2025-06-13T10:45:00
permalink Post: 11900333
I think this is the wrong attitude and technique, but it's an opinion.
To me the radio call signals possibly helplessness and confusion.I do not think a pilot who understands what is going on would make the call. He would be too busy trouble shooting. It could be a sign that is was NOT an engine failure or a bird strike ( in both cases they would have mentioned it). Nor a deliberate crash. They had no idea why they could not climb and that tells me they most probably retracted the flaps. Time will tell.
To me the radio call signals possibly helplessness and confusion.I do not think a pilot who understands what is going on would make the call. He would be too busy trouble shooting. It could be a sign that is was NOT an engine failure or a bird strike ( in both cases they would have mentioned it). Nor a deliberate crash. They had no idea why they could not climb and that tells me they most probably retracted the flaps. Time will tell.
Of course the didn't know why they'd lost power, they just knew they'd lost it. Yeh they would have felt pretty helpless 200 feet above the ground surrounded by tall buildings. My heart goes out to them being by that point no more than passengers to their own death. At least the actual passengers didn't have to watch the building coming at them knowing there was no escape. It's unthinkable.
So I don't know how on earth you think this suggests the flap theory. You're reading an awful lot into the words of a man who was likely processing the fact he's about to die in a horrific way.
Can we just forget about flaps? We have pictures of the wing at the crash site with flaps extended. The plane is on video with no engine noise and the RAT audible and visible. The pilot sent a mayday saying they'd lost thrust. The only survivor says the lights were flickering and the cabin went dark. Why are some people so desperate to pin this on a pilot mistake there is zero evidence for?
33 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T11:32:00
permalink Post: 11900388
One has to assume that, given the seeming lack of lateral deviation from the flight path, and with no obvious yawing or rudder input visible on the videos, there's only two realistic conclusions here? Simultaneous dual engine failure of unknown cause if the RAT was indeed deployed; or flaps reduced too early leading to a stall if the RAT wasn't deployed.
Evidence in this thread would lean me toward the RAT deployed and therefore dual engine out scenario. As for the cause of that, well, only a couple of likely scenarios exist that could cause simultaneous shutdown of both engines, including mistaken or intentional use of the fuel cutoff levers.
Evidence in this thread would lean me toward the RAT deployed and therefore dual engine out scenario. As for the cause of that, well, only a couple of likely scenarios exist that could cause simultaneous shutdown of both engines, including mistaken or intentional use of the fuel cutoff levers.
2025-06-13T14:21:00
permalink Post: 11900563
Former Boeing Engineer, actually worked on this specific airplane prior to delivery. To me this all comes down to if the RAT was actually out. If not, lots of different factors people have already debated and likely some sort of pilot error that I'll let the pilots on this forum debate.
If the RAT did come out, then we are looking at simultaneous dual engine failure basically at V2 which is so improbable (without bird strikes or purposeful actions) that it is basically impossible. This is a 330 Min ETOPS aircraft. I saw no rudder deflection or yaw indicating 1 engine failed first and then they shut down the second one on accident.
Only two realistic options for me in that case are:
1. cutoff of the engines by the pilots. Either on purpose or accidental.
2. maintenance actions by the Air India ground team that caused issues with the engine system or power generation system.
2 is the only one I haven't seen mentioned here and I say this as a no longer Boeing employee. We STRUGGLED with AI during the EIS. They were notorious for just parking airplanes and then using them as spare parts and then screaming for help when they had to go back and get the planes ready to fly again.
Still think 1 is much more likely but will just throw out that 2 since there were complaints from previous flights about IFE and AC which to me speaks to issues with the power generation possibly being neglected.
If the RAT did come out, then we are looking at simultaneous dual engine failure basically at V2 which is so improbable (without bird strikes or purposeful actions) that it is basically impossible. This is a 330 Min ETOPS aircraft. I saw no rudder deflection or yaw indicating 1 engine failed first and then they shut down the second one on accident.
Only two realistic options for me in that case are:
1. cutoff of the engines by the pilots. Either on purpose or accidental.
2. maintenance actions by the Air India ground team that caused issues with the engine system or power generation system.
2 is the only one I haven't seen mentioned here and I say this as a no longer Boeing employee. We STRUGGLED with AI during the EIS. They were notorious for just parking airplanes and then using them as spare parts and then screaming for help when they had to go back and get the planes ready to fly again.
Still think 1 is much more likely but will just throw out that 2 since there were complaints from previous flights about IFE and AC which to me speaks to issues with the power generation possibly being neglected.
18 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T15:24:00
permalink Post: 11900624
Former Boeing Engineer, actually worked on this specific airplane prior to delivery. To me this all comes down to if the RAT was actually out. If not, lots of different factors people have already debated and likely some sort of pilot error that I'll let the pilots on this forum debate.
If the RAT did come out, then we are looking at simultaneous dual engine failure basically at V2 which is so improbable (without bird strikes or purposeful actions) that it is basically impossible. This is a 330 Min ETOPS aircraft. I saw no rudder deflection or yaw indicating 1 engine failed first and then they shut down the second one on accident.
Only two realistic options for me in that case are:
1. cutoff of the engines by the pilots. Either on purpose or accidental.
2. maintenance actions by the Air India ground team that caused issues with the engine system or power generation system.
2 is the only one I haven't seen mentioned here and I say this as a no longer Boeing employee. We STRUGGLED with AI during the EIS. They were notorious for just parking airplanes and then using them as spare parts and then screaming for help when they had to go back and get the planes ready to fly again.
Still think 1 is much more likely but will just throw out that 2 since there were complaints from previous flights about IFE and AC which to me speaks to issues with the power generation possibly being neglected.
