Posts about: "Mayday" [Posts: 144 Pages: 8]

Thanks as always TDR for your excellent professional input. It is therefore so much more perplexing that even you cant logic our way out of this impasse. That is, the assumption that the aircraft experienced a double engine failure (supported by a reasonably convincing argument that the RAT deployed), and yet no plausible reason (that we can see) for such an event. So some then collectively slip into the tired and lazy theories of intentional or unintentional crew actions that 1. beggar belief (intentional), 2. defy physics (flaps instead of gear despite clear evidence to the contrary) and call into question the professionalism of a very experienced Captain and crew as well as the aircraft manufacturer (because...well its Boeing so it must be software ).

Yet, the answer must be simpler and staring us in the face since logic and experience (everything you have offered TDR), tell us that modern airliner engines generally do not just suddenly quit flying at the same time. In this regard we can recall several instances of double engine failure associated with bird strikes generally involving large birds or large flocks or both. But it seems we have discounted this theory very early in discussion. Why? Because we cant see any birds, or flocks of birds or engine flames/surges or puffs of smokes from the engines which would support this. Really?

I have read all the 100's of posts (sadly) and while some very early posters tried to analyze the imagery, I suspect the very poor quality eventually discouraged most from seeing anything of interest. However, smattered throughout this discussion from the beginning to the end there have about four posts that describe seeing something where others have not. At least two of these were related to possible smoke but which were probably just the dust blown outwards by the wingtip vortices. Two others however have mentioned possible flames and puffs of smoke.

The video of course is very poor. There should be a special place in hell for people who subject us to looking at a video with continuous zooming in and out, inability to retain focus on the subject (it was just a CCTV monitor, not the actual aircraft they had to focus on) and constant camera shake. A video of a video, and then the resolution probably reduced for social media upload. This all results in a very unwatchable record of the aircrafts departure. The only immediate information gleaned seems to be some idea of how far down the runway the aircraft was at takeoff and the parabolic curve as it very clearly described the aircrafts flight path.




Air India Flight 171 on departure
But take a look at this frame. The right engine shows an artifact (pixelation if you like) that might represent a surge flame. I can almost see a puff of smoke just inboard of the aileron that may be associated with that too.

Am I just seeing distortion? Am I just seeing some smoke because that's where I would expect to see it?
We are all very used to seeing everything in 4K today but back in the day when everything was low res we used to join the dots. If pixels existed then something was there. If they didn't, it wasn't.
So if it's just pixels caused by distortion then they have coincidentally appeared in the tailpipe of an aircraft that crashed shortly after takeoff with a presumed double engine failure.

But surely we would see the birds? Well, not in this video. You cant even see the registration number on the side of the aircraft and that is much bigger than a bird. Haze, distortion, focus and low res, and each individual bird wouldn't even make up a pixel.

So make of this what you will, but this problem may have started on the ground. Birds strikes are very common according to Some AI pilots who interviewed for this following article but I have no idea of the authenticity of this report:

https://www.rediff.com/news/report/a...h/20250613.htm "The Air India pilots also added that Ahmedabad airport has long been known for bird activity near the runway, which could have contributed to the incident.

"This issue (of the excessive presence of birds) has been flagged multiple times," a third Air India pilot said, asking not to be named."
Of course, a single engine failure would not have brought this aircraft down, nor would it have deployed the RAT, but we can't see what happened on the left engine when the aircraft slipped behind the radio antenna building.

While these high bypass engines are designed and certified to keep running after experiencing certain types of bird strike, the effect on two engines concerns have been voiced about the contribution of certification to the mitigation of the risk hazardous bird strike in the two engine case.

This from Sky Library:
https://skybrary.aero/articles/aircr...nue%20to%20fly .

" A number of concerns have been quite widely voiced about the contribution of certification to the mitigation of the risk of hazardous bird strikes:

• The case of bird ingestion into more than one engine at the same time is not addressed directly and it is clearly extremely difficult to meaningfully estimate the probability of such an occurrence. However, it has been observed that, since some of the current standards only require that a damaged engine can be safely shut down, this circumstance should be more fully considered when determining the acceptable outcome of ingestion into single engines, especially for the twin engine case.
• It has been noted that the potential effects of bird strikes on modern electronic flight control systems and flight deck instrument displays have not yet been fully assessed.

