172
CCTV shows take-off and crash of Air India plane in Ahmedabad (www.yahoo.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 1 year ago (41 children)

Looks like it stalled due to lack of thrust. What could have killed both engines right after takeoff?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 41 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 15 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    It seems to climb OK for a little while then suddenly start sinking. There's no sign of an obvious engine problem. Not sure whether we'd be able to see any sign of a bird strike from this far away.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    bird strike taking out both engines? nah.

    This has to be pilot error. Even at stall, it looks like pilot didn't even try to level out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It is a Boeing plane. We shouldn't jump to conclusions on the pilots being at fault.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Agree with your comment regarding the pilots but the plane has with Air India for 13 years. If there was a mechanical problem it’s likely to be maintenance at fault. And I say that as someone who goes out of their way to not fly Boeing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    not necessarily. John Barnett, the Boeing whistleblower which died after 2 days into his three day deposition, said that that the assembly line sloppiness would take about ten to twelve years to culminate in a crash.

    https://prospect.org/economy/2025-06-12-dreamliner-gave-boeing-manager-nightmares-just-crashed-air-india/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Let’s see what the black boxes give us. We should have the first information soon. I’m not going to categorically defend Boeing (again, I am not flying on their planes myself) but right now we just have no information on what caused the likely dual engine rollback.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    This has to be pilot error. Even at stall, it looks like pilot didn't even try to level out

    They were like less than 200m from the ground. There was literally no space to recover from the stall. You need some altitude to pitch the nose down and recover from a stall.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Yeah, it's rather strange. There is another one from a perspective where the aircraft almost "overflew" the cameraman (basically at a 5'o clock angle)- it shows them having aileron and elevator control right until they crash. And while the quality is poor, I am somewhat convinced that the RAT has not deployed (yet?)

    A bird strike would likely have caused something visible So it doesn't sound like hydraulics or fuel(water in the fueltanks?) or something electronic wise with the engine control. Strange and sad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    I just saw that video and it is really strange. Not so much that rat hasn't been deployed, I don't think they lost hydraulics or electronics and I'm not sure they even reached the minimum speed where the rat would really help.

    The strange thing is that it didn't really look like there was very much yaw or rolling which you would expect to see with a fuel system failure. They seemed to be flying straight as an arrow and gliding it down?

    Maybe something wrong with thrust control? Kinda crazy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Yeah,I am not sure if there is a safety interlock with Boeing RATs(and the video is really bad)...so it might be intentional.

    It's strange. Personally I currently go with water in the fuel system as the "most likely guess by a armchair pilot"(me),but wouldn't also be surprised being it an electronic error. When that would be the case Boeing would be fucked beyond repair,imho.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Something wrong with the fuel system was my initial armchair guess, but I'm not so sure based off the second vid. One would expect to see some yaw or rolling in an underpowered or lost of power take off with a jet.

    Guess we'll have to wait until someone more qualified explains it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Dude the plane is 13 years old. If there was a mechanical problem with the plane its on Air India, and I say that as a certified Airbus fanboy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    John Barnett said that the corner cutting during construction would culminate in a crash after 10 to 12 years.

    https://prospect.org/economy/2025-06-12-dreamliner-gave-boeing-manager-nightmares-just-crashed-air-india/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Why are you idiots even putting me in the position of defending Boeing lmao. Yes I’m aware of all the problems the Dreamliner had, alleged and in practical use. But none of them can explain what happened to the Air India flight.

    The problems Barnett brought to attention don’t give you a double engine rollback immediately after rotation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No. Faults often don't get detected early,need certain circumstances (swiss cheese model) or quite simply, are caused by replacement parts. There is a long chain of things that could fall into Boeing responsibility - and even if it doesn't the market does not always react reasonably.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    We will see I suppose. Your last sentence is most certainly true in any case but I will stand by the fact that after 13 years a mechanical problem will much more likely be due to bad maintenance- especially given AIs difficult track record in that regard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, absolutely, AI has issues- that's why I narrowed my "Boeings fa**ult" down to electronics/software. There isn't too much maintenance they can fuck up in that department that can kill both engines(afaik). In other parts like fuel,fuel distribution,etc? Totally different.

    My bet is still on sometimes with the fuel, though. Maybe water in the fuel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Is it common for CCTV to track and follow all planes as they take off like the camera in this video seems to be?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's always hard to judge AoA unless you're looking side-on with a horizon for reference, but excessive nose-up attitude caused by cargo incorrectly loaded or not secured properly so it shifted aft during rotation could have caused an aerodynamic stall.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wake turbulence?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Definitely not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why not? Genuinely asking. I thought I remembered wake turbulence being able to cause engine stall or complete shutoff, but I only see that anecdotally, not on the FAA’s website.

    I also thought I'd remembered it being able to cause stalls, but I'm mostly only reading about it causing planes to roll on the FAA's website.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Wake turbulence requires something to cause the wake - usually another aircraft. Additionally wake turbulences autoregulate themselves - they don't stay "in the air" but rather disperse rather fast, especially close to the ground. VAAH is a pretty small airport that has no continual taxiway(which they once had,for some strange reason) so aircraft need to backtrack(Basically go in the wrong direction on the RW, then do a U-Turn) at the end of the runway if they go for a take-off runway of RW23.This leads to a long time for any wake turbulence to disperse.

    Additionally the 787 is a mighty big aircraft and mostly wake turbulences affect aircraft that are smaller than the ones which caused it. (This is of course not fully accurate,but it gets complicated then) And the 787 is absolutely powerful enough to power through basically any wake turbulence.

    Last but not least there was not a starting aircraft directly before the flight but a (very small) landing one - so even more time for any wake to disperse.

    So in the end I would be pretty damn sure it wasn't that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Maybe, maybe not.

    What’s way weirder is that he’s got zero flaps and gear is still down, which is the exact opposite of what you want to do when climbing out. Maybe pilot error (control inversion)?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Slats are 100% deployed, you can see that in the videos, indicating the plane was in Takeoff Config. Now, the flaps themselves are hard to make out in the grainy videos and they don’t extend much on takeoff. Edit: https://imgur.com/a/JzS3ro9

    Much more important is the lack of engine noise. We can also see the rat turbine was automatically deployed, indicating a complete loss of power only seconds after they rotated. Which is also why the landing gear did not retract.

    I don’t know what could’ve caused a dual engine failure, simultaneously, immediately after takeoff but that seems to be where everything is pointing to. Possibly problems with the fuel?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent