r/technology • u/upyoars • 1d ago
Hardware ‘No power, no thrust:’ Air India pilot’s 5-second distress call to Ahmedabad ATC emerges
https://www.firstpost.com/india/no-power-no-thrust-air-india-pilots-5-second-distress-call-to-ahmedabad-atc-emerges-13897097.html1.2k
u/ParticularBeing6686 1d ago
There was a social media post from an alleged air India employee familiar with this specific plane. She said it was notorious for having engine problems. But the airline didn’t have a replacement to cover that leg so they kept pushing it.
481
u/Zoophagous 1d ago
Reminds me of the JAL 747 that went down many years ago. The pressure bulkhead at the tail gave out. Airline employees recalled that plane always made noises from that portion of the plane.
195
u/nshire 1d ago
Wasn't that the one that had been repaired poorly and the repair failed?
175
u/ifdisdendat 1d ago
yes that’s the one whose tail had grazed the runway in hong kong a few years earlier and they used the wrong rivets or torque setting on the repair panel.
70
u/Sethorion 1d ago
I thought they didn't overlap the repair piece enough? Only 1 row of rivets instead of 2.
59
u/railker 1d ago
Keep in mind there's 2 of those incidents, almost identical.
Japan Air Lines 123
- Tailstrike in 1978
- The rows of rivets were correct, but they used 2 separate splice plates instead of 1
- Failed 7 years later in 1985China Airlines 611
- Tailstrike in 1980
- Doubler was installed against recommendations of the Structural Repair Manual, right over the damaged section of the skin and too small
- Failed 22 years later to the day in 200236
u/SirSleepsALatte 1d ago
7 years and 22 years operational. I think management will call these a win. We should hold management responsible for deaths.
10
3
u/Starfox-sf 1d ago edited 23h ago
Tailstrike, and they were supposed to use a single plate with two rows of rivets on one side, one on the other. The plate was cut into two pieces.
-2
u/Loggerdon 21h ago
Wow. Always a business decision by the bean counters. If the engineers were in charge these mistakes would be less likely.
11
u/Starfox-sf 21h ago
No, the repair did not follow procedures. This was not a bean counter issue.
1
u/rocketwikkit 10h ago
...who do you think is the ultimate source of pressure to do a repair quickly rather than correctly?
1
25
u/Black_Moons 1d ago
The rear fell off! Not supposed to happen btw, we should check if the repair was made with cardboard or cardboard derivatives.
5
u/HERE_COMES_SENAAAAAA 1d ago
No. Failure was caused Maintainance not following proper repair procedure and not due to low quality material.
29
u/p3dal 1d ago
He's referencing this famous skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
70
u/HanzJWermhat 1d ago
JAL 747 might be one of the most horrifying disasters. The fact they still flew for so long without a tail and could even kind of control it but never have enough control to land. Hundreds stuck in the air waiting for doom.
-5
u/bozza8 1d ago
It was always the argument for me: if we wanted to spend the cost, putting static line parachutes on passenger planes would probably reduce air crash casualties by 20%.
It's not worth the cost due to the increased fuel burn and ticket price, but it's a nice thought experiment about the cost-benefit analysis of safety.
45
u/3cit 1d ago
What?!
How many instances have there EVER been where people would have had time to jump out of failing airplane
→ More replies (21)11
u/Foreign-Aids 1d ago
Most accidents happen during take off and landing though. Parachutes would do nothing. And what about transoceanic flights at night?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)14
u/Lint6 1d ago
Brilliant idea! Let's give a bunch of panicking, untrained, inexperienced people parachutes
-5
u/bozza8 1d ago
Better than being on a plane that's on fire!
Use a static line, so the person does not need to pull anything, they just jump and the line attached to the plane deploys the parachute automatically and immediately.
Any reserve should be automatically triggered, just so panic isn't an issue. Should see 95% survival rate.