If the RAT did come out, then we are looking at simultaneous dual engine failure basically at V2 which is so improbable (without bird strikes or purposeful actions) that it is basically impossible. This is a 330 Min ETOPS aircraft. I saw no rudder deflection or yaw indicating 1 engine failed first and then they shut down the second one on accident.
Only two realistic options for me in that case are:
1. cutoff of the engines by the pilots. Either on purpose or accidental.
2. maintenance actions by the Air India ground team that caused issues with the engine system or power generation system.
2 is the only one I haven't seen mentioned here and I say this as a no longer Boeing employee. We STRUGGLED with AI during the EIS. They were notorious for just parking airplanes and then using them as spare parts and then screaming for help when they had to go back and get the planes ready to fly again.
Still think 1 is much more likely but will just throw out that 2 since there were complaints from previous flights about IFE and AC which to me speaks to issues with the power generation possibly being neglected.
Hopefully you might be able to answer this.
Many thanks.
I am a retired gas turbine engineer who worked on safety systems and assessments and assisted on a number of accident investigations (military fast jets) and would be interested to know this.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-13T17:49:00
permalink Post: 11900739
In summary,
Flaps were extended, possibly flaps 5 or 15. Looks like it in the video and clearly shown post crash.
Aircraft reached a height of just over 100\x92 AGL (possibly 200\x92 if you compare wingspan to height in videos)
RAT was deployed. Seen on videos and heard conclusively.
Aircraft rotated at \x91usual\x92 spot. Comparing FR24 data from previous flights over the past week.
Aircraft took off at \x91usual\x92 speed. Comparing other flights.
FR24 data stopped being sent shortly after take off. Possibly indicating electrical fault.
Green and white flashing light reported by survivor. Possibly indicating electrical fault.
Gear bogies were at unusual angle indicating Gear selected up and then interrupted.
No smoke or flames to indicate bird strike. (Edit - still debate about this in the video above where the aircraft is behind a building)
No rudder input to indicate single engine failure.
All speculation but hopefully a pretty balanced summary from the thread so far. It would be great if there was more focus now on what might have caused above rather than talking flaps, birds, 625\x92, etc.
Flaps were extended, possibly flaps 5 or 15. Looks like it in the video and clearly shown post crash.
Aircraft reached a height of just over 100\x92 AGL (possibly 200\x92 if you compare wingspan to height in videos)
RAT was deployed. Seen on videos and heard conclusively.
Aircraft rotated at \x91usual\x92 spot. Comparing FR24 data from previous flights over the past week.
Aircraft took off at \x91usual\x92 speed. Comparing other flights.
FR24 data stopped being sent shortly after take off. Possibly indicating electrical fault.
Green and white flashing light reported by survivor. Possibly indicating electrical fault.
Gear bogies were at unusual angle indicating Gear selected up and then interrupted.
No smoke or flames to indicate bird strike. (Edit - still debate about this in the video above where the aircraft is behind a building)
No rudder input to indicate single engine failure.
All speculation but hopefully a pretty balanced summary from the thread so far. It would be great if there was more focus now on what might have caused above rather than talking flaps, birds, 625\x92, etc.
11 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T19:31:00
permalink Post: 11900839
In summary,
Flaps were extended, possibly flaps 5 or 15. Looks like it in the video and clearly shown post crash.
Aircraft reached a height of just over 100\x92 AGL (possibly 200\x92 if you compare wingspan to height in videos)
RAT was deployed. Seen on videos and heard conclusively.
Aircraft rotated at \x91usual\x92 spot. Comparing FR24 data from previous flights over the past week.
Aircraft took off at \x91usual\x92 speed. Comparing other flights.
FR24 data stopped being sent shortly after take off. Possibly indicating electrical fault.
Green and white flashing light reported by survivor. Possibly indicating electrical fault.
Gear bogies were at unusual angle indicating Gear selected up and then interrupted.
No smoke or flames to indicate bird strike. (Edit - still debate about this in the video above where the aircraft is behind a building)
No rudder input to indicate single engine failure.
All speculation but hopefully a pretty balanced summary from the thread so far. It would be great if there was more focus now on what might have caused above rather than talking flaps, birds, 625\x92, etc.
Flaps were extended, possibly flaps 5 or 15. Looks like it in the video and clearly shown post crash.
Aircraft reached a height of just over 100\x92 AGL (possibly 200\x92 if you compare wingspan to height in videos)
RAT was deployed. Seen on videos and heard conclusively.
Aircraft rotated at \x91usual\x92 spot. Comparing FR24 data from previous flights over the past week.
Aircraft took off at \x91usual\x92 speed. Comparing other flights.
FR24 data stopped being sent shortly after take off. Possibly indicating electrical fault.
Green and white flashing light reported by survivor. Possibly indicating electrical fault.
Gear bogies were at unusual angle indicating Gear selected up and then interrupted.
No smoke or flames to indicate bird strike. (Edit - still debate about this in the video above where the aircraft is behind a building)
No rudder input to indicate single engine failure.
All speculation but hopefully a pretty balanced summary from the thread so far. It would be great if there was more focus now on what might have caused above rather than talking flaps, birds, 625\x92, etc.
The most productive responses would be along the lines of:-
(1) I too have read all previous posts and agree that your summary reflects the current consensus,
(2) I too have read all previous posts and agree your summary reflects the consensus HOWEVER I challenge that consensus because... [ [i]EITHER (a) reference to previous post that merits greater credence, OR (b) new evidence supplied],
(3) I too have read all previous posts but I do NOT agree your summary reflects the consensus [explanation required].
It is not necessary for everyone who thinks (1) to say it (although some initial feedback would be useful!). However, if any of the more experienced and informed PPRuNers are thinking either (2) or (3) then it would be instructive to hear that.
FWIW, yours strikes me as a reasonable summary of the best consensus I have been able to discern (as of ~30 minutes ago). There are multiple caveats to each line item, but I presume you've deliberately left those out for the sake of readability, so I'll do the same!
