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and co-pilot Clive Kundar—and was carrying 242 people and nearly 100 tonnes of fuel on board. Here is the moment of the crash:
The most important data point: The plane was in the air for less than 40 seconds! This is how quickly it went down:
Aviation expert Kishore Chinta, a former investigator with India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), calls this "the rarest of the rare" crashes — a controlled flight into terrain just 30 seconds after take-off. "To my knowledge, nothing quite like this has ever happened," he told the BBC.
So what could possibly go so very wrong in such a short time?
First, the investigators
From the very outset, there has been controversy over who will lead the investigation. Here’s why:
One: As per regulations—set by the UN-run International Civil Aviation Organization—a preliminary investigation report must be released within 30 days—and the final report within 12 months. In other words, speed is of essence. Yet, Indian aviation authorities have still not named a lead investigator to head the probe—17 days after the crash. Rumours are the government will pick Dhruv Rebbapragada—the former regional safety director for South Asia at Airbus—but there has been no confirmation.
Two: The agency firmly in charge is the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). Even Boeing will defer to the agency as per international protocol. Many are sceptical whether it has the expertise or funding to do the job:
Airline executives and aviation safety experts have been raising doubts about the capability of the AAIB, which primarily draws its officers from sector regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). AAIB does not have its own budget and for a long time was headed by an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), before the appointment of current head GVG Yugandhar, an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer.
AAIB has a modest budget of Rs 20 crore for FY2026—which is hardly sufficient to fund a complex investigation of a mysterious crash.
A related point to note: Three months ago, a parliamentary panel report flagged “chronic” staff shortage at top aviation agencies—including the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA):
The DGCA has a vacancy rate surpassing 53%, “raising fundamental concerns about its capacity to enforce aviation safety standards effectively”. It has a sanctioned strength of 1633 personnel, out of which 754 are in position and 879 are vacant.
Three: The AAIB reportedly set up a “state-of-the-art laboratory” in New Delhi in April—a Rs 9 crore investment with technical support from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The aim: To allow India to investigate its own airline crashes—without sending black boxes abroad. Soon after the crash, newspapers reported that the boxes would still have to be sent to the US for data recovery. All of which sparked criticism of India’s lack of expertise and investment in aviation safety. Now, the government has made a sudden U-turn—and the boxes will stay in India—which hardly inspires more confidence.
Intriguing to note: AAIB now claims it is already examining the black box data—without a lead investigator in place. Apparently, it is a “multidisciplinary team” led by Yugandhar—so no independent lead investigator, then?
Four: ICAO took the unusual step of offering to lend an investigator. New Delhi refused to allow ICAO to join the probe team—but agreed to allow the appointment of “an observer”:
This marks an unprecedented move by ICAO, typically reserved for conflict zones or military-related shoot-downs. The observer will provide technical inputs and ensure global best practices are followed, but will not have investigative authority.
The development comes on the heels of criticism of the way India has dragged its feet on examining black box data:
Questions were also raised on whether the recorders would be read in India or in the U.S. since the National Transportation Safety Board is participating in the investigation. The Indian government held only one press conference on the incident, and no questions were taken. Under international rules.. the decision of where to read flight recorders should be made immediately in case the evidence obtained could avert future tragedies.
Most unsurprisingly: There is a “separate, high-level committee” to “provide a holistic view for improving the safety of the sector”—because this is the (Indian) way. Happily, it can dawdle along for three months before submitting a “preliminary report.”
Next, uncovering the clues
Here’s what every plane crash investigation looks at:
The engine debris: They can tell you whether the engines were actually working at the time of impact: "You can tell from the damage whether the engines were generating power at impact - turbines fracture differently when spinning at high speed.” Turbines generate thrust. If the engines weren’t working, then the focus shifts to what happened in the cockpit.
The two black boxes: The two Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFRs)—which are actually orange—each capture cockpit audio and flight data. The first records everything from “pilot radio calls to ambient cockpit sounds. Voice recordings come from individual pilot mics, radio transmissions and an area microphone that picks up background noise in the cockpit.”
The flight data recorder either confirms or contradicts what the debris suggests: “Data recorders track with high precision the position of gear and flap levers, thrust settings, engine performance, fuel flow and even fire handle activation.”
The first milestone: is figuring out if something went wrong with the engines. If one or both were working, then investigators look at the flaps and slats—which help gain altitude at lift-off and land safely on landing.
