Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Little known, most unknown in Air India 171 crash
By Scott Hamilton
June 13, 2025, © Leeham News: One day after the crash of Air India flight 171, very little is known about what happened. Almost everything remains unknown.
What we know
- This is the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787. The accident airplane was delivered in 2014 and is a 787-8,
A screen show of a video of Air India flight 171. The camera is from a distance and the quality is grainy, but to many this seems to show that that flaps were not extended for take off. However, some flaps positions are set at 5 degrees, and may not be readily visible in this shot.
the first sub-type of the family of airplanes.
- There were 242 passengers and crew on board. One passenger survived; there were fatalities on the ground, but the number is fluid. One news report cited a total of 290 killed in the plane and the ground.
- Two videos of the accident surfaced yesterday. One shows the plane’s final seconds as the flight appeared in a relatively flat-attitude climb followed by a slow descent into the ground and explosion of fuel. The other showed the 787 on its take off roll, ascent, descent and crash. Both show that landing gear remained down throughout the short flight. The grainy videos appear to show the flaps were not extended for take off. The second video shows what appears to be a lot of dust thrown up as the plane lifted off the runway. Some speculate that was from the runway overrun area, but the angle and distance from the CCTV doesn’t include this detail.
- A Mayday call was sent from the flight. Most reports end with this one word. A few said the words “no power” were included in the Mayday.
- The weather was clear, but it was humid and more than 100 degrees in temperature. These hot conditions extend take off rolls.
- The plane was headed to London, some 10 hours away. A heavy fuel load would be on the plane.
The speculation
- The videos appearing to show the flaps were up led to the possibility that for some reason the plane was not properly configured for take-off. A flapless take off often leads to crashes, and the presence of a cloud of dust as the airplane lifted off could lend credence to a flapless roll. Flaps up after lift off could lead to a stall.
- However, past accidents with misconfigured flaps and slats included a wobbly take off and immediate crash within the airport perimeter. The video shows a smooth climb, such as it was, and smooth descent, suggesting the pilots retained some control over the airplane.
- “No power” in theory points to a problem on the take off roll, as well as a climb out. “No power” can mean any number of things: complete failure after lift-off, or reduced power at a critical point of the take-off and short flight.
- Fuel contamination could be a factor, but investigation will look into this possibility.
- The landing gear remains down throughout the flight. Normally, the gear would be raised right away. This leads to speculation of a hydraulic issue or perhaps the pilots mistakenly raised the flaps instead of the gear.
What we don’t know
- What we don’t know is why whatever happened, happened.
The investigation
- Recovery of the flight data (FDR) and cockpit voice (CVR) recorders, plus the control tower recording, should be very revealing and provide answers to the questions and theories above and more—provided data can be recovered from the FDR and CVR. The airplane’s tail, where the FDR and CVR are stored, appeared basically intact. But until these recorders are recovered, their conditions are unknown.
- The FDR will tell everything the plane was doing: whether the flaps and slats were configured properly, aircraft performance on the runway and lift-off, the power of the engines and more. The CVR will tell investigators what the pilots said throughout the operation of the flight (from gate pushback to crash) and what, exactly, the Mayday call was about, and if the pilots executed the pre-flight checklist completely—including setting the flaps and slats. The CVR will also reveal any cockpit warnings that may have gone off.
- As a matter of routine, investigators will examine pilot history, aircraft and engine maintenance history, weather conditions, whether the pilots had the presence of alcohol or drugs (prescription or otherwise) in their system, the passenger manifest to determine if any of them had nefarious backgrounds that might be a factor, the baggage manifest in case there was anything suspicious or hazardous that might be a contributing factor, etc. Although the videos didn’t show a pre-crash explosion or fire, it is routine (at least in the US) for law enforcement to participate in probes to rule in or out criminal activities.
- The videos didn’t appear to show any bird strikes, but the angles and quality are a factor. Investigators will determine if bird strikes were a factor.
What’s next
- Recovery of the FDR and CVR is an investigative priority, followed by analysis of data of these and of the control tower recording. It’s possible if all goes well to have the initial analysis and disclosure within days. Otherwise, an extended analysis period could be in store.
- The next few days could provide answers to key questions. Until then, it’s all speculation.
I also read from various serious newspaper sources (Guardian, LeMonde…) that the surviving guy mentioned 1) hearing a big sound few dozen seconds after take-off, 2) flickering lights just before the crash
I also heard (but seems more difficult to get serious source confirmation) that the flight radar ADS-B data seems to mention the take-off happened early (A/C not using whole available runway length for take-off roll) which looks strange considering the weather conditions
1. I would not pay too much attention to eye witness reports. They can often be miss-leading and possibly be mixed up in the confusion and especially shock after such an accident
2. Apparently the ADS-B coverage at that airport is not very reliable and there are very few data points with long intervals in between. So it could be not the whole track is shown. One comment I read is that previous take-offs looked very similar on ADS-B records.
Agreed. When I was getting my pilots license, our instructor who was a very experienced pilot had a reference to a small plane crash. 5 experienced aviator reported 5 different ways of how it acted.
Eventually they found someone who had been filming something else but caught the airplane in the background. Before the Video era, they had not a clue how important what they had was.
Some weeks later when they saw the continued reports of we can’t figure it out, they came forward with the film.
It was nothing like what had been reported.
Its not that witnesses are bad people or making things up, its just an area people generally are not good at recording things mentally.
Can you point to some evidence that supports your claims?
Thanks.
@ Vincent
I’ve have seen online posts from passengers who flow on that same plane from Delhi to Ahmadebad and complained of non-functioning airco and IFE, and lighting issues.
For example:
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ahmedabad-plane-crash-air-india-was-on-it-2-hours-ago-man-who-flew-on-same-aircraft-before-it-crashed-8651205
Not sure if this is what is being referred to by the commenter above.
f
I know it is important to wait for the preliminary findings from the FDR/CVR. Besides the flaps that don’t appear to be lowered, could it be that the aircraft was somehow setup with wrong weight settings and the auto pilot then reduced the thrust too much so it could not continue to climb?
If the RAT was deployed ( vague photos available ) just reduced thrust can’t be valid.
IMU:
Automatic RAT deployment happens on AC System cut out.
Actually a number of things can reply the RAT.
Loss of both engines
Loss of hydraulics
Pilot can actuate
Total loss of AC but that also means no battery feed (it did happen in test going into San Antonio). Supposedly corrected for isolation but until an event occurs you can have a hole in the Swiss Cheese you did not think was there)
Matth:
Yes its possible wrong weight, wrong runway length, wrong temp or even a combination of wrong data entered. Likely no, but possible yes and it has happened despite all the cross checks. There is no GPS input and temp input that turns a red light on if the data does not match the location and temp.
Not likely reduced thrust on climb but if the data is wrong input it could be wrong data for going down the runway thrust wise.
It does look like it went all the way to the end of the runway before rotation.
If data is bogus then the computer has not way to tell the settings are bogus, if it matches what the data says, its happy.
I believe thrust reduction on climb is at a higher altitude. Something over 1000 feet.
At the lower altitudes they do have radar altimeter (from memory 2500 feet range)
Small correction:
“The plane was headed to London, some five hours away.”
