Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- AIN Media Group Agrees to Acquire Leeham News & Analysis June 17, 2025
- Five for Five: Air India crash points to systemic problems at Boeing that CEO Ortberg must fix June 15, 2025
- Airbus sees Boeing as medium-term competitor, with Comac next June 14, 2025
- Boeing bullish on 20-year forecast, despite short-term headwinds June 14, 2025
- Embraer’s 20-year market forecast under 150 seats: fewer turboprops, jets about the same June 14, 2025
Five for Five: Air India crash points to systemic problems at Boeing that CEO Ortberg must fix
By Scott Hamilton
June 15, 2025, © Leeham News, Le Bourget, France: The Paris Air Show was supposed to be another step, however small, in Boeing’s way back from six years from crisis after crisis, safety and quality concerns, criminal investigations, Congressional hearings and existential threats following two fatal crashes of the 737 MAX and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Boeing wasn’t bringing any MAXes, 777X or 787s to the air show. There would be no awe-inspiring flight displays. The cost wasn’t worth it given Boeing’s billions of dollars in losses in recent years.
Nevertheless, Boeing planned low-key executive appearances and media events.
Air India flight 171 on its descent to a crash on July 12. Credit: Amateur video.
And then, four days before the show was to officially begin tomorrow, Air India flight 171 crashed, killing 241 of 242 people on board and at least three dozen on the ground where the 14-year-old 787-8 pancaked in to a densely packed residential and educational area only two kilometers from the airport.
Videos of the event showed the 787 using up almost all of the 11,500 ft runway to take off in a cloud of dust (presumably the overrun area), barely climbing a few hundred feet, dipping and climbing slightly again before smoothly descending into an explosive ball of smoke and flame on impact out of view of the cameras.
The pilot radioed a Mayday with the terse message reporting power problems with the GEnx engines on the plane.
Very quickly pundits, pilots, armchair experts and even former crash investigators began hypothesizing on what went wrong. Theories ranged from pilot error, misconfigured flaps, dual engine failure, electrical failures and more. The only thing missing was an alien ray from outer space.
GE, Boeing cancel events
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg. Credit: Getty Images.
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg quickly canceled plans to attend the air show. GE canceled a briefing about its RISE Open Fan engine scheduled for the Saturday after the crash and a Future Airplanes forum set for opening day that included speakers from GE and Boeing. Boeing downplayed a Saturday media reception and canceled another one planned for Tuesday at which executives were to be in attendance.
Five for Five
Some quickly began raising questions about the 787’s safety, raising old issues and hinting that regulators should ground the airplane. For Boeing, this topic is especially sensitive, given the safety and quality issues raised in recent years and which continue to dog the company.
Boeing’s last four pure commercial airliner programs plus the commercially based 767/KC-46A USAF refueling tanker each have had development, design, quality and in some cases safety problems. Boeing Commercial Airplanes is five for five for problems, delays and billions of dollars in losses.
The 787
The 787’s history was the beginning of a long series of safety, quality, design and production issues that began to emerge in 2007, the year before the model was supposed to enter service. It wasn’t until October 2011 that the first 787-8 entered service, with Japan’s ANA.
In January 2013, two 787s—one from Japan Air Lines (JAL) and one from ANA—suffered battery fires one week apart, The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the US-registered fleet pending the investigation. Foreign regulators followed suit; globally, 50 787s sat for three months before returning to service.
A short time later, another 787, this one owned by Ethiopian Airlines, had a fire that was traced to pinched wiring that arced, creating a blaze. The global fleet continued in operation.
In the intervening years, various problems emerged requiring Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins and inspections, but this is fairly normal. But in 2020, nine years after EIS and 16 years after production began, paper-thin gaps between fuselage joins were discovered. Deliveries were halted for 20 months while fixes were designed. One hundred ten 787s had been built with all requiring inspection and most require rework to fix it, taking 3-4 months per plane. The last of these was complete early this year.
The 747-8
Development of the 747-8 had its trouble. It was more than a year late, about $2bn in charges were written off and the initial design proved to have flutter issues. Engineering work outsourced to India came back flawed and had to be reworked by Boeing employees, taking time and adding to costs. Lufthansa Airlines refused to accept the first of 20 on order and never replaced the aircraft.
The 737 MAX
The history of the 737 MAX is etched in everybody’s mind who is connected to the aviation industry and who are aviation enthusiasts. After two crashes of five-month-old 737-8s in October 2018 and March 2019, the airplane was grounded for 21 months by the FAA. Redesign of the now-famous MCAS system that was flawed and at the root of the accidents took exponentially more time than anticipated. The FAA rejected early proposals.
As time dragged on, more issues were found, and these had to have fixes designed and approved. Still more design issues were discovered and after some in-service bugs emerged, still more design and fixes were needed.
Certification of the 737-7 and 737-10 MAXes still hasn’t occurred, years after these two family members were supposed to enter service. In January 2024, a door plug blew off a new 737-9 operated by Alaska Airlines minutes after take off from Portland (OR). An emergency landing followed safely. The low altitude and by sheer chance that the two seats next to the door plug were empty prevented anyone from being sucked out of the airplane.
Minor injuries occurred and the plane was damaged sufficiently that Alaska refused to keep it; Boeing took the airplane back in exchange for an order for a MAX 10 and compensation to the airline. The FAA grounded 171 MAXes operating in the US for three weeks before approving Boeing’s inspection plan and subsequent fix. The problem was traced to sloppy assembly at the 737 Renton (WA) production plant.
The 777X
Certification of this stretched, re-engined, re-winged version of the 777 Classic—one of legacy Boeing’s best airliners—was marching ahead smoothly when the MAX crisis erupted. The FAA quickly began reexamining all the certification work completed to then on the 777X, which was supposed to enter service in January 2020. This took time, created delays and cost money.
Flight tests revealed that the plane had a tendency for uncommanded nose-down pitches. Bugs in the flight control software were discovered. A redesign was required. The horizontal tailplane was thought by some to be too small for the larger plane (than the Classic), much as the tailplane of the McDonnell Douglas proved too small for the MD-11 compared with the DC-10 from which it was derived.
More recently, a thrust link alongside the massive engines was found to be flawed, halting test flights and requiring a redesign.
Billions of dollars have been written off. Certification is hoped for by the end of this year, with EIS planned for next year—six years late and 13 years after the program launch.
The KC-46A
Boeing’s performance on the KC-46A tanker, a military program, has been abysmal. This airplane is based on the commercial 767-200ER and as such is built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA). Boeing Defense, Space and Security (BDS) militarizes the airplane.
Several systems have what’s called Level 1 problems. The remote-vision tail refueling book still doesn’t work, years after the years-delayed entry into service with the USAF. The refueling boom is developed by a sub-contractor. That’s bad enough, along with the other systems issues, but BCA’s role is building a quality airplane in the first place—and herein lies the problem.
Sloppy production allowed a variety of foreign objects to find their way into the finished airplanes. Quality control was so bad that the air force refused delivery a few times for weeks at a time. Boeing has already written off $6bn for the program, and there is no telling if more charges are to come.
Systemic problems
This history makes it clear that BCA (and BDS, which has more issues than recounted here) has systemic problems that Ortberg must fix. Progress has been made, but the Air India crash and talk of grounding the 787 (however premature this, given the investigation is in its infancy) has resurfaced memories of these previous issues.
Boeing’s way back to health may suffer a setback if any fault with the airplane contributed to the accident.
Typo note: “door plus” should read “door plug”.
First Line: Paris Air Shown s/b Paris Air Show
All u dumb as fuck. First 787 crash on a 11 year old plane. The shitty airlines maintenance their own planes not boeing.
I think it was 14 years so more to your point. These clowns should have aborted long before . It ludicrous to blame Boeing for this but never ending train of “experts” will go on endlessly about something they know nothing about.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
None of us knows what information the crew had and what they had to assess and make a decision on.
We do not know its a maint issue, a system issue or a crew decision issue though its going to be at least two of those.
The same people calling out Boring control need to work on their own quality control.
Is it somewhat soon to point to an inherent fault of something in the 787 that is like the other issues that Boeing has had in the past? This one seems to feel different than the others. But I suspect that a lot will become clear to the insiders that are doing the investigation very soon.
Sort of agree but this is a 15? year old aircraft.
It did not fall apart which is what one so called Whistle Blower claims prior and is now saying I told you so.
I think we can put thrust issue at the top. 11,500 feet of runway used.
Not a clue as to why no abort, Pilots have to make decisions and the right decision can and often is only obvious post crash.
I suspect they have some solid ideas by now. Flap position should be obvious even in the wreck to rule in part of the issue or not.
When an aircart only get 174 knots in 11,500 feet or runway, there is something horribly going wrong.
Obviously thrust is involved, but its either fuel, settings or a massive electrical failure.
https://skybrary.aero/articles/full-authority-digital-engine-control-fadec
Or perhaps a lift issue.
You can’t separate out lift from thrust.
Flap settings are deliberately as low as the runway permits for reasons of economy.
The picture resolution is not good enough to tell if they had Flaps 5.
Clearly its not flaps 20.
Its astonishing someone has not plugged in the 171 flight data into a 787 or simulator and got a readout what the computer would have selected.
Kind of reminds you of the Air Florida crash in DC where the iced over tubes caused the engines to give less than optimal thrust. Will be interesting if that the same issue.a clogged tube
That is an interesting aspect though I think what is relevant is a pilot making a decision to proceed when they are getting strange readings (engines in this case).
Do not read into this a view that the IA Captain did the same, it is an example of a PIC who did make a decision to proceed. Worst is if you see something at V1 and are trying to make a decision to abort and possibly off the end of a runway or get into the air.
“NTSB:
captain’s failure to reject the takeoff during the early stage, when his attention was called to anomalous engine instrument readings, were also erroneous.”
TransWorld wrote…
June 15, 2025
When an aircart only get 174 knots in 11,500 feet or runway, there is something horribly going wrong.
Obviously thrust is involved, but its either fuel, settings or a massive electrical failure.
Just thinking out loud, how about a Biological issue with the fuel. There are a number of microbes that eat jet fuel and live in infected fuel systems. Over time they plug filters. I’m wondering if the fuel had enough crap growing in it that fuel flow was restricted. Fadec will derate to keep the engine running. So that could fit many of the things we see, a slow take off and the airplane hopping into ground effect. If the crew stuffs the knobs to the glass to spool the engines, they very well could have overrun fadecs ability to keep the engines running. The engines can’t schedule the fuel, they stop running, the RAT deploys and the airplane settles into the neighborhood. Weirder things have happened
True.
But those contaminated systems are not one aircraft specific (unless it was a truck(s) that delivered the fuel and not a hydrant system.
The Hydrant truck and a tanker truck both have filter systems.
FasDac would run the engines as hard as it could. It would not just quit.
I would not rule it out, but its a pretty low probability due to both the system of fuel delivery and that no other aircraft had problems.
A tanker truck delivery with a single contaminated tanker might do it if the filters were bypassed but I don’t think you can.
U really think and negative clarity will be allowed into the public domain this is life and death for an iconic US company no prizes for guessing the out come of this charade
The flight data recorder haven’t even been released yet so your premature reaction that this could not resulted from maintenance or human factors is really Quite surprising.
It’s an opportunity to blast Boeing, something that…is rarely passed up here.
There is that from the usual suspects but others of us are just looking for the explanation
@ Jno
Can you please point out to us where you believe the author to be manifesting “your premature reaction that this could not resulted from maintenance or human factors”.
I don’t see that anywhere in the article above.
I see an article discussing a background of dysfunction against which the current crash will be viewed as being most inopportune…but I see no conclusions as to the crash’s cause.
Once the black box results are in, the answer will be clear.
Until than, let us see and wait.
I am unable to pin point this.
We have
11590 ft runway
Most likely no or flaps 5
RAT out
Power loss messaged from the pilot.
A big bang shortly before impact as per survivor’s statement.
…..and everything else.
Stop speculations
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Why?
To create doubt,
Faked facts, because that is what irresponsible people will do.
@ Joerg Wiebe
“…To create doubt,
Faked facts,…:
How can speculation create a fact?
Speculation creates a theory — not a fact. A theory is a vehicle that can be used to divine what is plausible and/or probable.
