Air India AI 171 Crash Probe: Why Pilots’ Body Is Challenging AAIB’s Investigation

The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) has objected to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) summoning of Captain Varun Anand, nephew of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, in the ongoing investigation into the Air India (AI) 171 crash that occurred at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (AMD), Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, The Financial Express reported. The legal notice served by the pilots’ grouping has intensified scrutiny of the probe into one of India’s deadliest civil aviation disasters and sparked debate about the limits of investigative authority.

The summoning of Captain Anand, a serving Air India (AI) pilot, has been described by FIP as both “wholly unwarranted” and procedurally inappropriate, raising concerns that the investigation may be shifting focus toward assigning blame to the flight crew rather than maintaining a technical, fact‑based examination of the crash.

Air India AI 171: At a Glance

DGCA Launches Probe After Air India Flight 117 Reports Uncommanded RAT Deployment

FIP’s Objection to Summons

The Federation of Indian Pilots served a detailed legal notice to AAIB objecting to the bureau’s decision to summon Captain Anand. According to the FIP, Anand has no factual, technical, or expert connection to the crash, and his inclusion is not supported by relevant investigation rules.

Key points of the FIP objection include:

• Captain Anand was not present at the crash site and had no involvement in the flight’s planning, dispatch, operation, maintenance, certification or crew composition.

• The legal notice asserted that summoning a family member is inconsistent with the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rule, which govern civil aviation accident probes in India.

• FIP described the summons as harassment that causes distress to a grieving family, especially when it is not backed by operational relevance.

According to the pilots’ body, the sole basis for calling Captain Anand appears to be his familial relationship with the deceased captain — a factor which the FIP argues as undermining the integrity of the investigation. As quoted in the exclusive piece in The New Indian Express, the FIP said:

“This gives rise to a serious apprehension that the investigation is proceeding on a preconceived narrative seeking to portray or attribute responsibility to the deceased flight crew rather than objectively examine systemic, mechanical or operational charges……. (summoning Captain Anand) is wholly unwarranted and amounts to harassment and distress in the aftermath of a tragic loss and exposes our client to professional and reputational prejudice.”

The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) said the summoning of the nephew of the deceased pilot was not in line with “lawful investigative necessity”, whilst also quoting a specific section of ICAO, reported The Tribune:

“The summoning of Capt Anand, as also of other family members, is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules as well as ICAO Annex 13, which strictly confine accident investigations to technical, safety-oriented fact-finding and expressly prohibit attribution of blame or liability….”

Reiterating their position, the federation made clear that Captain Anand could not be considered a witness in any capacity, stating that he was “neither a factual witness nor a technical or expert witness in relation to the said accident”.

The pilots’ association further noted that the matter was already under judicial scrutiny. According to the legal notice, the father of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, along with the pilot concerned, has moved the Supreme Court through a writ petition that questions, among other issues, the independence and impartiality of the investigation being carried out by the AAIB. Only a month ago, the Supreme Court clarified that the pilot was not at fault.

Probe Body Response to AAIB

In contrast to the FIP’s assertions, the AAIB has defended its approach, stating that investigators are empowered under the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules to call and examine “any witness relevant to the investigation”.

Referring to the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2025, the AAIB added that investigators are authorized to call any witness they deem relevant, and the words of AAIB were quoted in India Today:

“According to the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules 2025, officials are empowered to summon and question any witness deemed relevant to a probe. Investigators can require such a witness to furnish or produce information or evidence or to answer or return to any inquiries he thinks fit to make..”

Compromising A Way Out?

Captain Anand has agreed to talk to AAIB despite the objections. When India’s flag carrier informed him of the summons, and he agreed to respond to investigators’ questions via video conference. According to Republic World, “this compromise reflects both the federation’s insistence on protecting its members and the bureau’s determination to pursue every lead“.

Background of the Crash

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, operated by a Boeing 787‑8 Dreamliner, crashed moments after taking off from Ahmedabad en route to London, killing 260 people including passengers and crew.

The tragedy, one of the most devastating in Indian civil aviation history, prompted a comprehensive investigation by the AAIB under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In the investigation’s preliminary report, AAIB noted that data indicated both engines lost fuel supply shortly after takeoff, with the engine fuel control switches transitioning from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’.

While the report used the term “transitioned” rather than asserting physical switch movement.  According to the The Indian Express, pilot suicide theories floated around and that “pilot bodies, including the FIP, had earlier raised strong objections to the preliminary report“:

Then, in September 2025, the FIP had alleged that a delegation of AAIB officials made an unsolicited visit to Pushkar Raj Sabharwal’s house late August under the pretext of offering condolences. They allegedly made damaging “insinuations” based on a “selective CVR (cockpit voice recorder) interpretation and a “layered voice analysis”, suggesting that Sumeet Sabharwal had deliberately moved the engine fuel control switches. The pilot grouping had termed this visit and the interaction as a “gross and calculated overreach of the AAIB’s mandate”.

Bottom Line

Last year, FIP wrote a letter Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) demanding that the Central government to launch a judicial probe into the fatal AI171, with the letter saying:

“The actions undertaken by the AAIB in the intervening period have not only violated stmilies and the aviation fraternity in the current investigative process. Therefore, it is a formal demand, grounded in law and precedent, for the immediate invocation of a judicial probe. We assert that this is the only remaining path to salvage the credibility of the accident investigation process in India, deliver justice to all the souls lost, and uphold public faith in our nation’s commitment to aviation safety….”

For now, how the nation’s commitment of aviation safety following the investigation of the Ahmedabad’s fateful crash is publically displayed is something to wait and watch out for.