The flying time from Ahmedabad to London is ten hours…not five.
So, the plane would have had a full load of fuel.
The plane is reported to have backtracked to the very start of the runway before commencing takeoff, so the flight crew evidently expected a very long ground roll.
Forgot to take into account the time zone change. Thanks. Fixed.
That Boeing 787 Dreamliner Air India plane had a previous history of electrical and mechanical malfunctions especially with the flaps functions and other unknown electrical problems the pilots had experienced on many previous flights. The malfunctions of the aeroplane on previous flights would have been recorded and brought to the attention of the Air line company. The previous passengers who flew on that aeroplane were very lucky because the pilots ignored all of the dangers associated with electrical and mechanical malfunctions and continued to fly the plane regardless of the dangers. It was criminal negligence of the pilots and of the Air India airline company because they should have grounded the aircraft for a serious comprehensive maintenance and repairs to the aircraft. Criminal negligence of the Air line company because the planes should not be used if they have electrical and mechanical malfunctions that will obviously endanger the passengers and aircraft! The plane should be 100% perfect condition at all times before any flights! It was very serious criminal negligence! Very bad maintenance and servicing of their air craft! All Planes must have regular legal maintenance schedules!
You talk absolute rubbish.
Has there ever been an event where 2 engines have simultaneously just turned themselves off with no spluttering and signs of obvious distress?
I think accident investigators will already have a fairly good idea what happened and we will quickly know what basically happened so there is little point in speculating and making oneself look a fool.But here I go,pilot/flight control interface problems have been known to take a decade or longer to emerge
British Airways flight 38 Boeing 777 @ London Heathrow. On final approach both engines would not respond to throttle up commands and remained at idle. Airplane landed short, hull loss. No fatalities. Cause: ice crystals in fuel lines broke free when high fuel flow was demanded and accumulated in fuel-oil heat exchanger, restricting fuel flow.
FYI a 5 hr flight suggests a very light fuel load as the 787 can fly 15-17 hrs on a full fuel load.
10 hours, not five. See other comments.
The crash in India reminds me of this very close call with an Emirates 777 in Dubai in 2021.
Although the Emirates aircraft didn’t have an engine problem, it did have an incorrectly configured FMC…resulting in a horrendously long ground roll and alarmingly shallow climbout.
It could easily have resulted in a crash.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/emirates-terrifying-boeing-777-flight-washington/
***
Not suggesting that this is the cause of the Indian crash — just pointing out the similarities in takeoff behavior.
I am aware of this happening a few times, why wouldn’t the pilot just floor the throttle?
Perhaps a pilot can answer?
Lift isn’t just determined by speed — air density and wing geometry* also play a role.
If the FMC configures the wings for an incorrect set of takeoff parameters (weight, runway length, airport altitude) then the situation becomes precarious.
* Wing geometry: more specifically the value of a line integral taken along the perimeter of the wing cross-section, per point along the wing axis.
The value of this integral is adjusted using flaps, slats, ailerons, etc.
Apply whip to a dead horse? Think again!
( assumed the RAT was really automatic deployed triggered by loss of AC power.)
Other potential issue based on hot, humid and history: arcing in the distribution. ( does that potentially deenergize the engine FADEC units? )
Total power loss would kick in the RAT.
The 787 has two power centers, one fore and one aft.
Its designed to isolate faults in either one or separate the two if one has a major fault.
In testing they had a massive fault in the rear panel and the system failed to isolate. It was corrected.
In that case they think a wrench was left in the panel and vibrated to across two of the power busses.
Anything is possible.
@Grubbie:
It takes time to build airspeed even with throttles(s) full open.
If you are wallowing you have even more drag than normal as well as the gear still being down. Gear does not have to be up but it is a drag and if you are in a high drag situation, that can push you over that stall edge.
The engines have to spool up, modern edges are far better but not instant like a car. At least at the point of wallowing, flaps look to be up (you could still have flap 1 selected which deploys the slats on the front of the wing partially)
Big question is why they did not have flying speed.
Giant fuel cutoff toggle switches just below the throttle look interesting
Cross my mind, too… Fuel problem.
Certainly possible but it would have to manifested itself once in the air not on the 11,000 feet of runway.
Airport was closed for 8 hours, I’ll bet every aircraft on the apron checked their tanks in that time. So, not fuel that they loaded, I guess they’re checking records for additives
And as noted down below, if a contaminant that filters are not designed for gets in, then……..
Obviously no other incidents so it does not seem like it but its not ruled out.
Very little if any fuel to examine.
They have the FDR by now so results should be available soon. Looks like fuel starvation or wrong T-O settings of flaps/thrust, but we will know any time.
Depends on condition and how fast they can get it translated from computerese to data and the timelines correct.
I wonder how bad (toxic) the fire was from the composite construction.
That’s a very good question…🤔
Did you have the same concerns with the A350 hull loss in Japan?
I think it’s best that we do not interact.
Regards.
Agreed.
The question still stands.
AFAIK, one crashed into an apartment building in a populated area, the other didn’t, as simple as that, but may be it’s really difficult to see clearly when you’re upside down 😉
@ Williams
Did the Japan A350 burn in the middle of a densely-populated residential area, where residents and pets don’t have hazmat suits and masks…unlike firefighters?
No, it burned at the side of a runway, in a non-public enclosure.
Missed that difference, did you?
Reporters at the Indian scene complained of a choking, acrid smell.
The A350 burned on the runway, far away from any housing.
This 787 crashed and burned in a densely populated quarter.
( compare to the El Al 747 crash in the Netherlands hitting high-rise apartment complexes. quite the toxic fallout …)
From the BBC:
“Boeing 787-8/9 flight control inspection introduced until further notice”
“…The regulator says from 15 June, there will be a one-off check before flights leave India for the Boeing 787-8 and 787-9 fleet.
“This will cover various systems, including the electronic engine control system and the cabin air compressor.
“Flight control inspection” will be introduced in transit until further notice.
“Power assurance checks will also take place within two weeks.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c8d1r3m8z92t
Oh-oh:
“Did wing flaps cause Air India crash? Aviation experts zero in on ‘mechanical failure’ as it emerges identical 787 jet made FOUR emergency landings in last month”
“Experts viewing footage of the Air India Boeing 787-8 ahead of the crash have said its configuration on taking off from Ahmedabad airport in India ‘doesn’t look right’.”
“It has also been reported that an identical Boeing 787 made four emergency landings last month – an American Airlines plane with issues linked to its wing flaps not being properly deployed.
“The aircraft is to have returned to Amsterdam not long after take-off towards Philadelphia, before later aborted flights to Philadelphia from Dublin, Barcelona and Zurich, the Telegraph reported. ”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14808925/What-caused-Air-India-crash-wing-flaps-Boeing.html
***
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/12/whistleblower-raised-safety-fears-boeing-dreamliner-factory/
“The American Airlines plane was initially forced to return to Amsterdam after a problem with its flaps was detected shortly after take-off for Philadelphia on Jan 7.
“The aircraft dumped fuel over the North Sea before landing at Schiphol airport at a higher than normal speed, attributed to the flaps problem.
“The flight was rescheduled, only to be cancelled after its crew discovered a hydraulics issue.
