Following the release of the initial findings into the Air India Flight 171 disaster which resulted in the deaths of 260 individuals in June many anticipated clarity.

However, the 15-page summary only intensified ongoing debate. Despite its restrained language, one point continues to unsettle experts, investigators, and the public.

Just after lift-off, both fuel-control switches on the Boeing 787, 12 years in service unexpectedly shifted to the “cut-off” setting, instantly cutting engine power. Typically, this switch-off is only executed once the aircraft lands.

The voice recording from the cockpit reveals a conversation in which one pilot asks the other why he “did the cut-off”, and receives a denial. The voices remain unidentified. The co-pilot was handling the controls during take-off while the captain observed.

After a brief moment, the switches were restored to normal, initiating an automatic attempt to restart the engines. By the time the crash occurred, one engine had begun regaining power and the other had restarted but had not yet built sufficient thrust. The aircraft was in the air for under a minute before plunging into a residential area in Ahmedabad, western India.

Numerous theories have been circulating since this early report though the conclusive report is still expected within the next year.

Some media reports have indicated that “new details in the probe of last month’s Air India crash are shifting the focus to the senior pilot in the cockpit”.

Other outlets suggested, based on unnamed sources, that the first officer allegedly kept questioning the captain as to why he “shut off the engines”.

The pilots—Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, and Clive Kunder, 32 had more than 19,000 hours of flight experience combined, nearly half of which was on the 787. Both passed routine pre-flight medical evaluations.

The leaks and unofficial commentary surrounding the incident have unsettled investigators and drawn backlash from the flying community in India.

Recently, India’s air accident investigation authority issued a statement criticizing what it called “certain sections of the international media” for pushing conclusions based on “selective and unverified reporting”. These portrayals were called “irresponsible” and inappropriate given that the full probe remains underway.

The chair of the U.S. transportation board assisting the probe shared on X that the reports were “premature and speculative” and stressed that “investigations of this magnitude take time”.

Meanwhile, a union representing Indian commercial pilots described the finger-pointing at crew members as “reckless” and “deeply insensitive”. They urged patience until the final analysis is released.

Sam Thomas, who heads a national pilots’ association, expressed concern over media narratives overtaking evidence-based conclusions. He highlighted the importance of assessing technical documentation and voice recordings alongside maintenance records.

At the core of the public debate is the short snippet from the cockpit recorder shared in the initial report. The full transcript, expected in the final document, may reveal more.

An anonymous aviation safety expert based in Canada observed that the brief voice exchange presented in the report opens multiple scenarios.

They explained that if “pilot ‘B’ was the one who operated the switches – and did so unwittingly or unconsciously – it’s understandable that they would later deny having done it.” On the other hand, if “pilot ‘A’ operated the switches deliberately and with intent,” then asking a question aloud could have been a diversionary tactic knowing the audio would be analyzed.

Ultimately, the expert noted, even pinpointing who spoke may not conclusively identify who manipulated the controls.

Another source familiar with the investigation emphasized that although current evidence points toward the switches being manually flipped, every angle must remain open to examination.

Some pilots have proposed that a system malfunction could under very rare circumstances automatically shut down the engines if it mistakenly detected irregular signals from onboard sensors.

However, if the recorded line “why did you cut-off [the fuel]?” occurred after the switches had already moved to cut-off mode, it could undermine the malfunction hypothesis. The final report is expected to clarify this with precise timing and technical data.

What’s feeding much of the speculation is not so much what was said, but what remains unrevealed.

The preliminary document shared only a fraction of the voice recorder dialogue, offering just one critical exchange from the flight’s final seconds.

This limited disclosure has left room for multiple interpretations. Some wonder if investigators are certain about who spoke but chose not to reveal it yet. Others suspect that identification of the voices is still pending.

A former U.S. aviation regulator believes the full voice recording with pilots’ voices clearly matched should be made available.

He noted that if the plane experienced malfunctions during take-off, such abnormalities would appear in the flight data logs and trigger cockpit alerts, which the pilots would likely have discussed.