Maybe someone can do some video enhancing of this image as others have done with the audio enhancement to give strong probability of RAT deployment.

If my suggestion can be corroborated at all, then the question of what happened next becomes somewhat easier to answer. Perhaps neither engine stopped running but they did so with limited thrust? If anything from the pilots mayday call can believed, it wasn't engines shut down..it was no thrust. So why did the RAT deploy? Cant answer that. And, I cant imagine it would be manually deployed if both engines were still running.
However, TDR did say.

"On the 767 and 747-400, when you shutdown an engine and the IDG goes offline, there is a momentary 'glitch' in the electrical power system as it reconfigures for the available power source - this is why you see the flight deck displays flicker and return, and the cabin lights momentarily flicker."

Startle factor that electrically systems were about to fail? Manually deploy RAT?

Edit: I might add, they would have found remains on the runway if this did indeed happen. But we have heard anything from anybody?

Very unlikely IMO as it's difficult to imagine even a low time pilot making this error--not impossible of course.

If you are correct and early flap retraction instead of gear.....why was the rat out? It is almost assuredly deployed. Why did the video not indicate high thrust on the engines? The are silent. Pulling the flaps too early won't cause an engine failure(s) ans won't cause the rat to deploy.

Even if inexperienced FO retracts flaps early certainly a senior captain who is also per some reports a training captain.....certainly he would have gone for max thrust and lowered the nose to try and fly out of it. Certainly he would have raised the gear?!?!?!

Still not making sense....unless....and I posted this earlier.....was it intentional?!?!?

Do we know for certain there was a mayday? If yes, do we know for certain is was the captain? Could the captain have possibly become incapacitated around VR and low time FO totally unprepared and froze?

I am always amazed how foreign airlines put super low time FOs in biiiiig planes.....scary. i chatted up an early 20 somthing Ryanair FO and she was excited bc she just hit 300 hrs. I said oh 300 on type (737)?? She says no.....300 hrs...total time. And she's flying internationally!!!!!!

Without a doubt one is looking at a very, very rare event, most likely the result of an unlikely/unlucky combination of issues, the grim gravity realised by the F/C (mayday) immediately after T/O. As a very, very FF/retired EU bureaucrat/economist/lawyer with an as ever staunch penchant for data/facts, I'm therefore wondering whether VT-ANB engines had already their EEC MN4 microprocessors replaced as mandated within 11000 cycles or 12 years per AD 2021-21-05 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2021-25491.pdf . This AD was prompted by in-service occurrences of loss of GEnX engines thrust control resulting in uncommanded high thrust. Uncommanded high trust on (at least one of) the engines during the TO-roll, in particular past V1, resulting in a discrepancy with the actual (likely derated)thrust settings, could have triggered TMCA on or just before lift-off.

So to be clear, this was announced of Thursday 19 June. The one EAFR was recovered on Friday 13 June I believe and one on Sunday 15 June.

Seems a long while to wait to send it to the US.

No it would not revert back to HOLD.

​​​​​​​
Someone made a radio call near the end of the flight, so some power was available.

Reported 625' pressure altitude, elevation 189', QNH 1001.

So they only got to around 100' height, half the wing span of a Boeing 787? I think it looks higher than that.

189' elevation, QNH1001, the pressure altitude should be around 550'. First readout from ADS-B is 575', highest is 625'. I did not look up if runway departure end is much different there than aerodrome elevation.

Interesting that the readout of pressure altitude doesn't get lower again, after 625', which could support the total loss of all AC (and most DC power?). Transponder possibly stopped working, but one of the pilots was able to transmit a mayday call. So they must have had some kind of electricity available.

So what I mentioned about THR REF / VNAV SPD is probably not applicable. Yes, I did not account for the QNH initially, which makes closer to 100' than 400' AGL.

I will revert to await the official findings then, with a substantial loss of electricity seeming more and more plausible.

Thank you - it doesn't sound like it should be possible for a non-faulty autothrottle to activate below 400 feet then. Even if e.g. the "wrong" starting altitude is measured on the runway (wrong QNH, etc), as long as it is measuring 400 feet from that altitude, then it shouldn't matter.

