Video Captures Last 3 Seconds Before Ahmedabad Crash: Did Air India Flight Suffer Total Power Failure?
Ahmedabad: Nine national and international aviation bodies are now investigating the tragic June 12 crash of an Air India flight in Ahmedabad. A crucial clue may lie in a 19-second rooftop video shot by a teenager, which purportedly captured a rare and telling detail just seconds before impact – the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) system deployed mid-air.
Group Captain Mohit Chaturvedi (retd), a former IAF pilot who now flies VVIP aircraft, analysed the video and flagged the RAT deployment as a potential sign that all main engines and power sources failed during takeoff. 'This hints at total electrical system failure,' he said.
Chaturvedi explained that commercial aircraft like the Boeing 787 have multiple power safeguards. Normally, power is generated through two Integrated Drive Generators (IDG) on the engines and a third unit in the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) located in the tail. If all three fail, each engine still carries a backup generator. If those fail too, the load shifts to two small Permanent Magnetic Generators (PMGs) used to power essentials like landing lights.
But if even PMGs go offline, only one last failsafe remains – the RAT system. Mounted behind the landing gear, it works like a wind turbine, deploying automatically in emergencies to generate enough power to run flight-critical systems.
'The RAT being visible in the crash video means that all primary and backup systems failed. This was not a normal technical snag,' Chaturvedi said.
He believes the pilot issued a Mayday call and likely said 'loss of thrust', but did not get time to relay further details. 'Without AC power, even a second's delay can knock out flight displays. If the pilot cannot see ahead, control is impossible,' he said.
Chaturvedi also pointed out a key design change in the Boeing 787 – unlike older models that used hydraulic systems powered by engine bleed-air, the 787 uses electric pumps to generate hydraulic pressure. This saves weight but makes the aircraft more dependent on uninterrupted electrical supply. If AC power is lost entirely, landing gear, flight controls and nose-wheel steering could stop responding.
'If the APU and both IDGs failed, the gear would not retract. And that would disrupt the aircraft's aerodynamic balance during climb,' he explained.
He noted that the plane appeared to veer left shortly before crashing. 'This could be linked to asymmetric thrust or disrupted control surfaces,' he added.
Regarding takeoff protocol, he stressed that both pilots perform precise calculations before liftoff, accounting for runway length, aircraft weight, temperature and humidity. These parameters determine the takeoff speed and angle.
Could the crash be due to pilot error during input? 'Highly unlikely,' Chaturvedi said and added, 'Even if flaps were wrongly configured, the system triggers a warning. The computer will not accept incorrect settings.'
He dismissed theories about fuel sabotage: 'That is baseless. The fuel tank is centrally located, but controls are in the cockpit. No one outside can cut off fuel. Also, fuel is loaded via external bowsers, and DGCA rules mandate that all such units be seized after a crash.'
He added, 'A Boeing 787 can fly 45 minutes on a single engine. Each one delivers 53,000 pounds of thrust. One engine failure would not have brought it down, especially right after takeoff.'
Another expert, Group Captain Chandraprakash Dwivedi (retd), who has logged over 3,000 flying hours, agreed. 'Most crashes occur during landing or takeoff, but dual-engine failure is extremely rare. Only seven such cases have occurred globally. In 2009, both engines failed on a US flight and the pilot landed safely in the Hudson River,' he said.
He believes Ahmedabad's crash points to a serious technical breakdown. 'Both engines failing at the same time is nearly impossible in Indian aviation history. The investigation will confirm what exactly went wrong,' he added.
Both experts suggest that a complete electrical collapse, not a simple pilot error or fuel glitch, may have led to a fatal failure of systems. The RAT deployment, captured just three seconds before impact, could be the most important clue investigators have.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ahmedabad Plane Crash: Who were Vaibhav Patel and Jinal Goswami, the UK-based couple expecting a child who died in the tragedy?
