Air India disaster: Eleven planes that crashed after take-off in the past and the reasons behind
Air India's flight 171 — a Boeing 787 Dreamliner — issued a mayday call and crashed immediately after take off. Data shows that the last recorded altitude of the plane was at 625 feet off the ground just immediately after take off. It flew just 2 Kms more.
Notably this is the first time a 787 Dreamliner had crashed, and Boeing is gathering more details to see if there were any technical faults. Latest reports show that investigators have recovered the black box recorder and soon the exact reason for the crash will emerge.
A key question is: how did the aircraft crash just minutes after takeoff? Analysis of past takeoff accidents points to several common causes: instrument or warning-system failures; collisions with debris or obstacles near the runway; in-flight structural breakups; improper use of rudder or control surfaces; skipped checklists, including flap and slat settings; and tyre damage from runway debris.
Here's a lowdown:
1. Air India Flight AI 855
Date: January 1, 1978
Source: Mumbai
Destination: Dubai
Company: Air India
Flight: Boeing 747
Flight time: One minute
Persons: 190 passengers + 23 crew (all died)
Cause: Flight AI 855 plunged into the sea near the airport, off the coast of Bandra, within 3 km of flying distance at night due to disorientation of the captain soon after instrument failure, killing all the 190 passengers and 23 crew members on board. The flight was headed to Dubai.
According to the investigation report, the aircraft, after one minute of take-off, took a right turn after crossing the coastline and soon after turned to left and never gained level. It lost altitude and then nosedived into the sea.
2. Indian Airlines Flight 491
Date: April 26, 1993
Source: Aurangabad
Destination: Hopping flight on the Delhi-Jaipur-Udaipur-Aurangabad-Bombay route
Company: Indian Airlines
Flight: Boeing 737
Flight time: Within minutes of take off
Persons: 118 passengers + 6 crew (55 died)
Cause: An aircraft carrying 118 people took off from Aurangabad but crashed shortly after takeoff, killing 55 passengers. The plane lifted off near the end of the runway but struck a lorry carrying pressed cotton bales that was passing on a highway approximately 410 feet from the runway's end.
The impact—at a height of around seven feet—damaged the aircraft's left main landing gear, engine cowling, and thrust reverser. Moments later, the aircraft collided with high-tension power lines nearly three kilometres northeast of the runway and crashed into the ground. A post-impact fire engulfed the aircraft, leading to its complete destruction.
3. British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) Flight 783
Date: May 2, 1953
Source: Calcutta
Destination: Delhi
Flight: Comet jet aircraft
Company: British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC)
Flight time: Six minutes after takeoff
Persons: 43 passengers and crew members (all died)
Cause: BOAC Flight 783 crashed shortly after takeoff from Calcutta en route to Delhi, killing all 43 passengers and crew. The aircraft encountered severe rain and thunderstorms and broke apart mid-air just six minutes after takeoff while climbing to 7,500 feet.
Investigators attributed the crash to structural failure caused by either extreme turbulence or pilot over-control while navigating through the storm. The accident marked the first in a series of structural break-up incidents involving the Comet aircraft.
4. American Airlines Flight 587
Date: November 12, 2001
Source: New York JFK
Destination: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Company: American Airlines
Flight: Airbus
Time: Minutes after takeoff, before climb
Persons: 251 passengers + 9 crew (all died)
Cause: The accident happened because the plane's tail fin snapped off in midair. This was caused by the first officer pushing the foot pedals that move the rudder too hard and too often—creating stresses the tail wasn't built to handle. The way the rudder system works, plus some of the advanced manoeuvre training the airline used, made it easier for those excessive pedal movements to occur.
5. Northwest Airlines Flight 255
Date: August 16, 1987
Source: Detroit
Destination: Phoenix
Company: Northwest Airlines
Flight: McDonnell Douglas MD‑82
Flight time: Seconds, crashed near runway end
Persons: 149 passengers + 6 crew (one infant survived)
Cause: The plane barely lifted off right at the runway's end, then wobbled left and right before its left wing hit a light pole, smashing into more poles and a car rental building, breaking apart and catching fire. it happened because the crew skipped the taxi checklist and never set the flaps and slats for takeoff, and the warning system had no power to alert them.
6. Spanair Flight 5022
Date: August 20, 2008
Origin: Madrid
Destination: Canary Islands
Flight: McDonnell Douglas MD‑82
Company: Spanair
Flight time: Just after lift-off
Fatalities: 172 onboard (18 survivors)
Cause: Right after takeoff, the pilots forgot to extend the flaps and slats, so the plane stalled and they lost control. They didn't spot any warning, missed the stall signs, and even pulled back and cut power briefly, which made things worse—all because they skipped the proper flap/slat checklist.
