Dreamliner Crash

[HeyEng]

An Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed into a crowded construction site shortly after TO out of Ahmedabad, India.

This is the first major hull loss for the 787. 
 

 

[TreeA10]

Looks like it settles into the ground with the gear still down.

 

 

[StoleIt]

Leading edge devices were out, so that should be Flaps 1 in a 787. Not sure if that's a common takeoff config or not.

Video was suspiciously silent of jet engine noises except for the sound of the RAT, so maybe dual engine failure?

[Smokin]

I don't see the RAT deployed, did someone else see it in the video?  Tough to tell from a cell phone video like that.  If it were a dual engine failure or significant electrical issue, then it should deploy automatically.  Also deploying it is the second step on the dual engine fail memory item.

Flaps 5 is the norm.  Strange that the gear is still down, but if they had a dual engine loss shortly after liftoff then they probably aren't thinking much about the gear.

[mcbush]

New angle... the loss of thrust is pretty apparent, but I don't see any obvious reason for it like smoke/fire/etc.

 

[TreeA10]

RAT extends on the fuselage bottom right side just about even to slightly aft of the right wing trailing edge.  I don't see it but it ain't that big.  Flight aware data's shows they got to 400-ish feet AGL.  Normal flap for takeoff is 5 degrees so leading edge slats and a little trailing edge flaps, 15 flaps on shorter runways. Flap retraction instead of gear?

[Smokin]

Could be flaps instead of the gear.  India to London with a full pax load is going to be at or close to max weight, so the engines might not be able to overcome an early flap retraction, especially if the flying pilot didn't immediately go max thrust.  That or fuel contamination are probably the two most logical possibilities I've heard so far.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Smokin said:

Could be flaps instead of the gear.  India to London with a full pax load is going to be at or close to max weight, so the engines might not be able to overcome an early flap retraction, especially if the flying pilot didn't immediately go max thrust.  That or fuel contamination are probably the two most logical possibilities I've heard so far.

The odds of both engines failing within a couple seconds of each other is astronomically small, especially with fuel contamination. 

 

I suspect either Software caused the loss of thrust, or the crew did. And as much as I hate saying it, outside of the West, crew failure is the most likely culprit. 

[TreeA10]

On another site I frequent, they did the flap vs gear retraction in the 787-9 sim at max weight and the jet flew fine IF you followed the HUD flight path cues.  

[Pitt4401]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

 And as much as I hate saying it, outside of the West, crew failure is the most likely culprit. 

You sure you aren't a Boeing executive? Perhaps with a previous portfolio, say... 737 MAX?

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Pitt4401 said:

You sure you aren't a Boeing executive? Perhaps with a previous portfolio, say... 737 MAX?

I wish I was that rich 😂😅

[Smokin]

5 hours ago, Pitt4401 said:

You sure you aren't a Boeing executive? Perhaps with a previous portfolio, say... 737 MAX?

And where did both fatal 737 MAX accidents take place?  It was an absolutely stupid software update for the trim to do that and Boeing was dump and culpable, but I don't think its a coincidence that both accidents happened in non-Western airlines despite the fact that the west was likely flying far more Max flights.

[ClearedHot]

Investigation is focused on the pilots, high probability of an engine failure followed by them canning the good engine.  Also looking at crew fatigue.

Even before they had the flight data recorders the Directorate General Civil Aviation (DGCA), which is the Indian equivalent of the FAA received an alert from the crew management system indicating multiple events of aircraft (including this one), exceeding defined crew duty day due to scheduling.  At least three senior officials from Air India were immediately terminated including a top executive in the flight operations department — from their roles and responsibilities, citing “systemic failures” and “multiple violations” related to the validity of pilot licenses and their rest requirements.

 

 

[Smokin]

WSJ article today indicates a pilot might have shut off the fuel.  That would be completely bizarre if true but the available evidence does match that scenario.  The 787 engines start so slowly that if they were accidentally shut off at low altitude, I doubt you'd have any chance.  Also interesting that everything so far is only mentioning two pilots, so apparently no IRO to watch out for buffoonery like critical switch errors.  With the flight being over 8 hrs, you'd think they'd have an IRO.

The article points out the abnormal delays from India in releasing the accident data.  I infer from that an intentional delay that the results are so embarrassing that India as a country is hoping that the world's attention is elsewhere when the final report is released.  Maybe they're going to slowly leak the info over a long time until it isn't a big deal when it is finally released.

