1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Dual engine failure? Original footage showing the ram air turbine was deployed.

 

 

 

If what he claims is true and the RAT only deploys in three specific circumstances, then clearly human error can be ruled it out. It was not human error, it was dual engine failure.

45 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Common sense as engines are designed to run even with electrical failure so I agree with the pilot who knows more than you.

Nothing explains why the flaps were up!

If flaps are up for take-off, you crash, even with full power.

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Again, the verification of the video needs to be done as well.

 

Could be a tricky dirt package from ? 

 

Russia, China, ? You cant trust anything today. 

Ridiculous comment.

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Nothing explains why the flaps were up!

Who says the flaps were not set for take off? Already explained that flap setting 5 would be difficult to spot. Flaps not set for takeoff results in a very loud alert with levels of fail safe backups.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Ridiculous comment.

 

Seems you are the only one thinking, just swallow anything that sounds plausible before any evidences have been proved. 

 

You understand the original video have to be analyzed and proven if it is going to be part of the investigation? 

 

What do France, Russia, China have to gain if there is more problems with boing? Just enough people to be uncertain of boings future? 

 

Just speculations creating dramatic additional loss in investments and delays.

 

Im not saying it is a true speculation, but still.

 

Anyway, as said before the black box most likely intact, and in a few weeks we will know more.

 

Thanks for the negative responses btw

16 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The RAT was deployed either automatically or manually. This happened for a reason.

Sure, but why dual engine shut down? And not an electrical systems catastrophic shut down? Remember B787 relies on electrical systems a lot more than other aircraft.  

 

Ironically in its early days B787 got grounded to modify the batteries of its backup power system had the bad habit of catching fire...

 

Anyhow the only thing I have flown was a paraglider.. But I's bet a Yuan on effed up controls here...

8 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

Sure, but why dual engine shut down? And not an electrical systems catastrophic shut down? Remember B787 relies on electrical systems a lot more than other aircraft.  

 

Ironically in its early days B787 got grounded to modify the batteries of its backup power system had the bad habit of catching fire...

 

Anyhow the only thing I have flown was a paraglider.. But I's bet a Yuan on effed up controls here...

That's the big question. Simultaneous failure of both engines. Electrical or hydraulic? 

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Anyway, as said before the black box most likely intact

Black box and flight data recorder on 787 kept in the tail section which from looking at images has remained mostly intact. 

7 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

That's the big question. Simultaneous failure of both engines. Electrical or hydraulic? 

Food for thought:

 

On the 787 the hydraulic system has been re-designed to use electric power. Bleed air is still used for some of the pressurization of hydraulic reservoirs (one of the main areas where bleed air is used). In particular:

• The 787 maintains three hydraulic systems (left, right, and central), each pressurized separately.
• The left and right hydraulic systems are driven by engine-driven pumps (as normal), with an additional electric pump for peak demand and ground use.
• The central system is driven by two large electric pumps, with no engine-driven pumps.
• The electric pumps provide higher pressure (5,000 psi rather than 3,000 psi in traditional systems) which allows smaller hydraulic components, further saving on weight.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-787-no-bleed-architecture-key-facts-list/

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

My 1st post on this was a dual engine failure although I thought the likelihood of this seemed impossible. It just looked like it lost all thrust.

Quite. There was obviously enough power to get off the ground but then for some reason insufficient to keep it off the ground.

If it had been birds, I think being so low they would have been seen. The flight recorder should tell all.

19 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

My 1st post on this was a dual engine failure although I thought the likelihood of this seemed impossible. It just looked like it lost all thrust.

 

And that's exactly what the Captain reported in his Mayday call, and he should know, he was at the helm.

 

17 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

I'll wait for the report.

Because I'm not a pilot.

Because I'm not an aviation expert

Because I'm not an investigator.

Good bye

 

Cheerio then.

 

 

1 hour ago, KannikaP said:

On the stopped video, it is obvious that the flaps were NOT deployed.

 

You can see the leading-edge flaps?

 

Amazing.

A recent update says there was a DVR installed in the cockpit and it has been recovered intact. It may show the control settings and what the pilots did during the emergency. 

 

 

1 hour ago, KannikaP said:

How would you HEAR the RAT from that distance away, over the sound of the engines, if they were both running of course.

 

Which they weren't as they were spooling down already.

 

Anyway, another example of 'RAT noise' given in the video, so it's up to you to know better.

42 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Who says the flaps were not set for take off? Already explained that flap setting 5 would be difficult to spot. Flaps not set for takeoff results in a very loud alert with levels of fail safe backups.