Speculation is the foundation of science, engineering and math…why do you find it so frightening?
Do you think that accident investigators don’t use speculation in order to weed out possibilities?
Actually they are not supposed to.
Speculation is unfounded on any facts.
A theory is based on known facts.
So, engine thrust is a huge candidate here. The first thing you look for is engine related data. You follow that wherever it leads.
But, you continue to look at all the data and facts (what was found on the ground) and make sure that there are not additional aspects involved.
It might not even have affected that flight but could others.
You call it speculation, others call it discussion.
Conjecture is the mother of proof.
+1
The FDR data should have been downloaded by now. If they selected correct thrust (N1), had correct flap and slat settings and got uninterrupted fuel flow something in the flight management system or pilot actions caused the dual engine loss of thrust condition.
Claeas:
Everyone has the mantra they got the FDR and will know immediately.
It takes a week or two.
Its not just a download, its assessment of the FDR and where it should be attempted to download (India in this case or US)
How damaged it is determines that. India can do normal FDR but only two labs are setup for the very worst damaged ones.
Then you have to pull the data input of all the parameters (hundreds) and give them an ID as well as a timestamp and then sort out which ones are relevant and cross reference them to get a picture of what was going on.
That also had to be cross referenced with normal.
Re AI171 – the much reported mayday message from the crew has been debunked/rescinded by the journalist that first reported it. There’s also no official confirmation of how long the take off run was – dust being thrown up in India is a very common sight.
I have seen the long takeoff run and late rotation.
I can estimate that it was at least 2/3 down the runway.
Other tracking sources say they used the whole runway.
If so then the dust is from the over run area.
I don’t know about the supposed Mayday, you don’t list any links.
There also is a whole slew of possible including human factors and systems failing and out of the book stuff a pilot would have to try to assess and a decision on what to do.
If you’ve seen it, at what exact point did they rotate? There’s been nothing official from the DGCA about the take-off run. What “tracking sources” are you referring to – you didn’t provide any links.
As for the mayday call – as reported by an Indian aviation blogger “The source of the “Mayday … no thrust, losing power, unable to lift,” message was a journalist called Barkha Dutt – she herself clarified that she has confirmed it was not true. But the damage has been done – that statement of hers was picked up and amplified by some Western media sources. And that original fake news tweet stays.”
We’re in the early stages of The Information Wars, I think.
Has anyone actually *seen* the takeoff roll of AI171
(in this instance) from beginning to end; and if so,
do you have a link?
#skeptical in Los Osos
The government has said the plane took almost the entire runway.
Scott, the Times of India reported that a “government official” said the take-off run was long. That report was widely re-reported by other media. There is nothing about this on the DGCA’s website and everyone is jumping on this ‘news’ as gospel, yet nobody can say who this mysterious government official is.
This is very typical in India. As are dusty take-offs.
The TOI mentions that local regulatory authorities (mentioned Ahmedabad Police in the article) and cctv footage from the airport capturing the runway confirmed that the 787 took almost the entire runway on its take-off roll.
@AeroBuff – Why would the police be giving updates with that kind of information? My view is a large dose of salt is required unless hard news comes from the AAIB (investigating authority) or the DGCA.
That is confirmed by the side video. Its not definitive for cross ref, but I did ID the shack in the frame and that was 1/3 of the way down the runway.
Its was at least 2/3 and looked longer.
There is the cloud of dust blown up
Flight tracking confirms it and per Scott, government confirms it.
The 174 knots also confirmed by Flight Tracking. It may change 5 knots one way or the other but its going to be very close.
It should be well over 200 knots at that point though with the right flaps and speed you do not need that high a speed.
Same response as to Scott – the Times of India claimed a “government official” said the take off run was long. This was widely re-reported by other media. I have seen nothing official that confirms this statement. There’s nothing on the DGCA’s website. Nobody knows who this “government official” is.
Widebody departures kicking up lots of dust are very common in India and not an indication of how long the take-off run is.
“well over 200 knots”: hunh?
I doubt climbout speed after takeoff on a 787 is even close to that .
Takeoff speed can be as high as 180 knots. That number varies due to flaps setting (more flaps lower) but also more drag taking more power using more fuel so they set as low as is safe for a runway, temp and humidity levels.
That should be no latter than 2/3 Runway.
So yea, over 200 knots is easily achieved in 11,500 feet if the engines are putting out anywhere near full thrust.
https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/787-takeoff-n1/391997/8
Looks like this is for the bigger -9.
Depending on weight:
Flap 5 – from 126 to 174, if at 540,000lbs.
Frank P:
Add a few knots due to temp?
@TW
You know the weight?
@TW
And for the record, the 787-8 has a max MTOW of 502,000lbs.
The 787-9, what that table displays, has an MTWO of 562,000.
https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf
Also from Boeing:
https://www.lissys.uk/samp1/
Takeoff CLmax 1.91 {wimpress ref.area}
Takeoff Vstall 138. keas
Takeoff Vmc 132. keas
Takeoff Vfail 157. keas
Takeoff V2 165. keas
@Frank P:
I believe density altitude was 3000 feet, maybe a bit more.
I don’t have the data for a 787-8 (or any jet for that matter)
But a normal jet, fully loaded should be well past 174 knots at the end of the runway.
The question then is, why no rotation sooner if they had flying speed (Vf)? let alone V1 or V2.
I think you would agree that if they ran flat out thrust for 111,500 feet they would be over 200 knots.
Its not that 174 knots is not a flyable speed, its that it took them the whole runway to get to that.
With regard to the “whole runway”, has it been verified that the 787 backtracked to the starting end of the runway, or did a U-turn at the intermediary turnaround site? I have seen references to both so am reluctant to have an opinion about how much of the runway was used.
+1
These days my motto is “show me, don’t tell me”, and in an age of “AI”, even that might not be enough..
The reports I saw addressed that and its reported it did use full runway taxiing to the far end.
I don’t have the reference.
FlightRadar24 confirmed that detailed analysis of their data showed that the plane entered the runway at the intersection and back-tracked to the 23 threshold before departure.
OK, so they used the whole runway, end to end, but barely staggered off at the very end! This is even more confusing as it would seem like the crew would have had some sort of indication by V1 that the commanded thrust was not there. So it would seem that the obvious onset of thrust reduction must have happened after V1 and must have come on rather rapidly.
What could reduce the thrust in such a ramping down way? Something caused or commanded both engine controllers to separately and not abruptly roll back possibly below flight idle in such a way that the crew still had the belief that they could attain stable flight and then land.
The engines seemed to not exhibit any external distress other than the possible bang that was heard (which may have been the RAT deployment).
It is this progressive thrust ramp down that was so insidious for the crew to deal with.
For this to be a software bug that first surfaces after this many years is mind boggling.
A fuel pump failure could not do it as there are two separate pumps. Also the engines can directly and independently suck fuel from the wing tanks without any use of the electric pumps (I do not know if switching over to suction mode happens automatically). This also suggests that the pressure in the fuel lines did not decrease significantly to trigger an auto switch (if that is a thing). Probably the crew did not have time to think of switching from the fuel pumps in the center tank to the wing tanks. To actually start drawing fuel from the wing tanks requires that the fuel pumps in the center tank to be counterintuitively TURNED OFF so that the higher pressure fuel from these pumps do not override the lower pressure wing fuel pumps that are also on (this is by design, as this automatically draws fuel from the center tank. But if one of these pumps in the center tank fails the pumps in wings then start pumping fuel, [I believe that they have been on and at pressure all the time])!
So what does that leave as to a cause?
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth ‽
Yes it is.
All you can do is list the possibles.
We don’t even know if they were initially seeing normal thrust and then it did not keep ramping up, or if it suddenly slacked off part way down the runway but past V1.
Interesting. I have this feeling that there will be many, many more twists and turns in this situation.
No question.
Its going to be a chain of events, what those are have been listed as possible and likely a bizarre one or two in there.
“Re AI171 – the much reported mayday message from the crew has been debunked/rescinded by the journalist that first reported it”
Got a link to back that up?
The ‘journalist’ that reported it was Barkha Dutt. She herself subsequently admitted that it wasn’t true, but by then it had been widely re-reported by other media and, as is the way these days, becomes “the truth” when in fact it’s the exact opposite.
It seems she has a history of false aviation reporting. I can’t prove it, so folks can believe it or not. But I would caution against believing anything that’s attributed to anonymous “officials” in India. If it isn’t on the DCGA’s website or said by one of their staff at a press conference, it is very likely not correct.
That’s nice — but you still haven’t posted a link to this alleged retraction.
I said I can’t prove it – I don’t have a link. I’m just providing information and context.
You’re entirely free to ignore it, but it will be shown to be the case that the call from the captain was literally “Mayday. Mayday.” The rest was fabricated by Barkha Dutt.
It’s a classic example of misinformation that gets propagated in a fast-moving situation, especially early on when real information is hard to come by.
@ Stealth 66
So, you’re essentially doing the same thing of which you’re accusing that journalist, i.e. making an assertion that you can’t substantiate.
How about this, in various mainstream media sources today?
“Indian aviation officials have confirmed the pilot issued distress calls before the Gatwick-bound flight crashed in Gujarat state on 12 June, killing 241 people on board and at least 29 on the ground.
“Thrust not achieved… falling… Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!” the pilot said moments before the aircraft began losing height and erupted in a fireball.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/air-india-flight-crash-boeing-pilot-last-words-b2770412.html
Should we assume that The Independent — together with various other sources today — is misleading us?
No, I’m not spreading misinformation and I’m sure nobody will be re-reporting my words!
The claim by Barkha Dutt, which was widely re-reported (including this very site!) said the words “no power” were included in the Mayday. They weren’t.
Last I checked, the report by TOI hasn’t taken down.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/air-india-plane-crash-thrust-not-achieved-falling-mayday-ai-pilots-last-words/articleshow/121855487.cms
on another note
“Russian strike hit Boeing office in Kyiv in deliberate attack on US business, FT reports”
“Overnight on June 9-10, Russian forces launched hundreds of drones and seven missiles in one of the biggest attacks on Ukraine, damaging buildings across the capital. One of the targets included Boeing’s office, according to two Boeing employees, three Ukrainian officials, and the head of the American Chamber of Commerce (ACC) in Ukraine, whom the FT spoke with.”
Could you give it a rest? Or created your own forum to be a town crier on?
Could you leave the moderation to Mr. Hamilton?
I wasn’t aware that he had appointed you as his deputy.
Expressing my opinion
It is an oxymoron to assert that an “opinion” can be expressed in an interrogative and/or imperative form…
“Air India crash points to systemic problems at Boeing”
With respect, this is sloppy journalism.
While Boeing as a company definitely has systemic issues, at this point there is absolutely nothing we know about Air India 171 to indicate an underlying problem with the 787 family, much less a problem attributable to the company’s other issues.
You might as well look at January’s fire on Air Busan 391 (an A321) caused by a passenger’s malfunctioning battery pack and write “Air Busan fire points to larger issues at Airbus”. No. No, it does not.
I suspect that the author intended “points to” to be interpreted as “redirects attention to”.
***
Definition of “points to” from Oxford Languages:
“give force or emphasis to (words or actions).”
Exactly. And as OP pointed out, there is nothing known about AI171 that should cause anyone to redirect attention to anything. At least, anyone without nefarious intent. It looks like the 787 investigation, like the MAX investigation will be crowd-sourced, and by an ignorant crowd pretending competence in the subject. As Mark Twain said, “A lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” He also said, “The difference between a lie and a cat is the cat has only nine lives.” And Leeham News doesn’t hesitate to use sloppy journalism to take advantage of both principles. It worked to malign the MAX, it will work to malign the 787. As the MAX saga proved, even nonsense will be believed to be the truth by those who don’t have the wherewithal to do their own analysis, if it comes from those who are mistakenly trusted as competent and having integrity.
So, tell us, in the alternate universe in which you live, is gravity attractive or repulsive?
You miss the context. Some people (like ambulance chasing lawyers) are already calling for the 787 to be grounded. There was a press release from one law firm I received directly tying this to the MAX crashes. Others in and out of the media questioned the 787’s safety (which I did my best to debunk in my own media appearances). It’s all part of the larger picture of Boeing’s 6 years for one crisis after another.