Small correction, the 625 ft pressure altitude data point (~100 ft AGL taking temperature, pressure and field elevation into account) is the last received ADS-B data point, which was right around the end of the runway. The aircraft crashed quite a bit further on from that, ~1.5km from the runway end. If you take perspective into account it also appears to continue to climb for a few seconds after passing over the runway end. I think some people in either this thread or the first thread have argued that the ADS-B data cutting out could be indicative of power loss (like with the Jeju Air 2216 accident) and not just spotty coverage, and when I looked at other flights I was inclined to agree - coverage is spotty on the apron and runway, but once planes start climbing the updates become consistent. If that really is when the engines died, ballistics suggests that the aircraft could well attain another 100 - 200 feet off its sheer momentum before the inevitable descent.

Re: mayday call transmission, isn't that easily battery powered? At least on the captain's side.

Sorry, maybe the context was lost - I was responding to a theory that did argue that the aircraft was automatically trying to capture a target altitude that was incorrectly set too low. That has happened before, but the incidents I could find looked very different from this one (one Dash 8 and one A330, both involved the crew activating the autopilot).

DISCLAIMER: Poster (a) is one of the (apparently quite numerous) lawyers following this thread; (b) a long-time forum lurker and aviation enthusiast who loves studying FCOMs for fun (to each his own, I guess); (c) has followed and read this thread from the start.

What I cannot do is add new theories or uncover any new facts the actual experts have not already thought of. However, since summarizing and structuring information is one thing lawyers tend to regularly do (and sometimes even do well), here is my attempt at a useful contribution to this thread: an attempt to summarize the main theories discussed here since day one (which I think hasn't been done for quite some time) in the hope that a birds-eye view will be helpful to those who have not read everything since the beginning or might even trigger some new flash of inspiration for someone more knowledgable than me. I have focused on the cons since there does not seem to be enough evidence to come to any positive conclusion.

I shall try to be concise and to refrain from personal evaluations of my own. Of course, no disrespect whatsoever is intended towards all those who have contributed to this thread and to the individual theories, one or combinations of which may turn out to have led to this tragic outcome. That arguments can be made against every single theory that has been propagated seems to be the result of the highly improbable and unusual nature of this deplorable event and certainly not due to any lack of knowledge or reasoning skills in this forum.

DEAR MODS: If I have distorted anything or if, meaning well, should have achieved the opposite \x96 I guess you know where the delete button is\x85

Anyway, here goes:

A. Misconfiguration or wrong takeoff data
Widely refuted, since

• rotation, takeoff and initial climb seem normal;
• likely extreme errors would have been required to have such tragic effect (the fuel tanks should have been only about half full, so not close to MTOW);
• there is strong evidence that at least some flaps were extended for takeoff (post-crash photo, perhaps also visible in video from behind)

B. Flaps retracted post-takeoff instead of gear
Still brought up from time to time. However, widely disregarded due to

• the fact that with two working engines an inadvertent flap retraction should easily be recoverable, even with gear down;
• strong indications that hydraulic and electric power were lost (audible/visible indications of RAT extension, survivor statement, lack of engine noise, position of MLG bogies).

For a while, the forward tilt of the bogies as first part of the retraction cycle was seen as additional evidence that the gear had been selected up. However, it has been pointed out that the forward tilt and the opening of the gear doors occur almost simultaneously so that it seems unlikely that hydraulic power was lost in the split second between bogie tilt and gear door actuation. It is now assumed the forward tilt of the bogies was merely a consequence of the hydraulic power loss.
It should be pointed out that the question of "RAT in or out" was for a while the most contentious in this thread.

C. Low-altitude capture
Still argued, even if refuted by many since

• inconsistent with apparent loss of hydraulic/electric power;
• PF would have been flying manually (however, A/T reaction would have been unexpected for the PF);
• should have been recoverable (unless one assumes that the crew (a) remained unaware of the changed FMA annunciations although alerted by the unexpected FD commands; and (b) was so startled that an A/T thrust reduction was not noticed and corrected, even though the PF was apparently sufficiently alert not to follow the FD commands).

D. Loss of both engines at or shortly after rotation
Various possible reasons for this have been discussed:

I. Bird strike/FOD

• Would have to have occurred simultaneously due to lack of rudder/aileron input indicating symmetric thrust.
• No remains/traces on runway, no visual indications (flocks of birds, flames, structural engine damage).

