Air India B787 crash Ahmedabad

[elanshin]

I saw that, it was more of an educational video explaining a lot of fluff that’s been put out in the media. For instance they talked about the layers of procedures and system warnings that prevent a mis-set flap setting for takeoff, rather than some “experts” who saw the phone footage and said “yeah I can’t see any flaps extended so it’s probably pilot error from not setting the flaps or they stupidly retracted flaps instead of gear after takeoff”.

When I meant professionals shouldn’t be speculating that doesn’t mean remaining silent, totally fine to put factual information out. You just have to do it in a responsible manner and there’s some “influencers” and “experts” who aren’t doing that.

I agree to some degree, but you can see even with them and Juan that they're pressured by the news cycle, algorithms to put out something that has minimal evidence. They just don't speculate as much but Juan's first video was effectively a nothing video. Just a lot of YT algorithm problems creators face.

 

[jb747]

Commercial airline pilot and YouTuber Captain Steve, who analyzes plane crashes and close calls, gave his theory on the incident which killed 241 people on board.

He's not someone I've seen before, and I'm surprised that he's actually given a conclusion. He ignores the images showing some level of flap extension from the wreckage, doesn't mention the 'auto-gap' feature, and makes no mention of the sound recordings. He may be right, but it's far too early to jump to any conclusions.

Though in other photos/video I did see bending of the wing. I don't know to what extent they should bend at this stage of the flight.

This would have to be much more scientific to have any veracity.

If you want two channels that are fact based go for Juan Browne - Blancoriro for factual data in the aftermath of an incident without much unqualified speculation, and Petter Hornfledt - Mentour Pilot, who puts out fantastic in depth analysis usually after the final report has been released.

I'm not a fan of Juan, but then that's largely because he reads things to us that are on the screen, that I could read for myself. I'd hope that his audience is largely literate. Petter does some excellent stuff, but most quite some way down the road.

As reliable as the sun coming up was Byron Bailey getting his mug onto TV to go on a rant about “unqualified pilots” without a shred of evidence that occurred.

Ah, a man who is generally considered to be about as useful as a broken chock.

I’d be wondering if all this extra taxxing was taxing and distracting (unfamiliar) and thus the pilots got in a hurry and made mistakes ?

It's just a relaxiing 30 kph drive. I wouldn't have thought it would be an issue.

Although they did mention its highly unlikely that it was an incorrect initial flaps setting due to it looking like a regular rotation.

I think everyone is agreed that it looks normal right through to the end of the rotation. That's the normal gear retraction point. It's also where the air/ground logic changes. Flaps don't retract instantly, but the performance drop off seems to happen quite quickly. The aircraft should climb with the gear down, even on one engine (though it might not be pretty).

 

[DC3]

As seems to be a factor with airline incidents these days a flurry of “influencers” have chimed in with their theories and “conclusions”, based off things like a barely visible phone video taken kms away. Some of which have been posted on this thread, like CW Lemoine, Captain Steve, Swiss001 and a few more, and are picked up by trashy tabloid sites like “News.com.au”.

 

[flyer89]

As reliable as the sun coming up was Byron Bailey getting his mug onto TV to go on a rant about “unqualified pilots” without a shred of evidence that occurred.

Having encountered him several times in the past I can tell you he’s the same in real life as he is on tv…..quite insufferable.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Always remember, Influenzas only want one thing - more influencees. Airline incidents is the last thing I'd trust "Like and subscribe" to be associated with.

 

[RSD]

Assuming the original files are as recorded, that sound is extraordinary. And it includes another relevant sound, or perhaps lack of sound…we should be hearing a pair of engines at full power. If the RAT is extended, then the entire tone of this event changes, and people will start looking at Boeing again.

As we know though, the RAT only extends for a couple of reasons, one of which is dual engine failure.

But, right now, for me, the sound and its lack is the most compelling item. The apparent lack of the engines at full charge, combined with the unusual whine as made by a RAT. If what that implies is true, then everything else follows on. The gear won’t come up, and the aircraft won’t fly for long.