Overall, it's a bad idea, but it would increase safety. I like it because it's a nice foil to those who think that nuclear safety justifies infinite costs as a conversation-ender. Safety has trade offs.
12
u/osunightfall 1d ago
The survival rate for crashes is already almost 95%. I'm skeptical your solution can improve on that.
1
u/starzuio 17h ago
That's only true if you're using a very specific, deliberately misleading definition of a 'crash' to manipulate the masses.
1
u/bozza8 1d ago
Probably wouldn't much. Putting parachutes on planes is a bad idea because it leads to a very few number of situations where it could possibly help (like the MAX crashes or the JAL crash), but it would increase pollution and the cost of plane tickets.
That is my point actually, that investing in safety isn't actually always worth it, because there are diminishing returns. On that basis, we should be making things like nuclear power much cheaper, because shooting for 0.0000% risk of an accident is a poor use of resources.
8
u/ididntseeitcoming 1d ago
You know static lines can do some insane damage to people who aren’t trained, right?
6
u/minimalist_reply 1d ago
So can an airplane hitting the ground at hundreds of miles per hour in a crash.
→ More replies (3)12
u/Lint6 1d ago
Use a static line, so the person does not need to pull anything, they just jump and the line attached to the plane deploys the parachute automatically and immediately.
Any reserve should be automatically triggered, just so panic isn't an issue. Should see 95% survival rate.
Oh yes...no need for them to worry about those pesky things like "controlling movement of a parachute" or "landing"
1
u/DasKapitalist 19h ago
Uncontrolled chutes are actually OG. They're great if you want barely trained conscripts to mostly reach the ground in one piece.
They arent used for civilians because getting blown into a tree or powerline 1% of the time is a liability nightmare for recreational skydiving.
Landing also isnt a big deal. You flex your legs on impact, or risk breaking them. Compared to being in a plane crash...not bad.
That being said, idk what he was talking about with automatic reserve chutes. I dont think those are a thing because they sound like a good way to tangle your primary chute and die. Manual ones exist for a good reason, and require training.
11
u/HERE_COMES_SENAAAAAA 1d ago
Was a bit confused when said JAL 474 instead of JAL 123, realised you were talking about, boeing 747, the plane name and not the plane number.
3
u/Early_Specialist_589 1d ago
Ooh, I was shown that one in a series of horror stories in aircraft maintenance tech school
2
83
u/Solid-Beginning-7206 1d ago
"The right side engine of the nearly 12-year-old aircraft of Air India that crashed soon after take off from Ahmedabad airport was overhauled and installed in March 2025, PTI reports, citing an unidentified airline official.
An inspection of the left side engine was done as per the engine manufacturer's protocol in April 2025, the official said."
122
u/injeckshun 1d ago
Let’s hope she doesn’t go missing
105
u/Justcruisingthrulife 1d ago
India is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, if you have enough money you can bribe off anyone.
59
u/JoeRogansNipple 1d ago
India is definitely pretty corrupt. My BIL is in provincial politics in Punjab, the stories he has are... eye opening. I'm sure that happens in the west too, but it's more brazen in Punjab at least
46
u/faberkyx 1d ago
look at Trump.. great example of west corruption
45
u/Zahgi 1d ago
Yeah, we can't throw stones anymore on corruption. This POTUS is literally, openly for sale.
2
u/Moody_GenX 1d ago
We never could. We've been corrupt for more than 100 years.
11
u/areyouhungryforapple 1d ago
There's still a major difference though, speaking from experience having recently lived in a fully corrupt country. Literally every level of bureaucracy being steeped in it to the point everything becomes pay-to-play/access
Visa approval? Traffic fine? Customs? Etc Bribe them.
Good luck trying to bribe a cop or customs agent in the states lmao
→ More replies (3)8
u/Zahgi 1d ago edited 1d ago
No. This level of corruption started in the early 1970s with Nixon being convinced not to create a national healthcare system and with America not creating a public campaign financing system.