“In the following weeks, the plane – which was eight years old and had completed more than 4,000 flights – was forced to abort flights to Philadelphia from Dublin, Barcelona and Zurich.”
Clearly they would not have even been able to get the throttles to advance if the flaps were not set to A position. Right or wrong. The computers read the setup and will not allow throttle advance.
It may well be it was Flaps 1, if hydraulics were not working then no takeoff on that alone let alone flaps.
Issues on takeoff are different, worst case the flaps don’t come up. Low speed its needed unless its flaps 15+
Hydraulic issues once aloft are a totally different thing.
No two aircraft are identical. Its either the same aircraft as crashed or its not.
They will have some very immediate info from the wreckage and what position the flaps are in.
An yes, engineers can tell torn damage on metal that occurs and impact and may look like flaps were down.
The flap tracks would also be part of that spec for yea or nay.
pics from wreckage show flaps deployed, I think
Link to the photos?
Mr. Hamilton,
This might be informative:
https://youtu.be/oUFS2np0mKc?si=6MDHk6-Ny-W2NUwC
The narrator is not a native English speaker, so some of his assertions are not 100% clear.
In the videos it looked like the slats were extended but the flaps may not have been. But the videos are too poor quality to tell for sure. FDR has been recovered; it should definitively tell us.
Mr. Hamilton,
I agree as regards flaps.
The narrator appears to be intimating that it’s not possible to extend slats without some flap extension — even if only the minimal flap setting.
So, his conclusion regarding flaps is indirect/derived as opposed to direct/observed.
If you flaps are set at position 1, then the slats do extend, not fully but half or 2/3
If the computer thinks that setting 1 is correct for the data input, then it will not alarm as its correct as far as the computer is concerned.
https://images.indianexpress.com/2025/06/crash-wings.jpg?w=640
Bad data input would explain a lot. Pilots not catching out of normal settings but it has happened.
That affects thrust and flaps settings.
A lot of alarms would go off otherwise.
The 787 was down at the far end of the runway when it rotated. It should have been rotating when it came into view from that electronics bldg in the one video or very shortly after.
Not mentioned is Ground Affect. Wing builds up a slightly compressed air cushion under the wing.
It can be enough to lift off and get some climb, even if you do not have true flying speed.
But as soon as you are 30-50 feet off the runway, it disappears.
It may be a factor in getting the lift off at all.
Far more to it but it sure looks like they took the full runway and were not at flying speed when they rotated.
This shows the -8 flap settings and what they look like on side profile.
Flaps 5 would be hard to see per Scott. Two 787 Pilot sources I know (one personally) say Flaps 15 would be normal, others talk about Flaps 5 as normal.
https://fi.pinterest.com/pin/aviation–765893480369029912/
I will mention the video ‘What really happened to AI171’ as
being thoughtful, circumspect and not jumping to conclusions. The guy is a 777 Captain w/ a lot of experience (Captain Steeeve, his spelling) on YT.
YMMV, of course. Also looking forward to what Juan Browne
at Blancolirio (777 FO) thinks, once the dust settles.
Juan is unusually reticent about this one
Massive demand for seat 11a from now onwards
+1
@Grubbie:
Juan is a full time pilot as well.
Best info would come from 787 pilots as its a unique aircraft in the Boeing lineup.
I have two 787 confirmations that flaps 15 would be normal. The one person I know. He was an electronics guy who moved over to delivery. Extremely sharp person. He worked on the 747 AF1 that is the current flying AF1.
Captain Steve is interesting but I don’t think his analysis holds up. Granted its an opinion. He says the 777 and 787 are virtually identical air-frames and that is totally not right. 777 is also not mostly electric.
This guy does an outstanding job laying out the various possibles and why they should not occur.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC5YpPXrzR8
I have seen a picture of (left?) wing, if flaps were extended no more that 5 deg.
Authorities will have a good idea on flaps by now.
The only hole in the Swiss cheese seems to be wrong data input and then not caught for not normal for that temp.
Speed is listed at 174 knots now. That is flyable with Flaps 15 but not 1 or 5 from what I can garner.
At what point in the video did Captain Steeeve say the 777 and 787 are “virtually identical”?
I sure didn’t hear that..
He has interviewed and posted his take. One I saw was yesterday.
I don’t say he is wrong, just how he presents and obviously there was an issue or issues that got that aircraft where it was.
This one has the view of the wing. That is one of if not the key right now. Even if the NFO pulled up the flaps after takeoff, that is a key but the length of take off is a factor. This one repeats the mid runway takeoff but others have posted clearly it used the full length of the runway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFIdi7E2rjc
This is the one I saw. The Quote is, its a very similar airframe. So I did misquote but its an odd way to put it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7EZkungFEE
One 787 pilot and a person I know who worked the 787 said flaps 15 not 5.
It could have Flaps 1 or even 5.
I think you could see Flaps 15.
The Gear lever is in a completely different location than the flap lever.
Anything is possible but even flaps up and not gear, they were way too long on takeoff.
I believe I have located the Small Bldg (shack in some description) that is seen in the one video where the takeoff is shown.
https://www.google.com/maps/@23.0803912,72.6405961,185m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Its almost exactly 1/3 of the way down the runway from the end they took off from.
Juan Browne has a new vid up re the 787 crash, focusing for the moment on the Ram Air Turbine and related stuff.
Sorry I can’t get a link to post.
Here it is. Its extremly distinctive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPk31EhtakE
Top aspect is the horrendous loss of live.
But this is now an aircraft issue. I won’t speculate really bad for Boeing if true. The only failure of that type was virtually total going into San Antonio on a test flgiht.
Batteries should also be involved. Hydraulic only or alternator and hydraulic?
Thanks for providing the link.
You are welcome.
This link may be helpful. Its 777 but I think there is a lot of similarities. I like the visuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3o0g5b_kIk
I don’t of course know if the 787 drops the RAT alternator (they call it a generator but that is wrong, Alternators are A/C and what your cars and most power plants have)
Caveat on the 787 is its more electrical and its got two battery systems, one aft and on up front. Probably linked to the respective power panels.
The RAT also deploys with gear down and flaps up. Too soon to say if this is an airplane problem.
@Scott:
Sans some other failure, that does not sound right?
I think I have it right that the RAT is a fail safe system. Ie, power on the latch to hold in place and loss of power releases it.
Ergo, complete electrical failure would release it as well as the various engine loss with associated hydraulic systems drop out.
I think the Batteries have to be out of the picture for electrical system failure to drop it. That is what happened in San Antonio as the elecrial system did not isolate and it blew the whole thing down.
I never saw the breakdown but at least a Main CB in each panel blew, possibly the input CB. You can link those electrically to a protect ion scheme.
Its hugely complex and there should be no single point of failure but if the protection scheme is wrong or the CBs blow then……………
We know it did not work in San Antonio bus short rear panel and the RAT deployed letting them land. It was re-designed.
They probably have redundancy on the monitor/trip sequence system.
But the CBs also have settings, report was it was the CBs but never saw an in depth on that.
A retired Boeing guy tells me the RAT will deploy if the gear is down and the flaps are up due to the “abnormal” condition.
“The next few days could provide answers to key questions. Until then, it’s all speculation.”