7. Air France Flight 4590 (Concorde)
Date: July 25, 2000
Origin: Paris
Destination: New York
Flight: Concorde supersonic jet
Company: Air France
Flight time: Immediately after take off
Persons: 109 onboard
Cause: Investigators found that a left main landing-gear tire ran over a chunk of sheet metal on the runway and immediately blew out. Debris from the tire slammed into the plane's underside and wheel well. The biggest piece didn't puncture the wing, but it caused a sudden pressure spike inside one fuel tank, blowing out panels and leading to a massive fuel leak.
8. Birgenair Flight 301
Date: February 6, 1996
Origin: Puerto Plata
Destination: Frankfurt
Flight: Boeing 757‑200
Company: Birgenair
Flight time: Five minutes after take-off
Persons: 189 onboard (all died)
Cause: Right from the start the captain's speed gauge wasn't working, so he relied on the first officer's. After takeoff his gauge suddenly kicked in and showed the plane speeding up, then during climb it showed the plane was both nose-high and speeding up, triggering a 'too fast' alarm.
Thinking it was wrong, they shut that warning off. Moments later the stall warning shook the controls and the autopilot and auto-throttle quit. Mixed signals on pitch, speed, and alarms left them confused, they jiggled power and angle settings, lost control, and about five minutes after takeoff the plane crashed.
9. Santa Bárbara Airlines Flight 518
Date: February 21, 2008
Origin: Mérida
Destination: Caracas
Flight: Twin-turboprop aircraft
Company: Santa Bárbara Airlines
Flight time: Shortly after take-off, crashed approximately 7 minutes and 15 seconds (435 seconds)
Persons: No survivors, All 46 onboard were killed
Cause: Controlled flight into terrain due to pilot navigational error in mountainous region
10. Sriwijaya Air Flight SJ182 Jakarta
Date: 9 Jan 2021
Source: Jakarta
Destination: Pontianak
Flight: Boeing 737-500
Company: Sriwijaya Air
Flight time: Four minutes after take off
Persons: 62 onboard (all died)
Cause: During climb one engine stayed at power while the other cut back, so the plane pulled hard to the left. A faulty spoiler sensor hid the imbalance, and when the autopilot kicked off the plane tilted more than 45° left. Trusting the autopilot and not spotting the odd behavior, the pilots didn't catch or fix it in time.
11. Delta Air Lines Flight 1141
Date: August 31, 1988
Origin: Dallas/Fort Worth
Destination: Salt Lake City
Company: Delta Air Lines
Flight: Boeing 727-200
Time airborne: Seconds, crashed near runway
Fatalities: 14 of 108 onboard; 76 injured
Cause: The NTSB report found that the aircraft could only have attempted to take off without flaps or slats extended to take-off configuration. The captain pulled back on the control column to keep the nose raised but this created turbulence over the engines and caused the compressor surges.
The aircraft failed to gain speed due to drag caused by the high angle of attack. On the CVR, the flight crew said that the flaps were deployed but no lever sound was recorded, so it seemed that they failed to deploy the flaps and slats.
The aircraft's take-off warning system failed to alert them to the problem as the switch had been modified to prevent activation whilst taxi-ing.
Compiled by B Renuka Ramakrishna, Safa Salsabeel Z, and Niranjana VB, who are interning with The Hindu Data Team
Sources: The Hindu archives, Bureau of aircraft accidents archives, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Aviation Safety Council, Federal Aviation Administration, National Transportation Safety Board.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Boeing 747 wing smashes into runway as plane lands amid typhoon. Harrowing video goes viral
The wing of a Boeing 747 aircraft smashed into the runway while attempting a landing in Taiwan. Horrifying footage of the crash — which sent sparks flying into the air — has been widely circulated online. A video captures the moment the wing of a Boeing 747 crashed into the runway while landing in Taipei Why did the Boeing 747 wing smash into the runway? According to a report in the Daily Mail, United Parcel Service (UPS) Express cargo flight 5X61 was attempting a landing during Typhoon Podul. While trying to touch down in Taipei, Taiwan, it was struck by strong typhoon winds. The Boeing 747 jet had to attempt three landings before it was finally able to touch down. When and where did the incident occur? The flight from Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG) to Taipei–Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport had departed on August 13. Dramatic footage has captured the moment the aircraft's wing smashed into the runway, sending a shower of sparks into the air. The Boeing 747 managed to taxi safely after the wing crash. Was anyone injured in the incident? Officials confirmed that there were no reported injuries and the plane completed its rollout successfully, according to a report in The Sun. Was there any damage to the jet? The Boeing 747 suffered damage to its nacelle, which is the part of the jet that houses the engine. An incident report from the Aviation Safety Network stated: "UPS flight 5X61, a Boeing 747-8F, suffered an engine pod strike during a night-time landing on runway 05L at Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport (TPE). "At the time of arrival, strong gusting winds with windshear associated with Typhoon Podul were reported at TPE. At 11:20 UTC, the flight aborted the approach to runway 05L and executed a go-around. The aircraft was positioned for another approach, which was also aborted. "At 12:08 UTC, the aircraft landed after the third approach and taxied to the apron. Photos after the incident show a cowling had separated from the engine."
