Editorial 2: A chance to rebuild the trust, restore faith in air travel 

Context

Investigating the Ahmedabad air crash properly is important to assure passengers that air travel remains safe.

Introduction

The fatal crash of Air India flight AI171 in Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025, has led to a surge in fear-driven coverage by TRP-hungry media and self-proclaimed YouTube ‘experts’ spreading unverified theories. Reports of other Boeing 787 Dreamliner incidents, even if unrelated, are increasing public anxiety. Thankfully, the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) have been found intact. Investigations are being supported by the NTSB (USA) and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (UK), and we can expect accurate data soon. Meanwhile, Boeing must act quickly to counter rumours, especially to protect the Dreamliner’s reputation.

Eyewitness Account & Initial Observations

• The only survivor of the flight shared with media:
  • He heard a loud thud a few seconds after take-off.
  • Lights onboard flickered post-lift-off.
• These observations have led to speculations of dual engine failure:
  • Amateur YouTube footage shows deployment of the RAT (Ram Air Turbine).
  • The RAT deployment typically indicates power or engine failure.

Rising Concerns Around Boeing 787 Safety

• Past incidents involving other international Boeing 787 aircraft are being cited by critics.
• Growing concern is being amplified online via YouTube and social media.

Data & Analysis Delays in India

• CCTV footage from Ahmedabad airport has been widely circulated.
• Provides a reasonable visual reconstruction of the take-off sequence.

Runway & Environmental Conditions

• Key Point: Aircraft reportedly used full runway length before lift-off, suggesting sub-optimal take-off conditions.

Critical Take-off Procedure & Errors

• Flight computers calculate speed and thrust based on:
  • Atmospheric conditions
  • Aircraft weight and potential engine-out scenarios
• Landing gear must retract before aircraft reaches 35 ft altitude:
  • In this incident, gear was not retracted, likely adding excess drag.

CCTV Frame-by-Frame Indicators

• First 18 seconds: Normal acceleration visible.
• Take-off Roll:
  • Nose lift-off followed by a rightward swing.
  • Suggests failure in the left engine.
  • Aircraft lifted off at the end of runway, as per officials.
• Possible Causes of the “Thud” Heard:
  • Engine failure
  • Bird strike
  • Debris ingestion after runway end (seen in dust cloud in footage)

Engine Performance Clues

Final Moments Before Impact

• After second engine failure, the aircraft likely entered a stall.
• Subsequently, the aircraft descended uncontrollably and crashed into a building.
• The aircraft exploded upon impact, as seen in the final frames.

Probable Chain of Events

1. Take-off under high temperature conditions led to reduced engine performance.
2. Aircraft used full runway, possibly overloaded or underpowered.
3. First engine likely failed at or just after rotation (nose lift).
4. Aircraft continued climb with gear down, increasing drag.
5. Second engine possibly failed due to bird or debris ingestion.
6. Aircraft stalled and descended, hitting a structure and bursting into flames.

Similar Incident: Indian Airlines A300 (September 29, 1986)

• On September 29, 1986, an Indian Airlines Airbus A300 with 185 passengers and 11 crew members was flying from Chennai to Mumbai.
• During take-off, as the aircraft reached a 5° to 8° nose-up attitude, a loud noise was heard from the right side, followed by intense vibration.
• The commander took control from the co-pilot and attempted to abort the take-off.
• Despite deploying reverse thrust and wheel brakes, the aircraft could not be stopped on the runway and overran onto kutcha ground.
• Thankfully, no fire broke out, but the aircraft was destroyed beyond repair.
• All 196 occupants survived, with 14 sustaining minor injuries.
• Cause of the Incident: “The probable cause was the wrong decision by the commander to reject take-off after rotation, triggered by a bird strike on the right engine.”

Flight IC571 and AI171: Striking Parallels

• The IC571 and AI171 cases present significant flight safety lessons.
• The concept of Take-off Safety Speed (V1) is critical:
  • Once past V1, take-off must be continued, as there isn’t enough runway left to stop safely.
• In the 1986 case, although the decision to reject was after rotation and V1, it saved lives.
• Yet, Indian Airlines pilots were criticised for deviating from procedural norms.

AI171: A Pilot’s Impossible Choice

• The captain of AI171 lifted off at the very end of the runway.
• He, along with his crew, passengers, and others on the ground, tragically lost their lives.
• This represents a Hobson’s choice — a moment where a pilot must decide instantly:
  • Continue with reduced thrust or reject with insufficient runway?

Possible Contributing Factors: Overloading

Key Operational Questions

• Why was there no recognition of slow acceleration by the pilots?
• Why was the landing gear not retracted after lift-off?
• Were the runway markings (last 2,000 feet) observed and factored in?
• Could a take-off rejection at that point have saved lives?

Final Determination: Awaiting Recorder Data

• Only the analysis of the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) will offer:
  • A full sequence of events.
  • Insights into pilot actions, warnings, and instrument readings.

Conclusion

Passengers should remember that air travel is among the safest ways to travel. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, in particular, has maintained an excellent safety record for the past 14 years, making it a reliable aircraft. However, Boeing's reputation took a hit with the 737 MAX controversy, during which the Federal Aviation Administration and the NTSB were seen as inactive. We hope all parties will now act responsibly and work to rebuild public trust.