https://apnews.com/article/india-plane-crash-cad8dad5cd0e92795b03d357404af5f8
Another Boeing (though could be coincidence for once). :(
QuoteLondon-bound Air India flight with more than 240 aboard crashes after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India
AHMEDABAD, India (AP) — Ahmedabad's city police commissioner says there don't appear to have been any survivors from an Air India airliner that crashed, and that there are likely also casualties from the area of the city where it went down.
The flight crashed midday shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad airport with more than 240 people on board.
"It appears there are no survivors in the plane crash," Commissioner G.S. Malik told The Associated Press, adding that with the plane crashing in a residential area with offices, "some locals would have also died."
"Exact figures on casualties are being ascertained," he said.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP's earlier story follows below.
AHMEDABAD, India (AP) — An Air India passenger plane bound for London with more than 240 people on board crashed Thursday in India's northwestern city of Ahmedabad, the airline said.
Visuals on local television channels showed smoke billowing from the crash site in what appeared to be a populated area near the airport in Ahmedabad, a city with a population of more than 5 million and the capital of Gujarat, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's home state.
Firefighters doused the smoking wreckage of the plane, which would have been fully loaded with fuel shortly after takeoff, and adjacent multi-story buildings with water. Charred bodies lay on the ground.
"The scenes emerging of a London-bound plane carrying many British nationals crashing in the Indian city of Ahmedabad are devastating," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement.
Modi called the crash "heartbreaking beyond words."
"In this sad hour, my thoughts are with everyone affected," he said in a social media post.
The airline said the Gatwick Airport-bound flight was carrying 242 passengers and crew. Of those, Air India said there were 169 Indians, 53 Britons, seven Portuguese and one Canadian.
Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, the director general of the directorate of civil aviation, told The Associated Press that Air India flight AI 171, a Boeing 787-8, crashed into a residential area called Meghani Nagar five minutes after taking off at 1:38 p.m. local time. He said 244 people were on board and it was not immediately possible to reconcile the discrepancy with Air India's numbers.
All efforts were being made to ensure medical aid and relief support at the site, India's Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu posted on X.
The 787 Dreamliner is a widebody, twin-engine plane. This is the first crash ever of a Boeing 787 aircraft, according to the Aviation Safety Network database.
Boeing said it was aware of the reports of the crash and was "working to gather more information."
The aircraft was introduced in 2009 and more than 1,000 have been delivered to dozens of airlines, according to the flightradar24 website.
Air India's chairman, Natarajan Chandrasekaran, said at the moment "our primary focus is on supporting all the affected people and their families."
He said on X that the airline had set up an emergency center and support team for families seeking information about those who were on the flight.
"Our thoughts and deepest condolences are with the families and loved ones of all those affected by this devastating event," he said.
British Cabinet minister Lucy Powell said the government will provide "all the support that it can" to those affected by the crash.
"This is an unfolding story, and it will undoubtedly be causing a huge amount of worry and concern to the many, many families and communities here and those waiting for the arrival of their loved ones," she told lawmakers in the House of Commons.
"We send our deepest sympathy and thoughts to all those families, and the government will provide all the support that it can with those in India and those in this country as well," she added.
Britain has very close ties with India. There were nearly 1.9 million people in the country of Indian descent, according to the 2021 U.K. census.
The last major passenger plane crash in India was in 2020 when an Air India Express Boeing-737 skidded off a hilltop runway in southern India, killing 21 people.
The worst air disaster in India was on Nov. 12, 1996, when a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight collided midair with a Kazakhastan Airlines Flight near Charki Dadri in Haryana state, killing all 349 on board the two planes.
The crash comes days before the opening of the Paris Air Show, a major aviation expo where Boeing and European rival Airbus will showcase their aircraft and battle for jet orders from airline customers.
Boeing has been in recovery mode for more than six years after Lion Air Flight 610, a Boeing 737 Max 8, plunged into the Java Sea off the coast of Indonesia minutes after takeoff from Jakarta, killing all 189 people on board. Five months later, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, a Boeing 737 Max 8, crashed after takeoff from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, killing 157 passengers and crew members.
Shares of Boeing Co. tumbled nearly 9% before trading opened in the U.S.
It's apparently the 787s first loss of air frame.
Very sad news :(
On the Boeing thing - in the last year or two I have looked at what planes airlines use and preferring ones that have Airbus fleets. I'm sure it is unfortunate coincidences but it does feel like a lot recently.