In a devastating turn of events, 29-year-old Vaibhav Patel and his 27-year-old wife Jinal Goswami, who was seven months pregnant, were among those killed in the tragic Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad. The couple had travelled to India from London to celebrate their baby shower with loved ones. I know many in Croydon are mourning the loss of Vaibhav Patel and Jinal Goswami after the tragedy in India. My thoughts are with their families and all those who lost loved ones. ❤️ A celebration turned into mourning The couple had recently moved to Croydon from Southampton, where Vaibhav worked and had built a tight-knit community of friends. A decade-long friend, Nirav Patel from Southampton, shared how the pair had been elated about the upcoming arrival of their first child. They had married four years ago and were eagerly preparing to step into parenthood. Nirav revealed that Vaibhav had no father, and carried the weight of responsibility for his family back in Gujarat. 'He was the big son holding everyone together,' he said, speaking about Vaibhav's quiet strength and relentless commitment to family. Jinal Patel and Vaibhav Patel of Keliya Vasna village in Dholka were going to London after completing their wedding rituals, they lost their lives in a flight crash. Last call, final goodbye Just two days before boarding the ill-fated flight, Vaibhav had called Nirav, excitedly sharing plans to return home. That phone call turned out to be their last conversation. Nirav remembered the countless memories they shared, travelling across India together, from Rajasthan to Goa, and expressed disbelief that their joyous story had ended in tragedy. Remembered as a gentleman Harshil Thaker, manager of Papa John's in Portswood where Vaibhav had previously worked, described him as a 'true gentleman.' He added that Vaibhav was a hardworking man, deeply rooted in his role as a family provider, and always carried himself with humility and kindness. A catastrophic loss The crash claimed over 270 lives, including 169 Indian nationals and 53 Britons. Among them were not just passengers, but futures, families, and stories like that of Vaibhav and Jinal—a young couple whose lives were blossoming, now remembered in silence and sorrow. Their funeral took place in India on Monday, with grief hanging heavy over the ceremony that should have been a celebration of new life.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Gaurav Taneja, aka Flying Beast, opens up on chance of pilot error in detailed analysis of Air India Flight 171 crash: ‘May have killed the wrong engine'
YouTuber Gaurav Taneja, who is popularly known as Flying Beast online, offered his detailed theory about what might have caused the Air India Flight 171 plane crash in Ahmedabad on June 12. Taneja has posted regularly about the tragedy; hours after it occurred, he suggested that it might be a rare case of 'dual engine failure'. Later, when other commentators indicated that pilot error might have been one of the reasons behind the crash, he defended the deceased pilots and said that they are the easiest people to blame because they aren't there to defend themselves. But, in his new video, which runs nearly an hour long, Taneja seemed to suggest that pilot error may partially be the reason why Air India 171 crashed into a medical college moments after takeoff. Taneja is a graduate of IIT Kharagpur, and served as a commercial pilot for a decade. He explained that based on the data that he has accessed and the experts he has spoken to, he has certain theories based on his expertise and experience. He said that he doesn't wish to attract any legal trouble by implicating any person or organisation. He debunked several theories surrounding fuel contamination and bird strikes. He said that modern aircraft are fully equipped to fly on one functional engine, and that a dual engine failure is virutally unheard of in modern aviation. Also read – Amid 13 Air India 787 cancellations, Gaurav Taneja lauds pilots for putting their foot down and 'refusing to accept' unsafe aircraft Taneja said that Air India Flight 171 took off later than expected, which could be because one engine had failed while it was on the runway. Video footage of the takeoff, he said, shows a large dust cloud form just as the plane lifts off, which suggests that it was near the end of the runway. He simulated the takeoff with the exact specifications available, and discovered that the pilots had basically half a minute to figure out what to do while things started going wrong. He said that they appeared to be 'startled by the extra load and the engine failure'. 'The first shocking information we got our hands on was the fact that the aircraft consumed more runway than normal. This convinced me that I was going in the wrong direction… The aircraft was close to the maximum takeoff weight, which is 2.20-2.25 tonnes. Because the pilots decided to proceed with the takeoff, we have to assume that whatever engine failure happened was after the point of no return. They could've aborted the takeoff only up till a point on the runway… If both engines had failed, the aircraft wouldn't have taken off at all. But even with one engine down, it took more runway than expected.' He said that this may be due to overloading of cargo, but made it clear that he has no proof of these claims. Taneja explained that weight plays a key role, because the heavier an aircraft is, the more fuel it