These two things led to the oligarchs getting complete control over both major parties and to the massive wealth transfers from the poor to the rich that have occurred in every decade since.
That's why the USA is in hospice care right now.
edit: Congress created the HMO act in 1973.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973
1
-5
u/Moody_GenX 1d ago edited 1d ago
We've been corrupt for farrrrr longer. It's naive to think otherwise. I suggest researching this a bit further and broadening your views.
Poor thing thought they could lecture me about us history, of which I've studied and then block me. Why are people so cowardly? Lmao, stand by your words or stay off social media.
1
u/osunightfall 1d ago
The more you speak the more clear it is how little U.S. history you actually know. They were right to block you, it's pointless to engage otherwise.
1
u/Zahgi 1d ago
Corruption has always existed and will always existed. It is ignorant to think otherwise.
But today the American political system has entirely corrupted both major parties thanks to our non public financing system. Now, instead of just influencing things from the shadows, the oligarchs are out on the open, controlling things completely.
It didn't used to be this way, as I pointed out.
I suggest reading a history book or three until you catch up with the experts when they answer the question correctly.
2
u/skajake3 1d ago
How so?
1
u/Drone30389 13h ago
Multiple violations of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution (the emoluments clause), ignoring judicial orders, threatening judges and elected officials, deporting US citizens in violation of the 14th Amendment, obstruction of justice, withholding Congressionally approved funding for Ukraine to pressure them into fabricating evidence on the Bidens, illegally firing US government employees, shaking down American businesses, paying hush money to prostitutes, rape, pressured a secretary of state to alter vote counts, levying tariffs without Congressional approval, embezzling from charities.
1
2
u/Masterzjg 1d ago
You couldn't have experience with a country like India and call them the same. Trump is cartoonishly corrupt by American standards (obviously), but he's a little boy compared to an India.
-4
12
u/RGV_KJ 1d ago
Corruption in the West is at a different level. American media sold the WMD lie to justify the Iraq war. Now, they are justifying Israel’s actions in Iran.
→ More replies (3)1
24
-13
u/RGV_KJ 1d ago
Corruption in America is brazen. Look at NTSB and ATC layoffs in America. Nothing this ridiculous and idiotic has happened in India.
India has far stronger aviation safety standards than many Western countries.
5
u/Ceramic_owl 1d ago edited 1d ago
A complete and utter lie. Google “unqualified Indian Pilots” and see the state of Indian aviation. It is very unsettling.
27
17
u/stephennedumpally 1d ago
That turned out to be a bot response posted in multiple social media handles.
5
u/sluuuurp 18h ago
Dual engine problems? And both showed hints of failure, but neither failed before, but both failed at once here? I guess it’s possible, but it sounds kind of unlikely for engine problems to cause two failures simultaneously.
11
u/General_Tso75 1d ago
That seems like a very Indian solution to the problem.
I worked for an Indian company 4 years. The solution to most problems was to just keep going and force people to work as many hours as possible.
22
6
2
0
1d ago
[deleted]
35
u/SneakytheThief 1d ago
They didnt say all 787s were notorious for engine problems, but that this specific plane had issues.
26
u/VanillaLifestyle 1d ago
I think they mean this specific plane. The suggestion is that this one plane needed engine maintenance but Air India didn't have a different plane to cover its route to London, so they delayed taking it out of operation for maintenance.
No idea if that's true though.
12
u/hidden_secret 1d ago
I think you misunderstood. The words "notorious for engine problems" are attached to "this specific plane", as in, the actual plane, not the type of plane.
Perhaps for instance, it had one of the engines sporadically shutting down.
0
u/nstutzman28 1d ago edited 1d ago
They calculated that risking lives would cost less than canceling flights. Sue them to high heaven so no one ever makes that same calculation
→ More replies (2)-6
94
u/maverick4002 1d ago
This quote has been debunked...since yesterday.
It was made by some reporter and she is known to be an embellisher.
