Air India Crash: Did an electrical failure doom the Dreamliner as both engines failed mid-air?

Time of India

6 hours ago

Three days after the deadly crash of the Air India Express Dreamliner in Ahmedabad—an accident that killed 272 people—the aviation world is still grappling with one burning question: what caused a modern, twin-engine jet to stall and crash just 32 seconds after take-off began?
The lone survivor and another pilot on the ground reported hearing a loud boom during take-off, leading experts to suspect a possible engine failure, reported TOI.
While losing one engine isn't usually disastrous—modern jets can safely take off, climb, and return on a single engine—what followed defies the norm.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable
Novelodge
Did the second engine also fail? If not, what else could have triggered the sudden crash?
A rare and puzzling event
Live Events
Twin-engine failures are extremely rare—only seven such cases have been recorded globally in over 70 years.
Past causes include bird strikes (like the "Miracle on the Hudson" in 2009), shutting down the wrong engine (as with British Midland in 1989), or fuel contamination. But in this case, a bird strike has already been ruled out, noted the report.
What makes this crash particularly unusual is the aircraft involved: the Boeing 787 Dreamliner—a "more-electric" jet designed to save fuel and reduce maintenance by replacing many traditional systems with electric ones.
This shift makes the ongoing investigation unprecedented. Is this a one-off glitch, or does it expose a design flaw in one of the world's most advanced planes?
According to the news outlet, a senior 787 pilot said it's likely one engine partially or completely shut down after the boom. But with one engine still working, why didn't the aircraft climb and return?
One theory is that the pilots were startled by the sound and forgot to retract the landing gear, increasing drag. Another suggests that the co-pilot may have mistakenly retracted the wing flaps instead of the landing gear—though even that shouldn't have been fatal with one engine still functioning.
Did the plane lose all power?
Some senior pilots believe both engines failed moments after lift-off, which would explain why the landing gear was never retracted, TOI noted. One possible cause: failure of Variable Frequency Starter Generators (VFSGs)—key components that provide electric power and start the engines.
If they failed, they could have knocked out the Electronic Engine Controls (EECs), essentially the jet's "throttle computers." Without them, the engines may have dropped to idle power, leaving the pilots unable to increase thrust.
Worse, if both engines and the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) were disconnected from the electrical system, the EECs would stop working altogether. While APU can act as a backup, it takes about 90 seconds to spool up and provide support—far more time than the 32 seconds the plane had before crashing.
In short: even if pilots called for help, there wasn't enough time for backup systems to kick in.
Interestingly, there's some speculation that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—a small emergency wind turbine that pops out to provide basic power—was deployed.
Some pilots say a dark blur in crash footage could be the RAT, which would only appear if all main power sources had failed. Unlike the APU, though, the RAT doesn't produce enough power to safely fly or land a plane—only to operate bare-minimum systems.
Weight, thrust, and possible mistakes
Other theories focus on human error and aircraft weight. Captain Amit Singh, an air safety expert, suspects the aircraft may have been overloaded—possibly with cargo.
TOI further reported that if the actual weight was more than what the pilots had entered into the system, it could explain the longer take-off roll and why the plane couldn't maintain altitude after losing an engine.
Another senior pilot speculated that the crew might have mistakenly entered only the aircraft's "zero fuel weight"—excluding the 50–60 tons of fuel onboard. That would have led to lower thrust settings during take-off, which, when paired with an engine failure, could have proved disastrous.
But others pushed back on that idea. A B787 commander argued that the aircraft's weight sensors—linked to the landing gear—would have alerted the pilots if their inputs were significantly off.
Regardless, one fact appears increasingly clear: at least one of the two engines wasn't producing thrust when the plane hit the ground. Photos from the crash site show no fan blade damage or casing breaches on one engine, which experts say suggests it was either shut down, flamed out, or idling.
Some have floated the idea that the wrong engine was shut down—but that action typically happens at around 400 feet of altitude, and the plane never got that high.
What's next?
The investigation is now focusing on the electrical systems and engine response—especially the role of the VFSGs, EECs, and whether the APU had time to engage. Sabotage has already been ruled out by the National Security Guard, shifting attention to potential maintenance lapses and design vulnerabilities.
The Dreamliner is packed with cutting-edge tech, including:
Four Variable Frequency Starter Generators (VFSGs) on the engines
Two APU Starter Generators (ASGs) for emergency backup
A Ram Air Turbine (RAT) for last-resort power
Two lithium-ion batteries, including one for backup flight controls
If the cause turns out to be a systems glitch or design weakness, this crash could reshape how these high-tech aircraft are flown and maintained worldwide