The whole thing about Boeing’s systemic safety and quality issues started with the 787 as this article recounts (though many say the safety began going downhill with the McDonnell Douglas merger in 1997).
@Scott:
I sort of get it but this has always been an issue with all mfgs.
Airbus included in its Control logic, it does great things and its caused great harm.
Boeing goes back to the age of the 707 and various mistakes made.
DC-8 had a flaw in the fuel system that caused a crash.
Its not a Boeing exclusive.
I would ground the 787 fleet until there was a direction that ruled out a systems problem.
Why? Not grounding until you prove something is reactive and I think pro active is the way to go with any of this type incident.
They have to have a lot of physical evidence at this point that gives them idea of where the problem was.
I keep reading as soon as they get the FRD its solved, what a week to two weeks before they get the readouts and the timelines translated out of computerize and if damaged it has to come to the US.
Well, if a grounding is in the cards, I hope it doesn’t happen until Sunday. I fly home Saturday on a 787.
Plenty of airlines fly 777s and A350s across the pond…relatively easy to re-book you 😉
You might even get lucky and fly all-business on LaCompagnie 😎
Return flights are pretty much full. I wanted to go home Thursday. Getting an alternate flight if 787s are grounded would be tough competition.
I had that decision with my wife.
The A320 she was flying on had a nasty issue in the software. They were fully aware of it and had a work around (MCAS 1.0 anyone?)
I reluctantly let her fly (she left that decision to me).
Ethiopian and pilots knew about the issue and the pilots still got trapped in MCAS 1.0.
So I understand, tough decision.
I sure would not be booking flights on wide body let alone a 787.
Safe travels
Scott,
If you must fly the 787, I suggest you request seat 11A if possible: it seemed to be the magic seat for that lucky survivor of the Air India Flight.
Good Luck!
Jimmy
10A coming over and returning in UAL configuration on a 787-10.
The FDR and CVR have to be analyzed, likely overseas.
Really? Who knew.
Where they get downloaded and linked up with timelines depends on condition and if India thinks it has the capability to do so.
they do have a new center for that but there are only two labs that do the most damaged units. US and France.
Korea sent the units to the US because they were not sure they got the data on the Jeju flight. In fact what they were seeing, aka complete loss of data was correct.
India may well elect to do both.
But it will be India and or the US.
Time to refresh your memory: Korea only attempted to retrieve data from the CVR, they sent both the CVR and the FDR overseas for analysis.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/01/south-korea-plane-crash-investigators-extract-data-from-jeju-air-black-box
It takes about two days to convert data from the CVR to audio files.
I have to read it and wrong if true. Will do once I get post in.
My memory was that there was a follow up and South Korea did download the FDR and was puzzled by the lack of data on both.
FDR is more complicated and you have to get timelines established for both as each has a bearing on the other.
Point is India does have the capability but no one has said what condition.
I keep reading both were recovered and then more bulletins out the FDR has just been recovered.
Not sure how to square that circle and will not try.
Point is India may do the work as they are setup for it.
But if damaged one or both its possible. That was a lot of burning.
I was going to comment to that affect.
Problems at Boeing have nothing to do with this crash.
It may have design issues involved, but its nothing to do with Boeing issues.
The only bit of relevance is the San Antonius incident and that was understood and resolved to the FAA.
The San Antonio failure was a inability to see the exact set of circumstances that would cause that to happen. It was not a Boeing issue, Rockwell Collins I believe.
Its possible there is another failure path int he electrical system that manifested itself. If so, while its a dosing issue its not a failure to design to specs and test it.
I have seen more than one of those, no one can for see them and if you can foresee them you can’t design or test for them.
Same with Auto Throttle or the FASDEC. They can have a hidden flaw.
During the MAX assessment they found a one in a bazillion chance a stray particle could much up both computers (or some such). Its a known issue with all computers and the 737 design took that into account but they did fine a insanely tiny route it could happen. So they fixed it, keeping in mind that was at least a NG or Classic and its never happened.
Its strange that if the up move had never been assessed as an issue MCAS 1.0 as it came to be would not exist and two aircraft would be flying today.
Systems designed to keep you safe in one situation can take you out in another.
“It may have design issues involved, but its nothing to do with Boeing issues.”
Please explain: if there are potential design issues involved, how could that have “nothing to do with Boeing issues”…seeing as the plane was designed by Boeing?
First, design is simply that.
You can have something that looks to be flawlessly designed that has a fault path in it (like the 737 computers). It maybe incredibly obscure.
Those design issues include Airbus and its many revisions to its control laws and specific functions of it. You change one when you find the flaw and you can created another one.
Design is generic to all Aircraft mfg and all are subject to fault paths, nothing to do with Boeing, its a hard fact of building things.
They manged to drive an A320 flight computer insane with enough resets of a fault. Airbus to this day can’t tell you why because they can’t duplicate it.
They made some guesses and changed the program. The best protection was don’t keep resetting the danged computer.
You do realize that you completely failed to answer the question, don’t you?
You completely and I believe deliberately want to blame Boeing.
Boeing is responsible,
If you (RTX or RC) design a system and test it to all the standards you tell me what more you can do?
Even if the hull failed, they have tested it to extended failure.
Aloha violated Boeing incursions on inspections, so that is Boeing fault?
“Aloha violated Boeing incursions on inspections”
Oh, have similar incidents happened to Airbus? Don’t be naive.
In case you’ve never heard of WN812 (or happened to forget as a matter of convenience), I remind you this:
“The depressurization was caused by the structural failure of the fuselage skin, which produced a hole approximately 60 inches (150 cm) long on the upper fuselage. The NTSB investigation revealed evidence of pre-existing metal fatigue, and determined the probable cause of the incident to be related to an error in the manufacturing process for joining fuselage crown skin panels.”
“Design is generic to all Aircraft mfg… ”
Sure Jane. You’d change your tune if this was said by COMAC.
You do not want to understand.
Aloha corrosion had been addressed by Boeing in delivering specific instructions on what to look for and where.
My issue with COMMAC is its a government controlled company being monitored by a government control so called safety agency.
Its bizarre you talk about Boeing capture of the FAA but ignore the total control of China AHJ.
Unlike what happened in the US, I see no evidence that same thing has happened to CAAC. Time to pull your head up and look for evidence, not makeup/imagination.
Do you read news?
As reported by the NYTimes, the President has effectively nationalized a company within speeding a penny for compensation. From America exceptionalism to socialism with American characteristics.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gtg0kcgWIAEEx3Z?format=jpg&name=large
TransWorld, you say:
“They manged to drive an A320 flight computer insane with enough resets of a fault. Airbus to this day can’t tell you why because they can’t duplicate it.
“They made some guesses and changed the program. The best protection was don’t keep resetting the danged computer.”
What is this referring to? Do you have a link?
TW
You do not want to follow. How about WN812 which is caused by “manufacturing error”? The accident took place fifteen years after delivery!!
This is a lead factor WN had to retire its 737 classic early.
@spot:
Not on hand but it was a Mentour Pilot production.
Someplace in Scandinavia they were doing a training flight (5 or 6 student in an A319 as I recall).
Each student needed a takeoff and landing.
Something zarked in computer 1 and it was reset, the PIC wanted to keep flying to get the students their takeoff and landing. It zarked again, he reset it again. Then it shifted to Computer 2. That got reset.
There are alarm systems involved that do not work until over 1500 feet AGL and they were under that in the pattern.
In the end the whole computer system just quit. At that point it was direct control and they crashed (survived) on landing.
Airbus could never duplicate what happened. They took some guesses, changed the code but as its a once in a billion item, they will never know.
You can reset the computer, or switch to another one, but you are supposed to land and find out what its unhappy about not keep resetting it.
The training flight was unusual as there was all the incentive to keep going, after all, what could possibly go wrong?
There is *absolutely no way* at this time to know “its (sic) nothing to do with Boeing issues.”
More heat than light..
15 year old aircraft and fleet in service and it never happened before?
I would still ground it, but if its not safe at that point nothing is.
@ Vincent
It would appear that many commenters don’t grasp even basic logic…🙈
@TW
I recall similar “logic” (the 737 NG had a good safety record) was used by Boeing to justify the MAX was safe after their first crash.
Neither on of you obviously realizes what ground it means.
This is not a hull breakup.
Something went horribly wrong and its not happened in 15 years of flight.
That is why is shocking and why the AHJs are not grounding it yet.
What “hull breakup” and grounding are you talking about?? Are you aware what you typed out?
Comprehension
The best comprehension can’t overcome gibberish.
Exactly, I bow to the Mystro
Tw,
With classic like this: “I have to read it and wrong if true”, everyone can see whose failure it is.
With Boeing’s preset from recent times assuming another Boeing issue is the expected outcome.
But IMHO we should wait a couple of days ( or weeks ) for more tangible information.
( favorable notice: “Duh, Simple: Third World Pilot failure” attribution is rare and low voice this time.
A bit of an attention taker was the “Mr. WishWash … ” surviving passenger. But he seems to be real and not plain racist like “Mr. We Too Low” back a couple of years and on another continent.)
So we can’t look at the pilots and their actions because they are Indian National?
It does not matter, you always have to question the pilots and their decisions. ANY pilot regardless of race religion or otherwise.
Its not racist to look at a countries CRM as well as how usefully the First Officer is with 250 hours.
Time is a bad indicator of experience but 250 hours and you expect them to speak up to a captain with thousands of hours?
This captain and first officer will have their background looked at, how current, what was the most recent sim time, what were the reports of their flying ability?
It may not be relevant or it may be relevant to a decision the PF made.
What I do know is I would vastly prefer a First Officer that had enough time in type and total to be a full member of the CRM and tell the Pilot what he needs to know not what he needs to here.
Hours does not look to be an issue here. Recent experience and time in type maybe. That is not racist, its a fact of flying.
According to a report by the NYTimes, the FO was flying commercial in Florida before joining AI.
I’m 75. I remember the first generation of widebody airliners in the end of the 60s, the 70s and 80s. Lots of planes crashed for both aircraft related and pilot error reasons. By comparison the 787 fleet in, and occasionally out of, service for 14 years and now over 1000 strong just had it’s first fatal accident (they got lucky with the battery issue).
This is a level of safety that would have seemed implausible 50 years ago. It’s not perfect and the cause of this crash must/will be found and improvements will be made but I would not hesitate to fly on a 787 today. Correctly or not I would be more comfortable on a “first world” airline with a “first world” flight crew.
“Correctly or not I would be more comfortable on a “first world” airline with a “first world” flight crew.”
Wow — alive and kicking.
so you won’t fly US airlines either:
Third world with an oversized ego and military 🙂
There are three reasons why aircraft crash (when not human).
1) Design flaw: hard to believe on an “older” airframe
2) Quality flaw: only an issue if there was recent maintenance and the new parts were of poor manufacturing
3) Maintenance deficiency (most likely assuming not pilot error). They are going to probably find root cause here…bad fuel pump, bad actuators, something like that.
While I cringe at any order to “shut down” a type…I could get my head around it under certain parameters. Air India only? Or if they go with 3rd party maintenance…then any airline under that type certificate.
While I am not a crash expert…I have to believe there are people pouring over the last few months worth of maintenance records looking for anything wonky. They also have a flight data recorders. Statistically, an aircraft that has never had a crash in 15 years will not have another one within a week.
All valid.
MAX in theory was the same.
When I don’t understand something the better safe than sorry kicks in.
There is going to be a train of events, not a single one.
Is it possible the same mechanic changed both fuel pumps (probably 4 to 6) and did all of them wrong?
I continue to believe something happened (X) and the pilot had to make a decision on abort or not. What X is? all the possibles are open.
“Is it possible the same mechanic changed both fuel pumps (probably 4 to 6) and did all of them wrong?”
Don’t ETOPS maintenance rules prohibit that? ( single person could introduce “common mode” failures. ) ?
ETOPs almost certainly does.
But is that mostly overland flight ETOPs?
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Sardar+Vallabhbhai+Patel+International+Airport+(AMD),+Hansol,+Ahmedabad,+Gujarat+380003,+India/London+Gatwick+Airport+(LGW),+Horley,+Gatwick+RH6+0NP,+United+Kingdom/@28.7918669,-7.2013068,16855565m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x395e814e9704ec85:0x90dd00e5a99ba47a!2m2!1d72.6309997!2d23.0763962!1m5!1m1!1s0x4875efde7d1f391b:0x59dda4bf018973ff!2m2!1d-0.1820629!2d51.1536621?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
An airframe is certified ETOPS or not and maintained accordingly.
