Seat 11A: A Chilling Link Between Two Air Tragedy Survivors
Now, almost 27 years later, the number 11A has resurfaced in a way that left him speechless.
This week, Ruangsak learned that Vishwash Kumar Ramesh—the only survivor of the June 12 Air India crash in Ahmedabad—was also sitting in seat 11A when the plane hit a college hostel building.
In a quiet and emotional post, Ruangsak said the coincidence gave him goosebumps. He called it a powerful reminder of how unpredictable and fragile life can be.
He offered his heartfelt condolences to the victims' families in Ahmedabad and reflected on how one seat—11A—has now come to represent survival against all odds in two separate tragedies.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Tribune
21-07-2025
- Daily Tribune
Ahmedabad Air Disaster: 'Media Points Finger at Pilot'
On June 12, a catastrophic event shook the nation when Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed moments after takeoff from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad. The tragedy claimed the lives of 241 of the 242 passengers aboard and 19 individuals on the ground at a medical college hospital where the aircraft plummeted. From the outset, suspicion has swirled around the pilots as the cause of the disaster. Initial reports suggested that co-pilot Clive Kunther was responsible for the crash. However, in recent days, media narratives have shifted, pinning the blame on Captain Sumit Sabharwal. Speculation, fuelled by sensationalised reporting, claims that Captain Sabharwal, grieving the recent death of his mother, deliberately caused the crash as an act of suicide. These allegations, reportedly based on leaks from agencies such as the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which are assisting India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), were first carried by The Wall Street Journal. The story, marked by dramatic language, was picked up by The Daily Telegraph and subsequently amplified by Indian media outlets. Indian authorities, however, opted to retain control of the aircraft's black box rather than transfer it to the United States. The Indian Ministry of Civil Aviation has also categorically dismissed these media claims, emphasising that the investigation remains ongoing. This stance appears to reflect wider concerns among those closely monitoring the investigation, including within Boeing and Air India. Who, then, is Captain Sumit Sabharwal? At 54, this unmarried pilot resided with his elderly parents in Powai, Mumbai. His mother passed away recently, leaving behind his 97-yearold father, a former official with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). Captain Sabharwal, whose elder sister resides in Delhi with her two children, both pilots, was reportedly preparing to retire to care for his ailing father full-time. Colleagues and friends describe him as a calm, respected individual who, even amidst personal grief, maintained a routine of taking walks with his elderly father. With extensive experience piloting aircraft such as the Airbus A310, Boeing 777 and the 787 Dreamliner, logging between 8,200 and 15,638 hours on the latter, Captain Sabharwal was a seasoned aviator. Yet, media narratives allege that this composed and dedicated professional resorted to suicide, driven by grief over his mother's death and the burden of caring for his aging father. How implausible does this story seem? This rush to judgment, introduced in reports by The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraph, was echoed widely by Indian media over the past two days. Adding fuel to the fire, some commentators, including a pilot named Mohan Ranganathan, have publicly speculated about possible mental health factors, though no formal documentation or diagnosis has been cited in public records. Strikingly, few have questioned why such concerns were never formally documented. Instead, these claims risk shifting the narrative away from systemic or technical issues and toward a pilot who can no longer defend himself. It is worth noting that since 2019, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner has faced documented technical and software issues. To attribute the crash of an aircraft, potentially experiencing unresolved maintenance issues, to a pilot's personal tragedy is not only convenient but also deeply troubling. The ease with which some media have embraced this theory, while giving little attention to the aircraft's mechanical record, is alarming. According to official reports, Air India Flight 171 crashed on June 12 at 1:39 PM Indian Standard Time, or 8:09 UTC, just 30 seconds after takeoff. At the moment of impact, the aircraft's maximum speed was recorded at 180 knots. Reports further indicate that the engine start switches were reactivated at 8:08:42 UTC, suggesting that within the brief 30-second window post-takeoff, the aircraft's engines were turned off and then restarted. The apparent cause? The fuel tank switches were found in the 'off' position. The flight's voice recorder captured a critical exchange: one pilot, upon discovering the issue, asked, 'Who turned this off?' to which the other responded, 'Not me.' This conversation, preserved in the retrieved black box, has fuelled a narrative, first raised by The Wall Street Journal and echoed by The Daily Telegraph and Indian media, that Captain Sumit Sabharwal deliberately switched off the fuel supply, causing the crash. The question remains, whom does this narrative serve? Let us now examine the flaws in this theory. Imagine driving a car at 80 kilometres per hour and suddenly shifting it into neutral without braking. The car would continue moving forward for some distance due to inertia, the natural tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion. The same principle applies to an aircraft. In the case of Air India Flight 171, the crash occurred at 1:39 PM IST, moments after the pilots' recorded exchange about the fuel switches. The switches were found off