I've always preferred Airbus just because they're more comfortable to fly in. That said, regardless of what the cause turns out to be, Boeing does seem like a poster boy for enshittification.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2025, 07:30:12 AMVery sad news :(
On the Boeing thing - in the last year or two I have looked at what planes airlines use and preferring ones that have Airbus fleets. I'm sure it is unfortunate coincidences but it does feel like a lot recently.
Same, we consciously favour airbus flights now
Tragic :(
Lots of reporting of really heart-breaking individual stories in the press here. 52 Brits died in the crash - I think the Times have said it's the highest UK death toll in an aviation incident since 9/11. So quite a lot of families issuing statements and sharing photos of their loved ones.
But with it being a London-India flight also lots of Indians who lived here or who were on their way to visit relatives - there was a really sad story about a guy who's lived in London for the last 6 years and was now re-locating his family being on the flight with his wife and three kids.
Also, amazingly, one survivor which seems miraculous to me given the clip I've seen of the plane going down.
Any indication of what caused the crash? Couldn't really find anything.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 12, 2025, 06:33:04 PMAny indication of what caused the crash? Couldn't really find anything.
I think it's too early to say at this time. I expect most theories at this point are premature.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 12, 2025, 06:33:04 PMAny indication of what caused the crash? Couldn't really find anything.
Some anomalies include the fact that the gear was still down and it sounded like the Ram Air Turbine was engaged (it deploys automatically when there is any electrical failure). One pilot said that it looked like the flaps had been retracted, which would cause exactly the sort of sinking we saw because the plane lacked the airspeed to fly with no flaps. The plane took off where it would be expected to lift off, so flap were apparently engaged at liftoff. The problem seemed to originate at just the point where the pilots would have retracted the landing gear.
It is possible that the pilots retraced flaps instead of gear? That's pure speculation on the part of the guys I have listened to.
The survivor jumped out of the emergency exit :blink:
When I saw that the plane never really climbed, my first thought was that flaps were in the wrong position, but these days shouldn't it be impossible, precisely because too many planes crashed on takeoff like that? The theory that flaps were retracted instead of the gear sounds more plausible.
That said, the mayday message was talking about loss of power, and the ram air turbine would deploy if you lose both engines so that you can still operate the bare necessities. I wonder how easy it is to mistakenly think you lost power when you stop climbing, when the actual culprit is the aerodynamic configuration?
Don't know the veracity but the story going around is that the survivor heard a large bang before the plane started going down.
Another bird strike like the Korean one?
You would think there should be some automation assistance to avoid obvious human errors - ideally without removing the human entirely.
Terrible stuff. Crashing into a block full of doctors too...
Only one survivor is very weird and a small positive point. I guess everyone will be trying to select seat 11A on flights now.
He said he ran out of the plane before people put him on an ambulance and I've seen a clip of him wandering around - I think pretty dazed - afterwards and I just cannot even comprehend how someone walks away from a crash like that.
Quote from: Bauer on June 12, 2025, 09:58:36 PMThe survivor jumped out of the emergency exit :blink:
After the crash.
Quote from: HVC on June 12, 2025, 10:18:06 PMDon't know the veracity but the story going around is that the survivor heard a large bang before the plane started going down.
Another bird strike like the Korean one?
Bird strike is unlikely because it would take a lot of birds to choke both engines. The birds in that part of India are not large like the sea birds involved in the Korean crash, so it's hard to imagine that there was a big enough flock to choke the engines but not be visible from the ground.
Plus, there is no visual evidence of the kind one would see if the engines were knocked out by bird strikes (flames and debris coming out of the engines).
Video taken on the plane from earlier leg of the flight shows ac and tv displays not working.
That might just be because they are stuck on the tarmac, so the engine generators are not spooled up and they are not connected to the ramp to get umbilical power.
Quote from: grumbler on June 14, 2025, 08:48:32 AMThat might just be because they are stuck on the tarmac, so the engine generators are not spooled up and they are not connected to the ramp to get umbilical power.
Maybe, but if it turns out to be an electrical failure causing a stall then may have been overlooked maintenance issues.
Quote from: Bauer on June 14, 2025, 02:52:28 PMQuote from: grumbler on June 14, 2025, 08:48:32 AMThat might just be because they are stuck on the tarmac, so the engine generators are not spooled up and they are not connected to the ramp to get umbilical power.