From nose to tail: Some investigations require reassembling the plane—laying out every available nut and bolt in a hangar. It can help identify external causes—like the Russian missile that damaged the nose cone of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17—shot down over Ukraine in 2014.
Fuel checks: Other important bits of the debris are fuel filters, lines, valves and residual fuel—which is checked for contamination.
Background checks: They will look at the maintenance and performance record of the plane—and that of the crew: pilot licences, training records, simulator performance and instructor remarks. Similarly, investigators will review the “service history of all components of the aircraft that were removed and replaced, examining reported defects for any recurring issues — or signs of problems that could have affected this flight.”
The investigation: What do we know now?
The government has not offered much in recent days—other than spicy rumours of sabotage. The Hindu’s resident aviation expert—Captain A Ranganathan—has settled on pilot error based on CCTV footage. The most comprehensive analysis to date was published over the weekend by the New York Times. Below is the summary of its findings (but we recommend using the splainer gift link to read the original investigation which has detailed infographics and images).
The methodology: The newspaper asked former pilots, crash investigators and an audio forensics expert to look at photos and videos of the crash. Here’s what they did not find:
One: The airplane used sufficient length of the runway for takeoff: “CCTV footage and flight data shows that the position where the plane left the runway was in line with its seven previous departures from the same runway.”
Two: The initial takeoff looks normal. The plane’s wing flaps and slats were properly extended—contrary to initial social media punditry. The angle of the video footage was misleading. The debris tells a different story: “The burn marks indicate that the slats were deployed prior to impact, or at least when the explosion occurred on the ground.”
The takeaway: The pilots seem to have followed protocol—at least on the runway.
The most likely cause: Catastrophic double engine failure. The evidence is the first damning sign of trouble: the plane’s landing gear does not fully retract back into the aircraft’s body:
While planes can technically fly with their landing gear extended, pilots typically retract it to reduce drag. In the crash video shot from the rooftop, the landing gear truck is visibly in a front-wheel-down position after liftoff.
This is the rooftop video referenced by the text:
Below is the Times collation of images from the clip and AP:
Note the specific tilt of the landing gear—which indicates that the pilots’ attempt to retract the landing gear “failed in the middle of the process… possibly because of issues such as an electrical failure that caused a loss of hydraulic power.”
Listen to the RAT-a-tat: The Times experts also confirm the noise of the ram air turbine (RAT)—which is automatically deployed in case of “an abrupt loss of electrical, hydraulic or engine power.” You can hear it below:
Last but not least: There is no ‘swerve’ in the direction of the plane—which would be obvious if only one engine failed:
“You don’t see any kind of indication of asymmetric thrust. You don’t see yawing, you don’t see rudder deflection, you don’t see smoke, or puffs of flame from either engine,” said Jeff Guzzetti, a former accident investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration. “That all adds up to me to be a symmetrical loss of power.”
It suggests both engines stopped working at the exact same time.
What does that mean? Double engine failure is an extremely rare event. It could be caused by fuel contamination. Or perhaps the flight parameters inputted before takeoff were incorrect—which in turn screwed up Boeing’s automated flight management system. Then again, a bird collision could have taken out both engines—unlikely but not unprecedented. For example: South Korea's Jeju Air disaster which killed 179 people last year. Ahmedabad has reported 462 bird strike incidents over five years.
The bottomline: More worrying than the horrific cause is its investigation—which will—as always—be skewed by politics. As crash investigator Ranganathan has said of previous such tragedies:
Anything in civil aviation in India is not an independent body. If it is an independent body, which is not controlled by the aviation ministry, then you can say that it is something which can come out with facts. As long as you have the ministry controlling everything, you will never find the facts coming out.
If the facts don’t “come out,” the facts on the ground won’t change either—each airline crash will become just another coverup.
Reading list
The New York Times investigation can be accessed here. This piece by FlightDeck has a full list of causes for dual engine failure. Economic Times has the latest details on the botched AAIB investigation. For a full overview, you can check out BBC News. BBC News also has an in-depth report on how safe the Boeing 787 Dreamliner truly is. Reuters has the UN aviation investigator angle. Read The Print for deets on India’s black box lab. Mint has more on DGCA’s chronic understaffing issues and how to reconstruct a plane crash. Read Outlook for why the investigation following the 2020 Kozhikode plane crash was a coverup exercise.