If ETOPS you can’t have intervals that ignore ETOPS prescriptions.
I do not believe that is correct
And Airframe is certified for ETOPS and if you fly ETOPS you have to maintain it that way.
If you never fly ETOPs you don’t, normal maint.
The ones that do fly ETOPs keep them that way because they can go ETOPs at any time.
Just fly9ing over water is not ETOPs. Its the nearest diversion that drives that listing.
I flew a lot of Alaska Airlines with no ETOPs and in fact they did not even have flotation devices under the seat (the cusions were your flotation device)
The whole route ANC to SEA is over water. But you do have Yakatat, Sitka, Juneau, Ketchikan and at least Price Rupert in Canada for diversion, none more than 40 minutes away.
The reporting I’ve seen has claimed that the accident aircraft had recent maintenance, possibly extensive. Is that true? I don’t know.
It is interesting that Juan Browne is not saying much
about this accident; not yet, anyway.
Juan usually has more to work with.
His links into track data rarely go to other countries (Vilanus crash aside).
He also clearly is in the wilds of Montana or Wyoming on some kind of vacation.
As for direct insight he is a 777 pilot not a 787 pilot and the 787 systems have their own setup and different than the rest of aircraft he has flown.
@ Casey
You forgot weather, and other extraneous events such as bird strikes, for example.
And the age of the design does not preclude a design flaw. There are many examples of a flaw being discovered only after many years. Concorde and TW800 come to mind, for example.
No blown birds found on runway. No indications of birds coming out the back of the engines nor the associated arcs and sparks.
Concord knew about the problem, they had not instituted a fix.
TWA 800 trigger cause was never determined other than the Center fuel tank blew up.
Call it a system flaw. It was designed to best practices of the day. What was added was another layer of safety in inert gasses.
Other aircraft have blown up on the ramp(s) including as I recall a 737 in Thailand.
Basic fuel says an empty tank is the most dangerous. Hence layers of safety like inert gas.
>Statistically, an aircraft that has never had a crash
>in 15 years will not have another one within a week
That is not how probability or statistics works.
+1
@Matthew
Hazard risk are evaluated per risks per million hours. The arithmetic will tell you how many hours the entire fleet will fly in a week. I think maybe we are talking past each other. The incidental risk will be the same going forward as just occurred as will be next month. The total accumulated risk of a week is statistically insignificant.
I’m not suggesting to blow this off. Far from it. But this is an opportunity to put maximum force on narrowing the range of risk parameters before reacting. 15 years without a crash is not an error. There is no reason to believe that something has turned. Unlike Max this is not EIS.
Statically your failure could happen in the first hour in the million or it could be the last. If there is a failure path, its not happened in a huge amount of flight hours.
The next one could happen tomorrow and then not for another million flgiht hours.
The OA won the first election with a 1 in 4 chance.
BUT there is a NUMBER FOUR!
4) None of the above and independent from the aircraft or pilots.
So hopefully the powers to be recognize that and give it a week or so to review the data recorder before officially grounding the type worldwide.
Take a look at the video referenced below by @Vincent…rather convincing argument for dual engine failure.
Sounds like a BA issue (fuel, FMC,…) rather than a GE issue.
Only convincing assessment is a dual engine lack of thrust.
As to cause, its wide open including bad data input.
Its certainly possible a massive electrical failure would be in Boeing’s area.
Its also possible the flight crew did not react correctly to a lack of thrust.
Thrust may have dropped off further after liftoff but it clearly there was a thrust issue early on.
Is it possible that they hit VR and then thrust was reduced? Yea.
There are really only two explanations for two engines not delivering thrust.
total electrical failure
Commanded reduction for X reasons (program input, computer failure)
Fuel is remotely possible but the above two would be much high possible.
@TW
I have an odd feeling that the fuel flow (or software logic) played a role. Barely making it off the ground indicates there there may have been a bad pump or insufficient flow going on (or FOD in system to clog the lines).
Casey:
I agree but have no proof.
Logic says if there is an issue at the start they would have aborted.
There are systems that tell the pilots that too much runway is being used for the setup.
That then spiral out to, was the data entered right and then did another aspect dealing with thrust manifest.
Someone with the right tools could tell us on the runway view what the acceleration is, no one has reported they did.
All we have solid on is they took the whole runway to get to 174 knots and that is wildly wrong.
Logic says the pilots alarms or not would have understood a failure to perform, but they could have been distracted with a Memory list item.
You sure do not have the time to get to a QRH of the Infamous EICAS
Or a clogged pitot tube
@Casey:
you would have to show a common mode failure.
whatever caused the crash it was “symmetric” not for example “single engine out”.
Its one reason I lean towards a computer commanded roll back or restriction on the engines.
Why the computer would do that? Some ideas but likely wrong. Bad data going in would be one. All sorts of bad data from where the computer thought it was to how high it thought it was.
I do remember Boeing had a twixt out that you had to reset the computers or they could shut down.
That should be handled but if it was not and has not been corrected software wise?
Nothing new here – just a summary of Boeings woes.
I truly hope this crash is not traced back to a systemic issue.
Oh dear — that BA 787 issue earlier today was “flaps failure” :
“British Airways Boeing 787-8 Deamliner to India Dumps Fuels And Makes Unscheduled Landing After Suffering ‘Flaps Failure’”
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2025/06/15/british-airways-boeing-787-8-deamliner-to-india-dumps-fuels-and-makes-unscheduled-landing-after-suffering-flaps-failure/
Interesting, in view of that AA 787 that had four different instances of flaps failure in the past month:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/12/whistleblower-raised-safety-fears-boeing-dreamliner-factory/
For anyone interested: Captain Steeeve has a new video up on YT; its title is “Why the RAT Changes Everything”. 13 min.
Sorry I can’t provide a link on this diabolical new computer..
Voilà!
https://youtu.be/8XYO-mj1ugg?si=r0l2lr_GYLqB4P-Y
Sounds like a very evidence-based, logical analysis/conclusion 👍
Thank you for drawing this video to our attention!
Captain Steve has no more idea of what occurred than the rest of us. We only have some limited facts.
My only input is that its clearly engine related. But that in turn has a lot of other sub causes.
Total electrical loss is one. He dismisses that but it is a cause as the RAT is fail safe held up, loose power (break circuit) and it deploys).
The Pilot can also deploy it.
Engines are all electronic control/ commands, there is no physical link. So an ordered roll back can occur.
And the engines were not delivering correct power from the get go, otherwise they would not have used up the whole runway.
They could have dropped thrust further after rotation.
Ground affect is in play but unknown to what degree. That is why you need speed build up to flight speed, just because it will lift off does not mean it will stay lifted.
The facts known have been listed. None of them explain not enough thrust.
If it stood any chance the nose should have been lowered. Yea I know, but that is the only way to gain any airspeed at that point as bad an option as it is.
Stalling in probably meant fewer deaths on the ground with a protracted path of disruption might have had more passengers alive.
Even the gear down has an alternate explanation. To raise the gear takes a lot of power.
Power they did not have. Its possible the PIC left the gear down because of low power.
If the FDR gets downloaded and translated, we should have a good idea of the happenings though possibly not the explanation for them.
For example, first readout will show you power. But if short of power then you have to look at engine commands, fuel pressure, FASDAC situation.
“Captain Steve has no more idea of what occurred than the rest of us.”
Luckily, he is able to use astute observation, logic, and balanced deduction — unlike some.
Before it was flaps up. Now its not.
Dual engine failure. Ok.
What caused both engines to fail? Or was it lack of thrust but not failure?
You don’t get 174 knots with two engines failed. You can with reduced thrust.
When did the engines fail? Or not produce thrust?
Total elecrial loss would cause the engines to fail, the FASDAC won’t work.
There could well be a decision to leave gear down because they did not have the power to raise it.
Failure means they quit. Reduced thrust means they were having issues.
Same reason engine cams run at half engine speed. There is a reason (4 cycle engines)
The BA 777 failure was due to ice clogging the lines.
Not saying ice is the issue, but lack of fuel (by whatever mechanism will certainly degrade thrust but not cause a complete fail.
Very true and valid.
I just don’t know how you get that on both engines let alone when it occurred and why the actions of the crew.
“Total elecrial [sic] loss would cause the engines to fail, the FASDAC [sic] won’t work.”
Sure, the FADEC will be inoperative with electrical power loss, but why will the engines then fail? Are you assuming that the FADEC uses its last gasp of electrons to command the fuel flow to zero before flatlining?
BTW, what are the chances of successfully sending a mayday call with total electrical failure?
“There could well be a decision to leave gear down because they did not have the power to raise it.”
Or they followed Boeing’s recommendation… do not retract gear on takeoff with an engine out. Reason: prior to gear retraction the wheel well doors have to open, which increases drag significantly and may prevent attaining V2 in time.
Greetings!Greg from Gregs aeroplanes and automobiles has now weighed in as well with some interesting opinions
I posted that below but here it is as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-MAiI_p748
BUT his first youtube video blamed the pilots and it quickly became clear that he was getting pushback when a number of other videos were critical of his “opinions”. Besides he has just been regurgitating other people’s work and speculations on this particular event. Sometimes he brings in interesting and knowledgeable people that add to the discussion.
Agreed.
No, he didn’t- since his first video expressly stated that his *provisional* conclusions were subject to change as more, solid information
became available.
@ F-82
He now presents new evidence, previously unavailable, and has modified his analysis based on that.
Is that so strange?
So, the flaps were retracted and the gear were down. Major configuration error in that stage of the take off, whether pilot/co-pilot error or some system malfunction.
My first thoughts are pilot or co-pilot error.
We do not know the flaps were retracted.
Setting 1 would be zero indication from the rear. In fact the one picture of the slats was at least a Setting 1 deployment.
Setting 5 is so slight in the rear that with the resolution you can not see it.
We don’t know what the pilots were seeing or dealing with issue wise. So saying it was error is simply wrong. Equally the PIC could have made the wrong decision based on what he was seeing.
That is why he is the PIC.
Just an opinion, I think Flaps 10 or more you would have seen it.
Two people I know said Flaps 15 would be normal but what Air India has setup in their 787s no one has said nor what is normal for that Runway length and temp for AI
Flaps cause drag and that uses fuel to overcome and its a balance of economy vs performance.
Picture of rear wing look to have some degree of flaps down
Pretty good summation. Still put in in a category of lack of thrust not engine failure though lack of thrust could have then lead to loss of all thrust.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/new-clues-point-to-engine-failure-for-cause-of-air-india-plane-crash-vhqw6b7v3
Total loss of electrical power not listed but there clearly was more going on that that even if it did occur.
Time to go back to fuel guzzling tri jets and four engine planes….and fewer computers….
Right
This guy is an uber tech geek. His WWII series is very good though he belabors or apologizes far too much when he makes a reasonable assumption (best just say, its the best I can come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-MAiI_p748
Good question is are the fuel valve shutoffs fail safe?
Still keeping in mind, it took up the whole runway and that is not at all normal.
This is another theory but requires two separate systems to fail at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-MAiI_p748
I don’t concur, lots of aircraft sit on the ground and get even more heat soaked. I don’t know 787 anywhere close to say how many pumps are working at take off.
Other aircraft critical phase of flight there is a booster pump on.
Here we go again! Another Boeing aircraft downed for yet unknown reasons and human‘s natural behaviour sets in…pundits looking for clues as to what may have caused the fatal accident coming up with all sort of more or less plausible reasons, finger pointing at the airframer, the engine manufacturer, the pilots. And while we are at it, the long troubled Boeing company is again in the news with another aliteration of all that went wrong in the past 25 years…as we had not been discussing this for as long as it already lasts.
Let‘s get the obvious out of the headlines and be a bit more patient with the investigative team for hard facts that may result from analysing the DFDR and CVR. Now is the time to mourne the human losses followed by time of patience in order to learn from another horrific accident which will be out of the daily headlines in just one or two more days.
While not wrong, there is the factor of needing to prevent it from happening again.