II. Fuel-related III. Improper maintenance
Unclear which maintenance measures could possibly have been performed that would have resulted in simultaneous loss of both engines. No apparent relationships between malfunctions reported by previous passengers and essential systems.

IV. Large-scale electrical fault (e.g. due to water in E&E bay)
The engines will continue to run if electrical power is lost. FADECs are powered independently.

V. Shutdown of engines by TCMA
A parallel is drawn to the ANA incident. However, this would require not only a fault in the air/ground logic but also a sensed discrepancy between T/L position (not necessarily idle) and thrust output on both engines simultaneously.

VI. (Inadvertent) shutdown by flight crew VII. Malfunction/mishandling of the fuel cutoff switches (most recent)

This incident is very perplexing to me. This is my first post on here and I am not a pilot. I have over a decade of experience in the RAAF as an engine fitter on Mirage and Hornet aircraft. Albeit a bit of time ago.
I have watched the video's and looked at the FR-24 data a hundred times. To me it looks like a normal rotation and at WoW everything starts to go wrong.
Airspeed starts dropping off immediately going by the FR-24 data. If reports are correct the pilot makes his Mayday call. FR-24 data stops.
In the video from the balcony I agree the RAT is out and operating but I can also hear the engines at idle or just above (maybe flight idle).
If the captain manually deployed the RAT this makes sense to me. In both video's I don't see any aircraft behavior that would suggest they are not flying the aircraft.
Is there an electrical fault at WoW that renders the cockpit dark and therefore manually deploying the RAT (possibly initiating APU start, inlet door is open at crash site) would make sense to restore cockpit power.
I can't understand any pilot shutting down both engines at 200ft AGL. He would surely know that his fight is over at that point.
I am not ruling out pilot error (configuration or otherwise) but my hat goes off to two pilots that I believe were trying to fly this aircraft until it hit the ground.
Sorry if my wording is a bit off but mine is military background not commercial.

The Indian Express is carrying a story ( https://indianexpress.com/article/ci...lues-10077117/ ) that includes the following:"Investigators probing the June 12 crash of Air India flight AI-171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick are taking a close look at a February 2020 incident in Gatwick, involving an Airbus A321, in which both engines malfunctioned immediately after takeoff. It led to a Mayday call before the aircraft returned to Gatwick 11 minutes later after a turnaround." ...

..."it was \x93clear from visual observation and wreckage\x94 that the flight suffered a power failure." ...

..."The black boxes and the DVR have been recovered but the officer said that the devices were damaged and file extraction would \x93be a complicated process\x94." ...

... "We will check the technical logs to see if any of the engineering teams or pilots of the previous flight left comments on the performance of both engines"
Assuming there is some credence to the article, dual engine failure due to water contamination is the leading theory. It certainly fits much of the speculation in this thread. It may be that the flight data was not captured and much more reliance will be on forensic examination of the CCTV footage and the wreckage. Those waiting for the flight data to be published may be disappointed.

If the original CCTV footage was made available, together with a detailed survey map of the airport, it will be possible to accurately estimate the takeoff speed and altitude during all the critical periods. My guess is thrust was reduced or lost very early and perhaps before the aircraft left the tarmac. Then shortly after becoming airborne, power was lost resulting in the deployment of the RAT. It is doubtful that the pilots shut down the engines or the wrong engine. Likewise flap/slat misconfiguration is unlikely.

Yes. I simplified. The point stands that the throttle needs to be pulled back, as it was in the ANA event, because that was a landing and not a take-off.

First, you posted a good summary. I'd have added "unanticipated hardware fault" and "unanticipated software fault" as generic causes.

Note that the thrust lever actuators are wired to the FADECs, and that the TCMA gets the T/L position from that. For TCMA to trigger, it has to determine that its FADEC (on that engine) failed to achieve a commanded reduction in thrust. So we're either looking at a weird, unprecedented edge case, or a FADEC failure, or both.

It has been mentioned before that this capability existed as part of the N2 overspeed protection: the FADEC would shut down a runaway engine by cutting its fuel before it disintegrates.
The thrust lever sensors are wired directly to the FADEC (and hence the TCMA). No data bus is involved with this item.