So true, on Anet, there are over 26 pages of posts of “speculation”. On YouTube, every pilot, real and imagined has their speculation up and ready for hits.
It is times like these I think of the loved ones and friends at the arriving airport, or in this case, who were probably at home and saw SKY NEWS flash Breaking News. Heart wrenching.
Very well put.
It is and then some. Each loss of life is a ripple, it affects far more than the person who has died. Family, friends, community.
If the audio is accurate and no reason to think not, implications are beyond awful.
I was on the end of one of those losses, some of those impact are still with us 60 years latter.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/rescuers-search-missing-people-aircraft-parts-after-air-india-crash-kills-over-2025-06-13/
“The aviation ministry said that investigators and rescue workers had recovered the digital flight data recorder – one of the two black boxes on the plane – from the rooftop of the building on which the jet crashed.
There was no information on the cockpit voice recorder, the other black box, which is also crucial to the crash probe.”
Reports are both were recovered.
FDR is the most important one but with possible total electrical failure, we could have another Jeju type crash though they should have data for most of the runway and initial takeoff. .
Authorities should get Video into the cockpit as well. Actions are what counts not bad voice recordings.
Too big to ground
No, they will ground it if they see an immediate issue.
The problem is sorting out what the issue really is.
This has the hallmarks of a technical problem and then a pilots decision to try to get airborne. One guy commented on that possibility and I think it has some merit.
What that would be, baffled.
The Day Stealth Died: Iran Becomes First Country to Destroy F-35 Jets in Active Combat
“In an official statement released by the Iranian Army’s Public Relations Office, it was confirmed that two F-35 fighter jets were successfully shot down during the early Friday attack. Along with the jets, several drones belonging to Israel were also destroyed.”
“Stealth” has long been dead — it just hadn’t been buried yet.
This proves that “stealth” aircraft can be successfully detected and targeted using one or more of long-wavelength radar, passive radar, and hybrid radar.
Whoa. The fifth generation (a marketing term coined by LM to promote their aircraft) fighter jets being shot down.
They CLAIM two were shot down. I have yet to see anything that conclusively supports that claim.
here are some images!
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/breaking-news-iran-claims-it-shot-down-two-israeli-f-35-jets-releases-images-as-proof-abp-news/vi-AA1GH4lU?ocid=hpmsn
+1.
I question the veracity of pretty much everything, these days.
They say they’ve captured a female pilot…so we’ll know soon enough.
And of course the other side is denying the shoot-downs, for obvious reasons.
just more info on pilot
https://newschecker.in/fact-check/images-claiming-to-show-israeli-jet-being-downed-and-female-pilot-captured-by-iran-are-unrelated
Iran now claiming to have shot down a third F-35:
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/3rd-israeli-fighter-jet-shot-down-in-iran-irna/3598348
And the other side of the Rainbow.
https://defence-blog.com/irans-air-defense-failure-sends-shockwaves-to-russia/
The Iranians are indicating that the F35s were shot down by their own Bavar-373 air defense system.
Obviously some do not understand what a stealthy jet is.
First, they are not invisible, that is ridiculous, forgive me Romulans.
Stealth in this case refers to radar return and more accurate Radar Cross Section (RCS).
In its simplest terms, if a radar can see an F-16 at 30 miles, it can only see a F-35 at maybe 5-10 miles. Clo0se enough to deploy its attack package and not get shot at.
The F-35 has more return from the rear. Its not as good as the F-22 in that regard.
So you plan your routes and exposure. It does not always work, Yugoslavia shot down and F-117 with a trap (got predicatable on their route).
None of it means no losses, but when you are dependent on SAM systems, then its extremly relevant. SEAD is conducted first to reduce that (you will never eliminate it)
This is a good example of stealth vs radar. The missiles have less capable radars, but if close enough then the distance can allow a missile track. In theory its a No Escape Zone. Again depends on what aircraft is being shot at, Rafale or an F-22/35.
The U Tube is not a realistic combat scenario, its a demonstration of the discreet aspects of ACM. Pakistan/India recent air battle is what would happen with a max effort. But it does show that an F-22 can be seen but not targeted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIz-A2dDBdU
Infrared can also detect as well as sound. How good IRIS would be?
The simulation is all best assumptions not real combat. It only shows the basics and does not purport to be the real thing.
“… it can only see a F-35 at maybe 5-10 miles…”
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
“Stealth Killer! Russia’s Rezonans-NE Radar That Can Track F-35 Jets Deep Inside Finland & Norway Begins Construction”
“The Resonance-N radar’s technical capabilities enable it to identify and designate targets at distances up to 600 km for aerodynamic air targets and up to 1,200 kilometers for ballistic targets. The system finds targets at up to 100 kilometers in altitude simultaneously.”
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/stealth-killer-russias-rezonans-ne-radar-that-can-track-f-35-jets-russia/
Russia recently supplied a Resonance-N station to Egypt…located in Sinai.
It also supplied the tech to Iran in 2020.
***
If these shooting-down claims are verified, then one can expect very little future interest in the F-35.
If and and butts were candy an nuts we would all have a merry Xmas.
LOL……….What no cloaking device…………
TW,
When was the last time you read news??
A F-35 almost got shot down by the Houthis.
NYTimes:
> In 30 days, the Houthis shot down seven American MQ-9 drones (around $30 million each)
> Several American F-16s and an F-35 fighter jet were nearly struck by Houthi air defenses
FG: Japan orders checks on 787s
> According to a report by Kyodo News, Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) issued instructions to All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines, as well as their respective medium-haul, low-cost units AirJapan and ZipAir, to inspect “engines and airframes” of their 787 fleets.
I wonder what they are looking for in these inspections? Is this just a broad “look for anything out of place” or something more specific?
I think its a PR thing. Not that I blame them. Until there is some direction this is so bizarre that I have not come up with anything that explains it. Not that means anything but some outstanding people are the same.
I can only go back to the San Antonio electrical system that shut the entire system down and the RAT deployed.
So there is a slot of that occurring that is beyond the normal RAT triggers. I suspect the system has to have power to keep the RAT in place.
There looks to be timing aspects that the RAT deployed late in takeoff or after lift off.
The 787 has a combined EAFR which records both FDR and CVR
Yes but there are still two.
I could be wrong but I believe the forward one has the audio. Not sure if both pick up the FDR stream
A Boeing 787 is equipped (NOT with 1 FDR and 1 CVR BUT) with 2 EAFRs (integrated FDR / CVR / etc.), located one fore and the other aft . . . most likely EAFR-2100 unless replaced with brandnew units.
Could software have been the problem? It was a problem for the 737 Max.
https://www.i-programmer.info/news/149-security/8548-reboot-your-dreamliner-every-248-days-to-avoid-integer-overflow.html
Of course it could have been the problem: many software glitches only manifest themselves for certain (registry) counter values.
In addition to the issue in your link, we know that the 787 family has had software problems with GPS and radio (Qatar recently revealed that a BA software patch for its radio problem failed to correct the problem).
Interesting theory
Co-pilot error suspected in new Air India crash theory
https://www.yahoo.com/news/co-pilot-error-suspected-air-151829483.html
Mr Scheibner believes a simple catastrophic error may have caused the plane to plunge from the sky.