Maybe, but if it turns out to be an electrical failure causing a stall then may have been overlooked maintenance issues.
Anything is still possible since we lack evidence, but the video presented here is only evidence of how uncomfortable it is to sit in a plane that's waiting on the tarmac, with only the internal generator running and so all non-essential services turned off. I've experienced that myself. You can find horror stories of people who had to sit through that for hours.
Quote from: Bauer on June 14, 2025, 02:52:28 PMQuote from: grumbler on June 14, 2025, 08:48:32 AMThat might just be because they are stuck on the tarmac, so the engine generators are not spooled up and they are not connected to the ramp to get umbilical power.
Maybe, but if it turns out to be an electrical failure causing a stall then may have been overlooked maintenance issues.
I know this is Boeing we're talking about, but I would be really surprised if the A/C and entertainment system used the same loop as avionics and other safety-critical elements.
One theory, not yet substantiated, is that instead of retracting the landing gear (which never did come up) the copilot retracted the flaps. The copilot was new to the job, so it might be as tragic as him pulling the wrong switch.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 15, 2025, 09:17:59 AMOne theory, not yet substantiated, is that instead of retracting the landing gear (which never did come up) the copilot retracted the flaps. The copilot was new to the job, so it might be as tragic as him pulling the wrong switch.
I described that reasoning in post #9. There is additional information now available that indicates that the Ram Air Turbine, or "RAT" was deployed, as I also mentioned in post #9. The additional info is that the better version of the vid shot of the plane flying overhead now shows something projecting from the bottom of the plane, right where the RAT would deploy. The loud noise the survivor described would be caused by the RAT deploying.
The RAT only deploys when there is no other source of power, which would mean, in this case, that both engines had failed. That would leave the mystery of how both engines could fail at the same time.
Fuel contamination could cause that, but the pilots would have detected the contamination as soon as they went to 80% thrust to start the takeoff roll. Fuel pump failure could cause that, but the plane has multiple fuel pumps, both electrical and hydraulic, with instant rollover. How could they all fail at once?
Bird strikes are out, as such an event would leave a lot of dead birds on the ground, which wasn't the case here.
So, it is increasingly looking like simultaneous multiple engine failure, which shouldn't be possible.
Boeing says hold my beer.
Quote from: Josquius on June 15, 2025, 06:16:15 PMBoeing says hold my beer.
Boeing doesn't build the engines...Rolls Royce and GE do. :nerd:
If both engines failed at the same time, then it seem very unlikely to be an issue with engines themselves. The thing connecting both of them is the most likely culprit one way or another.
It would probably be a freak failure though...as this is the first 787 to crash in 14 years of operation. (unless there is an upgraded replacement part involved)
It was the 737 MAX that earned them their current reputation.
Quote from: DGuller on June 15, 2025, 09:56:08 PMIf both engines failed at the same time, then it seem very unlikely to be an issue with engines themselves. The thing connecting both of them is the most likely culprit one way or another.
The things that connect the engine... My God, there was a problem with the PLANE!
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 15, 2025, 11:01:34 PMIt would probably be a freak failure though...as this is the first 787 to crash in 14 years of operation. (unless there is an upgraded replacement part involved)
It was the 737 MAX that earned them their current reputation.
737 Max has been in the air for a decade, right? But only started falling out of the air recently. So I assume it's a QA thing rather than something about the plane itself. If so wouldn't the newer 787s be liable to the same issues?
Not that I'm implying this is directly related to what happened here, but there have been reports of quality issues at the 787 Charleston plant for years. Well before the 737 Max started losing parts mid-air. Afair, most were reports of 'foreign objects' found at final inspection (where they shouldn't be any) and people inspecting their own work.
The Max has been in service since May 2017, with the first two fatal crashes occurring in October 2017 and March 2018. Obviously the MCAS accidents were of a different nature than the recent QA issues, but both strands of issues have been tied to a decline in Boeing's safety culture as its management pushed a profit-above-all-else attitude. Boeing was charged with Fraud Conspiracy in relation to the MCAS crashes.
Quote from: grumbler on June 15, 2025, 10:11:28 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on June 15, 2025, 09:17:59 AMOne theory, not yet substantiated, is that instead of retracting the landing gear (which never did come up) the copilot retracted the flaps. The copilot was new to the job, so it might be as tragic as him pulling the wrong switch.