With a MCAS crash, it required a hardware problem with an AOA sensor, used as input to a correctly working MCAS, to cause the aircraft to behave erratically. With a correctly working TCMA, I believe it'd require two hardware problems to get TCMA to shut down the engine, as there'd have to be an implausible thrust lever reading, and a FADEC/engine failure to process it within the TCMA allowed range ("contour"?). On both engines, separately and simultaneously.

That leaves a software problem; it's not hard to imagine. The issue is, at this point it's just that: imagination. I could detail a possible software failure chain, but without examining the actual code, it's impossible to verify. We simply don't have the evidence.
I could just as well imagine a microwave gun frying the electronics on both engines. An escaped hamster under the floor peeing on important contacts. A timed device installed by a psychopathic mechanic. There's no evidence for that, either.

This process is a way to psychologically cope with the unexplained accident, but because it lacks evidence, it's not likely to identify the actual cause. We've run the evidence down to "most likely both engines failed or shut off close to rotation, and the cause for that is inside the aircraft". Since the take-off looked normal until that failure, we have no clues as to the cause hidden inside the aircraft. We need to rely on the official investigation to discover and analyse sufficient evidence. The post-crash fire is going to make that difficult.

"Both engines failed or shut off close to rotation" explains all of the evidence : it explains an unremarkable take-off roll, loss of lift, absence of pronounced yaw, loss of electrical power, loss of the ADS-B transponder, RAT deployment, the noise of the RAT banging into place and revving up, emergency signs lighting up, a possible mayday call reporting loss of thrust/power/lift, and a physically plausible glide from a little over 200 ft AAL to the crash site 50 feet (?) below aerodrome elevation .
It explains what we saw on the videos, what the witness reported, where the aircraft ended up, and the ensuing sudden catastrophe.

I don't believe we have evidence for anything else right now—I'd be happily corrected on that.

-----
Edit: the evidence of the crash photo with the open APU inlet door, and the main gear bogeys tilted forward, are also explained by the dual engine failure/shut off.

You're absolutely right, Musician! Your text in bold print is what happened! And you and I and many other pilots know what the most probale cause for that is. What evidence do we need?
The EAFR will tell the story, but the reason for the crash will always remain a "mystery" because the B787 was not equipped with EPTPR's! ( E nhanced P ilot's T hought P rocess R ecorders)

I think AI171 will go down in history with MSR990 an MH370.

There you go, that’s the tell I expect. Someone sloshing chemicals around and it was finally been noticed in the paperwork somewhere and then they start checking the accident records or vv

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/airc...-february-2020

Isn't "close to rotation" a little broad? "Close to" can be before or after. If before, and with about 4,000 feet of runway remaining, why did they take off at all? How did they take off, for that matter?

Can anyone do the Momentum / Energy calculations to work out how high the plane would have travelled at the normal climb gradient purely on the momentum it had at rotation? I'll try, see how far I get. A stone, fired into the air at an upward angle, begins to slow down and curve towards the earth the moment it leaves the catapult. It appears to me that the plane climbed at approximately a steady speed until about the 200 ft mark, so I submit that it had adequate climb thrust up to "about" that point.

Which, as confirmed in the earlier thread, is about where GEARUP is typically called. I say those two events are linked, led by GEARUP, but it could be coincidence. Though I don't think so. Coincidence usually refers to unrelated events and that would be very hard to say, here.

On that point, the gear, as far as I can establish (not openly published according to Google), weighs around 8-odd to 10 tonnes. Typically, retracts in about 10 seconds. I estimate it's no more than a 2 metre lift. As far as I can work out (using 3m to make the value higher), that requires about 30kW (rough estimate, budgetary figure, not accounting for it being a curved path, so it's probably higher closer to fully up), but whether wind pressure affects it, I have no idea. Anyway, 30kW isn't a huge (additional) load on a 225kVA alternator. Less than I'd imagined.

Now I'm wondering how big (power ratings) the hydraulic pump and motor are? No doubt, they're driven by a VSD. Can anyone comment, please?

Just to summarize. There appears to be fairly wide consensus as to what happened:

1. Up to V1 it appeared normal and the pilots did not abort.
2. Loss of thrust very close to V2 rotate or shortly thereafter.
3. Loss of electrical and hydraulics resulting in deployment of RAT seconds after being airborne.
4. Mayday transmission seconds after takeoff (although it may have occurred around V2, the timing has not been established).
5. Gear tilted forward suggesting gear retraction was initiated but not completed.
6. All followed by glide to impact from AGL of little more than 100 feet.