The only comments I would add are:-
- It's a stretch to say the RAT is seen or heard "conclusively". Doubts have been expressed about the video quality and there are dissenting views regarding the audio. If a few more people were able to wade in on the audio point in particular, this could be very beneficial in moving the discussion forward because the presence or otherwise of the RAT is significant to several competing theories.
- On the subject of audio, I am surprised there has not been more discussion regarding engine noise. In the primary eye witness video the (alleged) RAT can be heard distinctly, as can the sounds of distant impact. If the engines were working as expected when overflying the camera and then flying directly away from it, do we really not think the engine noise would be more conclusive, i.e. louder (notwithstanding quiet engines and derated takeoffs)?
Whichever way readers are leaning in the flaps versus power loss debate, surely these two points are pivotal, and we have actual evidence available to discuss?
- Gear bogies: I'm not sure a consensus has yet been reached regarding the angle of the bogies. (I am not personally qualified to comment on this - I am purely saying I don't see a clear consensus just yet among those who are)
- Mayday call: I don't recall seeing a confirmed source for the widely reported mayday. Others have brought this up in the thread but nobody appears to be able to confirm one way or the other. If accurate, its contents are informative. Am I right to presume that you have left it out of your summary due to a lack of confirmation?
9 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T21:51:00
permalink Post: 11900945
Most Plausible \x85
In my opinion ( and we all know the cliche about opinions ), there are only two plausible explanations.
1. Dual engine failure/damage due to multiple bird strikes somewhere immediately after V2 and liftoff.
Given the suddenness of the situation the gear could well have been overlooked by the PM who would be checking out the engine parameters only at this point in time. Flaps were in 5 position. No doubt about that.
Take off thrust used was for Optimum thrust
( meaning minimum thrust for take off given runway and environmental conditions ). That accounts for the full runway length being used. This is policy. That means minimum thrust used for take off to meet 2nd segment climb gradient at almost MTOW.
Loss of total thrust, RAT may or may not have deployed. At 650, AMSL no chance of any relight or turn back. Rest is history.
This also corresponds to the thud heard by the survivor about 30 seconds after takeoff.
2. Loss of thrust in only one engine and degraded performance in the other. Again, due to bird strike. Thereby not allowing even level flight.
Gear staying down could have been overlooked by mistake OR left down intentionally forseeing an impending ground contact by PIC and trying to minimize damage to his airplane.
Eitherways it added to additional drag and if anything, only accelerated the process of ground contact.
Given the above conditions safe flight would have been close to impossible. If not completely impossible. He neither had the airspeed not the altitude to make a 180 or even look for a safer place to put her down.
Refer the last Concorde flight/crash.
A very very sad day for aviation indeed \x85 🙏
1. Dual engine failure/damage due to multiple bird strikes somewhere immediately after V2 and liftoff.
Given the suddenness of the situation the gear could well have been overlooked by the PM who would be checking out the engine parameters only at this point in time. Flaps were in 5 position. No doubt about that.
Take off thrust used was for Optimum thrust
( meaning minimum thrust for take off given runway and environmental conditions ). That accounts for the full runway length being used. This is policy. That means minimum thrust used for take off to meet 2nd segment climb gradient at almost MTOW.
Loss of total thrust, RAT may or may not have deployed. At 650, AMSL no chance of any relight or turn back. Rest is history.
This also corresponds to the thud heard by the survivor about 30 seconds after takeoff.
2. Loss of thrust in only one engine and degraded performance in the other. Again, due to bird strike. Thereby not allowing even level flight.
Gear staying down could have been overlooked by mistake OR left down intentionally forseeing an impending ground contact by PIC and trying to minimize damage to his airplane.
Eitherways it added to additional drag and if anything, only accelerated the process of ground contact.
Given the above conditions safe flight would have been close to impossible. If not completely impossible. He neither had the airspeed not the altitude to make a 180 or even look for a safer place to put her down.
Refer the last Concorde flight/crash.
A very very sad day for aviation indeed \x85 🙏
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-13T22:59:00
permalink Post: 11900982
Speaking as a B787 Captain..... There is so much rubbish and stupid suggestion being written here.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
This aircraft was airborne for a grand total of 22 seconds, half of which was climbing to no more than 150' aal.
- No Flaps? Due to the setup of the ECL it is physically impossible to go down the runway without some sort of take-off flap set. The T/o config warning would have been singing it's head off. Despite assertions to the contrary I have seen no video clear enough to detect a lack of flaps.
- RAT out? Almost impossible, I have seen no quality footage that definitively witnesses the RAT being out. Those who think they car hear a RAT type noise might be listening to a motorcycle passing or similar. It takes a triple hydraulic failure or a double engine failure to trigger RAT deploment. They happily went through V1 without a hint of rejected take off so as they rotated the aircraft was serviceable. These are big engines, they take a long time to wind down when you shut them down. I have never tried it however engine failure detection takes 30s or for the aircraft to react and they were not even airborne that long.
- Flaps up instead of gear? The B787 flaps are slow both in and out. Given that the 'Positive rate' call is not made the second the wheels leave the ground, a mis-selection of flaps up would not cause any loss of lift for at least 20 seconds, by which time they had already crashed. I believe the gear remained down not because of mis-selection but because of a major distraction on rotate.
Discounting the impossible, two hypotheses remain:
1. Invalid derate set through incorrect cross-checking. Trundling down the runway takes very little power to reach Vr. It is only when you rotate that you create more drag and discover that you do not have sufficient thrust vs. drag to sustain a climb. Or....
2. Put 200' as the altitude target in the FCU. Immediate ALT capture and all the power comes off. PF is still hand flying trying to increase pitch but is already way behind the aircraft.
It could be after this that Boeing are forced to review the B787 practice of exploring the very edges of the performance envelope.