I described that reasoning in post #9. There is additional information now available that indicates that the Ram Air Turbine, or "RAT" was deployed, as I also mentioned in post #9. The additional info is that the better version of the vid shot of the plane flying overhead now shows something projecting from the bottom of the plane, right where the RAT would deploy. The loud noise the survivor described would be caused by the RAT deploying.
The RAT only deploys when there is no other source of power, which would mean, in this case, that both engines had failed. That would leave the mystery of how both engines could fail at the same time.
Fuel contamination could cause that, but the pilots would have detected the contamination as soon as they went to 80% thrust to start the takeoff roll. Fuel pump failure could cause that, but the plane has multiple fuel pumps, both electrical and hydraulic, with instant rollover. How could they all fail at once?
Bird strikes are out, as such an event would leave a lot of dead birds on the ground, which wasn't the case here.
So, it is increasingly looking like simultaneous multiple engine failure, which shouldn't be possible.
Thanks
The latest speculation appears to be focusing on the possibility that the planes, fuel pumps all became vapor-locked. Vapor lock occurs when a pump designed to move liquids experiences the liquid turning into gas when it enters the vacuum side if the pump (decreased pressure = lower boiling point). The gas isn't compressible enough for the pump to move, and so nothing can enter the pump (because it's filled with gas under pressure) and nothing is pumped out because the pump doesn't have the ability to create gas pressure high enough to expel the gas into the downstream piping still full of liquid.
The reason this is significant is because of the nature of jet fuel and the extreme temperatures at the airfield that day. Jet fuel is not as volatile as gasoline, but it will vaporize if the temperature is hot enough. According the Captain Steeve, the possibility of vapor lock is so high at 47 degrees (C) that planes are prohibited from taking off if ambient temperature is that high. The temperature at flight time was 43C. But that was the temperature at the control tower. On the tarmac, it is possible that the temperatures were even higher. Maybe enough higher to push the fuel temperature to 47C or higher.
The reason that this potential solution is attractive, IMO, is that it explains how all three pumps could fail, since that failure could be due to external, not internal, factors. If the conditions are right for one pump to become vapor-locked, they are ripe for all three to become vapor locked. It could even be true that two became vapor locked before the plane left the ground, and then the third one shortly after takeoff.
The solution to preventing another such tragedy might be as simple as re-writing the rule on max ambient temp allowed before takeoff. With sensors installed, the rule could also change to max fuel temp allowed before takeoff.
83C ambient temperature?!!?
The scenario you describe makes sense to me - as you say, it explains the simultaneous failure of the engines - but I have a hard time wrapping my head around that temperature.
Though I guess, it's not the temperature we think of when we talk about how hot a day is (which is measured in the shade), but the actual temperature of the plane that I expect had been sitting on the runway in direct sunlight?
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2025, 12:48:23 PM83C ambient temperature?!!?
The scenario you describe makes sense to me - as you say, it explains the simultaneous failure of the engines - but I have a hard time wrapping my head around that temperature.
Though I guess, it's not the temperature we think of when we talk about how hot a day is (which is measured in the shade), but the actual temperature of the plane that I expect had been sitting on the runway in direct sunlight?
Should have typed 43C. Fixed. Dunno how I brain-farted to 83.
Gotcha, thanks.
Still hot.
Report is out. The implication is that one of the pilots did it intentionally.
QuoteThe aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Report%20VT-ANB.pdf
I'm actually surprised in a modern aircraft the pilots have the ability to cut off fuel manually like that.
The moment we learned that both engines failed almost simultaneously, I figured it had to be something like that. Even with fuel contamination you'd think one engine would fail a bit earlier than the other.
Quote from: Bauer on July 11, 2025, 04:09:15 PMI'm actually surprised in a modern aircraft the pilots have the ability to cut off fuel manually like that.
You probably need that ability for some emergency situation, and in any case, it seems like there are too many ways for suicidal pilots to accomplish their goal to design plane controls around that possibility.
Quote from: Bauer on July 11, 2025, 04:09:15 PMI'm actually surprised in a modern aircraft the pilots have the ability to cut off fuel manually like that.
The cutoff switches are how the plots turn off the engines at the gate. They cannot be turned off by accident and there is no procedure on any checklist on any plane that calls for a fuel cutoff below 400 feet. This is a case of murder/suicide. Not an accident at all.