Air India crash videos suggest errors in cockpit take-off drills

India Today

a day ago

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner (VT-ANB), crashed in Ahmedabad's Meghaninagar at 1:38 PM IST, shortly after takeoff from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. The aircraft, bound for London Gatwick, reached only 600–650 feet before issuing a MAYDAY call and crashing into a residential area.This analysis explores the probable causes of the catastrophic crash, focusing on the aircraft's low altitude, low speed, and landing gear configuration, based on preliminary evidence and crash videos.
The aircraft reached only 600–650 feet before issuing a MAYDAY call and crashing into a residential area
advertisementCrash ContextAircraft: Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, a modern twin-engine jet with advanced fly-by-wire systems and GE Aerospace GEnx engines, heavily fueled for a 4,200-mile flight.
Conditions: Clear weather, 43C, near-sea-level airport (180 feet elevation), high-density altitude reducing lift and thrust.Crew: Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kundar.Key Indicators: Low altitude (600–650 feet), low speed, and landing gear down, suggesting failure to climb effectively.Probable Causes1. Configuration ErrorA configuration error during takeoff involves incorrect settings or actions that prevent the aircraft from achieving the necessary performance (lift, thrust, or climb rate). Common errors include wrong flap settings, insufficient thrust, premature rotation (lifting off too early), or failure to retract landing gear, all of which can reduce climb capability and lead to a stall or loss of control, especially at low altitudes.
A configuration error during takeoff means incorrect settings that hinder performance
advertisementWhy Configuration Errors Matter?Takeoff is a critical phase with tight performance margins. The 787 requires precise settings for flaps, thrust, and rotation speed (Vr) to achieve lift-off and climb, especially in hot conditions. Errors in these settings, combined with low altitude and speed, leave little time for recovery, as seen in the rapid descent after the MAYDAY call.What Happens: Flaps increase lift and drag during takeoff, allowing the aircraft to fly at lower speeds. The 787 typically uses Flaps 5 or 15 for takeoff, depending on weight, runway length, and temperature.Setting flaps too low (eg, Flaps 0) reduces lift, requiring higher speeds to take off, while excessive flaps (eg, Flaps 20) increase drag, hindering climb.
Flaps increase lift and drag during takeoff, allowing the aircraft to fly at lower speeds
Ahmedabad Context: At 43C, the reduced air density lowered lift, requiring precise flap settings. If the pilots selected insufficient flaps (eg, Flaps 0 instead of 5), the aircraft may have struggled to generate lift, leading to the observed low altitude.advertisementHuman Factors: Distraction (eg, responding to ATC or a cockpit alert, like engine failure) or miscommunication during pre-takeoff checks could lead to incorrect flap settings.The 787's electronic checklist should flag this, but manual override or rushed procedures could bypass it.Example: Spanair Flight 5022 (2008, MD-82) crashed in Madrid due to zero flaps during takeoff, causing insufficient lift and a stall, despite clear weather.
If pilots selected reduced thrust or miscalculated required power, the aircraft could fail to climb
2. Insufficient ThrustThe 787's GEnx engines require specific thrust settings based on weight, runway length, and temperature. At 43C, high-density altitude reduced engine efficiency, necessitating higher thrust. If pilots used reduced thrust (derated takeoff) or miscalculated power via the flight management system (FMS), the heavily fuelled aircraft (near 227 tons) could fail to climb, explaining the low altitude and speed.
Pilots typically retract gear after a positive climb rate
advertisement3. Failure to Retract Landing GearCrash videos show the landing gear down, increasing drag and reducing climb performance. Pilots typically retract gear after a positive climb rate. Leaving it down suggests:Oversight: Distraction from a stall warning or engine issue.Deliberate Choice: Anticipating an emergency landing, though the MAYDAY call and rapid descent suggest insufficient time to return.4. Engine Failure (Including Bird Strike)The lack of engine noise in videos and the MAYDAY call suggest possible thrust loss. Potential causes include:Bird Strike: Ahmedabad's known risk could affect one or both engines, though dual-engine failure is rare (<1 in 1 million flights).Fuel Contamination or Mechanical Failure: Less likely given the GEnx engines' reliability, but possible.Context: Engine failure alone doesn't explain the landing gear configuration, making it a secondary factor compared to configuration errors.5. High-Temperature Performance Issues
Distraction or miscommunication during pre-takeoff checks could lead to incorrect flap settings
At 43C, reduced air density lowered lift and thrust, requiring precise configuration. While the 787's FMS accounts for temperature, a miscalculation of rotation speed (Vr) or thrust, or an intersection takeoff, could exacerbate issues. This is likely a contributing factor rather than the primary cause.advertisement6. Structural Failure
The 787's GEnx engines require specific thrust settings based on weight, runway length, and temperature
A failure in flight controls or structure is unlikely given the 787's redundant systems and perfect safety record. The gear-down and low-speed evidence points to pilot error over a sudden mechanical issue.7. Sabotage or TerrorismNo evidence supports sabotage, and the MAYDAY call indicates crew awareness of an issue, not a sudden explosion. Security measures further reduce this likelihood.ConclusionThe low altitude, low speed, and landing gear down strongly suggest a configuration error—likely incorrect flap settings, insufficient thrust, premature rotation, or failure to retract gear—as the primary cause of the Air India Flight AI171 crash. Engine failure (possibly from a bird strike or fuel issue) and high-temperature performance challenges are secondary contributors. The 787's advanced systems should mitigate such errors, but human factors, such as a cockpit emergency, distraction or miscommunication, likely played a critical role in this tragedy.(Images by Vani Gupta and Ayushi Srivastava) Must Watch