Was Air India pilot 'depressed' and did he 'deliberately' crash the plane?

Daily Mail​

14-07-2025

Investigations into the Air India plane crash are looking into the pilots' medical records as it's claimed one of them had depression and struggled with the loss of his mother.
Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, an experienced pilot with more than 8,200 hours in the cockpit, was piloting the Boeing 787 Dreamliner when it plummeted into a residential area, killing 241 people on board and claiming 19 more lives of those on the ground.
Seconds after taking off on June 12, two fuel switches in the cockpit of Air India Flight 171 were turned off shortly after take off, resulting in a catastrophic loss of power and the aircraft crashing to the ground. The switches' 'locking feature' meant pilots had to lift them up before changing their position and could not be accidentally turned off. Now, investigations into the tragic crash have begun to analyze the behavior of one of the pilots.
Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a leading aviation safety expert in India, has revealed that 'several' Air India pilots had allegedly confirmed that Captain Sabharwal had suffered from poor mental health.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he claimed: 'He had taken time off from flying in the last three to four years. He had taken medical leave for that.
Sabharwal is also understood to have taken bereavement leave after the death of his mother, though it is believed by Ranganathan that he had been 'medically cleared' by Air India prior to the fatal crash last month.
In Powai, Mumbai, one of Sabharwal's former colleagues described him as a 'thorough gentlemen' telling the publication that he believed 'he was actually considering early retirement in the next couple of years', with plans to look after his elderly father, aged 90.
In his short career, co-pilot Clive Kunder, 28, had logged more than 3,400 hours.
The Telegraph said that while Air India declined to comment, an official working with their parent company, Tata Group, told the publication that Sabharwal had not taken any medical leave, with the preliminary report failing to obtain any significant findings.
They added that within the last two years, both pilots onboard the flight had passed the Class I medical exam, which makes an evaluation of their psycho-physical capabilities.
On Sunday, a preliminary report released by the Indian authorities led to questions about why the pilot would have manually turned the switches off - and whether it was a deliberate act or a catastrophic mistake.
The report said: 'In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other: why did he cut off? The other pilot responded that he did not do so.'
Pilots will turn the fuel switches on and off at the correct times in every flight, but this time the fuel was cut off straight after takeoff and the landing gear was not raised.
The co-pilot was flying the aircraft at the time of takeoff while the captain was monitoring.
The report added that the switches were flipped back to 'run' seconds afterwards, which started the process of relighting the engines. One of the engines had relit but had not gained power while the other was in the process of regaining power.
At the crash site, both switches were found in the 'run' position.
Before the flight, both pilots had an adequate rest period and were found 'fit to operate' following a breathalyzer test, the report said.
There were no dangerous goods on the plane and the weight was 'within allowable limits'. Fuel samples taken from the tanks were tested and found to be 'satisfactory' and there was 'no significant bird activity' observed in and around the flight path of the aircraft.
But Ranganthan previously suggested it may have been deliberate. Each lever has to be pulled upwards to be unlocked, before it can be flipped and they also have further protective guard brackets to safeguard against any bumps and nudges.
Explaining that he believed it 'had to be done manually', Ranganathan told NDTV of the fuel levers: 'The fuel selectors they aren't the sliding type they are always in a slot. They are to pull them out or move them up or down, so the question of them moving inadvertently out of off position doesn't happen. It's a case of deliberate manual selection.'
Final moments: After losing altitude, it came into contact with Building A at 293ft at the angle illustrated above
Ranganthan later said 'nothing else' would explain why both switches were moved into the off position just after take off, claiming: 'It had to be deliberately done.'
When questioned if he was suggesting one of the pilots 'deliberately' switched off the fuel lever, while fully aware of the possibility of a crash, he answered: 'Absolutely', before claiming they were looking at a potential 'pilot-induced crash'.
But relatives of some of the victims of the crash have accused the airline and the Indian government of trying to blame the pilots for the crash.
Ameen Siddiqui, 28, whose brother-in-law, Akeel Nanabawa, died alongside his wife and their four-year-old daughter told The Telegraph: 'This report is wrong. We don't accept it. It's a cover-up to protect Air India and the government.
'They want to blame dead pilots who can't defend themselves. How can the fuel switches end up turning off at a critical moment, either through pilot error or a mechanical fault?
The RAT acts as a backup power source during emergencies and will deploy in cases of complete power failure.
The report said two minutes after takeoff, one of the pilots transmitted: 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday'.
In December 2018, the US air regulator Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned airlines that fuel switches had been installed in some Boeing 737s 'with the locking feature disengaged'.
The FAA warned in a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin: 'If the locking feature is disengaged, the switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting the switch during transition, and the switch would be exposed to the potential of inadvertent operation. Inadvertent operation of the switch could result in an unintended consequence, such as an in-flight engine shutdown.'
It recommended airlines inspect the switches, including 'whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the two positions without lifting up the switch'.
The airworthiness concern was not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant a legally enforceable regulation to correct unsafe conditions.
Air India has suggested such inspections were not carried out because the FAA's bulletin was 'advisory and not mandatory'.
Sole survivor Vishwash Kumar Ramesh had been in the country on a business trip with his brother Ajaykumar, 35, before they boarded the doomed flight travelling from Ahmedabad to Gatwick.
In what has been described as a miracle, Viswash - seated in 11A by the exit - survived, but his sibling who was sat on the other side of the aisle in seat 11J perished in the explosion that followed the crash.
Before the discovery of the British survivor, authorities said that they believed no one had escaped the flight alive.
An Air India spokesperson previously said: '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. We acknowledge receipt of the preliminary report released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) today, 12 July 2025.
'Air India is working closely with stakeholders, including regulators. We continue to fully cooperate with the AAIB and other authorities as their investigation progresses.
'Given the active nature of the investigation, we are unable to comment on specific details and refer all such enquiries to the AAIB.'