So yea, people are trying to come up with a failure path that explains it and a need or not to ground the 787. Possible worse loss of life.
MAX was called too late and fortunate that the 787 battery fires did not take place long distance from the airport.
And Jeju air shows us there can be paths to FRD failure.
The mayday message story always sounded a bit fishy to me. The pilots would have been (or should have been)far too busy trying to save the plane Also,what good would it do? The only possible reason would be to explain why they all died
“Aviate, navigate, communicate.”
@Grubbie:
Its not uncommon. What pilots should do vs those kind of what is really a plea. They are human and facing what they are sure is the end.
There’s been a sizeable order announced at the PAS:
“AviLease signs for 22 A350Fs as part of agreement for 77 Airbus jets”
“Saudi Arabian leasing firm AviLease is taking 22 Airbus A350F cargo jets as part of an order for up to 77 aircraft.
“The deal also covers 55 A320neo-family models, a mix of A320neos and A321neos, but not the long-range XLR.
“Deliveries of the aircraft begin in 2030 and run to 2033.”
“AviLease disclosed the agreement on the first day of the Paris air show, marking its first direct order with the European airframer.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/avilease-signs-for-22-a350fs-as-part-of-agreement-for-77-airbus-jets/163380.article
And now another big order:
“Riyadh Air places colossal order for up to 50 Airbus A350-1000s in Paris ”
“The agreement includes 25 firm orders with purchase rights for an additional 25 aircraft and adds to the existing 132 aircraft Riyadh Air already has on order. ”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/riyadh-air-airbus-a350-1000-order-paris-air-show
And another order:
“…LOT Polish Airlines Unveils 1st Ever Airbus Order For Up To 84 A220s”
“Airbus
LOT Polish Airlines and Airbus announced today at the Paris Air Show an agreement for up to 84 Airbus A220 family planes. This includes 40 firm orders for now, and options for an additional 44 aircraft. This concerns 20 A220-100s and 20 A220-300s. The deal marks the end of a fight between Embraer and Airbus for the renewal of the LOT Polish Airlines regional fleet of older generation aircraft from the Brazilian manufacturer.”
“…LOT will become the first operator in Poland to register Airbus aircraft.”
“Deliveries are set to start in summer 2027”
https://simpleflying.com/goodbye-embraer-lot-polish-airlines-groundbreaking-84-a220s/
Interesting as LOT had gone heavy on Embraer and had 3 of the E2-195s.
That is a blow to Embraer.
Another 787 returns to departure airport due to technical issue after takeoff:
“Air India plane returns to Hong Kong after technical issue in mid-air”
“NEW DELHI – An Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner bound for New Delhi returned to its origin of Hong Kong as a precautionary measure on June 16, after a technical issue was suspected mid-air, the latest incident affecting the airline in recent days.
“AI315 “returned to Hong Kong shortly after take-off due to a technical issue. The flight landed safely… and is undergoing checks as a matter of abundant precaution”, Air India said.”
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/air-india-dreamliner-returns-to-hong-kong-after-technical-issue-mid-air-source-says
***
That’s 2 yesterday (BA and LH) and — so far — 1 today (AI).
Not a good look for the 787.
> Air India 315 from Hong Kong to Delhi diverted back to Hong Kong after takeoff on Monday. The plane departed 3hrs and 26 minutes delayed, then returned to Hong Kong roughly an hour after takeoff. The flight was on a 7 year old Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner.
> Air India 315 requested to stay closer to Hong Kong citing technical reasons before deciding to return to HKIA. “We don’t want to continue further”.
https://x.com/tripperhead/status/1934505370380374264
Everytime there is a crash for weeks you hear about that aircraft with issues and has nothign to do with the crash.
“… that aircraft with issues and has nothign to do with the crash.”
You have all the answers, you know the cause(s) of the crash?
Let me remind you, no, zero, zip, zilch, nada.
on another topic from the Paris Air Show (without Transworld preapproval)
“Comac Wants Stretched C919 In Service By 2030, C929 By 2035”
“Comac kicked off its return to the Paris air show with a pair of agreements signed with Safran and US-based Crane Aerospace and Electronics for its C929 widebody programme.”
“Comac’s MoU with Safran covers landing, oxygen, and ice detection systems, while its pact with Lynwood, Washington-headquartered Crane is for cabin door sensors.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/comac-inks-pacts-with-safran-and-crane-for-c929-systems/163379.article
***
Relatively minor subsystems.
The stretched C919 was inevitable. Presumably, it will use a variant of the domestic CJ-1000A engine, since the LEAP-1C is probably underpowered for a heavier aircraft.
Developed in China, with IP held by Chinese companies?
Developed in China with stolen IP
Says who?
Tired old line from the 1950s 🙈
All the people that are making sure their IP is not exposed to the deprivations of China.
You do know they hacked the US data base that included all Airport personal with a clearance which I had.
So no I don’t appreciate it and yes they do hack, steal and try to force people to give them IP
Are you a Party member by any chance?
Your comprehension failed.
Where is your evidence? None, because subsystems haven’t been designed yet.
More nonsense inspired by makeup/imagination. There’s no better way to show your ignorance.
@ Transworld
Got any authoratative links to back up any of what you wrote? Or are you relying purely on tired anecdotes?
I already know the answer, but still asking as a formality 🙈
The US also hacked Merkel’s phone, who knows what else they’ve been up to, is that proof they stole any IP?
@Abalone
This is probably an A321-equivalent aircraft. CFM can power this. They have only certified the thrusts needed so far for the variants available.
Lo0oks like it at MAX (hah) seating of 240.
How many can the MAX carry? Hmm, 230 only?
Max capacity is set by many things
1) Class configuration
2) MTOW
3) Aircraft Range
4) Freight utilization
Wikipedia will tell you that the C919-100 at single class is capable of 192 seats…not inconsistent with a Max8 or A320neo.
The C919 “stretched” is coming, in the market segment of the A321 & MAX 10.
FG:
> A shortened version of the C919 for hot and high use and seating up to 160 passengers will be next to enter service in 2028 with its first flight planned for 2027. The aircraft will be six frames shorter than the baseline C919.
> Comac has yet to secure government funding for the stretch, whereas the shortened variant has already been approved.
> The C909 is already operating with three Southeast Asian operators: low-cost operator Vietjet Air, Lao Airlines, as well as Indonesia’s TransNusa Airlines.
Sorry, it’s AW.
Let us not forget about the clowns at GE.
Doesn’t GE have an operation centre that monitors all engines running in real-time?
I think so, but not totally sure.
Thanks.
Consider that there are over 1,100 787’s in service with 300-500 in the air at any time of day. These aircraft are owned and operated by some of the best airlines in the world performing long-haul services. There are zero groundings in effect. This is a huge tell because the industry is understandably risk averse.
…you forgot the word “yet”…
@Paul Rodolf:
I fully disagree. I can’t think of a time an airline self grounded its fleet.
Flying over conflict zones with Surface to Air missiles is not risk adverse.
Its competition and profits that drive it and they won’t willingly give that up.
Sans finding something on one of their own aircraft that fails flight requirements, they will keep flying.
We have numerous examples of airlines cheating on maint.
Is the 787 designed be flyable using mechanical backups such as a manual trim wheel?
It has a direct control law.
But no its not a manual, its a backup system
Bjorn has reported that once you go to Direct Law (FBW speak) then while you can control the aircraft in the air, its almost impossible to land it without a crash.
I know of two examples of that and both crashed. Wildly bizarre circumstances but it has happened.
You still need power of some kind to the controls and that includes engines.
Anybody read the WSJ?
This clown over there wrote a commentary a few days ago saying that basically all Boeing’s 737 production issues were caused by the production shutdown due to the second crash. So if not for the second crash…everything would be fine and dandy.
A bizarre view which requires ignoring lots of other evidence things were amiss.
I have not seen it but that would be truly a clown as you noted.
Since you mentioned 737 production, need to wonder if the 737 tail section made at Shenyang China will have 55% tariffs, will Boeing relocate production back to Boeing Wichita Or move it to Tata in India like they did the 737 vertical fin (from Xian)?
then consider tariffs on other 737 overseas outsourced components (probably 20% to 55% tariff range yet to be determined
Vertical fin – Tata Boeing Aerospace Limited, Hyderabad, India. (Previously made by Xi’an Aircraft Industry, China.)
Horizontal stabilizer – Korea Aerospace Industries.
Ailerons – Asian Composites Manufacturing, Malaysia.
Rudder – Bombardier, Belfast and AVIC subsidiary Chengfei Commercial Aircraft (CCAC), China
Tail section (aluminum extrusions for) – Alcoa / Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing, China.
Main landing gear doors – Aerospace Industrial Development Corp, Taiwan.
Inboard Flap – Mitsubishi, Vietnam.
Elevator – Fuji, Japan.
Winglets – Kawasaki, Japan.
Fwd entry door & Overwing exits – Chengdu Aircraft, China.
Wing-to-body fairing panels and tail cone – BHA Aero Composite Parts Co. Ltd, China.
Air India has to know far more than is being released.
The would know what flaps settings for airport A , what a normal rotation point is.
I am sure they have presented that to the authorities but it never gets out to the public.
I know someone like say Boeing cannot (by law) put out stuff, maybe true with Airlines though this is under Indian Law and no idea if its the same though they tend to pattern each other as its an established protocol
France is the only country I know that will prosecute pilots. There clearly some who should be. I am not saying in this case at all, just past gross actions .
What do you mean by ‘Air India has to know’?? How do they ‘know?
Comprehension of what is written is needed first.
More incomprehensible gibberish. The downward spiral!
Common senser not so common
Aurobindo Handa, former director general of India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, said the investigation into last week’s crash would likely be a long process.
LOT purchases 40 A220s plus 44 options, replacing one of the largest Embraer fleets in Europe.
Embraer commercial aircraft info
“In Commercial Aviation, the backlog reached US$10.2 billion in 4Q24 ”
Need to wonder if this is the end for E Series based on only having 7 airlines in backlog with 164 aircraft (e.g. wiki) all being E-175 (no E190 series) American with the majority at 92. The E Series was launched in 1999.
Its time to acknowledge that Comac is the legitimate #3 player in commercial aircraft with over 1,000 orders in backlog
It will interest you to hear that Iran now says that it has shot down a 4th F35 — this one in Tabriz, earlier today.
They claim a deliberate policy of not showing wreckage, so as not to reveal what state it’s in…and, attendantly, what systems are available for scrutiny.
Four frames represents 9% of the Israeli fleet…an average of one per day so far.
If/when any of this is verified, it will be a major headache for LM.
Yea right.
Its entirely possible to shoot down an F-35. They are not a Tiger II or a Jagdtiger
But claims from Iran? Can’t even stop Israel from using their airspace.
Shooting down aircraft is the very essence of stopping someone from using your airspace 🙈
They’ve still got missile defense systems operational, but they’re not 100% effective — just like those in Israel.
Maybe time to get your news from a broader range of sources than just CNN 😉
TransWorld wrote.
Yea right.
Its entirely possible to shoot down an F-35. They are not a Tiger II or a Jagdtiger
But claims from Iran? Can’t even stop Israel from using their airspace.
The war of words about Iran shooting down things isn’t very believable. I was impressed that Israel actually had Arabic spokesmen. The real scream here was the saber rattling from Jordan about respecting their sovereign airspace. Israel wouldn’t have a lot of trouble slapping around some block 20 F16s
Yea Bryce tries to deflect as usual.
Shooting down Ballistic missiles is not the same as SAMs.
Rightly or wrongly Israel has destroyed the IAD in Western Iran and working East.
They are also destroying IBM launchers and sites with what looks like a lot of success.
We have seen no pilot names or non AI images/pictures of downed aircraft. So yes, the Iranian are lying. All sides lie. Far more likely to shoot down an F-16 or F-15 than an F-35. Those are not even radar reduced airframes.
That they are operating in Iran airspace speaks volumes about the IAD or any SAM site working. Maybe the Russian will finally send the SU-35s!
Or at least spent the money on modern Western fighters.
Israel will almost certainly take losses. Air Superiority is not Air Immune. Nor is it Air Supremacy.
The tragedy is it came to this. If someone tries to destroy you, do you go pro active or sends your nukes after they damage you severely?
And its terrifying that Israel does not Atomic Bomb (IBM) capability.
@Abalone
I would “hesitate” to believe anything. Without some measure of independent verification this treads awfully close to propoganda.
War is full of propaganda — from all sides.
That’s particularly true in the Middle East, where machismo plays a huge role.
While I’d like to see proof of many claims being made by many sources, I’m not as auto-dismissive of the Iranian side as some observers.
We’ll see.
@Abalone
Trust but verify…which is not really trusting at all.
Yep.
You sort through what is credible vs not. An F-16 or F-15 is more credible though not shown or seen.
You can only sort through the info and try to piece together a picture.
The Pakistan India blowup is revealing. India lost two to maybe 4 aircraft. Pakistan claims 6.
But also adding to the picture is India kept sending missiles deep into Pakistan on subsequent days and lost no more jets. So they adjusted to the issue and apparently successfully.
What the issue was, much like India 171, you can only have possibilities. That could be they did not have the right RWS info and EW counters loaded.
It could have been the wrong tactics. We may never know. But the reality is Pakistan made claims in excess of what was proven. India did not confirm totals.
@DP:
As they are all Chinese Government owned entities, no.
Equally they have very low build rate.
Still coming out with new versions when they can’t even fill the supposed orders for what they have.
They *currently* have very low build rate.
Things change.
Airbus sees COMAC as #3, according to this week’s LNA article on the matter.
Trans
C919 with 25 customers and over 1,000 orders (25 deliveries to date) best guess 16-20 deliveries in 2025
C909 (ARJ21) -15 customers and 162 deliveries and with over 300 in backlog…about 30 a year build rate (five customers outside of China)
so Comac on pace for about 50 commercial aircraft deliveries in 2025…Embraer in 2024 was 73
Trans
Embraer in 1Q25 commercial deliveries 7 were commercial jets (3 E2s and 4 E1s)….
This might be the year Comac surpassed Embraer for commercial aircraft deliveries (C909 and C919) If Embraer keeps pace with 2024 commercial delivery rates, less than 2 year backlog
Embraer is in process of exiting the commercial aircraft market just as Bombardier (e.g. MRJ never made it to the market)
@Pritchard
Everyone is holding up Embraer as a shining beacon of what has gone right. The hard reality is that the E-190/5 generally loses campaigns to the A220. The E190/5 does not have a very large market or backlog and the E175 is even sadder and constrained by scope clause.
COMAC will surpass Embraer if no other reason than it is playing in a market segment where there is real volume.
@ Casey
Embraer may yet get a new lease of life if its advances toward India are favorably answered.
That would be a win-win for both sides.
@Casey:
I know you meant E2 vs E1 but it should be stated.
I know its not technically per Embraer nomenclature is not correct, but I think E2-1xx or E1-1xx makes it clear which generation is being talked about.
Its that odd part where E1 aka E1-175 is going to be produced concurrent with the E2-19x for some time due to US scope clause.
It does show that the regional market is basically dying due to US scope clause. I doubt China will let Embraer sell any jets there.
They could try for a single aisle but sans any breakthroughs, they compete with Airbus in the A220/320 series, Boeing and to a small degree COMMAC who has their aspirations.
Bad position to be in. India would welcome them but they don’t have the industry to do a joint venture. Aircraft is an area India has failed to develop in, they have done some amazing work in other areas.
An interesting move from an airline that has an all-Boeing mainline fleet…why not the MAX7? 🙈
Sad for Embraer to lose such a lucrative customer.
The A220-300 has better economics than the MAX 7.
Yes, of course it does.
My question was sarcastic.
Scott Hamilton said…..
June 16, 2025
The A220-300 has better economics than the MAX 7.
As a Boeing guy, I have to tip my hat to the Airbus for the phenomenal job they did on this airplane. It’s my favorite single aisle airplane and I fly it a lot doing the SEA-PSP with an occasional connection at SFO. I find it far more comfortable and a bit quieter than a 320/321 or NG/MAX. If you get a chance to fly it, try it, its really solid.
“As a Boeing guy, I have to tip my hat to the Airbus for the phenomenal job they did on this airplane.”
It’s not an Airbus design — you should be tipping your hat to Bombardier.
Thank Airbus for not trashing Bombardier’s work like Boeing would have liked to see / achieve. 🙂
Thank Boeing and predatory capitalism. If I remember correctly, they filed suit against Bombardier ultimately forcing them to sell out to Airbus. But I have read that the A220 is a cutting edge design (2008) — the type of plane that Boeing could have designed if it didn’t choose to go with the Max program in 2011. I’ve always wanted to fly in one. It hasn’t happened yet.
Boeing design something like this? They could have bought it for a song, but their incompetent CEOs were “MAXed” out…
@PNWgeek:
It was not Airbus that did the solid job. It was BBD.
Airbus has done a great job of rescuing the program, but the bones were all BBD.
Apparently LOT is up-gaging their fleet-size. The A220-300 is a much larger aircraft than the the E195-E2.
Probably took this as an opportunity to clean house and make a fresh start.
The E175 is in a curious spot. It has no direct competitors and no real market size. Even with a relaxation on scope clause I am not sure how many sales that would stimulate.
@Casey:
They are ordering I believe 20 of the -100. That looks to be a more capable range wise 195 as well as virtually a slightly smaller single aisle than the A320.
But yea, its a huge change and as noted before, they have 3 x E2-195s so Embraer would have expected to get that order.
Poland may be looking to do a central hub and spoke system aka Baltic.
I wonder with all that is going on in India and the World, that sabotage or terrorism has not been mentioned too much? India and Pakistan relations; the Middle East; Africa… I know speculations are based on what is known and seen at this point, but that still is very little.
The noise before the crash is being attributed by some now to be the RAT. Time will tell, and it is important to not rush to judgement. A lot of hands are involved in getting an airplane ready for flight. I would not close the door on many possible scenarios…
Indian media outlets are replete with terrorism / sabotage commentary — all directed toward Pakistan, of course.
Some countries just love to hate one another.
@SamW:
Its on the list but you are talking about a method of Sabotage that would be difficult or impossible to pull off.
Its just a very tiny probability. No zero but so close to be zero (My opinion)
I’m hip to what you guys are saying. It just seems like somehow the gas was turned off. This either by software or hardware or by some other more malicious means.
I fully agree and in that camp as far a a lean goes.
What the root cause of course then means its either a Boeing issue or not.
Who wrote the software and how it could command both engines to restricted or roll back? Phew.
Did the internal check not catch a computer that was off its gourd?
Did a computer fail in such an odd fashion it was not recognized and caused this.
The evidence seems to show both engines just shutoff completely after rotation and 600 feet (the airport is at 130 ft or there abouts, so it depends on if its barometric or true AGL)
So a lot of theories followed by conjecture but nothing solid yet
And then there’s this:
“Mumbai Grahak Panchayat demands grounding of all Boeing 787 aircraft”
“sumer rights body, has called for grounding of Boeing 787 aircraft in the interest of public safety. The MGP has given the call following Thursday’s air crash involving Air India aircraft and three instances of air turn back involving Boeing 787 on Sunday and Monday.
““Directorate General of Civil Aviation is duty bound to take consumers into confidence and explain the reasons that prompted the mid-air return of British Airways, Lufthansa and Air India flights that were being operated by the Boeing 787 aircraft,” MGP said in a statement.”
“MGP also calls upon Air India to ground all their Boeing 787 aircraft without waiting for any directions from the DGCA, it said.”
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/mumbai-grahak-panchayat-demands-grounding-of-all-boeing-787-aircraft/article69702111.ece
***
Looks like emotions are running pretty high there in India…
Truly in poor taste. Of course emotions are horrible in not just India, but all people and nationalities who had loved ones on that aircraft. Boeing employees are going to be hard hit. Anyone with any humanity is going to be sorrowful.
India in particular has suffered a grievous blow.
My heart is out to all who have suffered loss of loved ones and friends. It also extends to the community directly impacted.
I think the 787 should be grounded, not because my “emotions are high” but out of an abundance of caution.
How come “Boeing employees are going to be hard hit”? Oversensationalize is not helpful to your cause.
I do not have a cause. I know what has been lost and the impacts of that.
Boeing employees take pride in what they build regardless of the management. You hate to see an aircraft go in with anyone lost let alone the large loss of life in this one.
As if the situation in the Middle East isn’t bad enough already:
“U.S. Forward Deploys Dozens of Aerial Tankers Amid Possible Entry Into Israel-Iran War”
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/us-forward-deploys-dozens-aerial-tankers-iran
***
If the US gets involved in this, then:
– Emirates and Qatar will essentially have to stop operations.
– Jet fuel will double (at least) in price.
– BA will lose a lot of orders in the ME.
Boeing EVP Pope sent to India.
Might be an aircraft OEM issue, then.
While its fully open as to what it might be, Pope is going to India out of respect to what has happened.
Unlike the Indonesian and Ethiopian MAX crashes, unlike Muilenberg Ortberg gets it.
I expect Ortberg is going to be heading to India soon as well.
Do you think that Steph would just turn up to offer her condolences if it was suspected that the plane had been brought down by a bomb? I don’t think so
I think she would have been told to do so.
Ortberg at least seems to have some sense of propriety.
Gestures can be very importation in relationships, Boeing has not practiced that much in recent years.
@ Vincent
Pope may be going so as to do damage control, and to try to secure the 787 portion of BA’s recent order from India.
Sentiment in India — justified or not — is currently not particulary pro-Boeing. For example:
“Nightmare foretold? Ahmedabad crash raises new questions about Dreamliners sent to India”
“Two people that The American Prospect said were “deeply familiar with the Charleston 787 plant” told the publication they had grave concerns about the quality of 787s sent specifically to Air India.”
“Cynthia Kitchens, who worked at Boeing between 2009 and 2016, kept extensive notes and photos on what she called the “nonconformances” that haunted her. Of 11 particularly worrying planes she tracked, six went to Air India.”
“Years earlier, Kitchens said she had asked a boss if he would let his children fly on a plane with the litany of flaws and non-conformances he was urging her to “pencil-whip”:
““Cindy, none of these planes are staying in America, they’re all going overseas,” he replied.”
https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/nightmare-foretold-ahmedabad-crash-raises-new-questions-about-dreamliners-sent-to-india/cid/2108341
***
And here’s another such article:
“One of the Dreamliners That Gave a Boeing Manager Nightmares Just Crashed”
“But there’s something else: two people deeply familiar with the Charleston 787 plant told the Prospect they had particularly acute quality concerns over planes that were delivered to Air India. Cynthia Kitchens, a former quality manager who worked at the Charleston plant between 2009 and 2016, has a binder full of notes, documents and photos from her frustrating years at Boeing, one page of which lists the numbers of the eleven planes delivered between early 2012 and late 2013 whose quality defects most kept her awake at night. Six of them went to Air India, whose purchases were bolstered by billions of dollars in Export-Import Bank loan guarantees. The plane that crashed was delivered in January 2014 from Boeing’s now-defunct assembly line in Everett, Washington, though its mid- and aft- fuselages were produced in Charleston. ”
***
Wasn’t there a serious of leaked e-mails a few years ago in which BA test pilots mocked Indian authorities? The now infamous “Jedi mind trick” passage.
I hope Ms. Pope brought a fire extinguisher with her…
Forgot to post a link to the second article — here we go:
https://prospect.org/economy/2025-06-12-dreamliner-gave-boeing-manager-nightmares-just-crashed-air-india/
TFTL. Tkacic is a good reporter, and has provided quite a bit of BA coverage.
@ Vincent
If the information in that report is found to be true, then BA has a very, very serious problem on its hands.
Particularly striking is the (chauvinistic) quote from the BA boss:
“Cindy, none of these planes are staying in America, they’re all going overseas”
🙈
Unless you have other witnesses its all hearsay.
You keep harping on Boeing quality in Charleston but those quality issues had to do with assembly.
The AI 787 did not break apart, a wing did not fall off, an engine did not fall off, the tail did not fall off.
Ms Kitchens likely does not know software from her left elbow.
Whatever happened it involves the engines for which she had nothing to do with.
Yes it could be its a hidden flaw in software or the computers or the fuel system.
But its got nothing to do with the assembly issues.
Have you seen the notes and pictures?
15 years latter?
PAS day 2 — another sizable deal:
“Airbus Bags Deal For Up To 150 A321neo Aircraft From VietJet”
“Airbus just announced at the 2025 Paris Air Show that it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with VietJet Air, a low-cost carrier and the largest private airline in all of Vietnam, concerning an order for 100 A321neo narrowbody twinjets. The agreement also has options for another 50 units, bringing the potential total to as high as 150 examples of the next-generation stretched single-aisle aircraft.”
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321neo-order-vietjet-paris-air-show/
***
It’s an MoU…so some details evidently still need to be hammered out.
Reuters:
“VietJet, the largest private airline in Vietnam, operates an all-Airbus fleet, apart from two Chinese-made regional jets. The airline has not to date taken delivery of any of the around 200 MAX planes it has ordered from Boeing.”
It seems up to 50 MAX will be heading to VietJet’s Thai subsidiary starting in October this year.
Interesting:
“Airbus propulsion chief: Test data encouraging but RISE selection not assured”
“Airbus is encouraged by preliminary data analysis of CFM’s RISE engine but the airframer’s propulsion engineering chief insists that the open-rotor technology has still to cement its case for selection against geared-fan alternatives.
“It’s a given ambition, but it’s not a given,” says Frank Haselbach, adding that it remains premature even to describe RISE as the “preferred solution” for Airbus’s future single-aisle programme.
““It could be,” he says. “You still have to look at the what the amount of commercial risk you’re taking, what’s the amount of industrial risk you’re taking to going down this route. So it’s a far bigger question than just a technical question. But technical is the entry ticket.””
“Windtunnel testing of the engine model – with and without partial wing structure, studying performance, acoustics and interaction with flaps and slats – is wrapping up in France and the Netherlands after more than 500h, and full aircraft model tests will commence next year. In parallel with the windtunnel testing CFM is moving from the key component to subsystem work.”
“But the technology presents integration challenges. “It’s a small core, it’s a huge [low-pressure] system. It’s a gearbox in between. You have to mount it in the right way…we’ll have new sorts of loads on the aircraft, which we never have because we normally guide the air to the engine.””
“With the absence of nacelle containment for blade loss, fuselage shielding will be part of the design consideration. “There is preventive detection in there,” says Haselbach. “But you will have to have an element of fuselage protection.””
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/airbus-propulsion-chief-test-data-encouraging-but-rise-selection-not-assured/163420.article
***
Doesn’t sound like a done deal at all…
Good to hear he is backing me up 100% on my assessment.
You can also add in, sans a 2nd RISE type engine, all bets are off (dual engine choice)
While you can put any jet engine under a wing, you can’t put any prop job under a wing and even two RISE type design would be different.
Airbus customers may well be telling him, no way are we buying a LCA with that thing on it.
The Public looks down on props and they get a vote in this.
By the time RISE gets a working engine PW will have a better GTF ready to bend metal on. Well they have the design already, waiting for a candidate to bend metal so they know what thrust range is needed.
Could it just be that the plane was just overweight for the hot and humid parameters of that day?
In theory yes. In practice if this aircraft was overweight and they missed that bad that would be a colossal mistake. Very rarely does an aircraft take off at max thrust anyway
I believe it’s more common in places like the M.E. (& India), one reason why the newer engines have issues there.
@Pedro
Yes it does stress an engine in those environments. The airline is supposed to know the weight of the aircraft. There is no ambiguity. It would involve someone just screwing up the calculations horribly. I will also point out those engines just came out of overhaul. Lack of EGT (thrust capability) should not be an issue.
Any engine will demonstrate a lack of thrust capability if it is starved of fuel…and/or if it is shut down by a malfunctioning controller.
Considering that this aircraft is maximum weight already (distance aka fuel load and almost full passenger wise)
A really heavy cargo might but it was a -8 so not as much as a -9 and …..
Its possible along with all the rest
“JetBlue to cut more flights, other costs with break-even 2025 ‘unlikely’ due to weaker travel demand”
““We’re hopeful demand and bookings will rebound, but even a recovery won’t fully offset the ground we’ve lost this year and our path back to profitability will take longer than we’d hoped. That means we’re still relying on borrowed cash to keep the airline running,” Geraghty said in a note to staff dated Monday, which was seen by CNBC.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/17/jetblue-cost-cuts.html
I fear this investigation is going to be politicized. The stakes are very high for all involved parties and as the rhetoric ratchets up objectivity will be sacrificed to save face and money. If this happens then I fear for global air travel as you will never be able to be assured that the aircraft you are flying on has been properly maintained, serviced and operated. This will be a calamity for those of us who need to fly globally for work and love to fly globally for leisure.
“…as the rhetoric ratchets up…”
Just look at the media articles that I posted above regarding “questionable” 787s being sent to India.
The airframe that crashed was allgedly on a list of 11 frames that a BA QC manager in Charleston was particularly worried about.
https://prospect.org/economy/2025-06-12-dreamliner-gave-boeing-manager-nightmares-just-crashed-air-india/
These are independent agencies looking at the crash. If it was Egypt I would be worried. The other AHJs can refuse to concur. Nothing I have seen from India AHJ would suggest they would cave.
It was not a hull breakup .
Flew for 11 years.
Thrust seems to be a major factor here, but the details of what, why and when is fully open
Let me see these “not a hull breakup” accidents:
787-8: 241 fatalities
737 MAX: 346
How many care whether it’s a hull breakup or not, if it’s going to kill many?
You really do not get it do you?
Flaps or no flaps the picture is not quite clear. Could a reconstruction of the take off be videoed with the same make of plane and then compre the 2? Information could be gathered with distance from the plane the picture were took with length of time off the runway etc but with flaps fully deployed and check if the quality is good enough to compare actual video to reconstruction.
It may or may not give clarity to eliminate from the investigation?
All true and Air India would know what a normal configuration for that airport and conditions would be.
They are not talking, in the US participants of an investigation are not allowed to.
No one independent I have seen has tried to put together what you are talking about.
I don’t know if you could duplicate that video angle.
We should have plane spotters who would know but have not heard from them.T
Continuing nervousness:
“Air India cancels six flights using Dreamliner…”
“In what may be called a deep erosion in the brand value of Boeing, Air India on Tuesday canceled six flights, all using 787-8 Dreamliner aircraft. If reports are to be believed, the carrier canceled AI 915 (Delhi-Dubai), AI 153 (Delhi-Vienna), AI 143 (Delhi-Paris), AI 159 (Ahmedabad-London), AI 133 (Bengaluru-London) and AI 170 (London-Amritsar). Besides, a technical issue also affected a Dreamliner operating as AI 315 to Delhi and forced the pilot to fly back to Hong Kong. An Air India San Francisco-Mumbai flight suffered a technical snag the same day during a scheduled halt at Kolkata. Air India asked all passengers to deboard.”
https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-air-india-cancels-six-flights-using-dreamliner-boeing-aircraft-that-crashed-in-ahmedabad-details-here-3160837
Simplest explanation is the best one.
https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/air-india-flight-ahmedabad-plane-crash-5sfnnvkfb
They also will be looking at takeoff parameters for Ahmedabad to see if there is a flaw in the data input for thrust settings, when to rotate as well as rejection protocols.
Fleet is also one down. As Airlines schedule the max to get most hours on their planes. Loss of one plane ripples through the fleet. Seem to be a few other technical issues as well, which has more people watching these things anyway
Some delay due to inspections as well.
Just another day at the beach for Bryce
FG: JAL to help Maeve shape rear-engined 90-seat open-rotor aircraft proposal
FG: De Havilland eyes restarting Sherpa and Dash 8 production
> De Havilland is considering bringing back a modernised version of either the Dash 8-400 or smaller Dash 8-300.
Sherpa definitely would be great for shortish range package delivery, with that ‘box’ fuselage
Far more likely the Sherpa.
Dash 8 of any type, not so much.
Have gone down the rabbit hole on tank size and pump configuration and usage. Had a productive discussion with a 787 pilot who generously answered some questions.
Basically two wing tanks at 16,776 kg capacity each with two forward & aft electric pumps, a central tank with 68,888 kg capacity with two electric pumps (placement is a bit unclear as pilot said for & aft but since that is not right left symmetrical and each of the pumps are used in a left / right configuration). The center tank has an additional scavenging system that comes on shortly after the main wing tanks start providing fuel and will empty the center tank.
From the pilot:
“The center tank pumps (2) are normally delivering fuel to the engines for takeoff (there is no flap logic associated with their operation) meaning fuel is delivered from the center tank whenever fuel is in the center tank and the pumps are on. The 4 wing tank pumps (2 pumps in each wing tank) are all competing to deliver fuel to their respective engine as well. However, since the wing tank pumps deliver fuel at a slightly lower pressure, the center tank pumps essentially win the pressure battle until no more fuel is in the center tank.”
From the pilot:
“l do not think there is a water separator of any kind and we have no cockpit indicators for water in the fuel–mechanics do periodic sampling but I don’t have any expertise in this area. I don’t believe a water/fuel mixture would reduce the output pressure.. Yes, the center tanks are depleted fully using a fuel scavenging system that comes on shortly after the main wing tanks start providing fuel. There are separate pickups for each center pump (forward and aft pump) but we normally shut these pumps off once the center tank quantity reaches 5000 lbs so those pickups are not uncovered at anytime while the pumps are running. The remaining fuel in the center tank is then picked up by a fuel scavenging system (which has its own pickups at the lowest parts of the tank). and delivered to the wing tanks.”
From the pilot:
“The APU is not a source of bleed air–it only supplies electrical power to the aircraft. No bleed air is used in the engine start sequence–in fact, the only bleed air on the entire aircraft comes from the engines and is only used to heat that engine’s cowl lip and core during icing conditions. If the engine(s) flame out, they attempt to auto-relight using the rotational energy imparted to the N1 and N2 sections by the incoming air and using ignitors from the battery. In my experience, it takes about 90 seconds for the APU to start on the ground and would likely be a bit faster while airborne at low altitudes. The APU was probably not up and running due to the limited time of the incident. If the Ram Air Turbine a was deployed, it indicates that there was an extremely exigent situation occuring with a very few items being powered. The landing gear cannot be retracted using the RAT. Also, in addition to providing limited hydraulic power for the primary flight controls, the RAT DOES provide limited standby electrical power for cockpit displays, limited navigation capabilities, and fire the detection system.”
Thanks for all this helpful info.
I am familiar with all but the fuel system. Spot on information.
The fueling rig will have filters including water.
I am extending this a bit but I believe that water is separated and if too much water it hits a special filter that stops the flow.
If not there will be a water shutdown level.
Keep in mind pilots are trained on their systems they control and have affect on. So not knowing fueling systems is not odd.
I was responsible for a De-ice mixing system. I asked to go to de-ice school. They refused and wanted to know why I had any need.
In my case, the more I knew the better I could assess how or if our system was working. I was the next to last check.
A jet pilot is going to have a snoot full of aircraft stuff and getting into all support aspect would not be a need. So its fully understandable generally pilots would not know. None of that was ever discussed in my ground schools.
Our test was a sample out of the wing tanks and sump. Which in the C-150 did not work correctly. We had a major water ingress one time to all the training aircraft. Hot day, hot fuel at the end and a thunderstorm moved in and temps dropped. So much vacuum created when fuel cooled off it sucked it in through the fuel caps.
So the sump would not pick anything up because it was full of the fuel from the previous day.
They found out what the first one took off and the engine died after rotation and 150 feet. They had a long runway ahead so instructor took the plane and glided in.
They found you had to chain the tail down to get the water pickup in a location where it would pull from the bottom of the tank.
Fuel pump pickup was above the water until it rotated and then it was all water (couple of gallons in each tank)
A thought that just came to mind is that India has been buying a lot of Russian sanctioned oil. I wonder if they also get jet fuel from Russia as the shipping fleets that deal in these energy products that get sanctioned are rather dodgy and do a lot of ship to ship transfers with the potential for who-knows-what. There has been problems with ship fuel (which is much less controlled for quality than jet fuel) where a lot of questionable liquids get purposely dumped into them (to get rid of them) and has caused big problems for the ships that get this fuel. It would be interesting to know what fuel sampling and quality control is in place throughout the fuel delivery chain to maintain certainty that the jet fuel meet standards. The fuel might not have had water contamination but something that the filters might pass (like that issue with the SALT water). Also I wonder where they get their jet fuel from and how is it transported (out of country, regional refinery, local refinery, pipe, train, truck, etc). Again the argument is that other aircraft would have gotten the same fuel, but that center tank is very big and quite probably was completely filled from empty and not just topped off.