The engines, however: yes they take a long time to wind down fully , but they don't take long to stop providing thrust if you shut them down or cut the fuel (or indeed have a bird strike). I don't understand why you consider a loss of thrust to be an impossible hypothesis.
There's also a still image above which appears to show a deployed RAT; that's even if we discount the sound track, which might indeed be something else than a RAT, and ignore the sound of the crash being clearly audible despite the lack of engine noise earlier in the video.
5 users liked this post.
2025-06-13T23:20:00
permalink Post: 11900992
Gear possibly not selected up due to startle effect after a major event.
Bird strike unlikely to knock out both engines unless there is a flock of them, you might get a single bird into one engine but the odds of two birds each hitting separate engines are pretty long.
Aircraft often yaw slightly after takeoff, particularly with a crosswind which may be stronger in the air than on the ground.
Air India have had issues with pilot training and standards, reports not too long ago of Indian flight schools selling logbook hours which didn't involve any time in an aircraft.
Numerous reports of cabin maintenance issues with Air India, if they can't fix the seats and IFE possibly they can't fix other things.
These days, high resolution cameras aren't prohibitively expensive and installing a few at airports would be better than mobile phone footage.
Wouldn't an incorrect altitude setting pitch the nose downwards and keep power on for the aircraft to accelerate ?
Boeing philosophy is for the pilot to have ultimate control of the aircraft, Airbus try to protect the aircraft from pilot error. Inadvertent flap retraction on an Airbus will result in the slats remaining out and TOGA, which whilst not a guarantee, has saved a few necks.
Possible issue with the particular type of engines fitted to that aircraft, even worse would be an aircraft issue which would have had the same result regardless of the engine manufacturer.
The B787 has enough OEBs on it to fill up a small binder if printed out, some of which state that the issue is known about and the company is working on it.
Hopefully, given the time that the aircraft has been in service, it won't be a systemic problem suddenly coming to light in the way MCAS did on the B737 MAX relatively soon after EIS.
Bird strike unlikely to knock out both engines unless there is a flock of them, you might get a single bird into one engine but the odds of two birds each hitting separate engines are pretty long.
Aircraft often yaw slightly after takeoff, particularly with a crosswind which may be stronger in the air than on the ground.
Air India have had issues with pilot training and standards, reports not too long ago of Indian flight schools selling logbook hours which didn't involve any time in an aircraft.
Numerous reports of cabin maintenance issues with Air India, if they can't fix the seats and IFE possibly they can't fix other things.
These days, high resolution cameras aren't prohibitively expensive and installing a few at airports would be better than mobile phone footage.
Wouldn't an incorrect altitude setting pitch the nose downwards and keep power on for the aircraft to accelerate ?
Boeing philosophy is for the pilot to have ultimate control of the aircraft, Airbus try to protect the aircraft from pilot error. Inadvertent flap retraction on an Airbus will result in the slats remaining out and TOGA, which whilst not a guarantee, has saved a few necks.
Possible issue with the particular type of engines fitted to that aircraft, even worse would be an aircraft issue which would have had the same result regardless of the engine manufacturer.
The B787 has enough OEBs on it to fill up a small binder if printed out, some of which state that the issue is known about and the company is working on it.
Hopefully, given the time that the aircraft has been in service, it won't be a systemic problem suddenly coming to light in the way MCAS did on the B737 MAX relatively soon after EIS.
2025-06-14T09:23:00
permalink Post: 11901300
Double power loss causality
A summary of the more certain things we know about the accident so far:
The takeoff run was from the full length and appeared normal, even after comparing with the same flight on previous days. This very much reduces the likelihood of it being a performance issue, e.g. wrong flaps, derate, ZFW/TOW, etc.
Shortly after takeoff, the gear started retracting but stopped in an early intermediate position. At the same time the aircraft climb rate dropped off, then it started a shallow descent. This is consistent with a loss of electrical power causing a loss of hydraulic pressure and total engine thrust from both engines reducing below that generated by one engine at the takeoff setting. The position reporting also went offline at that moment, indicating that it was likely load shed due to an electrical malfunction .
The takeoff run was from the full length and appeared normal, even after comparing with the same flight on previous days. This very much reduces the likelihood of it being a performance issue, e.g. wrong flaps, derate, ZFW/TOW, etc.
Shortly after takeoff, the gear started retracting but stopped in an early intermediate position. At the same time the aircraft climb rate dropped off, then it started a shallow descent. This is consistent with a loss of electrical power causing a loss of hydraulic pressure and total engine thrust from both engines reducing below that generated by one engine at the takeoff setting. The position reporting also went offline at that moment, indicating that it was likely load shed due to an electrical malfunction .
I personally think this is a good summary of what we can ascertain at this point from the evidence we have.
I am not a 787 driver by any means but with a fair bit of aviation experience. I would be interested in any thoughts on this suggestion regarding loss of thrust:
If we take it as a reasonable assumption as above that it is almost simultaneous loss of significant thrust, and for the good reasons already discussed, it is pretty unlikely that from what we can see/analyse, that the cause of this would be bird strike (expect to see some signs on video if it's significant enough to cause double engine failure) nor fuel contamination (reasons as above re: likelihood, other ac affected and simultaneous nature). TCMA I don't know enough about but it seems that the sensor redundancy/logic protection is so high it would not be the sole cause.
On this basis, should we perhaps consider the causality of a total electrics failure of some kind first, leading to deployment of the RAT, gear retraction cease etc. Clearly the independent FADEC power generation systems would mean this doesn't on its own prevent thrust control of the engines but could we then be looking at cascading faults (possibly exacerbated by latent faults below the MEL/defect threshold) that contribute to dual power loss and sensor/system issues in throttle response not resulting in FADEC commands to the engines to increase thrust. So even at that point 'firewalling' the throttles could tragically not recover the situation?