Well that would still be co-pilot error ......

Flaps at 5 or 15 for takeoff, but flaps at 20 for engine failure, so even if left at 5 it would have been co-pilot error.

And why the gear down? no point in gear down after the end of the runway.

32 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

ure, but why dual engine shut down? And not an electrical systems catastrophic shut down?

 

Because in the Mayday call the pilot mentions the issue is a sudden lack of thrust. Just as would happen with engine failure.

 

The video also supports the lack of thrust issue being a real cause.

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

And why the gear down? no point in gear down after the end of the runway.

 

As the pilots experienced sudden lack of thrust and were falling from the sky like a stone, understandably they would have been preoccupied with the issue of lack thrust and solving that.

 

Unless an electrical or hydraulic failure could cause a problem preventing gear up.

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

And why the gear down? no point in gear down after the end of the runway.

Another pilot has addressed that. In the event of an emergency during take off that would take precedence and they would leave the gear down.

The flight recorder should say what happened when.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Well that would still be co-pilot error ......

Flaps at 5 or 15 for takeoff, but flaps at 20 for engine failure, so even if left at 5 it would have been co-pilot error.

And why the gear down? no point in gear down after the end of the runway.

Guess you simply comment without watching the videos I linked. Try watching them and then comment. There's obviously been a catastrophic systems failure. Gear down, dual engine shutdown and RAT deployed.

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Dual engine failure? Original footage showing the ram air turbine was deployed.

 

 

If you add to this the cloud of dust just as plane left runway, it now looks like it could have hit something, antennas or wall or...

From this link: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/12/world/video/flight-data-analysis-india-crash-digvid

It shows CCTV capture with the flight reconstruction.

 

If it did hit something and knocked both engines out, that would also cut all the power in the plane, which would result in RAT being lowered.

Plane also doesn't seem to have flaps deployed. Being close to full (90%) at 40C, this would warrant flaps 15 which would definitely be visible but at least they don't seem to be in that video above.

 

So if for some reason flaps didn't deploy, which caused delayed lift due to insufficient speed to take off without flaps, then hitting something at the end of the runway, knocking out all the power and engines... and then pulling nose up to slow it further... that would be one theory that could look just like what we saw.

 

And then there's this: https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/i-was-in-same-flight-2-hours-before-akash-vatsa-claims-he-flew-on-air-india-boeing-787-8-that-later-crashed-101749732636232.html

 

Now you really start to wonder about the quality of Air India maintenance...

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

The video also supports the lack of thrust issue being a real cause.

A lack of lift, for sure..

6 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

So if for some reason flaps didn't deploy, which caused delayed lift due to insufficient speed to take off without flaps, then hitting something at the end of the runway, knocking out all the power and engines... and then pulling nose up to slow it further... that would be one theory that could look just like what we saw.

 

I don't think so. If they had hit something the pilot would have mentioned in the Mayday call. He didn't.  He was clueless about the cause. He just said "lack of thrust".

 

I strongly doubt it's an Air India maintenance issue. It looks much more likely that it was engine failure.

 

But I can't wait for the report, they usually come up with completely unexpected causes.

1 minute ago, tomazbodner said:

If you add to this the cloud of dust just as plane left runway, it now looks like it could have hit something, antennas or wall or...

From this link: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/12/world/video/flight-data-analysis-india-crash-digvid

It shows CCTV capture with the flight reconstruction.

 

If it did hit something and knocked both engines out, that would also cut all the power in the plane, which would result in RAT being lowered.

Plane also doesn't seem to have flaps deployed. Being close to full (90%) at 40C, this would warrant flaps 15 which would definitely be visible but at least they don't seem to be in that video above.

 

So if for some reason flaps didn't deploy, which caused delayed lift due to insufficient speed to take off without flaps, then hitting something at the end of the runway, knocking out all the power and engines... and then pulling nose up to slow it further... that would be one theory that could look just like what we saw.

 

And then there's this: https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/i-was-in-same-flight-2-hours-before-akash-vatsa-claims-he-flew-on-air-india-boeing-787-8-that-later-crashed-101749732636232.html

 

Now you really start to wonder about the quality of Air India maintenance...

Flaps were deployed for take-off. I have already explained that there is an alarm with levels of fail safe to alert the pilot to this eventuality. As for flaps 15 this is used for shorter runways. This plane used all of the runway and it appears to have rotated where it should have done so. The plane clearly has not hit anything before rotation. The dust is just from ground effect with the jet lifting off.

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Well that would still be co-pilot error ......