@jb747 - I think these parts of your post capture where this is going -

The known things at this stage are -
- video whose audio doesn't have the loud sound of engines at take off thrust - and a distinct lack of jet engine noise at all
- on the same video the RAT can be heard operating - again suggesting a dual engine failure for unknown reasons
- and the mayday call from the first officer of “Mayday ... no thrust, losing power, unable to lift” - which matches with the lack of jet engine noise and the resulting deployment of the RAT which can be heard in the video.

Juan Browne mentions in his video that take off flap settings on the 787 are flaps 5 or 15 which could explain why they aren't easy to see in the videos.

As for pilot hours - maybe he is ex-air force and the 8000 hours are just his commercial hours.

Obviously though if both engines have lost thrust just after take off then I don't think that pilot hours is really going to change the outcome - you are at 600 feet in a very big glider and the only runway is behind you. Looking at the satellite view in Google Maps, the nearest piece of open space that you might have any hope of putting something like a 787 down on is the river about 7.5km from the runway - and given that they continued to fly runway heading then this may well have been where they were trying to get to -

 

[RooFlyer]

I agree to some degree, but you can see even with them and Juan that they're pressured by the news cycle, algorithms to put out something that has minimal evidence. They just don't speculate as much but Juan's first video was effectively a nothing video. Just a lot of YT algorithm problems creators face.

FWIW, I was pretty disappointed in Juan’s first video on this. But to be honest, I went looking to see if he had anything on it so I guess I was part of the driver of him doing the first quick bit.

 

[JohnM]

FWIW, I was pretty disappointed in Juan’s first video on this. But to be honest, I went looking to see if he had anything on it so I guess I was part of the driver of him doing the first quick bit.

His first video was just as he was about to head to the boonies in Idaho on a fishing trip; the second after he arrived there. Not great timing for him for such a major aviation event.

 

[OATEK]

I know eye witnesses can be totally unreliable, but the guy who escaped from seat 11A talked about flickering lights and a load bang. The loud bang might have been hitting the first building or other object, but ultimately will need to be explained. The flickering light - could that be related to the RAT being deployed )power directed elsewhere as a priority?)?

And Juan's talk about the RAT hum on the audio from an AU source also has to be explained given every one who has mentioned that the RAT is automatically deployed on engine failure. What about hydraulics failures, could that be part of the story?

I wonder if the bang and the RAT can be directly linked to picking the flaps up instead of gear up - perhaps not?

While convenient to land on pilot error like good ol' Steeeve, I can't help but feel there is a lot more to it all.

 

[tgh]

I am surprised there seems limited timeline discussion, just what happens on a major engine failure?
Leads to how long for a rat to deploy, spin up and start emitting that noise..was there enough time ?
What kind of failure ( excluding a bird strike) would almost instantly reduce power from take off power to ?

 

[Saab34]

and people will start looking at Boeing again.

Considering the amount of flights and years passed with the type in question, accident free, you would think that it’s unlikely to be a Boeing structural issue compared to say the fault being connected to the Air India Engineering department.

I guess even if it’s an engine or engineering blue, next question is did Boeing not have enough protections in place to prevent this?

They have big orders with Air India so they need to be somewhat careful how this is handled. It sounds like a complex issue so I’m not expecting to hear too much anytime soon. Needless to say I’d expect Boeing to be firmly pushing the ‘blame’ in the other direction, especially with 777X and MAX7/10 attempting to get certification.

 

[jb747]

As for pilot hours - maybe he is ex-air force and the 8000 hours are just his commercial hours.

It’s not relevant at all, but just a little surprising to be mid 50s with so few.

…you are at 600 feet in a very big glider and the only runway is behind you.

It’s worse than that. The airfield elevation is about 200’, and the temperature correction reduces it even more. Someone who did the sums came up with about 280’ AGL. You’re not going anywhere with that.

Looking at the satellite view in Google Maps, the nearest piece of open space that you might have any hope of putting something like a 787 down on is the river about 7.5km from the runway - and given that they continued to fly runway heading then this may well have been where they were trying to get to.

I hope not. That’s miles beyond their potential. The best option (even though still horrendous) is short of the hospital. They had no real turn ability, with basically zero energy to manoeuvre.