He said: “Here’s what I think happened, again folks this is just my opinion.
“I think the pilot flying said to the co-pilot ‘gear up’ at the appropriate time. I think the co-pilot grabbed the flap handle and raised the flaps, instead of the gear.
“If that happened, this explains a lot of why this aeroplane stopped flying.”
He explained how the wings would normally bend during take-off as the lift forces it into the air. But video footage appears to not show that happening, fuelling speculation that the flaps, used to help lift the plane, had been retracted.
Didn’t take long for the “foreign pilot blaming” to begin 🙈
That AA 787 that recently experienced serious flap issues on four separate occasions in a short timespan…must have had foreign pilots in the cockpit on all occasions 🤔
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/12/whistleblower-raised-safety-fears-boeing-dreamliner-factory/
aren’t the wings of the 787 manufactured in Japan?
Unless its in takeoff a flap issue is not related. Trying to square a round hole does not make it so.
Flap issues are one thing.
Not having flaps set right is totally different.
Or having flaps retract.
One guy blaming a co pilot is not blaming Air India crew(s). I don’t care if its someone Green with Poka Dots, mistakes are made by any nationality.
Spanair is ref below. It does not mean it happened here, its what can happen if it did.
Always keep in mind, data into the computer if its garbage will get garbage out.
I don’t like the cross check systems, there has to be a better way. GPS ref to where you are, a runway data base and ambient temp all should plug into an alert system.
The problem with that theory is they used the entire runway to get up to 174 knots.
Its possible the flaps were retracted after liftoff, but as they were marginal flying speed, the wings could simply not have lift from lack of speed.
Equally possible is a low flap setting of 1 or 5. The people I respect say it should be Flaps 15 which it does not look like.
Keep in mind that settings are a compromise of lift, speed and efficiency. They want to use the lowest safe flap setting as flaps have more drag and over time that adds up.
None of it explains a RAT deployment. That is incredibly distinctive sound. Very much like a small aircraft with a climb prop, except there are no small planes there.
Certainly possible flaps were retracted, its happened before, but the two levers are quite distant from each other with the Gear a bit long reach and above the throttles on the panel.
I firmly believe this is not a one error. If the RAT was deployed the gear can’t come up, there is no hydraulic power to do that (RAT will not do it, its needed for control surfaces).
RAT may save you on landing but not on takeoff, you need engine power that adds up to at least one engine full thrust (two engines at half thrust works, one at 75% and one at 25% works).
RAT noise could be wrong as well but it is very distinctive and there is some identical sounding noise.
A lot can be figured out from the wreckage. RAT will be down or not though it of course is under the fuselage. Flap position at impact will be clear (what it was on the runway will not be until FDR is decoded.)
Issues range completely widely and none of them makes sense so its going to be a series of somethings that add up but far from normal.
This is a well put piece from Flight Global.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/air-india-crash-probe-strives-to-understand-787s-failure-to-climb-away/163365.article
Nothing has been ruled in or out.
Relevant is a Captain with significant hours but also how much he has flown recently and how much on a 787.
The Marines lost an F-35 due to a Colonel who elected to fly in bad conditions and was not experienced on the F-35. Part of experience is also recent experience.
Was the crew rested?
What you do want and its a bad aspect, is a flight crew who recognizes bad settings for the situation. I am not blaming a crew, but it has happened due to the setting system.
Korean Air had a 747 shot down on data entry error and over reaction by the Soviets. Its not anywhere near a given this is what happened, its a possibility.
The full list of auto RAT deployment conditions for 787 (NOTE ITEM 2):
1-Loss of all engines
2-Both engines are at less than minimum idle RPM (Revolutions Per Minute)
3-Loss of all hydraulic power – left, right, and center systems detect low pressure
4-Loss of all electrical power
5-BPCU (Bus Power Control Unit) detects loss of power to C1 and C2 TRU (Transformer Rectifier Unit)s
6-On approach, loss of all four EMP (Electric Motor Pump) hydraulic pressures and loss of either the left or right flight controls ACE (Actuator Control Electronics)
7-Rotor burst on takeoff that causes loss of both PECS (Power Electronics Cooling System) primary cooling loops.
SO HOW DOES “Both engines are at less than minimum idle RPM (Revolutions Per Minute)” OCCUR and could fuel disruption cause that condition?
You can’t rule anything out right now.
So the short answer is yes fuel disruption could cause that condition.
But disruption means both engines. Bad fuel is possible but that should also show on takeoff and be aborted as that is when max power goes in (whatever the takeoff thrust setting is but its going to be 85% or higher).
Independent systems (probably multiples for each engine) for fuel flow so fuel loss to both engines should not occur but this should not have occurred so clearly something or things did.
Total loss of AC would do it.
It appears that rotation was very late from the huge dust cloud that the plane kicked up. Taxi was ok, but acceleration down the runway appeared to be slow and hence the very late rotation. Probably started to get some indications after V1 that something was not working properly. After rotation it appears that thrust started to rolloff even more. It is at this point that the RAT deployed maybe due to low RPM. They try to retract landing gear but hydraulics are failing and cycle is stopped. So engines did not flameout but at low RPM.
An interesting thing is that the at takeoff, 787 draws fuel from COMMON CENTER FUEL TANK.
Most of what I was familiar with is each engine has a feeder tank.
Center tank makes more sense as its easier to monitor one tank that two (or more)
Separate pumps and backup pumps almost 100%.
Fuel that has an issue could take a while to manifest. In theory that should never happen.
There was a flight (AA330?) in Indonesia or that area that the fuel system got contaminated with salt water. The filters did not take out salt. Ground truck filters also did not. Water yes and why no one noticed how much water was building in the ground truck separators?
Flight went off with increasing odd issues. They managed to land but it was close to a crash.
As noted, anything is possible. Fuel does not seem likely as no other fuel issues have occurred there but…………??????
In theory you should have runway traveled ref along with V1 to abort. But something pops up and you have to make a snap judgement to continue or not. Its one of those tragic situation where best practices and reality can conflict.
Like Sully, he could have made it back, but that is not what pilots are taught, in fact the opposite. Land ahead.
Of course in the middle of a city, landing ahead means a crash at a low altitude.
Its an ugly truth that there can be no right answer, people die either way. Jeju was going to crash and if it did not hit the localizer support, it was going to careen off into other stuff.
In their case a ditch at some angle to the left is better than trying to make it back to an airport. The post track reports show both engines affected so it should have been an ahead per Sully. You don’t know how you will react until you are there.
One guy I flew with got into a downdraft off the end of an airport. He said it was the hardest thing he had ever done to push the yoke forward. He did a crazy landing between the taxi way and the runway but it was smooth enough the airplane was ok. A small bit more downdraft and he could have landed short into a raised plateau the runway sat on. He would not have survived that.