[jonlbs]

33 minutes ago, Smokin said:

WSJ article today indicates a pilot might have shut off the fuel.  That would be completely bizarre if true but the available evidence does match that scenario.  The 787 engines start so slowly that if they were accidentally shut off at low altitude, I doubt you'd have any chance.  Also interesting that everything so far is only mentioning two pilots, so apparently no IRO to watch out for buffoonery like critical switch errors.  With the flight being over 8 hrs, you'd think they'd have an IRO.

The article points out the abnormal delays from India in releasing the accident data.  I infer from that an intentional delay that the results are so embarrassing that India as a country is hoping that the world's attention is elsewhere when the final report is released.  Maybe they're going to slowly leak the info over a long time until it isn't a big deal when it is finally released.

Fuel to cutoff and back to run may be part of the dual engine failure items?

May have thought engines spooling back was dual engine failure? Maybe had wrong alt set in MCP and when VNAV engaged at 400 ft they went to idle? 

honestly have heard lots of plausible theories and I think you are right that they are gonna release information in the least attention grabbing news worthy ways possible. Piece by piece until people aren’t interested in it any more. 

[Biff_T]

1 minute ago, jonlbs said:

Piece by piece until people aren’t interested in it any more. 

Like Epstein 

[Lord Ratner]

The odds that this was going to be anything other than crew-induced was always astronomically low. Simultaneous dual failures, while at the most critical phase of flight, in an established aircraft is possible, but come on. 

 

 

[HeyEng]

 

[TreeA10]

On 7/11/2025 at 8:15 AM, jonlbs said:

Fuel to cutoff and back to run may be part of the dual engine failure items?

Dual engine failure is ENGINE CONTROL STITCHES (Both) - CUTOFF THEN RUN.  Next step is RAM AIR TURBINE SWITCH - PRESS.

[Lord Ratner]

Here's my guess. First officer was a moron, or completely inexperienced. For whatever inexplicable reason, he moves the engine cutoff switches to cut off instead of whatever he was supposed to be doing. Recognizes it instantly and puts them back, but at that point the engines have already started to shut down. Captain asks him why he did that, he does the FNG thing/High-context-society thing and denies the fuck up. 

 

 

[FourFans]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Here's my guess. First officer was a moron, or completely inexperienced. For whatever inexplicable reason, he moves the engine cutoff switches to cut off instead of whatever he was supposed to be doing. Recognizes it instantly and puts them back, but at that point the engines have already started to shut down. Captain asks him why he did that, he does the FNG thing/High-context-society thing and denies the fuck up. 

Reverse your roles.  FO was pilot flying and he queried the CA about the motors, who denied taking any action, despite the recorded events on the box saying each switch was cycled off then on.  Having encountered enough Indian aircrews, I can readily imagine a senior CA denying any error.  I can imagine a few senior CA I've flown with in the USA doing the same.  Ego gets strong with some.

Edited Monday at 11:54 AM by FourFans

[tac airlifter]

Either scenario plausible.  Ego is an enemy and we should only fly rested.  I can't believe the dumb risks I took flying tired.  Without Gods grace I would be CFIT too.

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, FourFans said:

Reverse your roles.  FO was pilot flying and he queried the CA about the motors, who denied taking any action, despite the recorded events on the box saying each switch was cycled off then on.  Having encountered enough Indian aircrews, I can readily imagine a senior CA denying any error.  I can imagine a few senior CA I've flown with in the USA doing the same.  Ego gets strong with some.

Absolutely. I didn't see in the initial reports who was asking the question and who was denying touching the switches, I just assumed it was the fo denying it.

 

But if it was the other way around, I have no difficulty imagining your scenario. Like I said, High context societies... It was always 99% that this was going to be pilot error

[FUSEPLUG]

What is the take from the AA bros on this Captain SteEveVe guy?  He's taking some internets hate for his constant YouTube commentary on this Air India crash.  

Just retire already.

[uhhello]

53 minutes ago, FUSEPLUG said:

What is the take from the AA bros on this Captain SteEveVe guy?  He's taking some internets hate for his constant YouTube commentary on this Air India crash.  

Just retire already.

Is he they guy in the pilot uniform doing videos?  If so, I don't watch just for that fact alone.