I know eye witnesses can be totally unreliable, but the guy who escaped from seat 11A talked about flickering lights and a load bang. The loud bang might have been hitting the first building or other object, but ultimately will need to be explained.

I don’t know whether you’d be able to differentiate sounds from within the crash itself. I’ve never deployed one, but I’m told that there is a substantial bang when releasing a RAT, more than you’d expect. I’d have to admit that I’ve never thought about it.

The flickering light - could that be related to the RAT being deployed )power directed elsewhere as a priority?)?

There’d be load shedding and systems being dropped all over the place.

And Juan's talk about the RAT hum on the audio from an AU source also has to be explained given every one who has mentioned that the RAT is automatically deployed on engine failure. What about hydraulics failures, could that be part of the story?

I gather that the RAT deploys for dual engine or triple hydraulic failures. I guess the electrical side is handled by that big lithium battery. Detection of the engine failure is interesting. The systems catch it pretty quickly, but not instantly, and engines don’t normally just snuff themselves in a moment. So IF the RAT is out, what was the signal that caused it to deploy?

I wonder if the bang and the RAT can be directly linked to picking the flaps up instead of gear up - perhaps not?

Not sure I see what you mean here.

I am surprised there seems limited timeline discussion, just what happens on a major engine failure?

It’s quite slow. Crew action won’t take place until the aircraft is safely climbing away, and stable. 767/747 was a minimum of 1,000’ and Airbus used a minimum of 400’

Leads to how long for a rat to deploy, spin up and start emitting that noise..was there enough time ?

Seconds.

What kind of failure ( excluding a bird strike) would almost instantly reduce power from take off power to ?

Ah, the real question. Not much really.

I really don’t like bird strike. These engines could probably survive, and if they didn’t they’d compressor stall, and bang, fart and generally carry on.

Considering the amount of flights and years passed with the type in question, accident free, you would think that it’s unlikely to be a Boeing structural issue compared to say the fault being connected to the Air India Engineering department.

I doubt that it’s structural, and yes it could be suspect engineering. But, these things are software driven, and even after 11 years, there so few users, that I’m sure the OS world would consider it to be pre-Alpha.

I guess even if it’s an engine or engineering blue, next question is did Boeing not have enough protections in place to prevent this?

Do they cost anything? We don’t know, and can’t say, until the definitive reason comes out.

They have big orders with Air India so they need to be somewhat careful how this is handled. It sounds like a complex issue so I’m not expecting to hear too much anytime soon. Needless to say I’d expect Boeing to be firmly pushing the ‘blame’ in the other direction, especially with 777X and MAX7/10 attempting to get certification.

Boeing has very little credibility. The general reason will come out sooner rather than later. I’d expect it within days. Blaming poor pilots, especially dead ones, was their modus operandi when the MAX crashes happened….and look how that turned out. I’d really expect total silence from them in the interim.

 

[jenib]

I doubt that it’s structural, and yes it could be suspect engineering. But, these things are software driven, and even after 11 years, there so few users, that I’m sure the OS world would consider it to be pre-Alpha.

Do they cost anything? We don’t know, and can’t say, until the definitive reason comes out.

Boeing has very little credibility. The general reason will come out sooner rather than later. I’d expect it within days. Blaming poor pilots, especially dead ones, was their modus operandi when the MAX crashes happened….and look how that turned out. I’d really expect total silence from them in the interim.

I know little about aviation but have had decades in software/hardware engineering and didn't have jobs with 'life critical' implications. My workplace used to take risks because we knew lives didn't depend on the software. The lack of redundancy and other aspects of the max and the company's responses shocked me to the core!

 

[markis10]

The Boeing bashing is getting a little over the top and probably needs some perspective. How many commercial airliner designs have seen 14 years of commercial ops before their first hull loss? Blaming Boeing for this could be as appropriate as blaming Airbus for their first A350 loss!

Given early indications point to the failure of two products not made by Boeing, operated by an airline that previously cannibalised new deliveries of 787s for parts due to financial difficulties, there are way too many variables at play.

