How is it possible there was only one survivor in the Air India plane crash? Is seat 11A safer? This is what the experts say.

Vishwash Kumar Ramesh will remember June 12, 2025, as the day he cheated death. The 40-year-old British citizen was the sole survivor of Air India flight AI171, which crashed Thursday shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, a city in western India. The man was traveling in seat 11A, next to the emergency exit, and was taken to a hospital with several injuries, though none of them serious. He is now out of danger.

After the news broke, theories began to circulate about how he managed to survive. When the press directly questioned Ramesh about his feat, he was categorical: he had no idea how he managed to escape the wrecked plane alive . “The side of the plane landed, and I could see there was space outside, so when my door broke, I tried to escape through it and managed to,” Ramesh told the Indian network DD News .

The portal's rapid response division In recent hours, the Science Media Center released the opinions of several international experts, attempting to shed light on this mystery. These are some of the questions that remain open and what scientists believe might be the answers.

Is it so strange that there is only one survivor?

"It's very unusual," says Guy Gratton, professor of aviation at Cranfield University (United Kingdom). Modern airplanes are designed to be impact-resistant, thus increasing the chances of survival for passengers and crew. That's why the most common scenarios are either that most occupants survive, or that, if the impact releases very high energy, no one survives. "For there to be a single survivor is quite exceptional," the scientist notes.

Graham Braithwaite, director of aviation at the same university, agrees: “Plane accidents are already rare, and when they do occur, most turn out to be partially—or even fully—survivable. Stories with only one survivor are among the handful of extreme cases we see every few years.”

Guido Carim, a senior lecturer in aviation at Griffith University (Australia), wrote in The Conversation that research into air crashes generally suggests that the rear seats of planes are the safest in the event of an accident. However, Ramesh's seat was more in the center of the aircraft. "Based on what we know so far, my expert opinion is that we have no better explanation than to call it luck or a miracle," the researcher says.

Was there anything particular about seat 11A that might have increased the chances of survival?

Although many are speculating that this seat could have increased the chances of survival, the general answer is no. But Gratton has another suspicion: "The survivor was forward of the wings, where the fuel is located, and next to an emergency exit." He adds: "I think this probably caused that seat, or part of the structure immediately around it, to separate from the rest of the fuselage and the fuel explosion."

Graham Braithwaite, director of Aerospace and Aviation at Cranfield University, notes that "without proof, this would be pure speculation." Even so, the available evidence may not be sufficient to resolve this mystery, and investigators may never reach a clear conclusion. "The survivor said the doors were missing and that he crawled through a crack in the fuselage to reach the first floor of a building, so the key may be the man's relative location to that structure," the expert believes.

What factors might have contributed to their survival?

Beyond chance, experts point to several plausible factors. For example, the localized rupture of the fuselage that ejected the passenger section away from the main explosion, the correct use of seatbelts at the moment of impact, immediate access to an escape route before the fire consumed the area, or fortuitous circumstances such as the angle of descent and obstacles on the ground. “The design may have helped, but it was probably pure chance that made the difference between him and the rest,” Braithwaite admits.

Professor Gratton emphasizes that the idea that some seats are safer than others on an airplane is relative. "It all depends on the type of accident and its trajectory," he explains. The reality is that all seats on modern airplanes are safe compared to other modes of transportation, such as cars.

There are also other factors outside the aircraft's manufacturing that could make a difference in the event of an accident. Braithwaite points to the role of the crew, for example. "They're essential in emergency situations, and we know their instructions can increase the chances of survival," he says.

Passengers, the researcher continues, can contribute to their own safety. How? By paying attention to the instructions, reading the information card, and leaving their luggage behind in case of evacuation. Studies at Cranfield and Greenwich Universities confirm that following instructions improves the chances of survival.

“Although the images from yesterday's accident suggested there could be no survivors, this isn't a typical accident. Most are. And that's because every time one occurs, we investigate it not to assign blame, but to learn. It's part of the culture that keeps aviation safe,” Braithwaite argues.

How is the investigation proceeding now?

India's Air Accidents Investigation Branch will lead the investigation, with support from the US National Transport Safety Board, the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and technical teams from Boeing and General Electric. Their first step will be to collect and document the plane's wreckage, the two black boxes , witness accounts, and external evidence. Their initial task will be to analyze this vast amount of data to understand the sequence of events and the causal factors.

"This will take time, but they're likely to publish interim reports due to the enormous public interest," Gratton explains. Finally, a full report is expected, the most important part of which will be recommendations for preventing or mitigating future accidents . This document could take months or even years to publish.

For now, adverse weather conditions, overloading, or excessive fuel consumption have been ruled out. "It's designed to fly on a single engine, so the most likely cause of the accident is a double engine failure," ventures Jason Knight, professor of fluid mechanics at the University of Portsmouth (England). He adds: "Due to the low altitude, the pilot would have had very little time for an emergency landing."