Right. The main reason I'm leaning towards flaps is it could very well be pilot error. To me that's always more likely than a mechanical/system failure of some sort. Then again, it is Boeing ...
Yeah, we can only guess, i mean it could had been a flock of birds taking out the engines for all we know. The flaps not being put in position could be due to a power/hydraulics concern, so guess we will just wait for the reports.
They are also of course less effective at low airspeed. Even at cruse speed I think on many aircraft they will only power the essential avionics and provide some pretty limited hydraulic power. AFAIK most emergency procedures tell flight crews to start the APU after trying to restart the engines first so that they can better control the aircraft with greater hydraulic power.
Right. The main reason I'm leaning towards flaps is it could very well be pilot error. To me that's always more likely than a mechanical/system failure of some sort. Then again, it is Boeing ...
The one thing I can maybe fault the pilots with is they didn't put the landing gear up which created more drag but I don't think that would have helped given what was around them.
I overhead someone listening to the survivor's interview.After seeing that fireball, I have my doubts about the lone survivor.
I would believe that except there is no smoke plume or anything. Did the bird strike happen just before the plane rose in the air? So bird strikes in both engines, loss of power, RAM deployed but still not being able to control the plane? Sounds like very, very bad luck.Suspected Bird Strike in both engines.
My initial thought was flaps. A YT pilot said that sometimes on hot humid days modern planes takeoff with 0 flaps so they can get up to speed faster. I heard that is a long runway.Right. The main reason I'm leaning towards flaps is it could very well be pilot error. To me that's always more likely than a mechanical/system failure of some sort. Then again, it is Boeing ...
A small explosive device placed at some critical point? There was some minister on that plane that is not liked by many. Maybe someone or some group wanted him dead and tried to make it look like an accident?Almost impossible to get a double stall at that critical time.
Probably a stupid question, but let's say they were able to find the BB quickly in all that debris, how long does it take to review the data or pull the data to find what went wrong? Does the BB automatically flag unusual entries? Or do investigators or whoever looks at the data have to sift through the data themselves to find anomalies? Up until now, never really thought about how the data from BBs are looked at.
I wouldn't send it here. We can't be trusted. Maybe the EU. India doesn't need our asshole President blaming the crash on DEINews says both the FDR and the CVR have been recovered. India probably would need to send to the US to get the data extracted.
I'm with you, or pilot error, but that seems pretty unlikely. The # of alerts and alarms that would have gone off would have alerted them to their problem. I don't "think" this is a plane problem, but who am I guess. In one of the videos you can even hear the RAT which indicates the pilot was trying everything to recover.
Is the RAT automatically deployed on total engine failure? At that point would have though pilot would have retracted landing gear to reduce drag but maybe he couldn't.I'm with you, or pilot error, but that seems pretty unlikely. The # of alerts and alarms that would have gone off would have alerted them to their problem. I don't "think" this is a plane problem, but who am I guess. In one of the videos you can even hear the RAT which indicates the pilot was trying everything to recover.
Is the RAT automatically deployed on total engine failure? At that point would have though pilot would have retracted landing gear to reduce drag but maybe he couldn't.
Correction, he didn't jump: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/sto...he-escaped-deadly-accident-2740133-2025-06-13As soon as the plane hit the wall, the guy recounts closing his eyes and hearing the screams of the air hostess(es) burning alive. He thought he was dead but when he opened his eyes, he was still alive. He saw an opening, unbuckled his seat belt and jumped and landed on the ground.
Ramesh told doctors that he did not jump from the plane but was thrown out while still strapped to his seat when the aircraft disintegrated.
"The place where I landed was low... I took off the seat belt and for a moment, I was scared for my life. But I was near ground level, so I tried to get out," he told DD News.
Seeing the doors of the aircraft were broken, Ramesh said he was able to walk out on foot, even as he saw passengers and crew dying around him.
"I can't believe how I survived," Ramesh said. "I thought I would die. People died in front of my eyes."
Early analysis of flight visuals from the ill-fated Air India AI171, which crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, has raised serious questions about the aircraft’s configuration and possible technical malfunctions during its final moments.
Visual analysis indicates that as the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner departed, its landing gear remained extended and its wing flaps were fully retracted—an extremely abnormal situation for the critical initial climb phase. Standard operating procedure for the 787 calls for flaps to be set at 5 (or higher) for takeoff, then gradually retracted only as the aircraft accelerates and gains altitude.
The landing gear is normally retracted once a positive rate of climb is established, usually within seconds after liftoff and well before reaching 600 feet.
Visual evidence shows the landing gear began retracting briefly, but the pilot quickly extended it again, likely realising a loss of thrust or power. The aircraft appeared to suffer a power failure just moments after takeoff.
Another plausible scenario is that the landing gear became stuck in the down position, possibly due to a mechanical or hydraulic failure. In such a situation, the crew might have attempted to retract the flaps early to reduce drag and gain speed, as extended gear and flaps together would create excessive drag and severely limit climb performance.
However, retracting flaps too soon at low altitude and low speed is highly risky, as it reduces lift and increases stall risk.
Despite these issues, the aircraft’s flight path did not show significant yawing or rolling, suggesting the pilots retained some control authority.
There is speculation of right rudder input, which could indicate a left engine failure, but this alone does not explain the unusual configuration of gear down and flaps up.
In normal operations, both the gear and flaps should not be in these positions at such a low altitude.
The combination of extended landing gear and retracted flaps at 600 feet is highly irregular and points toward a possible cascading technical failure or a sequence of emergency actions by the crew in response to a malfunction. The final loss of altitude and apparent stall likely resulted from insufficient lift and excessive drag, leaving the crew unable to recover before impact.
Investigators will focus on these anomalies as they analyse flight data and cockpit recordings in the coming days.
Another product from a division of the corp. I used to work for.Air India plane's black box recovered: How did it survive 1000°C inferno?
Despite such extreme conditions, investigators retrieved the black box, pointing to the advanced material engineering that allows these devices to survive catastrophic events.www.indiatoday.in