burns. This is why airlines charge money from passengers for extra baggage. He continued with his theory, 'Imagine if there was overloading, and one engine failed on the runway. The pilots must've been startled. They would've seen the perimeter wall of the airport and wondered why the aircraft hadn't taken off… They were already tense about the engine failure and the delayed lift-off. They were distracted. They were supposed to pull up the landing gear at around 100 feet. Now, listen carefully. They climed for 100-150 feet with a damaged engine, and forgot to pull the landing gear up. In the Boeing 787, pilots are required to follow 'memory items' in the event of an engine failure. When they hit 400 feet, the pilot 'flying' pulled the thrust idle switch for the faulty engine, and the pilot 'monitoring' pulled the fuel control switch off for the wrong engine… One engine was damaged on the ground, the other engine they killed themselves.' Taneja had previously defended the pilots against criticism. 'At 400 feet, they were without power, and the aircraft started losing altitude. Pulling the fuel control switch off and the engine fire switch are irreversible actions on a Boeing aircraft. Engines will not come back.' To conclude, he said, 'Late takeoff because one engine failed, pilots were startled, they didn't pull the gear up… Once they have cut the wrong engine, they are without power. You can't do anything after that. You're going down, and you have 10-12 seconds before impact. The footage shows they tried to pull the nose up, but the plane crashed into a building, and the worst disaster in the history of aviation happened.' Taneja said that there could be many reasons behind pilot error, such as fatigue and training. Defending the pilots in a previous video, Taneja had said, 'Pilots outside India are claiming that the crash happened because the Indian pilots retracted flap instead of the gear because the videos before the crash show that the gear is down. Pilots gear up when the flight is 100 feet above the surface. They said wings are supposed to create lift, which is supposed to keep the aircraft in the air and when you retract the flaps there is a loss of lift and that loss of lift caused the flight to go down but I have a serious problem with this theory.'
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Very Sorry: Air India Chairman N Chandrasekharan Apologises After AI-171 Tragedy
New Delhi: N Chandrasekaran, Chairman of Tata Sons and Air India, has apologised for the Air India AI-171 tragedy that claimed more than 270 lives after the flight crashed in Ahmedabad on June 12. He said, "It is an extremely difficult situation where I have no words to express to console any of the families of those who died. I deeply regret that this accident happened in a Tata-run airline. And I feel very sorry. All we can do is to be with the families at this time, grieve with them, and we will do everything to support them at this hour and beyond." When asked about the reason for the crash and whether Air India is privy to any preliminary findings, Chandrasekaran said one would have to wait for the probe to conclude. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau has begun its investigations into the crash, and the DGCA has also appointed a committee. Chandrasekaran said that it could be a month until some of the preliminary findings are out. He, however, claimed that AI171, the flight that crashed, had a clean history and that no red flags had been raised. "There are speculations about human error, speculations about airlines, speculations about engines, maintenance, all kinds," Chandrasekaran said. "There are a lot of speculations and theories. But the fact that I know so far is that this particular aircraft, this specific tail, AI-171, has a clean history. As for the engines, the right engine was a new engine put in March 2025. The left engine was last serviced in 2023 and is due for its next maintenance check in December 2025. Both engine histories are clean. Both pilots were exceptional," he added. Chandrasekaran further said, "Captain Sabharwal had more than 11,500 hours of flying experience, and the first officer, Clive (Kundar) had more than 3400 hours of flying experience. What I hear from colleagues is that they were excellent pilots and great professionals. So, we can't jump to any conclusions. I am told by all the experts that the black box and recorders will definitely tell the story. So, we just have to wait for that." When asked about the show-cause notices that had been issued by the DGCA in the recent past to Air India or fines levied on the airline for delays and operational matters, the Tata Sons Chairman said these were not related to the AI-171 aircraft. "These are different from safety issues. If there is a safety issue, there is no way the DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation) will allow us to fly. And with respect to this specific aircraft, what I have seen is what I have told you," said, Tata Sons Chairman. Chandrasekaran also said that none of the 33 Boeing 787 Dreamliners that are part of Air India's fleet are serviced by Turkish Technic, amid questions being raised about any Turkish link to the aircraft that crashed. "None of them (the 33 Dreamliners) are maintained by Turkish Technic. Most of them are maintained by AIESL (AI Engineering Services Limited) or SIA Engineering Company (whose parent organisation is Singapore Airlines)," he added.