and promptly turned back on, indicating that the pilots noticed the issue when the engines lost the thrust needed to climb. Following standard procedure, they attempted to reboot the fuel switches at 8:08:42 UTC to restart the engines. Tragically, within the next 18 seconds, the aircraft plummeted to the ground. If the engines were restarted at 8:08:42 UTC, they must have been turned off, or become inoperative, prior to that moment. For an aircraft travelling at 180 knots, an immediate crash upon engine cutoff is implausible. Inertia should have allowed it to glide further before descending. The absence of such a glide suggests the fuel switches were turned off while the aircraft was still on the runway, causing the engines to fail shortly after takeoff. Like a kite with a snapped string, the plane briefly soared before crashing and bursting into flames. The pilots' exchange likely occurred during this chaotic sequence. Would a pilot intent on suicide attempt to restart the engines to save the aircraft? The notion seems absurd. Another critical point: the fuel switch in a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner (registration VTANB), powered by two General Electric GEnx-1B engines, is not a simple electrical toggle like a light bulb. It is controlled by a sophisticated software system known as the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). When a pilot flips the fuel switch, it sends a request, not a direct command, to the software, which evaluates the request based on operational conditions. In some cases, the system may even prompt the pilot for confirmation before cutting the fuel supply to the engines. These processes unfold in milliseconds. In essence, even if Captain Sabharwal had intended to sabotage the flight, it would have been extremely difficult to bypass the FADEC system to cut the fuel supply and bring down the aircraft. Moreover, the timeline of events suggests there was simply no time for such an act. Since 2019, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner has been repeatedly affected by software glitches, with Boeing issuing periodic service patches to address them, patches that have often been criticised as inadequate. Meanwhile, Air India faces allegations of negligence in maintaining this aircraft. Whether the reported technical issues, some of which Captain Sabharwal is said to have noted in the logbook, were addressed promptly, or whether the aircraft was overdue for servicing, remains under investigation. Yet, despite these unresolved questions, some media outlets have presented Captain Sabharwal as the primary cause, based on reports that remain unverified. My plea is simple: until the official investigation report is released, we must refrain from tarnishing the memory of a captain who lost his life in this tragedy. The allegations against Boeing and the persistent issues with the Dreamliner's systems could easily warrant another major article. However, for now, the focus must remain on seeking the truth, not perpetuating convenient narratives.
Gulf Insider
12-07-2025
- Gulf Insider
Air India Crash Report Shows Pilot Confusion Over Engine Switch Movement
A preliminary report depicted confusion in the cockpit shortly before an Air India jetliner crashed and killed 260 people last month, after the plane's engine fuel cutoff switches flipped almost simultaneously and starved the engines of fuel. The Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab 787 Dreamliner bound for London from the Indian city of Ahmedabad began to lose thrust and sink shortly after takeoff, according to the report on the world's deadliest aviation accident in a decade released on Saturday by Indian accident investigators. The report by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) about the June 12 crash raises fresh questions over the position of the critical engine fuel cutoff switches. Almost immediately after the plane lifted off the ground, closed-circuit TV footage showed a backup energy source called a ram air turbine had deployed, indicating a loss of power from the engines. In the flight's final moments, one pilot was heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he cut off the fuel. 'The other pilot responded that he did not do so,' the report said. It did not identify which remarks were made by the flight's captain and which by the first officer, nor which pilot transmitted 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday' just before the crash. The commanding pilot of the Air India plane was Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, who had a total flying experience of 15,638 hours and, according to the Indian government, was also an Air India instructor. His co-pilot was Clive Kunder, 32, who had 3,403 hours of total experience. The fuel switches had almost simultaneously flipped from run to cutoff just after takeoff. The preliminary report did not say how the switches could have flipped to the cutoff position during the flight. 'We care for the welfare and the well-being of pilots so let's not jump to any conclusions at this stage, let us wait for the final report,' Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu told local news channels. The crash is a challenge for Tata Group's ambitious campaign to restore Air India's reputation and revamp its fleet, after taking the carrier over from the government in 2022. Air India acknowledged the report in a statement. The carrier said it was cooperating with Indian authorities but declined further comment. Experts have said a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches. 