The center tank is used first and basically emptied to reduce lifecycle STRAIN on the wings (probably). Just like TWA 800 had an empty center fuel tank. This seems to me to be an opportunity to “somehow get a lot of water into that tank”. I fully agree that there should be water filters in the ground infrastructure that deals with that. However, the region has had very heavy monsoon rains in the previous few days. There is always the possibility that something got flooded and a water filter was blown out by being overloaded and it wasn’t noticed. Other aircraft were getting tanks topped off, while the 787 was going on a long distance flight and needed a FULL REFILL ON THE CENTER TANK. The 787 taxied ok, but the center tank became progressively more agitated when accelerating and after rotation the pickup started to get more water. After rotation the engines appeared to rollback and the RAT is deployed. Then the aircraft levels off and the engines try to spool up causing the flickering lights as electrical buses are switching in and out. A bang is heard, maybe when an engine lights off pooled fuel that has accumulated (not very comfortable about this explanation). Just before crash a person in the building heard at least one engine making noise, so not a total flameout.
What I want to add is that its either a hydrant system at Ahmedabad or a pumper truck.
A tank does not get more agitated, it can drop more water out but again that is a function of separators so all aircraft would be affected the same. Hydrant less likely and a pumper truck more possible as its a one off fill.
Either way, the hydrant truck as well as the pumper trucks have their own filter units.
Filters is a bit of a misnomer, there is a water separator in both as well as filtration elements. Water build up and there is an alarm. The filters may not pass water and just not let fluid move (never got into that end)
The fuel pickups are above tank bottom wherever the fuel is stored. So yes, enough water the pickups will suck it but the tanks are also monitored and drained (big tanks make their own weather and water condenses in them).
Water in fuel systems is normal. Also the ways to separate it out because it is normal.
While possible, other aircraft would also have the issue and the authorities will have checked all the delivery systems. Ruling stuff out even if water is normal is how it plays out.
So, what about an exotic chemical? Also possible. But again no other aircraft affected.
It could be a one off where a repaired section was brought on line and dumped into one aircraft. But, even if post check, they would find the water separators full.
Impossible? No.
Equally possible is a complete roll back of engines. Its happened to the A220. I am not saying that is it but I am saying its more likely than contamination of a single aircraft.
Or as noted, bad data input, wrong engine roll back altitude selected or the aircraft thought it was at 1000 feet on the runway (acualy about 3000 feet equivalent due to temp and humidity) and triggered a roll back.
Right now there is pretty much a possible clue (RAT noise) and hard fact that the landing gear never came up. Flaps are suspect but can’t see well enough to say it was not flaps 1 or 5. Dose not look to be enough for Flaps 10 or higher.
Slats look to be deployed but that happens at Flaps 1. I suspect they know what the rear flaps were on impact now. If deployed and how much.
The RAT being under the fuselage could well be destroyed.
Need more information which they say we get when Black Boxes recovered but then it has to be assessed damage wise (do in India or so damaged sent to US) and then decoded and timelines linked. It does not just dump out as a complete data package, it has to be sorted as it were. Each parameter has to get time stamped – does no good if you don’t know when something happened.
It also has to be kept in mind, even if you hit V1 and see problems, you have to snap decide to abort (and possibly go off the end of the runway) or try to fly. It could be either way is no win.
Ahmedabad does not have an engineered arrestor overrun so a late abort is going off the end of the runway into residential .
Engines back in the spotlight from ATC transcript:
“Thrust not achieved… falling… Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!”
Ahmedabad police confirmed the pilot’s chilling distress call.
“”The longer runway roll hints at a possibility of the aircraft not having adequate thrust for takeoff”, said a source close to the investigation.
http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/121854790.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Until the India AHJ confirms, unless they have direct audio to play, I don’t believe any of the so called X reports Y.
The info on the Runway was supported by two sources, the one take off video and cloud of dust and flight tracking.
I put that as one solid fact before.
So, now we know what the Indian authorities are concentrating on in the ordered checks of the 787 fleet:
“The aviation regulator on Friday ordered Air India to conduct additional maintenance checks on its Boeing 787-8/9 aircraft equipped with GEnx engines, including assessments of certain take-off parameters, electronic engine control tests and engine fuel-related checks.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/14/india-orders-inspection-of-boeing-787s-after-air-india-crash.html
Air India has two 787s with RR engines, and Indigo has one. Interesting that those have apparently been excuded from the checks.
The number of fatalities on the ground now stands at 29, thus bringing the current total death toll to 270.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0575me7j82o
I kinda wondered how far down the runway the aircraft was actually rotating and taking-off. Based on Google Maps and the video I tried to extrapolate the viewpoint and take-off area. Even it is not very precise, it does indicate that the rotating was NOT at the end of the runway.
Have a look for yourself: https://ibb.co/q3j2bVJJ
That looks like some very neat detective work 👍
Clever to use that checkered building beside the road “elbow” as a line-of-sight reference.
It’s the end of the pre-monsoon season in Ahmadebad — which is a dry, hot and dusty time of the year. The dust blow upon rotation doesn’t necessarily indicate that the plane is on a little-used part of the runway.
You state “HOT, DRY”! If one looks at google maps the airport is brown. BUT, in the takeoff video the GRASS is GREEN and lush with some reasonable growth, probably weeks if not more. So probably there has been rain.
Here’s the weather in the period prior to the crash: hot and dry.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/india/ahmadabad/historic
It’s not inconceivable that the vegetation around the airport is irrigated, so as to curtail dust generation.
I had already looked at that site and it appears not to have rained on the crash date. It appears that the area is now getting some heavy rain. The Google maps photo show an extremely dry and brown surface while Apple Maps shows green.
What I was trying to get a handle on was if it has rained (which I think it has), that large dust cloud is indicative of just how low and beyond normal flight paths the 787 was. Even if everything is bone dry, I would be surprised that the normally used part of the runway could generate any dust cloud.
People are missing the point. Ignoring my previous post.
Hot means a high density altitude. About the same as 3000 feet.
Humidity also increases that but its not all that high.
Humidity can be really high and no rain.
Color of the area or grass is meaningless.
I actually was not referring to anything that you wrote. Has anyone calculated the density altitude? Anyway, the relevance of the green grass was about the large dust cloud and the impact that rain should have on mobile dust particles that can generate said cloud. Personally I thought that it was a massively large dust cloud.
Yes, nice work! Thanks
The government has now confirmed that the airplane used up nearly all of the runway.
Which would suggest that the camera in Detective Matth’s analysis is actually located much further toward the top right direction in his satellite photo, close to the start of the runway…e.g. in the vicinity of the “Picnic Party Plot”. The greater distance might also explain why the video is so grainy.
Even if the outcome is discordant, you’ve got to admire his approach 😎
+1
I do stand by my estimation. On the take-off roll, you can see another aircraft holding next to the runway. This might have been the (top-most) taxi-way which enters at a 45° angle, as both engines can be seen almost from the front. On my graph, that would be to the right of the extended line.
The Flightradar24 last data point shows the aircraft at an elevation of 625ft pretty much at the end of the runway. If this is not completely wrong, the aircraft must have lifted-off before that point. And, this is congruent with an overall assumed flight path. Based on my assumption, the following would make sense.
The B787 lifted off at the place I indicated and climbed to the 625ft by the end of the runway. That altitude was probably more or less the maximum it reached, it continued for a few seconds on that level before it slowly descended into the buildings.
The distances between the lift-off to the end of the runway is relatively short. In the video, it shows that the aircraft was climbing sort of normally in the beginning. Then, there was a short stretch extending over the end of the runway, where the aircraft held that altitude. That would probably cover the empty stretch after the runway to the first houses. This would then mark more or less the half-way point of the whole flight, whereas the remaining distance was the descent to the point of impact. The descent appears to be slower than the initial climb, so the distance would rather be a bit longer.