Flaps at 5 or 15 for takeoff, but flaps at 20 for engine failure, so even if left at 5 it would have been co-pilot error.

And why the gear down? no point in gear down after the end of the runway.

 

Wheels come up when everything is working normally, with the aircraft climbing and engines still going flat chat.

 

The pilots knew something was wrong a lot sooner than any video indicates. We can see from the video taken from the airport, that the aircraft visibly stopped climbing about 8 seconds after rotation, which I imagine was when the engines spooled down. It crashed about 17 seconds later

 

When the engines spool down, the plane starts descending, and you are less than 200 m in the air, the first thing you would do is pick up the landing gear?

 

Right.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

It was good theory and he did not conclude anything. 

 

Speculation until they have gone through the black box data. 

 

There is indication by a few grey pixels, and sounds, but thats all by now. And if both engines went out, he do not speculate in the cause except fuel contamination, pilot error pulling the flaps when supposed to pull the landing gear up.

 

Really nothing to argue about.

 

My next flight is a Dreamliner 🧐

So is mine tomorrow 

8 minutes ago, still kicking said:

So is mine tomorrow 

Good thing, there is 1100 of them or more and carried 875 million people the last decade. 10% of the population in the world, 270 of them have currently died, so still quite a safe plane statistically. 

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Good thing, there is 1100 of them or more and carried 875 million people the last decade. 10% of the population in the world, 270 of them have currently died, so still quite a safe plane statistically. 

Agree

1. if Boeing is in anyway found to be at fault due to a design flaw or a faulty manufacturing process then this could be the end of a once great American company.  After how they responded to the Max crashes many do not trust them.  In the last three years I have only been on Aribus aircraft (A320, A350-900 and A380). 

2. Both Boeing and GE should not be alllowed into the crash site and simply be availabe to answer to questions from crash investigators.

3. The US NTSB should have no part in this investigation. The Indian government should request assistance from the British or the EU.   

4. Boeing has lost it's focus and has now morphed into a stock buyback company to increase it's markert value.

5. One youtube video has a former or current airline pilot that claims the First Officer retracted the flaps instead raising the landing gear.  This is absolutely wrong by blaming a dead person without solid evidence. 

 

If the RAT did deploy at such a low altitude then there are prboably two reasons as to why:

1. Loss of engine power but the aricraft has just gotten off the ground.  I believe the aircraft got just over 600 feet.

2. The RAT deployed and the reason is not known at this time.

 

 

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

He's not assuming the RAT was deployed. He's showing it. If you've got nothing worthwhile to say say nothing.

He's a pilot on YouTube, earning a few quid with his opinion.........🤔

 

I have read that the plane's co-pilot may have made a mistake with levers....

 

So, I think it's best to wait until the experts do their thing.....😉

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I don't think so. If they had hit something the pilot would have mentioned in the Mayday call. He didn't.  He was clueless about the cause. He just said "lack of thrust".

 

I strongly doubt it's an Air India maintenance issue. It looks much more likely that it was engine failure.

 

But I can't wait for the report, they usually come up with completely unexpected causes.

 

Unless it was a tail strike, that funnel of dust looks like jet wash from the unpaved bit beyond the end of the runway, so the engines were thrusting away, but maybe that dust indicates that it took longer than expected to reach V2 take-off rotation speed? They took off further down the runway because lower thrust from when they started rolling? The runway is 3,500 m long.

 

The lone survivor says there was a loud bang about "30 seconds after take-off". The flight lasted less than 30 seconds, so maybe something got mangled in the translation or his interpretation of take-off is different, ie. from when the plane started rolling? That would make his "30-second bang" somewhere during the initial ascent?

 

I'm not a pilot, or an aviation expert or an investigator, but I am going with fuel contamination.

CX780 flight from Surabaya in 2010 that barely managed to land at HKG when both engine's fuel supplies got clogged up with polymer beads. These are used in the fuel pump truck filtration system to absorb any water in the fuel being loaded. The recently refurbished refuelling pipework at the origin airport was improperly flushed and had seawater in it. The polymer beads saturated the filter, that deformed under pressure and allowed the beads to be pumped to the aircraft. The plane took off normally but fuel pressure issues arose several times during the 5-hour flight but only became serious, with engine throttle and shut down issues increasing before the final approach into Hong Kong.

The Air India aircraft had flown the following sectors before the crash: Delhi-Tokyo-Delhi-Paris-Delhi-Ahmedabad. Since the domestic hop from Delhi is only about 90 minutes, maybe most of the 100 tons of avgas needed for the flight to LGW was taken on at Ahmedabad.