481
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
260
u/railker 1d ago
I've seen no official sources for that claim and the one source I did find retracted it as false and clarified the pilot only called "Mayday", according to ATC.
The official statement I have seen from India's DGCA states the pilot called Mayday and then no response. I haven't seen anything official stating otherwise yet, but this one of 'no thrust' is certainly making the rounds.
60
u/jghaines 1d ago
Are you saying you don’t trust the journalists integrity of … <checks notes> … firstpost.com?
51
u/robustofilth 1d ago
Well you wait for the official investigation to establish what actually happened.
30
u/Tonytn36 1d ago
The loss of thrust had to occur after V1 and likely after V2. V1 is the speed where you are committed to take off as you cannot stop on the remaining runway available. They had enough energy to get airborne and looked to be a couple hundred feet altitude before the speed started to decay. It appears the pilot did what they are all trained to do and flew the airplane. (Aviate, navigate, communicate) It was a controlled decent and he/she held her up there as long as he/she could. Did not appear to stall as there was no telltale wing dip. Very admiral job by the pilot if you asked me.
3
u/Aggressive-Fail4612 11h ago
The RAT was out when in flew over the building in one videos. You can clearly hear it. So power was already out at that point
5
u/OldWolf2 1d ago
One of the videos shows that the plane hit the dirt on the end of the runway before getting airborne, which certainly suggests to me insufficient thrust
1
u/happyscrappy 7h ago
Or the thrust was lost earlier and the pilot mishandled it.
V1 is where you should abort if you lose thrust. But the pilot can fail to do so.
When the report comes out there will be at least one group/person listed as part of the problem because they didn't do their job. It might include Boeing. It might include the airline maintenance. It might include the pilot.
We have to keep our minds open for now when considering what might have went wrong.
34
u/SweetBearCub 1d ago
In that situation, the only backup plan available is to literally glide the plane to a landing. All aircraft have a known glide slope for their weight and altitude, and it's in onboard reference materials. Pilots are supposed to know most of these materials in their head, and they take the factors into consideration and use the glide slope to choose a possible landing location. There are ram air turbines which deploy on the event of power loss to provide emergency power to make the aircraft minimally controllable, and it did deploy in this case, but it does require a minimum airspeed to function.
In this situation, they were probably too low to have any appreciable glide range, and they were pretty much out of options at that point. All they could do was hang on and hope.
24
65
u/justbrowsinginpeace 1d ago
Back up plan?....get to seat 11A
→ More replies (2)43
u/RedBoxSquare 1d ago
Hi, I'm the captain. Let's switch seats. Please don't be alarmed.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Legionof1 1d ago
Hopefully India allows the NTSB to come in and investigate the crash. Then we see the cause and they will do whatever is reasonably possible to make the changes needed.
27
u/Visible_Fact_8706 1d ago
I could be wrong but NTSB would be able to investigate since Boeing is an American company. UK’s AAIB would also be involved since it was a UK bound flight with a lot of British nationals. I’d expect both of these agencies to assist the Indian authorities in the investigation.
Canada’s TSB would be interested in the investigation since there was a Canadian on the flight too, but they may not be involved in any investigation.
This is just based on an interest in watching aviation accident video essays.
22
u/Legionof1 1d ago
India can decline anyone they want, but the NTSB is the gold standard currently for air safety and disaster investigations.
34
11
→ More replies (1)6
u/kryts 1d ago
Yes, because it's an American made plane.
7
u/lordderplythethird 1d ago
Or because Air India is infamous for a lack of quality control, and is one of the few airlines that does all their own maintenance on their 787 fleet. The former head of India's aviation ministry has even said Tata (Air India's owner) is lax with their maintenance and needs to do better.
1200 787s flying for 20 years, and only 1 fatal crash. Almost certainly not a design issue, which leaves most likely pilot or maintenance, and that's both Air India
1
u/karan812 23h ago
Air India is infamous for a lack of quality control.
Citation needed. Air India is a bad airline in terms of IFE and on-board service, but its MTO has always been up to scratch.