Experts warn against drawing firm conclusions too early.

One experienced aviation investigator and university expert said it’s risky to instantly interpret the switch movement as intentional whether due to mistake, mental state, or sabotage especially without full context.

Meanwhile, alternate ideas continue to circulate.

Local press in India previously mentioned a potential electrical issue near the aircraft’s tail. But the official early report confirms: the engines went down after the fuel switches were manually disengaged, a fact backed by flight recorders. If any fire at the rear occurred, it likely resulted from the crash itself.

The lead official overseeing the probe stated that the report’s goal was to explain “WHAT” happened, not to assign blame prematurely.

He emphasized that the final conclusions will outline root causes and recommend steps for future safety. He also committed to transparency about ongoing technical findings.

To summarize, experts say the incident likely boils down to one of three causes intentional action, unintentional error, or an automation problem.

The report avoids placing blame on any crew member or suggesting definitive motive; rather, it reflects how complex aviation accidents often are.

Ultimately, the search for answers continues and it’s possible that some questions may never be fully resolved.

The unexpected decision by India’s Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar to step down late Monday has ignited widespread debate regarding the underlying reasons for his departure.

While officially attributed to medical issues, the resignation which came as the monsoon session of Parliament commenced has left many in the political class questioning the true motive.

Dhankhar, who also functioned as the presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha, had been selected for the role by the ruling party but no public statement has yet been made by them concerning his exit.

Some lawmakers in opposition ranks voiced shock over the move, with one parliamentarian suggesting the matter “goes beyond the obvious”.

At 74, Dhankhar still had two years remaining in his term, having assumed office in August 2022.

Just hours before he stepped down, Dhankhar was seen fulfilling his legislative duties overseeing a session in the upper house and inducting newly elected members.

He had also officially accepted a petition seeking the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma filed by more than 50 legislators after a substantial cash stash was allegedly found in the judge’s residence earlier this year. The judge has denied any misconduct.

Dhankhar’s calendar had included a planned official trip to Jaipur later in the week in his current role.

However, that evening, he presented his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu, stating a desire “to prioritise health care and abide by medical advice”.

“It has been a privilege and satisfaction to witness and partake in India’s remarkable economic progress and unprecedented exponential development during this significant period. Serving in this transformative era of our nation’s history has been a true honour,” Dhankhar wrote in his letter.

The announcement caught many off-guard, including those who reportedly spoke with him earlier in the day.

“What is going on in this government?” a senior political spokesperson questioned.

He noted that “this decision came without proper consultation or discussion. If health was the concern, the resignation could have been submitted a few days before the session or even after.”

Another legislator labeled the exit as “totally unexpected”, acknowledging that “no doubt Mr Dhankhar has to give topmost priority to his health”, yet remarking that “clearly there is far more to his totally unexpected resignation than meets the eye.”

One prominent MP went so far as to label it “unprecedented”, citing an incident earlier that same day involving an advisory committee meeting Dhankhar was to lead.

According to him, two cabinet members failed to appear and did not inform Dhankhar directly, prompting him to express discontent and move the session to the following day.

“Jagdeep Dhankar’s resignation speaks highly of him. It also speaks poorly of who got him elected as vice president in the first instance,” he concluded.

With a professional background in law, Dhankhar began his political life in 1989 representing the Jhunjhunu constituency.

He officially joined the ruling party in 2003, where he was tasked with leading its legal wing. In 2019, he was appointed as the constitutional head of West Bengal, a tenure often marked by friction with the state’s leadership.

After being chosen as the vice presidential candidate, he stepped down from his gubernatorial position in 2022.

Earlier this year, Dhankhar underwent a heart procedure in Delhi but resumed his official functions soon after and continued to participate actively in legislative affairs.

Now that the vice presidency stands unoccupied, interim duties are expected to be taken over either by the Rajya Sabha’s deputy chairperson or another nominee approved by the president.