Air India Flight AI171 (Boeing 787-8) Crash

[Just a civilian pilot]

It's the first row in economy class, window seat on the left side. It has the over-wing emergency door with extra legroom for the aisle to the door. Being next to a door is usually a good thing, but this is a Boeing and you could just as easily be the only one to die if the door pops open during flight.

Even this nut on cocaine with super human strength couldn’t open the passenger door in flight.

The cargo doors open outward but we don’t allow passengers to travel down there.

https://www.travelpulse.ca/news/air...-to-open-exit-door-on-air-canada-rouge-flight

 

[2005jettatdi]

There are numerous theories, and in the end, it might be something completely different, but this is interesting:

Except, I just went back and watched the take off from the runway. To my eye, the flaps were not extended. The cockpit voice recorder is going to be important in unraveling this. Could the captain have kept the gear down in the hope of a landing?

 

[tcp71]

Even this nut on cocaine with super human strength couldn’t open the passenger door in flight.

The cargo doors open outward but we don’t allow passengers to travel down there.

https://www.travelpulse.ca/news/air...-to-open-exit-door-on-air-canada-rouge-flight

Yes, at 30k ft, the inside pressure is around 11psi (equivalent to 8k ft). The outside is 4.4psi. The door is about 2000 square inches of inner surface area. 6.6psi difference x 2000 inches is 13000lbs holding the door shut. Doors open inward. No way you are pulling that open.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Yes, at 30k ft, the inside pressure is around 11psi (equivalent to 8k ft). The outside is 4.4psi. The door is about 2000 square inches of inner surface area. 6.6psi difference x 2000 inches is 13000lbs holding the door shut. Doors open inward. No way you are pulling that open.

Not even on cocaine.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Except, I just went back and watched the take off from the runway. To my eye, the flaps were not extended. The cockpit voice recorder is going to be important in unraveling this. Could the captain have kept the gear down in the hope of a landing?

No modern plane will allow the plane to take off with the flaps not extended, plus it wouldn’t have been able to climb to 400 feet if the crew ignored the warning before take off.

No jet will climb out of ground effect to 400 clean. It would stagger off the runway ( tail strike ) and stall as it leaves ground effect. Same with ice on the wings.

 

[Brons2]

Except, I just went back and watched the take off from the runway. To my eye, the flaps were not extended. The cockpit voice recorder is going to be important in unraveling this. Could the captain have kept the gear down in the hope of a landing?

It seemed to be climbing fine initially off the runway.

This still taken from the top of the building phone video, seems to indicate that flaps and slats are deployed. I've seen multiple places that Flaps 5 on the 787 is commonly used on takeoff on the 787 and that this setting is not easy to see with the bare eye from a distance. However, I will defer to the actual pliots on here as to whether this is correct or not.

 

[Brons2]

Also noted:
This was one of the airframes that was cannibalized at one time for spare parts.

https://www.b787register.co.uk/airframe.php?ln=0026

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

It seemed to be climbing fine initially off the runway.

This still taken from the top of the building phone video, seems to indicate that flaps and slats are deployed. I've seen multiple places that Flaps 5 on the 787 is commonly used on takeoff on the 787 and that this setting is not easy to see with the bare eye from a distance. However, I will defer to the actual pliots on here as to whether this is correct or not.

View attachment 284528

The slats in the front are visible, I can see it so the flaps also had to be out for take off in order to have the slats out.

As a general rule on the Airbus, the heavier we are, the lower the flap setting for best second segment climb performance.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/takeoff-configuration-warning-systems-tocws

 

[4WD]

In early July - have another backwards seat by the wing on a Dreamer - and will video the take off … mainly out of greater curiosity …

 

[y_p_w]

Even this nut on cocaine with super human strength couldn’t open the passenger door in flight.

The cargo doors open outward but we don’t allow passengers to travel down there.

https://www.travelpulse.ca/news/air...-to-open-exit-door-on-air-canada-rouge-flight

There was a case where someone did open the door before landing. But as others noted, it's pretty much impossible to do at altitude.

Man who opened plane door says he wanted to get off quickly: police​

https://www.koreaherald.com/article/3135796

Man to pay W727m for opening plane door before landing​

https://www.koreaherald.com/article/3469809

 

[Astro14]

From the configuration, and performance, of the airplane, a “gear left down, flaps incorrectly retracted” scenario would explain the flight path.

I just find it difficult to believe.

Difficult to believe that the pilot monitoring would make so egregious an error - to leave the gear down and put the flaps up.

However, one of the challenges at a company like Air India is the fact that the pilots come from different countries.

While English has become the standard language, there have been many times when crew failed to communicate effectively and operate safely, because their primary language was something different than English and their primary languages differed.

So, while it’s hard for me to believe, I accept the possibility that the captain called for gear up and the FO put the flaps up. Even though, the gear handle is on the forward panel, and the flap handle on the throttle quadrant.

I have access to the 787 flight manual, and a day off while hanging out in Denver, I think I’m going to do a bit of light reading.