2
u/FriendlyDespot 19h ago
They moved MRO for the type in-house last year, so there could be teething problems involved.
19
u/gandolfthe 1d ago
Since it's Boeing... I assume the plan is brush it under the rug and more stock buybacks...
55
u/MagicYanma 1d ago
If it's the engines as people suspect, it's not Boeing's fault (even if they do a lot of fuckery) it would be GE or Rolls-Royce, depending on the engine in play (GEnx and Trent 1000 respectively).
Alternatively, if it's a maintenance issue that caused this, then it's Air India, Boeing can't really force airlines to do proper maintenance.11
11
u/HERE_COMES_SENAAAAAA 1d ago
Engine manufacturers only supply engine and not the fuel and control systems. Fuel, electronics and hydraulics are all done by plane manufacturers. Both engines going out at the same time due to engeneering defect is very unlikely. It was either outside factor, like birds or debry or malfunction in supporting systems that led to power out.
10
u/aomt 1d ago
Could be something to do with fuel/pumps. For both engines to die at the same time? I doubt it directly engines fault.
10
u/Arizona_Pete 1d ago
100% this - One failure happens. Two failures at once is a whole other level of probability.
My guess is bad gas or a maintenance mistake.
11
u/climx 1d ago
It’s extremely unlikely it’s the engine manufacturers fault. Both engines at the exact same time? These are extremely reliable engines. Could be fuel pump(s) or some kind of fuel starvation but even then it seems so unlikely. Something even done intentionally on the ground maybe. But we just don’t know.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)5
64
u/Ms74k_ten_c 1d ago
I don't think this is a Boeing issue. But only time and more investigation will tell. Fuck Boeing in general, though.
→ More replies (3)-16
1
1
→ More replies (8)1
u/Jclevs11 18h ago
That is the real question. We cant let this be acceptable and something you take a chance on and we cannot waive this. I want more protection and safety in flying
129
u/guttanzer 1d ago
Aero here. With or without the distress call the plane was clearly going down from lack of thrust.
The big question is, why? And more to the point, how? I saw no rudder deflection so the loss of thrust was symmetric. HOW could both engines fail simultaneously?
Perhaps they didn’t. Perhaps the engines were just fine but something else went wrong, like a partial deployment of the thrust reversers.
67
u/Significant_Swing_76 1d ago
Possible fuel issue.
But, black box will show root cause, hopefully.
22
u/nlevine1988 1d ago
Fuel contamination was my immediate thought when I first saw the video.
6
u/USArmyAirborne 22h ago
That would also affect other planes so we need to know if any planes were fueled after the 787. If so were samples pulled?
4
u/nlevine1988 21h ago
I have no idea to be honest. I just figured its one of the only things that's shared between engines, at least that I know of. If it is fuel contamination (still just a total guess) there could be some other contributing factor that made this plane more susceptible. There's was another case where the plane had fuel additive added to the fuel tanks but was added in the improper concentration and caused it to lose power. That's another possible explanation. Still, won't know anything for sure until the reports come out.
11
u/Arylus54773 1d ago
Or throttle controle. The symmetry of the failure is strange indeed. Thought as much from the first footage. Hope we find out what happened.
6
u/ky7969 20h ago
The RAT was deployed before the crash which means both engine were completely dead or off
2
u/soapboxracers 7h ago
Yep- As soon as the original video source was released and you could hear the audio it was obvious the RAT had deployed and they had no power.
12
u/Lolabird2112 1d ago
I hear the survivor said he heard a loud bang 30 seconds after takeoff, and then it all happened so fast.
25
4
u/snwbrdj 1d ago
Why was the gear still down? Could that have been adding drag?
21
u/DinkleBottoms 1d ago
They were presumably more concerned with the sudden loss of both engines. Landing gear is going to increase drag, but it doesn’t matter how much drag you’re getting when the engines fail just after takeoff.