I can’t explain for the “dust”, and logically that would somehow indicate the aircraft passed a part of the runway, that is not usually used. Besides it would be very interesting to see other aircraft taking off from the same CCTV camera for comparison.
But despite some news reports saying the aircraft needed the whole runway, I doubt it was the case as explained above.
Besides, according to this video, the whole flight took around 30-32 seconds. Assuming the aircraft flew at the 174 knots that Flightradar24 claims, that would result in some 2.68km. The blue area on my graph is around 2.7km away from the impact. So different pieces of the puzzle all seem to fit together.
If on the other hand, the aircraft had taken off at the end of the runway, the flight distance would have been around the 1.75km only. At that distance and duration, the average speed would have been only 113 knots. I’m no pilot, but it seems awfully slow for a heavy B787 to fly that slow.
More excellent sleuth work 👍
I made an updated version including the details about the aircraft holding next to the runway, the distances and flight duration. I still believe it all fits quite nicely together.
If the aircraft had taken off towards the end of the runway, the average speed would be only 113 knots, too slow for a full B787.
https://ibb.co/yHQgyXg
Add-on: FlightRadar24 data from 10.6. shows the B787 from flight AI171 was around 350m earlier at 575ft with a speed of 182 knots.
There is the possibility that the start of the rotation was at too low of a speed and the aircraft did not physically leave the ground, or more likely, ground effect area till it was at the very end of the runway which has now been verified. An “expert pilot” speculated that the aircraft could have rotated too soon. This further suggests that the engines were not developing the proper thrust during the runway acceleration phase.
Would the pilots not have aborted if they did not reach V1 at the appropriate time?
There is a possibility that what the pilots saw / heard on their instrumentation did not correspond to the actual situation…
Could be.
I can’t get that footage of the plane slowly settling toward the ground out of my head.
@Vincent:
As I have stated, if you have an issue you need to process it and make a decision.
Normally its auto reject. But that depends on the fault and a snap judgement if abort is correct or not.
With the distance and speed they went, yes abort should have been done normally but we do not know what they were dealing with so no ability to assess a decision.
There have been aborts at VR and V2. If the pilot thinks the plane won’t fly and its better to go off the runway, then its a PIC decision.
They are taught not to but that does not mean they can’t or won’t. PIC always can do what they think is best.
@Math:
As I have stated, from the takeoff video you can see they were far down the runway before rotation.
You can also see the cloud of dust when they do rotate.
So yea, early on you could see that it did not rotate until last fraction of a second and takeoff speed was low for the distance.
The normal setup is to minimize drag so flaps setting is a compromise between best effect and less drag, if you have the runway length to work with.
Regardless of flap setting, they should rotate half to 2/3 down the runway.
Thanks
The RAT in the mix. The 787 is one of the first, if not the first to use large scale Lithim Batteries. The 777 used Ni-Cads.
=====
http://787updates.newairplane.com/787-Electrical-Systems/Batteries-and-Advanced-Airplanes#
=====
https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/a-small-gray-dot-aviation-expert-says-this-detail-may-unravel-air-india-crash-mystery-480450-2025-06-15
========
If the RAT was deployed, because of loss of electrical system. Could a problem with the Lithium Batteries (high voltage, or shorting out?) be a source of total electrical failure? Could some switch have been left in the “use batteries instead of generator” in the cockpit during takeoff? The Gear Up switch was thrown causing an increased load on the electrical system, causing a total electrical failure? Maybe the batteries weren’t part of the equation, but, just the extra electrical load from the gear up selection causing a total electrical failure? More data on the 787 electrical system.
=====
https://kb.skyhightex.com/knowledge-base/electrical-system-summary/
=====
No way to know right now.
Total electrical failure is a possible as the RAT is held up by power to that solenoid.
Loose power and it springs out.
Fail Safe in the sub set of the specific circuit.
There is an additional condition that causes an auto deployment of the RAT.
→ Both engines are at less than minimum idle RPM (Revolutions Per Minute)
So I assume that means flight idle.
The full list that I have now combined two different sources is as follows (it is interesting that the different sources were not identical):
1-Loss of all engines
2-Both engines are at less than minimum idle RPM (Revolutions Per Minute)
3-Loss of all hydraulic power – left, right, and center systems detect low pressure
4-Loss of all electrical power
5-BPCU (Bus Power Control Unit) detects loss of power to C1 and C2 TRU (Transformer Rectifier Units)
6-On approach, loss of all four EMP (Electric Motor Pump) hydraulic pressures and loss of either the left or right flight controls ACE (Actuator Control Electronics) → (2nd source wording) Loss of 4 electric motor pumps and flight control system faults during approach.
7-Rotor burst on takeoff that causes loss of both PECS (Power Electronics Cooling System) primary cooling loops. (Are they referring to an engine rotor?)
8-Loss of 4 electric motor pumps and one engine failure on takeoff. (Note: not just loss of one engine)
9-Loss of power to captain’s and FO’s flight instruments
If it’s electrical….
The gear on the 787 places more electrical load on the system, than traditional aircraft, due to it’s
‘no bleed air’ design. So, when the ‘gear up’ switch was turned on, an extra electrically
driven hydraulic pump was used. The 787 also uses a “remote power distribution units” using solid
state power controllers rather than traditional thermal circuit breakers and relays. (also mentioned
in the same document, below). If the electrical system is indicated to be at fault in this crash, (the RAT being deployed and the lights flickering mentioned by the lone survivor,) then there’s a lot of new technology to be investigated.
=====
https://docslib.org/download/8927944/787-no-bleed-systems-saving-fuel-and-enhancing-operational-efficiencies
=====
“The key difference between the traditional and 787 hydraulic system is the power source
for the center system. In the traditional architecture, the center system is powered by two large
air-turbine-driven hydraulic pumps, which operate at approximately 50 gallons per minute (gpm) at
3,000 pounds per square inch (psi) to meet peak hydraulic demands for landing gear actuation,
high lift actuation and primary flight control during takeoff and landing. During the remainder of the
flight, two small (approximately 6 gpm) electric-driven hydraulic pumps power the center system.
In the 787 no-bleed architecture, the center hydraulic system is powered by two large (approxi
mately 30 gpm at 5,000 psi) electric-motor-driven hydraulic pumps. One of the pumps runs through
out the entire flight and the other pump runs only during takeoff and landing. The higher pressure
of the 787’s hydraulic system enables the airplane to use smaller hydraulic components, saving both
space and weight.”
Thanks for this information.
I believe they have CBs though they may also be solid state.
Solid State converts just change the Variable Frequency inputs into a defined level of AC.
There will be isolation and cutouts through the primary and secondary systems in some form of CB.
It was failure of isolation during the San Antonio even that lead to CB re-design.
This is a review of the Damage in San Antonio
https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/news/aerospace-manufacturing-design-boeing-787-fire-amd-111510/
Note it specially says CBs in the P100 panel.
Fault coordination and isolation is a science unto itself.
Shutting down an inverter is an action a fault detection system could take.
Just like your house though, you want to trip the circuit causing the problem, not the MAIN CB (or Inverter).
How the Boeing 787 does fault isolation I do not know. Central fault is how they do it in buildings (if they have it). That is a single point of failure (or no action)
An aircraft is going to have multiples of projection be it temperate systems, desperate isolation.
There are CBs that have “electronic chip with settings” that sole trip if the settings are exceeded. The 787 probably uses a combination.
There are solid state CBs – I don;’t know if used on a 787.
An electronic setting CB also has a thermal element in it but its so slow its a last thing that will trip.
Very interesting information. You seem to be up on this type of info. Question? It seems like the 787 also has two engine driven hydraulic pumps (is that the case?) And if it does, are they mechanically driven vs what you described as “traditional”, (maybe mechanically driven by the same shaft as the motor/generator [and is that the low or high speed spool])?
According to this web site
=====
https://kb.skyhightex.com/knowledge-base/electrical-system-summary/
=====
“All systems of the aircraft are electrically powered, the only system pneumatically powered is the engine anti-ice.”
The intent of not using “Bleed Air” running through out the plane is to save weight. Instead of heavy metal tubes, they run lighter electrical wiring. This of course raises the total electrical load that the generators have to produce. There are Two Generators per engine instead of One Generator, including the APU. So a total of 6 Generators. I guess that is double redundancy in one way of thinking, or twice the chance of failure for another
F-82_Fan .. from this, it does appear that the 787 has 2 engine driven hydraulic pumps..
=========
http://myhres.com/Boeing-787-Systems-and-Performance.pdf
=======
There currently seems to be noticable nervousness among operators of 787s:
BA 787-8, today, London to India — returned to London shortly after takeoff:
“Chennai-bound British Airways Boeing aircraft returns to London after technical snag”
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/british-airways-flight-ba35-chennai-boeing-787-dreamliner-flap-failure-fuel-heathrow-london-101750002176489.html
—
787-9, today, India to Frankfurt, returned to Hyderabad shortly after takeoff:
https://m.economictimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/lufthansas-boeing-787-9-dreamliner-to-hyderabad-returns-to-frankfurt-base-mid-air/articleshow/121865846.cms
Very interesting,this does imply that the pilots have an idea about what the problem might possibly be.
I’m off to pprune
Well we all know what it might possibly be.
The first is a tech issue. Happens to all aircraft all the time.
Bryce is famous for using a news item totally out of context.
@ Grubbie
Agreed.
Looks like they’re no longer willing to trust particular circumstances.
Seasoned pilots will already have drawn precautionary conclusions from the Indian crash. Might also be airline policy.
Pilots are usually the first to arrive at the scene of a serious accident.I am grateful for a cautious approach
Frankfurt to India on the 2nd one.
This is listed as coming from Indian Aviation Authorities though not specially the India DGCA
“Thrust not achieved… falling… Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!”
Assume its true, why low thrust was not acted on before the end of the runway is the open question.
Cause of low thrust pretty much breaks into fuel or control settings.
With regard to that exact quote in another post above, you said an hour ago:
“TransWorld
June 15, 2025
Until the India AHJ confirms, unless they have direct audio to play, I don’t believe any of the so called X reports Y.”
You seem to be rather fickle 🙈
😉
787 pilots on pprune.org mentioned you cant retract flaps in one go. There’s a protection to prevent that. And you cant continue retracting them if you don’t have enough airspeed either.
What if 5G signals faked out the Radar Altimeter making the Engine controls “think” the airplane was on the ground, and safe to shut down the aircraft, via the TCMA (Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation) software? The B787 has had previous software glitches (that have been fixed) that could potentially cause a total electrical failure. A few AD’s have been issued dealing with 5G and the B787 in the past, along with a previous dual engine failure at low altitude.
=====
1) 5G Phone signals can interfere with the 787 LRRA (Low Range Radar Altimeter) readings.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-01/CAN-2022-01.pdf
=====
2) The B787 appears to use the LRRA as a weight-in-wheel’s sensor for some functions.
—–
“Aircraft typically rely on weight-on-wheels (WOW) sensors, to let their systems know that they are on the ground. But in the case of the 787, it appears that the radio altimeter has a key role in the process, making 5G interference a concern.”
https://mentourpilot.com/does-the-787-have-a-problem-with-5g-interference/
=====
3) The B787 has had a very recent AD issued for Transponder interference from spurious CW radio waves. More electrical interference to the B787 due to outside radio transmissions
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/06/13/2025-10759/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes
=====
4) The Auto Throttle has had problems in the past due to 5G with an AD issued
Less than a year ago AD for 5G and Auto Throttle problems
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/18/2024-21144/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes
=====
5) Another B787 has had Dual Engines shut down close to the ground, but, I haven’t found any final reason. The shut down in that event was a hard shut down of engines, where they couldn’t restart easily and the plane was towed. (airplane was in landing mode, and the first indication was lack of reverse thrust, obviously close to the ground) Does anyone have any more information on the resolution this event?
—–
https://thepointsguy.com/news/boeing-787-suffers-rare-dual-engine-failure-on-landing/
and
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/ana-finds-no-engine-failure-787-8-dual-shutdown
=====
6) If the electrical system did fail, how affected will the TCMA be?
—–
“However, if the main power generators all failed, the plane’s lithium-ion battery would supply power to the flight deck for around six seconds. This should be enough time to deploy the RAM air turbine, a small pinwheel-like emergency generator, which springs out the side of the aircraft. The ram air turbine generates enough power in the air stream to reboot the electrical systems of the aircraft and can provide enough electrical power to ensure a safe landing.”
https://www.engineering.com/power-killing-software-glitch-found-in-boeing-dreamliner/
—–
Is 6 seconds enough time to keep the critical electrical systems for the TCMA etc, to stay alive until the RAT could take over?
=======
7) from the Boeing Patent for the TCMA…the numbers refer to a diagram in the Patent application.
—–
“Software package 130 monitors engine power level and compares the power level to the threshold contour. If, when the aircraft is on the ground, throttle 36 is set to idle speed
and the engine power level exceeds the threshold contour, Software package 130 of one or both processing Subsystems 20a and 20b will shut down the engine by cutting fuel to the
engine. Software package 130 cuts fuel to the engine by causing EEC 18 to remove voltage across HPSOV open coil 118 and introducing voltage across HPSOV closed coil 100”
—–
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/11/c0/6b/6dcf993795046a/US6704630.pdf
=======
8) How 5G can interfere with Radar Altimeters in general
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/media/Presentations/22-02-Radio-Altimeters-5g-Deployment-Clausnitzer-Silagyi.pdf
============
9) more on the previous duel engine failure on a B787?
You can’t reverse thrust too soon on a B787????
—-
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/ana-787-engine-shutdown/
=========
A podcast talking about the Radar Altimeter and possible override of the FADEC by autothrottle etc (transcript option button available)
—-
https://lynnfrederickdsouza.substack.com/p/dreamliner-takeoff-malfunctions-causes
=======
BTW, the NTSB is having a public board meeting to determine the cause of the Boeing 737 MAX Door Plug incident. It will be live streamed live next Tuesday (June 24, 2025)
—
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/DCA24MA063-BMG.aspx
=====