Very happy to be corrected by those with much more experience and understanding of big jets operations and systems!
2025-06-14T12:31:00
permalink Post: 11901444
Even though there is no point speculating about the cause of this accident, it is the nature of the beast to have questions. As pilots (most of us at least), we do have an inquiring mindset.
My initial thoughts were an inadvertent flap retraction. But with the ‘evidence’ that has been presented over the last 48 hours, I think we can safely discard that option.
What we think we know is:
- RAT was deployed (highly possible)
- Gear was selected up, but did not operate (bogey tilted, doors remained closed)
- APU was ‘on’ (APU door open on after crash pictures)
- Flight path
Any of these observations, alone, would mean very little. However, in combination, they all point to a dual engine flameout just at/after the rotation. The aircaft has enough kinetic energy to reach roughly 150ft altitude, and then starts a shallow descent at ‘alpha max’ into the buildings ahead. The RAT deployed, APU attempted auto-start, gear was unable to retract.
I only wonder why the engines spooled down. Bird strike seems to be out of the question, so that leaves us with only a very few options, which include a software bug or a suicidal pilot (not a popular option, I understand, but we have to take all options into account).
What I don’t believe is incorrect FCU selections, since that would not explain the high AOA on impact. It also would not explain the RAT, no gear retraction or the APU inlet flap open. Another thing that is highly unlikely is any switching done by the pilots, especially RAT etc.. The airborne time is just too little, pilots usually don’t take any action below approximately 400ft, and these switches are so ‘underused’ that a pilot would not find them instantaneously in a high stress situation.
For me, a dual engine flameout seems the only possible explanation, now we only have to wait for its cause.
My initial thoughts were an inadvertent flap retraction. But with the ‘evidence’ that has been presented over the last 48 hours, I think we can safely discard that option.
What we think we know is:
- RAT was deployed (highly possible)
- Gear was selected up, but did not operate (bogey tilted, doors remained closed)
- APU was ‘on’ (APU door open on after crash pictures)
- Flight path
Any of these observations, alone, would mean very little. However, in combination, they all point to a dual engine flameout just at/after the rotation. The aircaft has enough kinetic energy to reach roughly 150ft altitude, and then starts a shallow descent at ‘alpha max’ into the buildings ahead. The RAT deployed, APU attempted auto-start, gear was unable to retract.
I only wonder why the engines spooled down. Bird strike seems to be out of the question, so that leaves us with only a very few options, which include a software bug or a suicidal pilot (not a popular option, I understand, but we have to take all options into account).
What I don’t believe is incorrect FCU selections, since that would not explain the high AOA on impact. It also would not explain the RAT, no gear retraction or the APU inlet flap open. Another thing that is highly unlikely is any switching done by the pilots, especially RAT etc.. The airborne time is just too little, pilots usually don’t take any action below approximately 400ft, and these switches are so ‘underused’ that a pilot would not find them instantaneously in a high stress situation.
For me, a dual engine flameout seems the only possible explanation, now we only have to wait for its cause.
16 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T12:43:00
permalink Post: 11901451
Even though there is no point speculating about the cause of this accident, it is the nature of the beast to have questions. As pilots (most of us at least), we do have an inquiring mindset.
My initial thoughts were an inadvertent flap retraction. But with the ‘evidence’ that has been presented over the last 48 hours, I think we can safely discard that option.
What we think we know is:
- RAT was deployed (highly possible)
- Gear was selected up, but did not operate (bogey tilted, doors remained closed)
- APU was ‘on’ (APU door open on after crash pictures)
- Flight path
Any of these observations, alone, would mean very little. However, in combination, they all point to a dual engine flameout just at/after the rotation. The aircaft has enough kinetic energy to reach roughly 150ft altitude, end then starts a shallow descent at ‘alpha max’ into the buildings ahead. The RAT deployed, APU attempted auto-start, gear was unable to retract.
I only wonder why the engines spooled down. Bird strike seems to be out of the question, so that leaves us with only a very few options, which include a software bug or a suicidal pilot (not a popular option, I understand, but we have to take all options into account).
What I don’t believe is incorrect FCU selections, since that would not explain the high AOA on impact. It also would not explain the RAT, no gear retraction or the APU inlet flap open. Another thing that is highly unlikely is any switching done by the pilots, especially RAT etc.. These airborne time is just too little, pilots usually don’t take any action below approximately 400ft, and these switches are so ‘underused’ that a pilot would not find them instantaneously in a high stress situation.
For me, a dual engine flameout seems the only possible explanation, now we only have to wait for its cause.
My initial thoughts were an inadvertent flap retraction. But with the ‘evidence’ that has been presented over the last 48 hours, I think we can safely discard that option.
What we think we know is:
- RAT was deployed (highly possible)
- Gear was selected up, but did not operate (bogey tilted, doors remained closed)
- APU was ‘on’ (APU door open on after crash pictures)
- Flight path
Any of these observations, alone, would mean very little. However, in combination, they all point to a dual engine flameout just at/after the rotation. The aircaft has enough kinetic energy to reach roughly 150ft altitude, end then starts a shallow descent at ‘alpha max’ into the buildings ahead. The RAT deployed, APU attempted auto-start, gear was unable to retract.
I only wonder why the engines spooled down. Bird strike seems to be out of the question, so that leaves us with only a very few options, which include a software bug or a suicidal pilot (not a popular option, I understand, but we have to take all options into account).
What I don’t believe is incorrect FCU selections, since that would not explain the high AOA on impact. It also would not explain the RAT, no gear retraction or the APU inlet flap open. Another thing that is highly unlikely is any switching done by the pilots, especially RAT etc.. These airborne time is just too little, pilots usually don’t take any action below approximately 400ft, and these switches are so ‘underused’ that a pilot would not find them instantaneously in a high stress situation.