 

[y_p_w]

In early July - have another backwards seat by the wing on a Dreamer - and will video the take off … mainly out of greater curiosity …

View attachment 284530

View attachment 284531

Those are Rolls-Royce Trent. Air India's 787 fleet only has a few of those - apparently absorbed from Vistara. The majority of their 787 fleet uses the GEnx engine. GE is supposedly more efficient but the Trent is quieter.

 

[4WD]

Those are Rolls-Royce Trent. Air India's 787 fleet only has a few of those - apparently absorbed from Vistara. The majority of their 787 fleet uses the GEnx engine. GE is supposedly more efficient but the Trent is quieter.

I know that … I fly for a living … mentioned the wing - not the engine …

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Yeah, I can see the flaps being selected zero instead of the gear selected up but what I can’t understand is them not realizing it and salvaging the flight path by going TOGA, putting the flaps back down right away.

If there were 3 pilots in the Flight deck ( not sure ) , it would be hard to believe it happened.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I know that … I fly for a living … mentioned the wing - not the engine …

I wasn’t aware you flew for a living or do you mean you fly a lot for work?

 

[Brons2]

In early July - have another backwards seat by the wing on a Dreamer - and will video the take off … mainly out of greater curiosity …

View attachment 284530

View attachment 284531

Ok, I give, what carrier flies out of IAH that has RR engines on the 787? UA uses GE.

British?

 

[FowVay]

I wonder if the plane could have been overgrossed or if the cargo load could have shifted. Contaminated fuel as a possible explanation for the engines not making power. The pilots might have had their hands full in the cockpit tending to other flashing lights and dinging dingers to raise the gear. I am anxious to hear the report once the data recorders are decoded.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I wonder if the plane could have been overgrossed or if the cargo load could have shifted. Contaminated fuel as a possible explanation for the engines not making power. The pilots might have had their hands full in the cockpit tending to other flashing lights and dinging dingers to raise the gear. I am anxious to hear the report once the data recorders are decoded.

Yes, being distracted by something could easily cause the PM to miss the “ positive rate” call which could cause the PF to miss the “ gear up “ call.

I don’t see cargo shift causing that problem or even miscalculating the take off weight given it rotated ( albeit close to the end of the runway ) normally and made it up to 400 feet.

 

[Astro14]

A cargo shift typically manifests itself with the nose coming up to an unusual attitude and the crew being unable to control it. In an airliner, where the cargo is stored in containers in the belly, I’ve never heard of a cargo shift.

Each one of those containers gets locked into the floor, so even if one came loose, the position of the others would block it or, that one container by itself wouldn’t be enough to cause a fatal center of gravity shift.

My understanding on the 787 is that the gear handle is on the panel, not the throttle quadrant. They’re quite different in location, shape and feel precisely to prevent this kind of mistake. The gear handle is shaped like a wheel, and the flat panel is shaped like a flap. This was a change made in the 1940s because pilots would confuse similar switches.

The 787 has takeoff warnings for the following:

CONFIG DOORS
Cargo and/or passenger doors are not secured and locked and either engine’s thrust is in the takeoff range on the
ground.
CONFIG FLAPS
Leading edge and/or trailing edge flaps are not in takeoff position and either engine’s thrust is in the takeoff range on
the ground.
CONFIG PARKING BRAKE
Parking brake is set and either engine's thrust is in the takeoff range on the ground.
CONFIG RUDDER Rudder trim not centered when either engine’s thrust is in the takeoff range on the ground.
CONFIG SPOILERS Speed brake lever is not DOWN when either engine’s
thrust is in the takeoff range on the ground.
CONFIG STABILIZER
Stabilizer not within the greenband when either engine’s thrust is in the takeoff range on the ground.

There are more takeoff warnings in the 787 than any airplane have flown.

I don’t doubt the ability of a crew to miss warnings, however, because it has happened before. Here is one of many examples where a crew continued to takeoff despite the warning horns blaring the entire time. It did not go well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPA_Flight_3142#

I doubt the airplane was severely overgross, however, there have been several instances where the crew inadvertently entered the wrong data in the flight management computer, and took off with the wrong reference speeds. Again, there are many instances, here’s the first hit I got on Google.

https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/33358.pdf

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

One never even got airborne ( forgot to put the flaps out, ignored the take off configuration warning ) and the other one ( significantly heavier than planned take off calculations ) did get airborne but had to scrape the tail to eventually lift off.

Neither appear to be the case with the B787 crash. It got to 400 AGL, no tail strike and even with the gear still down. Why it rotated close to the end if the runway is unusual though.

Article about Emirates jet scraping tail to get airborne because they made a huge take off calculation mistake and the Captains said …

“I still don’t know how we got it off the ground. I thought we were going to die, it was that close.”

https://samchui.com/2023/02/20/miracle-on-emirates-flight-407-disaster-averted-by-meters/

B747 video of crash caused by severe load shift: