Air India Flight AI171 (Boeing 787-8) Crash

[duck__dodgers]

looks like the final moments were well-documented on video.

should be an open-shut case once all the data is acquired.

unlike the rudder issues that Boeing had on some 737s in the early 90s

 

[edyvw]

I happened to catch this awful event on the news when I got up this morning.
There is already a long thread on this accident on one of the dedicated Av sites.
It is only around 3700 NM AMD to LGW, so the aircraft would have been a long way from full tanks, although AI could have dispatched the flight with tankered fuel, since fuel refined from Russian crude is certainly cheaper in India than Jet A would have been at Gatwick, although it does cost fuel to carry fuel.
The departure airport is only a couple of hundred feet MSL, but it was quite warm, around 40C, or just over 100F.
Speculation is that the crew elected to take off from the point where they entered the runway from an intersecting taxiway, leaving about 6000' available but even if true that shouldn't have been a factor, since they did achieve 174 knots and an altitude of 625', so around 400' above ground level.
It's also speculated that there may have been a power loss on one or both engines, or that the crew retracted flaps when they meant to retract the gear. The available video (with audio) is far from clear or conclusive as to aircraft configuration or power, so people seem to be seeing what they want to see, but the black boxes will tell the story.
At this point, who knows?
We must await the results of the investigation to follow to learn what really happened to doom this flight.
A horrible accident for all aboard and on the ground at the point of impact.

According to Flightradar, they backtracked and used the whole 11,000 ft+ of runway. Apparently, there was a loss of signal from ADS-B, and it looked like it used only half of the runway, but actually it did use the full length.

That is the latest I have read.
Now, why then use the absolute full length? Who knows, but I am with @Astro14 on this.

 

[loneryder]

Years ago a friend was recruited to fly for Air India when they first started obtaining these large Boeings. He retired from Delta. They had no one to fly these planes. It was all British and American expats flying them. They were promised a lot of at home time but that started slowly disappearing . They flew routes to London, NY and LA. Were very well paid but they guys started quitting because they didn't get home often. I wonder who is flying them now??

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

As far as not having the flaps configured properly for takeoff. Many years back wasn't there a 727 that attempted to takeoff at Detroit, that crashed with a high loss of life?

If I remember correctly the flaps were not extended to takeoff position. They were busy jabbering in the cockpit, instead of paying attention. I think they attributed that behavior to the cause of the crash.

There have been a few of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255

There was a B727 that crashed after take off from Denver but they took off in windshear.

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-boeing-727-224-denver

When we deice, we taxi to the deicing facility with the flaps retracted ( no point wasting money deicing flaps that didn’t have contamination on them because they were not extended to begin with when it snowed at the gate from the previous flight ) and extend them just prior to lining up with the runway ( no anti icing fluid on them unlike the wings ). Today, if we somehow forgot to extend them, the take off configuration warning would catch it but in the days of flying the B727 there was no technology to warn you as a back up if all pilots forgot and missed it before take off.

 

[fdcg27]

According to Flightradar, they backtracked and used the whole 11,000 ft+ of runway. Apparently, there was a loss of signal from ADS-B, and it looked like it used only half of the runway, but actually it did use the full length.

That is the latest I have read.
Now, why then use the absolute full length? Who knows, but I am with @Astro14 on this.

Yes, that is exactly what happened and FR24 updated their info to reflect this.

 

[loneryder]

I can't help but wonder....pictures of the crash scene show large airplane parts. That field in Pa on 9-11 had nothing but tiny debris. Pics at the museum showed the same thing...nothing but tiny debris littered about. Is there an explanation for this??

 

[edyvw]

I can't help but wonder....pictures of the crash scene show large airplane parts. That field in Pa on 9-11 had nothing but tiny debris. Pics at the museum showed the same thing...nothing but tiny debris littered about. Is there an explanation for this??

Bcs. UA93 hit ground at 40 degree angle at speeds between 560-580mph.

 

[loneryder]

Bcs. UA93 hit ground at 40 degree angle at speeds between 560-580mph.

So that would make all those huge parts into very small debris?

 

[duck__dodgers]

Convenient time to remember that social media platforms and algos want eyeballs and to harvest outrage-engagement.

not measured commentary about fast-moving events, lol

 

[E365]

The whole flight.

** Speculation Only **

If (big if) the flaps were still up, I wonder if they knew immediately there was an issue after lifting off and that’s why the gear never went up/were selected up. They panicked.

Or, was there a bigger system failure here? Maybe they selected flaps for takeoff but they never actually went down and they didn’t catch that. And the gear also wouldn’t come up - like a major hydraulic issue.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Lone survivor noted hearing a loud bang.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6drp96zo

 

[y_p_w]

I can't help but wonder....pictures of the crash scene show large airplane parts. That field in Pa on 9-11 had nothing but tiny debris. Pics at the museum showed the same thing...nothing but tiny debris littered about. Is there an explanation for this??