2025 is proving to be a bad year for aircraft disasters, hopefully in time we learn the causes and learn from them.

 

[RSD]

It’s worse than that. The airfield elevation is about 200’, and the temperature correction reduces it even more. Someone who did the sums came up with about 280’ AGL. You’re not going anywhere with that.

I hope not. That’s miles beyond their potential. The best option (even though still horrendous) is short of the hospital. They had no real turn ability, with basically zero energy to manoeuvre.

Once you zoom right in you find that in the area just before the hospital that looks like trees is actually a well spread out military hospital - no good options available at all - and if you only effectively have 280 feet of altitude then even having time to make a choice is probably a luxury that they didn't have - they have basically just got over the built-up suburban area and that is about it. The buildings with blue rooves are all part of the military hospital.

 

[jenib]

I don't think anyone is bashing Boeing (at least that I have seen) for this tragedy. It isn't yet known what the cause(s) are. However, companies like Boeing used to be held up as the epitome of software quality and trust and an ideal employer for software/hardware engineers and there is no doubt that their reputation has suffered as a result of their handling of the Max - in the media, the general public and with people who have experience in designing software/hardware systems to be failsafe. Their public communication and denial in the Max case only served to deepen scepticism.

 

[Rabs97]

Whilst the media were telling us how experienced they were, the Captain apparently had 8,000 hours. That’s very low given his age, and makes me wonder why. The FO on the other hand had 1,000, so not even at the level many airlines would even talk to him. Neither may have any relevance to the outcome, but they’re not high numbers. And, of course, the media may not be able to count, and the numbers could be rubbish.

I was interested in this too (more so wondering why with supposedly only 1100 total hours - only a year’s worth of line flying - he got straight onto the 787 at AI).

From CNBC:

Assisting Sabharwal was first officer Clive Kundar, 34, who had a solid 1,100 hours of flying experience. Trained in Florida, US-based aviation school Paris Air, he had worked for a private airline company for a couple of years before joining Air India five years ago.

There’s also a picture of him sitting in an A320 flight deck in an Air India uniform with a mask on, so during 2020/21 probably. Makes sense, flies for another airline first, joins AI on the A320 in 2020 and then converts to the 787 about a year ago. So I reckon the 1100hrs has to be 787 hours not total hours.

By the same also seems the Captain was more experienced than 8000 total hours, this from the Times of India:

Captain Sabharwal had logged more than 8,200 hours in the coughpit, according to India’s aviation regulator DGCA. Colleagues believe his actual experience was far greater, noting that the DGCA’s current digital system may not fully reflect his career history.

“He was a very quiet, diligent man,” said a fellow pilot. “He flew Airbus A310s, Boeing 777s and the Dreamliner. He always kept his head down and did his work.”

Also looks as if Captain Sabharwal was a line trainer as well, so one would assume very competent amongst his peers.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Air India retired their 310s in 2012 according to google. So he’s likely had 10+ years, at least.

 

[oz_mark]

The Boeing bashing is getting a little over the top and probably needs some perspective. How many commercial airliner designs have seen 14 years of commercial ops before their first hull loss? Blaming Boeing for this could be as appropriate as blaming Airbus for their first A350 loss!

Given early indications point to the failure of two products not made by Boeing, operated by an airline that previously cannibalised new deliveries of 787s for parts due to financial difficulties, there are way too many variables at play.

2025 is proving to be a bad year for aircraft disasters, hopefully in time we learn the causes and learn from them.

Things must be in the eye of the beholder, but I see very little 'Boeing Bashing' or blaming Boeing compared to other commentary. But they were the manufacturer, and can't be ruled out yet. Just about everything is still on the table.

 

[markis10]

see very little 'Boeing Bashing' or blaming Boeing

Some examples

Boeing has very little credibility

Needless to say I’d expect Boeing to be firmly pushing the ‘blame’ in the other direction

Their public communication and denial in the Max case only served to deepen scepticism

Given the issue at this stage is the failure of the engines to provide thrust for a flight operated by an airline with an interesting past, I suspect the focus is misplaced.