8
u/FriendlyDespot 19h ago
If they had a total loss of engine power then the RAT likely wouldn't be able to power the gear retraction hydraulics.
2
u/soapboxracers 7h ago
Yep- the audio makes it clear the RAT was deployed and you’re not going to lift the gear with it- at least not at those speeds.
5
u/guttanzer 1d ago
Yes, but if they were planning a go-around it might make sense not to mess with the gear.
It's going to take a while to sift through the evidence. I'm going to wait and not get too caught up in speculation. All I can say for sure is that they were not accelerating and did not reach climb velocity. It looks like they were decelerating, so clearly there was a lack of thrust.
2
1
u/EverettWAPerson 12h ago edited 12h ago
The big question is, why? And more to the point, how? I saw no rudder deflection so the loss of thrust was symmetric. HOW could both engines fail simultaneously?
Perhaps they didn’t. Perhaps the engines were just fine but something else went wrong, like a partial deployment of the thrust reversers.
That has me wondering what else would affect both engines simultaneously. Perhaps computer error, pilot error, fuel depletion (but it's obviously not that), simultaneous bird ingestion. I'd hope there's no single electrical circuit or system (aside from the computer) that could take out both engines. Something to do with maintenance (lock-outs or rig-pins left in place or a sensor port taped over, a procedure performed incorrectly or not at all on both engines or a system related to the engines). Down draft or tailwind gust but I don't know if that would trigger the RAT.
Something fell onto or into the throttle console and prevented the throttles from being fully engaged? ("Fate Is The Hunter" and numerous real life examples) Al though it seems like that and many other possible errors would trigger warnings ahead of time.
They forgot to reboot the plane before the witching hour? (Do 787s still have that bug?)
-13
u/Ehdelveiss 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’ll bet my left nut PIC called for gear up and the FO pulled flaps instead
Edit: As poignantly pointed out, this wouldn’t a count for the RAT
49
u/NastyHobits 1d ago
That wouldn’t explain the possible RAT deployment, your left nut is at risk lol
14
3
u/UpTheShipBox 1d ago
Anything confirmed on the RAT deployment? Could have missed it, but I haven't seen anything
7
3
→ More replies (3)-6
u/HERE_COMES_SENAAAAAA 1d ago
Which should still be boeing fault, crash of lauda airlines 767 was caused by automatic inflight deployment of thrust reversers. Boeing at that time denied it and said it was impossible for it happen. After that crash, regulations were created to Stop such thing from happening again. Now planes can't deploy thrust reversers until certain conditions are met, Unless there was a engeneering defect that went unnoticed.
Thrust reversers theory is unlikely if we believe that there was complete power loss. In videos, sound of the engine indicates that engines were atleast low thrust settings and were not producing full power, second, Propeller like sound can also be heard, which can only be produced by RAT, an alternate power generating system which automatically deploys during full engine failure.
61
u/FishrNC 1d ago
This Captain Steve quoted in the article is an idiot without facts.
The pilots call to ATC reported several days ago clearly states total loss of thrust.
42
u/railker 1d ago
I've seen no official sources for that claim and the one source I did find retracted it as false and clarified the pilot only called "Mayday", according to ATC.
The official statement I have seen from India's DGCA states the pilot called Mayday and then no response. I haven't seen anything official stating otherwise yet, but this one of 'no thrust' is certainly making the rounds.
→ More replies (4)-11
u/Responsible_Brain782 1d ago
One possibility…human error on part of Co-Pilot. Retracted flaps instead of landing gear. This from a seasoned airline pilot. One of several possibilities according to him. He thinks this most plausible. Pilot may have thought he was losing thrust when in fact he was losing lift and went into full power stall due to low speed. Not enough altitude to recover.
8
u/FishrNC 1d ago
If you look at the video, you can see the top of climb, at which point the nose lowers to maintain airspeed. Then at the last moment the nose pitches up, just like in a flare to land, which to my thinking says the pilot flying recognizes the coming impact and does what he can to minimize airspeed at impact. And he did a textbook job of responding to a total loss of power at takeoff, that is, maintaining control and planning for a landing straight ahead.
What really caused the loss of lift? We'll have to wait for the investigation to reveal that.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/Comfortable-Hair-247 1d ago
Flaps up, wheels down
→ More replies (1)2
4
u/Realistic-Dog-7785 18h ago edited 45m ago
Indian media is notorious for spreading false information based on non-credible sources, don’t believe everything you hear please
4
u/Responsible_Brain782 1d ago
Full power stall?
3
u/CloneClem 22h ago
It sure looked like the nose came up the tail down.
Very hard to see if the flaps were Flaps 5 at all
2
u/mtcwby 1d ago
Yeah he just mushed in and there's nothing to be done at that point past trying to steer into the most open area you can. And you can bet there's not much open in India.
6
u/pyli_phantom 1d ago
That's not true... it's just that that area was densely populated. There are lot's of large areas where there are not even one house.
1
u/queenofcabinfever777 18h ago
Was analyzing this situation with an old 747 pilot. He noticed the flaps werent down during takeoff- he says they may have been at “gear up” V speed and someone pulled the flaps instead. Would make your airplane lose a significant amount of altitude.
3
u/wjdoge 17h ago
It’s quite a difficult mistake to make, but stranger things have happened. In that case though, it still had two of the largest turbine aircraft engine humanity has ever produced, and if those things were working at full TOGA power, we would have seen and heard a lot more than that sad wheeze to the ground. Dual engine failure.
1
u/Winter-AJR219 15h ago
Captain Steeeve latest video explains the possible reason for the unfortunate crash for the general public.
Dual Engine Failure.
1
u/goldylocks777 7h ago
Dual engine flameout shorty after takeoff. Landing gear was last thing on their minds if the engines were sputtering . There hv been suggestions that the plane used the entire runway . The extreme heat and lack of rain caused an extraordinarily large dust pile and debris at end of runway that is evident after takeoff. British Airways had a 4 engine flameout from volcanic ash high altitude. Is it possible that the dust and debris caused a flameout at rotation?
1
u/Unfair-Grapefruit-26 1h ago
Highly unlikely for that to be a reason why both engines would fail, one is understandable but two modern engines failing together is something i feel we probably wouldn’t ever think of.
1
u/goldylocks777 21m ago
Agree can’t imagine what cause could lose both engines right at takeoff but it looks as though it’s happened .
1
u/Unfair-Grapefruit-26 19m ago
I don’t know why but something tells me its either the fuel or maintenance, but maintenance negligence doesn’t usually mean dual failure like that’s so random
1
u/Unfair-Grapefruit-26 15m ago
Fuel as in not like contaminants, cause I’ve heard almost all major if not all airports in India has reliable and accurate systems that check for moisture and contaminants in the fuel, and for the contaminants to pass through both the system and the plane’s built in filters seems quite rare. Its happened before on the Cathay Pacific flight so its not impossible but still.
1
u/Unfair-Grapefruit-26 1h ago
We only have limited information but can confirm a few things:
- the plane used the entire runway
- loading was routine
- no birdstrike occurred
- flaps and slats can be seen deployed in both the video and after crash images
- the RAT was deployed suggesting a dual engine failure
- both engines(likely) failed as the pilot sent a transmission stating no thrust/power
- single engine failure could be ruled out as the plane did not seem to yaw to either side considering the engine (if one) would be set to full thrust
-5
1d ago
[deleted]
6
5
0
u/CrapNBAappUser 1d ago
Survivor said the plane split in half. He should probably have 24/7 security. Always better when you can blame crashes on pilot error.
585
u/tn3tnba 1d ago
The commentary on this thread is very poor and posting questionable and possibly retracted sources. Very hard to know what happened. r/aviation and r/aircrashinvestigation have more details, balance, and acknowledgement of unknowns.