United 93 went down at high speed at a sharp angle.

https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/frequently-asked-questions.htm​

Where did Flight 93 crash?​

The plane crashed in an open field next to a wooded area in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania at 10:03:11 am. The nearest town is Shanksville. Flight 93 struck the ground at a 40 degree angle almost upside down, hitting right wing and nose first, at a speed of between 563-580 miles per hour. It was carrying approximately 5,500 gallons of Jet A fuel at impact.​

 

[billt460]

That thing sure acted like it wanted to fly.

 

[thastinger]

The whole flight.

** Speculation Only **

If (big if) the flaps were still up, I wonder if they knew immediately there was an issue after lifting off and that’s why the gear never went up/were selected up. They panicked.

Or, was there a bigger system failure here? Maybe they selected flaps for takeoff but they never actually went down and they didn’t catch that. And the gear also wouldn’t come up - like a major hydraulic issue.

Nose never tipped down attempting to gain forward speed.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Different event.

At 30 feet, alpha prot is inhibited. He was supposed to stay above 50 feet.

I was thinking of this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Industrie_Flight_129

That A330 was pretty out of control before it crashed unlike the A320 that flew nose up, wings level into the trees.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

According to Flightradar, they backtracked and used the whole 11,000 ft+ of runway. Apparently, there was a loss of signal from ADS-B, and it looked like it used only half of the runway, but actually it did use the full length.

That is the latest I have read.
Now, why then use the absolute full length? Who knows, but I am with @Astro14 on this.

Then there would be reports of the aircraft’s tail scraping the runway because any normal pilot that is expecting the aircraft’s nose to go up at Vr ( rotate speed ) , but it doesn’t, will have the ( language not allowed under BITOG rules ) out of them and they will , eventually , pull full back and the plane ( if it has enough excess runway ) will eventually stagger off into the air.

I haven’t heard any reports of a tail strike yet and you would think they would at least raise the gear ( most drag except FULL flaps ) to help them climb out but we clearly see the gear down until it crashes.

That said, I am not saying they didn’t take off with not enough flap, I am saying it doesn’t seem like they were aware of it if they used up a lot more runway than they expected ( they are based in India, they take off all the time on that run way , heavy and in extreme heat ) given no reports of tail strike ( everyone watches planes take off ) and the gear still down.

Only two reasons ( assuming you take off on the correct runway and where take off roll starts ) you would use up all the runway when not expecting ( same wind ) …..not selecting the correct flap or not using the proper thrust.

The plane had enough thrust it seems or else it wouldn’t have made it to 400 AGL with the high drag gear still down ( plus, for sure they would have gone TOGA once they saw it not climbing ).

It will be a very interesting report but what a terrible tragedy.

Tail strike….



https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/392591

 

[Owen Lucas]

I can't help but wonder....pictures of the crash scene show large airplane parts. That field in Pa on 9-11 had nothing but tiny debris. Pics at the museum showed the same thing...nothing but tiny debris littered about. Is there an explanation for this??

A plane is basically a tin can with I think the heaviest and densest parts being the motors and hydraulic opponents. You aim that into the ground and it will all disintegrate and get buried into the soil upon impact

Look at the planes that were recently bombed in Siberia by the Ukrainian drones, almost everything burned away on the planes except for the engine blocks and very dense materials.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Lone survivor noted hearing a loud bang.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6drp96zo

I wonder if it was the tail hitting the runway.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

13,000 runway…..

LATAM B777 take off calculation pilot error ( 3 pilots ).

https://fearoflanding.com/accidents...itical-error-behind-latams-milan-tail-strike/

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

The whole flight.

** Speculation Only **

If (big if) the flaps were still up, I wonder if they knew immediately there was an issue after lifting off and that’s why the gear never went up/were selected up. They panicked.

Or, was there a bigger system failure here? Maybe they selected flaps for takeoff but they never actually went down and they didn’t catch that. And the gear also wouldn’t come up - like a major hydraulic issue.

Although that shed is blocking the rotation, it doesn’t appear as if they had problems lifting off at Vr as it got airborne in a normal amount of time from the moment it accelerated past that shed. No tail strike unless the shed blocked it but it would have still been dragging its tail past the shed.

Seems as if something distracted them because they never selected the gear up even before it starts descending,

If it didn’t have enough flap, it got off the ground without too much trouble, if any ( maybe ground effect allowed them to lift off without not enough lift until it climbed higher ).

Yes, looks no flaps but no modern plane would allow that without warning them.

Thats it for me today…..so much for a quick two coffee and reading my work memos.

Take off flap setting B787 doesn’t look like much in this picture of another 787:

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/...8/Boeing-787-9-Dreamliner-cleared-for-takeoff