For me, a dual engine flameout seems the only possible explanation, now we only have to wait for its cause.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 14th Jun 2025 at 19:08 . Reason: Double posting of image
2025-06-14T14:05:00
permalink Post: 11901513
I agree it is helpful to seek a consensus on some of these matters.
The most productive responses would be along the lines of:-
(1) I too have read all previous posts and agree that your summary reflects the current consensus,
(2) I too have read all previous posts and agree your summary reflects the consensus HOWEVER I challenge that consensus because... [ [i]EITHER (a) reference to previous post that merits greater credence, OR (b) new evidence supplied],
(3) I too have read all previous posts but I do NOT agree your summary reflects the consensus [explanation required].
It is not necessary for everyone who thinks (1) to say it (although some initial feedback would be useful!). However, if any of the more experienced and informed PPRuNers are thinking either (2) or (3) then it would be instructive to hear that.
FWIW, yours strikes me as a reasonable summary of the best consensus I have been able to discern (as of ~30 minutes ago). There are multiple caveats to each line item, but I presume you've deliberately left those out for the sake of readability, so I'll do the same!
The only comments I would add are:-
- It's a stretch to say the RAT is seen or heard "conclusively". Doubts have been expressed about the video quality and there are dissenting views regarding the audio. If a few more people were able to wade in on the audio point in particular, this could be very beneficial in moving the discussion forward because the presence or otherwise of the RAT is significant to several competing theories.
- On the subject of audio, I am surprised there has not been more discussion regarding engine noise. In the primary eye witness video the (alleged) RAT can be heard distinctly, as can the sounds of distant impact. If the engines were working as expected when overflying the camera and then flying directly away from it, do we really not think the engine noise would be more conclusive, i.e. louder (notwithstanding quiet engines and derated takeoffs)?
Whichever way readers are leaning in the flaps versus power loss debate, surely these two points are pivotal, and we have actual evidence available to discuss?
- Gear bogies: I'm not sure a consensus has yet been reached regarding the angle of the bogies. (I am not personally qualified to comment on this - I am purely saying I don't see a clear consensus just yet among those who are)
- Mayday call: I don't recall seeing a confirmed source for the widely reported mayday. Others have brought this up in the thread but nobody appears to be able to confirm one way or the other. If accurate, its contents are informative. Am I right to presume that you have left it out of your summary due to a lack of confirmation?
The most productive responses would be along the lines of:-
(1) I too have read all previous posts and agree that your summary reflects the current consensus,
(2) I too have read all previous posts and agree your summary reflects the consensus HOWEVER I challenge that consensus because... [ [i]EITHER (a) reference to previous post that merits greater credence, OR (b) new evidence supplied],
(3) I too have read all previous posts but I do NOT agree your summary reflects the consensus [explanation required].
It is not necessary for everyone who thinks (1) to say it (although some initial feedback would be useful!). However, if any of the more experienced and informed PPRuNers are thinking either (2) or (3) then it would be instructive to hear that.
FWIW, yours strikes me as a reasonable summary of the best consensus I have been able to discern (as of ~30 minutes ago). There are multiple caveats to each line item, but I presume you've deliberately left those out for the sake of readability, so I'll do the same!
The only comments I would add are:-
- It's a stretch to say the RAT is seen or heard "conclusively". Doubts have been expressed about the video quality and there are dissenting views regarding the audio. If a few more people were able to wade in on the audio point in particular, this could be very beneficial in moving the discussion forward because the presence or otherwise of the RAT is significant to several competing theories.
- On the subject of audio, I am surprised there has not been more discussion regarding engine noise. In the primary eye witness video the (alleged) RAT can be heard distinctly, as can the sounds of distant impact. If the engines were working as expected when overflying the camera and then flying directly away from it, do we really not think the engine noise would be more conclusive, i.e. louder (notwithstanding quiet engines and derated takeoffs)?
Whichever way readers are leaning in the flaps versus power loss debate, surely these two points are pivotal, and we have actual evidence available to discuss?
- Gear bogies: I'm not sure a consensus has yet been reached regarding the angle of the bogies. (I am not personally qualified to comment on this - I am purely saying I don't see a clear consensus just yet among those who are)
- Mayday call: I don't recall seeing a confirmed source for the widely reported mayday. Others have brought this up in the thread but nobody appears to be able to confirm one way or the other. If accurate, its contents are informative. Am I right to presume that you have left it out of your summary due to a lack of confirmation?
- The bogie could be explained by the Flap/Slat priority valve giving priority to the flaps if the PM suddenly realised his mistake and quickly put the flap lever back to the TO position and then selected the gear lever to UP. Those systems are both heavy hitters and would\x92ve sucked the life out of the CTR hydraulic system pumps.
- There is no way loss of AC (alleged RAT deployment) could've caused a spool down of both engines. Think QF A380 incident in SIN - The entire #1 engine wiring harness in the wing was completely severed and yet it continued (by design) to run at its previous thrust setting. They had to shut it down using a fire truck!
- History and design would dictate that a big 180 minutes ETOP\x92s twin such as the 787 having a dual engine failure or significant power loss at such a critical phase of flight would be a billion to one chance at best. Only the Airbus A400 had a software issue causing all 4 engine fuel shutoff valves to close causing it to crash killing the flight test crew - But this was during its development and flt testing.
- Wide body twin\x92s delivering in the region of 60,000 to 115,000 lbs of thrust at TO rarely , if at all, flame out from multiple bird strike(s) like the baby Bus\x92s and Boeing\x92s. If anyone has seen the frozen chickens at TO power video would know what I\x92m talking about. And the Fan Blade being \x91blown off\x92 as well. In both cases the engine was was able to maintain full TOGA thrust for significantly longer than the AI aircraft.
But it\x92s early days and anything could happen. And nothing surprises me anymore.