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Viral Video: New footage of UPS 747-8F engine pod strike during landing at Taiwan International Airport surface
Months after the Air India flight AI171, Boeing 787-8, crashed into a medical college hostel in Ahmedabad, India, another footage of a UPS Boeing 747-8F surfaced on social media, experiencing an engine pod strike during landing at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport (RCTP) on Wednesday. Since the clip surfaced online, it quickly went viral and started making the rounds on the internet. A UPS Airlines Boeing 747 8 freighter had a dramatic landing in Taiwan yesterday after departing from Hong Kong International Airport (HKG). While attempting to land at Taipei Taoyuan International Airport (TPE), the aircraft experienced an engine pod strike, sending a burst of sparks into the night sky. The impact caused visible damage to the engine pod. The incident happened during the plane's third landing attempt, as strong, gusty winds created extremely difficult conditions for the crew on Wednesday night. UPS Airlines flight 5X61 faced an engine damage issue; the video went viral According to Simple Flying, UPS Airlines flight 5X61 is a regularly scheduled cargo flight that starts in Hong Kong. While its final destination is Muhammad Ali International Airport (SDF) in Louisville, Kentucky, it has stops en route in Taipei and at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC) in the US federal state of Alaska. This airline uses both Boeing 747-400F and 747-8F cargo aircraft on this long route. On Wednesday, the flight left Hong Kong at 17:50 local time and was in the air for two hours and 20 minutes, around an hour longer than normal. Initially, because of the strong gusting winds prevailing in Taipei, the aircraft had to make three approaches before making a successful landing. However, during the landing, the aircraft's number four engine, located on the outer right wing, made contact with the runway, causing a burst of sparks to fly into the air. New footage of a UPS Boeing 747-8F experiencing an engine pod strike during landing at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport (RCTP).📸 by Jal_kana Viral video shows the dramatic damage to the aircraft The viral video shows how challenging the weather conditions were for aircraft landing in Taipei the previous night. According to the Aviation Safety Network, the windshear affecting the area during the incident was linked to Typhoon Podul. The severe weather conditions significantly disrupted airport operations in Taipei. Data from Flight Aware revealed that a total of 180 departures and 141 arrivals were delayed on the same day. However, the dramatic nature of the aircraft's touchdown has left netizens in shock. Netizens react to the viral aeroplane video As soon as the video surfaced on the internet, it quickly went viral and grabbed attention. One X (formerly called Twitter) user wrote, "That looks like a very strong crosswind!" "Totally, looks like the pilots tried to save left side but hit the right engine," another added. "Tough !!!! Whatever it came down on its wheels so good job" "Is that just crosswinds or a control surface jam (rudder stuck?)" To stay updated on the stories that are going viral, follow Indiatimes Trending.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
Pilots were blamed until computer issue was found: US aviation attorney on his previous cases
Mike Andrews, Principal Attorney at US law firm Beasley Allen concluded his second visit to Gujarat during which he met several victim families of the AI 171 crash in Vadodara, Surat, Diu and Ahmedabad. With contracts signed with the firm, over 80 families who lost loved ones in the Boeing 787 8 crash will seek raw data to understand what could have led to the crash. In an exclusive interview with The Indian Express, Andrews talked about similarities between the AI 171 crash and past such cases, takeaways from the crash site, and more. Excerpts: Similarities with earlier cases In the earlier instances, if something went wrong, the pilots were blamed. Until it was determined that it was a computer issue. In the July 25 Munich flight that had an engine failure, it came back and landed. They all survived, no one blamed the pilot. On July 31, a flight left from Los Angeles to Santiago and the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) deployed right after takeoff. That's never supposed to happen unless there's a failure of some sort. And we've been told that there are some very specific parameters that would call for the RAT, the failure of both engines, which is an exceedingly rare-Hydraulic failure, electrical failure. That plane circled long enough to dump a lot of fuel… came back for landing, and everyone was safe. They did not blame the pilots. They survived. In the 2019 case of Tokyo to Osaka (Boeing 787 Dreamliner) All Nippon Airways, just as the plane is about to land, it lost both engines. The plane landed. They were safe, no one was killed, the pilots were not blamed. Because the pilots survived. And critically, in that incident, from the flight data recorder (FDR) the digital record, not the cockpit voice as the digital record is really what matters, it was revealed that the TCMA system (Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation system) malfunctioned. So the question we've had consistently is we know that there's a computer problem. Was it the same thing here? Because if it happens in reverse, if it happens on takeoff, you get this situation. You have a loss of engines and you have the inability to gain altitude thrust and power. You have a crash. That's what happens. RAT deployment issue It was almost simultaneous with the take off. That's a big question for us, because the timeline that we can get from the flight data recorder is very specific. When the weight of the airplane is on the landing gear, there's a switch that's depressed. When the plane takes off, the weight comes up, the gear drops, and the switch goes off. It knows at least that landing gear is off the ground, and