Immediate focus centres on the cockpit voice recorder transcript, which records one pilot asking the other, “Why did you cut off fuel?” while the second responds, “I did not do so.” However, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau deliberately avoided naming the speaker or assigning intent. Despite this, the Wall Street Journal cited unnamed US officials to suggest that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal deliberately switched off both engine fuel control switches in the moments after take-off.
Pilots’ associations in India, including FIP and the Airline Pilots’ Association of India, have criticised the tone and wording of the Wall Street Journal coverage. They argue that it borders on speculative reporting and damages the reputations of the pilots before definitive conclusions are drawn. FIP’s Randhawa highlighted that neither the AAIB nor the country’s Civil Aviation Minister has suggested pilot error. He described the WSJ narrative as misleading, adding that the federation is seeking legal counsel on potential defamation.
Alongside this strong rebuke, FIP has called upon the Civil Aviation Ministry to reconstitute the inquiry committee. The pilots’ body insists the team must include type‑rated pilots, senior engineers and safety experts to ensure technical credibility and guard against a premature blame culture. Randhawa drew attention to a 2018 Federal Aviation Administration bulletin highlighting potential fuel‑switch malfunctions in Boeing 787 aircraft, including the Throttle Control Malfunction Accommodation system. He suggested that a repeat of such a system glitch could have led to the dual engine shutdown, rather than any action by the crew.
The AAIB’s preliminary findings confirmed that both fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF in quick succession, resulting in a loss of engine thrust. Although power was restored to RUN position, insufficient altitude and airspeed rendered recovery impossible. The report refrained from attributing causation or intent, emphasising that the focus was to outline factual events only.
Legal and aviation experts underscore the potential consequences of the WSJ narrative. Averting a miscarriage of justice demands strict adherence to journalistic ethics and regulations set out by aviation investigations under ICAO Annex 13, which stipulate that CVR transcripts should remain confidential until used in final reports.
The WSJ cited US officials who believe the evidence may merit a criminal investigation into Captain Sabharwal’s actions. American and other international officials reviewing the black box recordings reportedly deem the possibility of deliberate action significant enough to warrant forensic and psychological probes. Notably, these officials stressed the importance of ruling out mechanical failure, cognitive impairment, or design flaws before drawing conclusions.
India’s Civil Aviation Ministry, along with Air India, has urged a measured stance. The airline conducted fleet-wide inspections of Boeing 787s, reporting no anomalies in fuel switch systems. The AAIB has described the WSJ coverage as irresponsible and called for restraint from media and the public until the investigation reaches a conclusive stage.
Complicating matters, veteran pilots and experts have pointed to ambiguities and inaccuracies within the preliminary report itself. They note that certain timeline inconsistencies—such as speed readings post engine shutdown—could affect how CVR audio is interpreted. The lack of raw transcripts, and reliance on indirect speech, has sparked calls for greater transparency and disclosure to restore public confidence.
Families of those lost in the June 12 crash have already voiced disillusionment over the inconclusive language of the preliminary report. They are urging swift and deeper analysis while warning against narratives that might unfairly implicate the crew. The full AAIB report, expected within the year, will delve into flight instrument data, psychological profiles, cockpit procedures, and maintenance logs.
As the legal challenge unfolds, the pilots’ federation underscores a broader debate: balancing transparency in investigations with due process and preserving the dignity of professionals under scrutiny. With the final inquiry yet to proceed, FIP and associated bodies remain resolute in defending pilots against what they consider premature and damaging claims.