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T15:06:00
permalink Post: 11901555
- The bogie could be explained by the Flap/Slat priority valve giving priority to the flaps if the PM suddenly realised his mistake and quickly put the flap lever back to the TO position and then selected the gear lever to UP. Those systems are both heavy hitters and would’ve sucked the life out of the CTR hydraulic system pumps.
- There is no way loss of AC (alleged RAT deployment) could've caused a spool down of both engines. Think QF A380 incident in SIN - The entire #1 engine wiring harness in the wing was completely severed and yet it continued (by design) to run at its previous thrust setting. They had to shut it down using a fire truck!
- History and design would dictate that a big 180 minutes ETOP’s twin such as the 787 having a dual engine failure or significant power loss at such a critical phase of flight would be a billion to one chance at best. Only the Airbus A400 had a software issue causing all 4 engine fuel shutoff valves to close causing it to crash killing the flight test crew - But this was during its development and flt testing.
- Wide body twin’s delivering in the region of 60,000 to 115,000 lbs of thrust at TO rarely , if at all, flame out from multiple bird strike(s) like the baby Bus’s and Boeing’s. If anyone has seen the frozen chickens at TO power video would know what I’m talking about. And the Fan Blade being ‘blown off’ as well. In both cases the engine was was able to maintain full TOGA thrust for significantly longer than the AI aircraft.
- There is no way loss of AC (alleged RAT deployment) could've caused a spool down of both engines. Think QF A380 incident in SIN - The entire #1 engine wiring harness in the wing was completely severed and yet it continued (by design) to run at its previous thrust setting. They had to shut it down using a fire truck!
- History and design would dictate that a big 180 minutes ETOP’s twin such as the 787 having a dual engine failure or significant power loss at such a critical phase of flight would be a billion to one chance at best. Only the Airbus A400 had a software issue causing all 4 engine fuel shutoff valves to close causing it to crash killing the flight test crew - But this was during its development and flt testing.
- Wide body twin’s delivering in the region of 60,000 to 115,000 lbs of thrust at TO rarely , if at all, flame out from multiple bird strike(s) like the baby Bus’s and Boeing’s. If anyone has seen the frozen chickens at TO power video would know what I’m talking about. And the Fan Blade being ‘blown off’ as well. In both cases the engine was was able to maintain full TOGA thrust for significantly longer than the AI aircraft.
As for history and design making a dual-engine failure a billion to one chance: I'd be more inclined to agree that it's unlikely to be what happened if the actual manufacturing of planes (Boeings in particular) and the maintenance procedures were both carried out "by the book" at all times by the manufacturer and the airlines... This is clearly not the case though.
Last edited by Saab Dastard; 14th Jun 2025 at 19:35 . Reason: reference to deleted posts removed
2025-06-14T17:53:00
permalink Post: 11901693
I have seen your previous posts about this, and I happen to agree. Visually, as a lay man non visuals expert, I am in your \xabcamp.\xbb
However, the rat is small, and the artifacts are plentiful. Small sensor, compressed video, compressed upload, zoom, it is in short an awful source.
However, the RAT is a much better noisemaker, and the audio signature is much more obvious than it\x92s visual appearance in this case, and though the recording isn\x92t fantastic quality, there was more than enough information there to objectively conclude the RAT is out. And that is my professional, on the weekend, opinion.
I want to ask a pretty frank question for all of you, and I hope it is ok, from an audio specialist non-pilot:
Provided the engines spooled down. Provided the RAT is out. (There are no explosions, no bird strikes.)
Isn\x92t software and previous electrical failures a red herring too?Would anything but a complete fuel shut off lead to this result? That still leaves everything from the Fate is the Hunter plot, to Airbus A350 center consoles and Alaska 2059 open as root causes.
However, the rat is small, and the artifacts are plentiful. Small sensor, compressed video, compressed upload, zoom, it is in short an awful source.
However, the RAT is a much better noisemaker, and the audio signature is much more obvious than it\x92s visual appearance in this case, and though the recording isn\x92t fantastic quality, there was more than enough information there to objectively conclude the RAT is out. And that is my professional, on the weekend, opinion.
I want to ask a pretty frank question for all of you, and I hope it is ok, from an audio specialist non-pilot:
Provided the engines spooled down. Provided the RAT is out. (There are no explosions, no bird strikes.)
Isn\x92t software and previous electrical failures a red herring too?Would anything but a complete fuel shut off lead to this result? That still leaves everything from the Fate is the Hunter plot, to Airbus A350 center consoles and Alaska 2059 open as root causes.
3 users liked this post.
2025-06-15T09:48:00
permalink Post: 11902302
I see Times of India is reporting the last call to ATC was
"Thrust not achieved… falling… Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!"
Ahmedabad Air India crash: Long runway roll hints at thrust failure, black box key to probe; officials reveal final moments in cockpit | Ahmedabad News - Times of India
Given the evidence now in the public domain of RAT auto-deployment and simultaneous roll back, with no bird strikes, the most plausible primary trigger is a simultaneous, fuel-related thrust failure on both GEnx-1B engines. Simultaneous FADEC failure seems less likely, at least without tampering.
Given the evidence now in the public domain of RAT auto-deployment and simultaneous roll back, with no bird strikes, the most plausible primary trigger is a simultaneous, fuel-related thrust failure on both GEnx-1B engines. Simultaneous FADEC failure seems less likely, at least without tampering.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-15T10:07:00
permalink Post: 11902314
I see Times of India is reporting the last call to ATC was
"Thrust not achieved\x85 falling\x85 Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!"
Ahmedabad Air India crash: Long runway roll hints at thrust failure, black box key to probe; officials reveal final moments in cockpit | Ahmedabad News - Times of India
Given the evidence now in the public domain of RAT auto-deployment and simultaneous roll back, with no bird strikes, the most plausible primary trigger is a simultaneous, fuel-related thrust failure on both GEnx-1B engines. Simultaneous FADEC failure seems less likely, at least without tampering.