Why the above happened is rather less clear. In my opinion, fuel contamination/starvation, water, additive, vapour or otherwise, may have affected thrust during takeoff before resulting in total loss of thrust and electrical power. On the other hand, software/electrical fault would more likely have resulted in a sudden loss of the engines.

On that basis, there is still some mileage in establishing the aircraft speed in the last moments before takeoff. There is definitely mileage in identifying a single point of failure that would cause the engines to shut down; other than fuel contamination/vapour issues. I suspect that the official investigation is not all that further ahead of this thread. Without useful data from the EAFR they have to rely on forensics and history. Enough has been leaked to know the engines were no more than windmilling at impact.

A high level of interest will continue given there are still remaining questions whether the reliability of Boeing machinery is implicated. That is not to mention the hundreds of people closely affected by this tragedy that are looking for reasons why it happened. Perhaps an interim report is now overdue?

How do we know this? As far as I can find, the only direct quote of an official on the content of the MayDay call was from a week ago, when it was reported that the Captain was flying the aircraft, and called only "MayDay, MayDay". Also that there was no response from the aircraft to ATC calls after that.

It may be a moot point, given that one of the videos (from aft as the aircraft takes off) appears to show the jet exhaust cease as the A/C climbs out - 10-11 seconds into the video posted previously showing both rear and side videos side-by-side). To me, it appears as if the engines suddenly throttle down at that point, so I may only be quibbling over what the MayDay actually said.

Edit:
Combined video posted by Cptn Bloggs - post #839: Air India Ahmedabad accident 12th June 2025 Part 2 showing what appears to be loss of engine thrust at 10-11 seconds.

Guardian report on June 14 briefing including MayDay call: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ay-authorities

Sure:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ay-authorities

I can't say it is an authoritative report, but I tend to be more trusting of journalism where quotes are directly attributed to specific individuals.

On other Boeing aircraft that are down to emergency power only the number 1 radio functions. It however functions just fine from any crew station. The radio\x92s are not isolated to a specific user. I would be very surprised if the 787 was different.

Always possible, however since a pilot made a radio call there was some emergency leve l power available, which suggests the EAFR would be powered.

The Jeju recorders were okay if I recall correctly, they just had no input, was that the case?

Somoeone made a good point above about the German Wings FDR/CVR being available the next day after the aircraft was aimed at the ground like a missile. These things are built tough, as you know, this may be type specific but….

VHF L is on emergency power, the EAFR are not ( see Air India Ahmedabad accident 12th June 2025 Part 2 ). The front EAFR has its own battery (RIPS) for that reason, the back EAFR has not. (The number of 787 events where this mattered is zero so far.)
Different (older) aircraft, the flight recorders there did not have backup power iirc.

The equipment on RAT/battery is limited:


(from the online 2010 FCOM)


(from the maintenance training )

The 787 battery fire report says the two recorders are on the left and right 28VDC buses. I don't think those get powered on RAT by the looks of it. I would wager you get whatever is on the 235VAC 'backup bus', plus the captain's and F/O's instrument buses via C1/C2 TRUs. You won't get all of that (like the F/O's screens) because the 787 energises/de-energises specific bits of equipment, not just whole buses.

Losing recorder power looks entirely expected.


400VAC/540VDC (+-270V) is not really known for blowing past input protection in the same way as actual HV or lightning. I would expect some optocouplers and/or transformers to be both present and adequate. There's definitely some big MOVs scattered around the main 235VAC buses.

Weight on wheels appears to go into data concentrators that go into the common core system (i.e. data network).

Presumably there is a set of comms buses between the FADECs and the CCS to allow all the pretty indicators and EICAS alerts in the cockpit to work. The WoW sensors might flow back via that, or via dedicated digital inputs from whatever the reverse of a data concentrator is called (surely they have need for field actuators other than big motors?). Either way, left and right engine data should come from completely different computers, that are in the fwd e/e bay (or concentrators/repeaters in the wings, maybe) rather than in with the big power stuff in the aft e/e bay.