there's a switch in the front gear and in both of the main gears. The computer is recording that. We think the RAT deploys almost immediately after that switch is initiated, when it begins to take off. And so that is critical for us because, again, we've been told that the RAT only deploys if you have failures. So what caused the RAT to deploy? We've heard the narrative that focusses on pilot error here on the switches. It's important to remember how a switch works. So the computer in this plane is looking at the current that is flowing. There's no camera on the switch. There's nothing that is looking at and saying, 'Oh, the switch moved. There's also not something that's called a proximity sensor. There's not one of those on one of these switches either. So it doesn't know if the bottom part is moved or the top part of it. It doesn't know either. So the question becomes, was the switch actually moved, or did the current change? Because the computer is going to register that one way or the other. Now, is the computer smart enough to know that the switch has not moved, that it's just a current change? That is why you can't take it out of context. And so the context of exactly what happened here around the comments that are made, around the switch changes, around the timing of the RAT deployment– that's the real story. The more out of context, the more pinpoint you take the data, the less of the truth you get. On meeting the lone survivor Vishwash Kumar in Diu I went there to see him not as an attorney. We went to his home, we met the parents, saw the home, and as we were there talking, they sort of made an indication, if we would like to meet him. Which is completely unexpected. And I asked no questions, and I gave him my word that any communication would be private. And so anything that was said or not said during that, it was a very brief interaction, will always be private. Even with the language barrier, you can read people. This is a humble family. These are hardworking people. Again, the last folks who ever thought that anything like this would ever happen. Because not only is he a survivor, he's a victim. And they lost another family. It was a very profound experience… Instance of findings in an air crash case changing after the law firm's intervention I can give you some vague information, because in cases that are resolved, there's confidentiality involved in those. There was a crash, a body was in the water for a period of time. It was brought up several days after the crash and the postmortem was done based on only the information that was had at the time. The facts of the crash were only known towards the end because the medical examiner is not really concerned with aircraft aviation. Sometimes, they don't even know what happened. They just want to know what happened to the body. So the family got us involved, and this was a smaller aircraft. We took possession of the salvage of the wreckage, and hired our experts to examine what happened, and how it happened. And we learned that this aircraft had a malfunction in the oxygen system on board. And so this pilot became oxygen deprived as he took off. So this guy was in a plane that was going up to about 24,000 feet where the oxygen concentration is reduced. When we fly commercially, when you get up, there's a pressurised cabin, it's providing oxygen. This had a little bit different system. When you are becoming hypoxic, you just generally kind of get sleepy. Well, that happened to him (the pilot) right after takeoff. And he had a full tank of fuel. And so the plane flew for a long way…He's alone for the ride. It continued to go until it ran out of fuel just off the coast and crashed in the water. So the initial finding was crash-related. But because of our work, we were able to go back and show the medical examiner and show the authorities, the investigating agencies…that look– We're just saying you didn't have all of the information at the time. Here's what we learned. And because of that, the findings, which were not complete, were changed. And because of that, the family then knew that it wasn't a pilot error. They knew that it was an equipment problem. Visit to the crash site in July and after exactly two months The first time we were there, there was still a big police presence. It was cordoned off at the main intersection. And we were escorted by the police to the bottom end of the accident site. Later I learned, when I went back and looked at my photographs, we were standing at the exact spot where the survivor walked out. From that perspective, we could see the burned buildings, the burned trees.. There was rubble. It was still, it was really quiet in that area. That stillness and the fact that there were no people there in itself speaks of something awful that happened, in an area where typically, you would see a lot of people. So that's one of the first takeaways. Last night, the street was open. Now the area has been largely cleaned up, at least in the roadway. They're still dealing with all the debris. The area has come back to life. There's traffic going around the curve right there. But there's still a lot of cleanup and a lot of rebuilding, a lot of work to do there. Very, very different feeling… being there with a large group of families. Some of them were telling me at the time, 'This is our first time coming to the scene and there were a lot of emotions in that group, you know, one of them was telling me, 'This is the first time I am seeing the place where my husband was killed'. And I mean, that's powerful to hear somebody say that. I don't think that's a thing like healing or closure. You've got a new normal that you're dealing with, your timeline has changed. You're not ever going to get back to that person again. And you shouldn't be, because it matters. The loss…the people… the life matters. . You're not moving on. You're moving through. Grief is not linear. It is not the same every day. It is going to be good and bad and middle and awful and great, it's an up and down mix. And so they need that group to rely upon from a psychological perspective.