'If they were moved because of a pilot, why?' asked U.S. aviation safety expert Anthony Brickhouse. The switches flipped a second apart, the report said, roughly the time it would take to shift one and then the other, according to U.S. aviation expert John Nance. He added that a pilot would normally never turn the switches off in flight, especially as the plane is starting to climb. Flipping to cutoff almost immediately cuts the engines. It is most often used to turn engines off once a plane has arrived at its airport gate and in certain emergency situations, such as an engine fire. The report does not indicate there was any emergency requiring an engine cutoff. At the crash site, both fuel switches were found in the run position and there had been indications of both engines relighting before the low-altitude crash, said the report, which was released around 1:30 a.m. IST on Saturday (2000 GMT on Friday). Asked about the report, the father of first officer Kunder told reporters 'I am not from the airline', declining to comment further during a prayer meeting held in the memory of the airline's crew on Saturday in Mumbai, where emotional scenes played out among grieving relatives. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board thanked Indian officials for their cooperation in a statement and noted that there were no recommended actions in the report aimed at operators of Boeing 787 jets or the GE (GE.N) engines. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said its priority was to follow the facts where they lead and it was committed to promptly addressing any risks identified throughout the process. Boeing said it continued to support the investigation and its customer, Air India. GE Aerospace did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The AAIB, an office under India's civil aviation ministry, is leading the probe into the crash, which killed all but one of the 242 people on board and 19 others on the ground. Most air crashes are caused by multiple factors, with a preliminary report due 30 days after the accident, according to international rules, and a final report expected within a year. The plane's black boxes, combined cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders, were recovered in the days following the crash and later downloaded in India. The report said 'all applicable airworthiness directives and alert service bulletins were complied (with) on the aircraft as well as engines.' The airport closed-circuit TV recording from Ahmedabad had earlier shown the Air India plane rose to a height of 650 feet after it took off, but then suddenly lost altitude, crashing in a fireball into a nearby building. The investigation report said as the Dreamliner lost altitude, it initially made contact with several trees and an incineration chimney, before hitting the building. Air India has faced additional scrutiny on other fronts after the crash. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency said last week it plans to investigate its budget airline, Air India Express, after Reuters reported the carrier did not follow a directive to change engine parts of an Airbus A320 in a timely manner and falsified records to show compliance. India is banking on a boom in aviation to support wider development goals, with New Delhi saying it wants India to be a job-creating global aviation hub along the lines of Dubai.
Daily Tribune
12-07-2025
- Daily Tribune
Air India Responds to Preliminary Report on AI171 Crash, Reaffirms Commitment to Families and Investigation
Air India has issued a formal statement following the release of the preliminary report by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) regarding the tragic crash of Flight AI171, which claimed 260 lives earlier this year. The airline reaffirmed its support for the ongoing investigation and extended its condolences to those affected. 'Air India stands in solidarity with the families and those affected by the AI171 accident. We continue to mourn the loss and are fully committed to providing support during this difficult time,' the airline said. Air India confirmed receipt of the 15-page preliminary AAIB report, released on July 12, but declined to comment on the findings, citing the active status of the investigation. 'We acknowledge receipt of the preliminary report released by the AAIB today. As the investigation continues, we will refrain from commenting on specific details and refer all queries to the investigating authority,' the airline added. Key Findings in the AAIB Report The AAIB report stops short of assigning blame but sheds light on crucial technical events during the final moments of the flight. According to cockpit voice recordings, one pilot questioned the other on why the fuel had been cut off, to which the second pilot reportedly responded, 'I did not.' The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, en route from Ahmedabad to London, suffered a catastrophic failure less than a minute after takeoff. The report states that both engines' fuel control switches moved from the "RUN" to the "CUTOFF" position within one second of each other, cutting power at the aircraft's highest recorded speed. Though the switches were briefly returned to "RUN" and the engines appeared to respond, the aircraft lost altitude rapidly. A 'MAYDAY' call was transmitted before the plane crashed. Only one of the 242 people on board survived the impact, along with 19 fatalities on the ground. Possible Mechanical Fault? The report noted a 2018 FAA bulletin warning of a potential flaw in fuel control switches on Boeing aircraft, which could inadvertently shift to "cutoff" without the locking mechanism engaging. However, inspections for this issue were not mandatory, and the Air India aircraft had not been checked for the defect. Jeff Guzzetti, former chief of accident investigations at the US Federal Aviation Administration, stated: 'We now know — with some degree of confidence — that both engines rolled back because these fuel switches were activated. We just don't know why or how.' The AAIB has not issued any safety recommendations for Boeing 787 or GE engine operators at this time. As the probe continues, aviation experts say the focus will now shift to determining whether pilot error, mechanical malfunction, or a combination of factors led to one of the deadliest aviation disasters in recent years.