Given the evidence now in the public domain of RAT auto-deployment and simultaneous roll back, with no bird strikes, the most plausible primary trigger is a simultaneous, fuel-related thrust failure on both GEnx-1B engines. Simultaneous FADEC failure seems less likely, at least without tampering.
2. Without any recordings, TOI is not a reliable source
2a. The long runway roll in the tagline has not been proven, as seen many times in this thread
3. The last words of a panicked captain may not be an accurate description of the situation
Your theory may be true, but it is speculation built on assumptions
EDIT: You're - your
Last edited by CurlyB; 15th Jun 2025 at 11:09 .
2025-06-15T10:52:00
permalink Post: 11902351
I see Times of India is reporting the last call to ATC was
"Thrust not achieved\x85 falling\x85 Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!"
Ahmedabad Air India crash: Long runway roll hints at thrust failure, black box key to probe; officials reveal final moments in cockpit | Ahmedabad News - Times of India
Given the evidence now in the public domain of RAT auto-deployment and simultaneous roll back, with no bird strikes, the most plausible primary trigger is a simultaneous, fuel-related thrust failure on both GEnx-1B engines. Simultaneous FADEC failure seems less likely, at least without tampering.
Given the evidence now in the public domain of RAT auto-deployment and simultaneous roll back, with no bird strikes, the most plausible primary trigger is a simultaneous, fuel-related thrust failure on both GEnx-1B engines. Simultaneous FADEC failure seems less likely, at least without tampering.
It's nearly 1000 posts ago I doubted the mayday call was genuine, and that ToI report helps to reinforce my doubts, it looks like they read this thread and created their report from that, it is just more speculation, some already disproven, certainly no more facts.
1 user liked this post.
2025-06-12T22:02:00
permalink Post: 11903414
Air India Ahmedabad accident 12th June 2025 Part 2
OK, I promised some informed speculation when I got back, so here goes:
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
Disclaimer: never worked the 787, so my detailed knowledge is a bit lacking.
First off, this is perplexing - especially if the RAT was deployed. There is no 'simple' explanation that I can come up with.
GEnx-1B engines have been exceptionally reliable, and the GE carbon composite fan blades are very robust and resistant to bird strike damage (about 15 years after the GE90 entry into service, I remember a GE boast that no GE90 (carbon composite) fan blades had needed to be scrapped due to damage (birdstrike, FOD, etc. - now that was roughly another 15 years ago, so is probably no longer true, but it shows just how robust the carbon composite blades are - far better than the more conventional titanium fan blades).
Not saying it wasn't somehow birdstrike related, just that is very unlikely (then again, all the other explanations I can come up with are also very unlikely
).
Using improper temp when calculating TO performance - after some near misses, Boeing added logic that cross-compares multiple total temp probes - aircraft TAT (I think the 787 uses a single, dual element probe for aircraft TAT, but stand to be corrected) and the temp measured by the engine inlet probes - and puts up a message if they disagree by more than a few degree tolerance - so very, very unlikely.
N1 power setting is somewhat less prone to measurement and power setting errors than EPR (N1 is a much simpler measurement than Rolls EPR) - although even with EPR, problems on both engines at the same time is almost unheard of.
The Auto Thrust (autothrottle) function 'falls asleep' at 60 knots - and doesn't unlock until one of several things happens - 250 knots, a set altitude AGL is exceeded (I'm thinking 3,000 ft. but the memory is fuzzy), thrust levers are moved more than a couple of degrees, or the mode select is changed (memory says that last one is inhibited below 400 ft. AGL). So an Auto Thrust malfunction is also extremely unlikely. Further, a premature thrust lever retard would not explain a RAT deployment.
TO does seem to be very late in the takeoff role - even with a big derate, you still must accelerate fast enough to reach V1 with enough runway to stop - so there is still considerable margin if both engines are operating normally. That makes me wonder if they had the correct TO power setting - but I'm at a loss to explain how they could have fouled that up with all the protections that the 787 puts on that.
If one engine did fail after V1, it's conceivable that they shut down the wrong engine - but since this happened literally seconds after takeoff, it begs the question why they would be in a big hurry to shut down the engine. Short of an engine fire, there is nothing about an engine failure that requires quick action to shut it down - no evidence of an engine fire, and even with an engine fire, you normally have minutes to take action - not seconds.
The one thing I keep thinking about is someone placing both fuel switches to cutoff immediately after TO. Yes, it's happened before (twice - 767s in the early 1980s), but the root causes of that mistake are understood and have been corrected. Hard to explain how it could happen (unless, God forbid, it was intentional).
13 users liked this post.
2025-06-14T16:39:00
permalink Post: 11903679
This is a screen shot taken from the Video thats posted on the BBC Verify website, that they have verified as authentic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626y121rxxo
I still can't see a RAT deployed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626y121rxxo
I still can't see a RAT deployed.
However, the rat is small, and the artifacts are plentiful. Small sensor, compressed video, compressed upload, zoom, it is in short an awful source.
However, the RAT is a much better noisemaker, and the audio signature is much more obvious than it’s visual appearance in this case, and though the recording isn’t fantastic quality, there was more than enough information there to objectively conclude the RAT is out. And that is my professional, on the weekend, opinion.
I want to ask a pretty frank question for all of you, and I hope it is ok, from an audio specialist non-pilot:
Provided the engines spooled down. Provided the RAT is out. (There are no explosions, no bird strikes.)
Isn’t software and previous electrical failures a red herring too?Would anything but a complete fuel shut off lead to this result? That still leaves everything from the Fate is the Hunter plot, to Airbus A350 center consoles and Alaska 2059 open as root causes.
2 users liked this post.