I think Russia is short of diesel refining capacity. With all their military equipment and air force jets using Jet A or the like……………..
So while they export oil, I don’t think they do diesel.
If the thoughts about reduced thrust occurring during the acceleration phase of the takeoff are correct AND thrust reduction was symmetrical for both engines AND the RATE of thrust reduction was progressive (little at first, more as time went by and possibly more as the aircraft pitched up at rotation) then the pilots had a nightmare scenario.
Possible scenario:
Pilot monitoring watching for V1 and sees N1 (thrust is lower than programmed for takeoff but at the beginning by only a relatively small amount) AND Full Authority Digital Engine controllers (FADEC) {BOTH are going Ape S…} generating error messages that the PM has never seen before BUT consider them as a concerning distraction. The pilot flying & the PM are becoming concerned as the aircraft has not attained V1 by the POSITION on the runway that their memory feels correct BUT are now TOO CLOSE to the end of the runway to abort without overrun. The pilot flying commands FULL POWER but the engines do not increase thrust or possibly continue decreasing but the “feeling” is that there is enough thrust to get airborne and return to land. The pilots are waiting for VR but acceleration is very sluggish. Pilot flying is watching the end of the runway coming up and rotates as late as possible but not quite at VR.
The aircraft is in ground effect and trying to climb some (everything is on the edge). At rotation the aircraft pitches up and at some number of seconds later (now airborne) and out of ground effect the engines start to significantly rollback. The PM commands the gear to retract. The engines rollback to less than idle RPM and RAT is auto deployed causing a reconfiguration of both the electrical and hydraulic systems (and aborts the landing gear retraction to preserve hydraulic pressure for control surfaces).
The aircraft is at a LOWER PITCH than at rotation.
The engines are in an auto relight sequence with ignition on (might {probably} have been on all along).
A bang is heard which could have been the RAT deploying or a relight and combustion of pooled fuel inside the combustor of an engine. Person also stated that it seemed that more thrust was being generated. (Aircraft pitch less than at rotation.)
A person heard in the building “jet engine sounds” which could have been the RAT or unstable engine/s at low RPM.
For me it seems like something to do with a fuel disruption that was progressive and chaotic. I concur with TransWorld that water of any significant quantity should not have gotten into the center tank or question how it could have. Will now wait for the information from the data recorder as I think I could die on this particular scenario hill.
You just put the classic conundrum of a rejected takeoff.
The training is to continue takeoff if you think the airplane will fly.
But you have to decide in a very short window and you need to figure out how its affecting the aircraft and if it will fly.
Then you may be too late and its facing a choice of crashing straight off the end on the ground or trying to fly.
One is certain crash and the other is still possible (maybe).
Unfortunately they did not have an crush/stop system at the end of the runway which makes that decision easier and more time to do it.
“Airbus to boost A330 MRTT+ tanker output as demand soars”
“Airbus Defence & Space will increase its annual capacity to deliver the multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) version of its A330 widebody, to meet strong demand for its new Neo-based model.
““The MRTT+ programme is in full motion,” says Jean-Brice Dumont, the company’s head of air power. “The first aircraft is in production, and the ambition is to deliver by the end of 2028,” he adds.”
““The demand signal on the tankers is very high,” Dumont says. “Many countries are realising that they have a need for fast deployment,” he notes, referring to increased interest in the Agile Combat Employment concept. “They want to deploy fast and far, and for that you need tankers.””
“As part of its planning process for increased output of the MRTT+, Dumont says the company will consider “whether the hangars we have can accommodate it or we need to build new hangars, or we need to go to other places than Getafe, where we are today.””
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/airbus-to-boost-a330-mrtt-tanker-output-as-demand-soars/163449.article
Ironic there is one fueler in a fairly high rate of production.
A330CEO are spoken for sans a lead order before and the A330NEO also spoken for and needs to be certified.
A330MRT has been a split of older converted hulls and new build.
then you have the supply chain that has to be able to deliver.
Best bet is to call the USAF and ask for a KC-46A (maybe an export version depending on who you sell it to)
Israel by the way has 7 on order. Japan asked for them and got in the Q right away. Not delivered yet.
I have to amend that. Japan got two KC-46A out of production.
They have 9 more ordered I believe. I don’t know what the delivery schedule is.
If USAF is willing to give up delivery positions they could get them in a years time.
USAF benefits as they get closer to the upgraded RVW system.
Have to wonder if the US is not going to hand over some of those tankers to Israel soon.
Oh God, the USAF is still looking forward to the “long-awaited overhaul of the RVS”, which is furtherdelayed to 2027. Have a good laugh! 😂
Hard to imagine anyone could type out this with a straight face.
“Best bet is to call the USAF and ask for a KC-46A”
You seem to think the KC-46A is unable to deliver fuel.
It can, certain sun angles cause issues and the USAF spec wide angle portion does not work the way they wanted (USAF is paying to fix that part)
As a TANKER PILOT noted, while there are some issues, we are used to dealing with issues and we can work around them. She was impressed with the improvements over the KC-135. She also stated she liked the A330MRT though it had different features she felt it was on par with KCC-46A (or the KC-46A was on par with the A330MRT though it had systems that not all or maybe any A330MRT has)
The administration can also direct a transfer of almost anything though there are some hoops its supposed to jump through but often does not.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
““The KC-46A is not meeting many of its suitability metrics,” according to the 2024 annual report from the office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. At least 80% operational availability and 90% mission capability are required for the tanker, but the actuals “decreased throughout 2024,” the report noted.”
“The KC-46 had a mission-capable rate of 61% in 2024, which is worse than its 2023 readiness of 65%. The KC-46 tanker’s effective mission capable rate falls by an additional 24% on average when partially mission capable are factored in, such as those with a broken boom.”
https://simpleflying.com/is-kc-46-fully-mission-capable/
“Paper plane” also works, to some extent! Only not functionally the same. Hehe
@ Pedro
…not to mention that the KC-46A is based on a discontinued frame, with far less fuel-efficiency / range…
🙈
Why buy a product™ that does not work? The dog’s breakfast KC-46A, I mean.
“almost ready!”
A330 MRT is also on a discontinued air frame. A lot of 2nd hand conversions.
In fact the 767 is not discontinued yet. It will be.
But a 2C airframe will continue to be made for the KC-46A.
How is the KC-135 doing?
How is the A330MRT doing? How many of those A330 Air Forces report their mission rate?
@Transworld
“A330 MRT is also on a discontinued air frame”
Which is why the article above is discussing the A330 MRTT+…which is based on the in-production A330neo.
Missed that, did you?
That one is trolling for attention. Sad!
Noticed that, had you?
🙈
Trans
There were 2 Japanese KC46s in the fuel dock 10 days ago.
So does fuel dock mean new delivery?
If so then they will have 4 soon.
Since we are talking about tankers, Ward Carroll (youtube) has a new video on how Israel must be getting refueling tanker help from the U.S. as the numbers just don’t add up. He has the guy from desert storm who was responsible for designing the refueling missions. The video was fascinating for me.
I had also wondered about that and no one has radar coverage in that part of Syria they are moving through (and Norther Iraq)
Notice Iraq is completely quiet on the subject as well.
Juan Browne at Blancolirio has a new AI 171 video update up, which contains significant new information.
@Vincent:
I looked and did not find any. If I do I will post it.
Was it an interview on another Channel?
Glad I wasn’t the only one who couldn’t find it!
If you search “Aviation Herald AI 171” you’ll get some of it, I think; that was updated today. Juan’s Patreon is $3 / mo. minimum, and very worth much it IMO.
It’s on his Patreon.
Ok, I have so many U Tubes I watch I have to limit my subscriptions.
Ward Caroll is another one.
Cappy Army had some good stuff on the ground end in Iran.
Mentour Pilot does some great and very topical ones.
And those are just the Aviation, I have wide range of interests in other things like engine rebuilds and tractors.
Do the FDR and CVR have their own battery backup? Could this plane’s failure, whatever it was, have shut down the recorders, too?
The FDR/CVR have apparently been found intact and working, and are presently being analyzed.
Yes — but we don’t yet know if they’ve actually recorded anything useful.
If the plane suffered severe electrical disruption (the RAT provides very limited power, and doesn’t kick in instantaneously or smoothly), it’s not entirely clear what data would have been continuously available to the recorders.
In the Korean Jeju crash, the recorders were running, but the lack of electrical power in the cockpit meant that there was nothing for them to record. In the current case, there was engine power…then a disruption…then a wait and some irregularity while the RAT kicked in…then very limited power thereafter.
The Jeju crash FDR/CVR is not correct.
They were no longer running when the power went. They have no backup power. The battery system does not supply them with any power.
There can be newer systems fitted that do that but Jeju did not have it. If it did then they would have logged whatever the batteries were powering as that would have data though not the full suite.
To me it makes *no sense at all* that the CVR/FDR would not have an independent power supply, since disruption of the normal sources would be essentially a part of many of the events it’s designed to record..
I recall that they do in fact have a separate battery p.s. that lasts for some time.. I am happy to be corrected (by solid evidence).
@Vincent:
It was disused during the Jeju discussion. I am not going off to links right now but its how the system works or did not work.
There is a regulation that they should be retrofitted. I have no idea why anyone thought they should not be powered off the battery system from the start , but they were not. Goes back to NG and before.
It was mandated after a certain date that mfg would put in those systems with backup power.
Its not uncommon for a change to occur and airlines given long times to comply or not required to comply at all, just new build.
This being a South Korean owned aircraft, their regs apply not ours.
I don’t know what a FDR uses power wise in current. I doubt its that much so its nuts not to have powered it off the 737 battery (or add a circuit in to do so). The excuse seems to be that it would take needed battery power. Put in a slightly bigger battery.
I say FDR because I view that as the most important one. Cockpit video would be number 2 and CVR last because it tends to be useless (my opinion)
Regardless, when the engine power of the generators (which are really alternators) on Jeju quit (bird strikes) then the FDR and CVR quit.
What we do know from reconstruction is that Jeju had some thrust. Something close to 50% a they flew for 4 more minutes and made a 180 deg turn.
For those who have not been through the pilot training, your G force goes up in a turn. You need more lift as its the same as if you suddenly loaded the aircraft up heavier with freight or fuel (or passengers)
Its why pilots are taught not to try to turn back. Already marginal and any added thrust (lift) need and you will stall.
In the Jeju case, with the gear up and flaps up, less drag and they had enough thrust to do it. It could have been dropping off and less and less after they made the turn.
Now why the alternators quit or the drive quit while the engines still had thrust (or one did) its unknown. Even down to idle they produce power via the alternator.
Conjecture is the drives got hit by debris from the engine damage.
Now all aircraft are built with their own backup battery power or off the battery system – so if there is data to be had it gets recorded.
No one will ever know why the pilot did not continue the landing as he was all setup for it.
Also why a turn back when he could have ditched. Controlled is better than uncontrolled, you at least have some chance.
He did not get any flaps down nor the gear so it was going to be an overun and even without the barrier, it would have gone into terrain and been torn apart.
@jim Fife:
They should have data till its gone. Should being the operative word, as we saw with the Jeju crash, older aircraft do not. They can be fitted with systems that do, but obviously not all are.
A caveat is that once (if) all power goes, the sensors no longer work so they don’t report data to the FDR. So there can be missed items though in this case hopefully no issues and it worked until the crash.
Just a suspician, we will have no more data after the RAT deployed
As the RAT deployed (almost 100% certainty) power was lost. RAT may not have got power to systems so that data may be missing.
They will tell us when they have the data and what they have vs what they might not have.
It should tell us what happened up to the point of power loss. It may not tell us why the power was lost.
There is an assumption on my part battery power was lost as well, otherwise the RAT should stay up unless the pilots push the button and that seems unlikely with all that was going on.
APU should be starting but no power no APU start.
[whew.]
Now this is a good layout of how they go about the investigation. No media hype, just factual presentation of where how and what they are looking for and at. Well done BBC!
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gkd555jlko