Air India Jet Bound for the UK has crashed on take off...242 on board

An aviation expert believes the co-pilot on Air India flight AI171 pulled the plane's wing flaps instead of retracting the landing gear, causing the plane to crash.

Commercial airline pilot and YouTuber Captain Steve, who analyzes plane crashes and close calls, gave his theory on the incident which killed 241 people on board.

99360011-14810957-Commercial_airline_pilot_and_YouTuber_Captain_Steve_who_analyzes-m-48_1749847102198.jpg

Commercial airline pilot and YouTuber Captain Steve, who analyzes plane crashes and close calls, gave his theory on the incident which killed 241 people on board




Steve said he suspected there had been an exceptionally simple error in the cockpit when the co-pilot was asked to retract the landing gear, with devastating consequences.

He said: 'Here's what I think happened, again folks this is just my opinion. I think the pilot flying said to the co-pilot said 'gear up' at the appropriate time.

'I think the co-pilot grabbed the flap handle and raised the flaps, instead of the gear. If that happened, this explains a lot of why this airplane stopped flying.'

Steve said that the flaps being raised would cause the flight to lose airspeed and altitude quickly, something he thinks the pilot would have struggled to control.

He explained his theory by saying the 787's composite wings would normally bend during take off as lift forces take it into the air.

But the Air India plane appears to show no such bending, amid widespread speculation the flaps which help lift the plane off had accidentally been retracted.

99359743-14810957-image-a-44_1749846764005.jpg
Co-Pilot
 

Teacher Terry said:
I really don’t know what’s considered old for a plane either but I bet @oldman knows. It’s really heartbreaking. Intellectually I know it’s the safest way to travel but I really hate flying now for many reasons.
Click to expand...
It’s really not about the age of the aircraft that determines when it is removed from service. Instead, the number of pressurizations, meaning the number of times when the plane has been readied for takeoff and the pilot pressurizes the fuselage and as the plane ascends the pressurization is increased. When the plane has descended for landing, the pressurization is, of course, decreased. This is counted as one pressurization.

To make this all sound simpler, if I were to say each takeoff and landing is one pressurization would mostly be correct. As an example, the Boeing 737 usually goes through around 70,000 pressurizations before being retired. The 787 that crashed goes only about 44,000 pressurizations. Why? Because the newer planes are made with composite materials and take less expansions and retractions, which is what a pressurization is.

If you would see what happens during a pressurization, it would make you shake your head. When the plane is pressurized, it looks like a balloon being blown open and when it’s depressurized, it would look like the air is being let out of the balloon

I hope I haven’t confused anyone.
 

hollydolly said:
An aviation expert believes the co-pilot on Air India flight AI171 pulled the plane's wing flaps instead of retracting the landing gear, causing the plane to crash.

Commercial airline pilot and YouTuber Captain Steve, who analyzes plane crashes and close calls, gave his theory on the incident which killed 241 people on board.

99360011-14810957-Commercial_airline_pilot_and_YouTuber_Captain_Steve_who_analyzes-m-48_1749847102198.jpg

Commercial airline pilot and YouTuber Captain Steve, who analyzes plane crashes and close calls, gave his theory on the incident which killed 241 people on board




Steve said he suspected there had been an exceptionally simple error in the cockpit when the co-pilot was asked to retract the landing gear, with devastating consequences.

He said: 'Here's what I think happened, again folks this is just my opinion. I think the pilot flying said to the co-pilot said 'gear up' at the appropriate time.

'I think the co-pilot grabbed the flap handle and raised the flaps, instead of the gear. If that happened, this explains a lot of why this airplane stopped flying.'

Steve said that the flaps being raised would cause the flight to lose airspeed and altitude quickly, something he thinks the pilot would have struggled to control.

He explained his theory by saying the 787's composite wings would normally bend during take off as lift forces take it into the air.

But the Air India plane appears to show no such bending, amid widespread speculation the flaps which help lift the plane off had accidentally been retracted.

99359743-14810957-image-a-44_1749846764005.jpg
Co-Pilot
Click to expand...
Maybe I was onto something yesterday when I suggested the flaps weren’t deployed. Captain Steve thinks the non flying pilot pulled the flaps lever instead of the landing gear lever. I never heard of this type of mistake because these levers are in two different locations and are well marked, but we are human, so mistakes are made.

If that’s what happened, that mistake could not have been corrected in time to save the plane. Once the plane looses lift and it’s only at around 650 feet of altitude, game over. The pilot won’t have enough altitude or time to correct the situation.

It’s very important that the cause is determined. I think the investigators will learn a lot from the CVR, or Cockpit Voice Recorder.
 
A British Airways flight from London to India had to turn around mid-air when it suffered a 'flap failure' - just days after the same model was involved in the Air India disaster that killed all but one passenger.

The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner was yesterday less than an hour into its journey from Heathrow to Chennai when a pilot suspected a 'technical issue'.

The BA35 flight circled for an hour over the strait of Dover to dump fuel before safely landing back on the runway at 1.50pm, according to data on Flightradar24.
It will raise further questions about safety concerns with the Boeing model, and comes on the back of a bombshell video of the Air India tragedy which an aviation expert claimed it proved the plane suffered a 'dual engine failure' before a catastrophic crash that killed 241 passengers.


Unverified footage posted on social media from onboard the aircraft showed fuel being dumped.
99410657-14815807-image-a-4_1750059717881.jpg

A BA spokesperson said: 'The aircraft returned to Heathrow as a standard precaution after reports of a technical issue.

'The flight landed safely with crew and customers disembarking as they normally would, and our teams worked hard to get their journeys back on track as soon as possible.'
 
The Inspectors will remove the engines and take off the cowls or covers and they will be able to tell if the engines were running at the time of the crash. If they were running at the time of the crash, that will eliminate the double engine failure theory. If the engines were not running at the time of the crash, it would most likely be caused by a failure of fuel being supplied to the engines.

But, here's another issue with that theory. In each wing is a fuel tank. The left engine receives fuel from the left wing tank and the right engine receives fuel from the right wing tank. These pumps operate independently. If one side (engine) fails and the other engine is still running, the "crossfeed valve" would be engaged allowing fuel from one side to fuel the other side. (Confusing, right?)

So, it is possible that there was fuel contamination, maybe by water in the fuel, or oil may have gotten into the fuel by a leaky valve.

Only a complete inspection of the engines and information from the CVR and FDR will either confirm or disclaim the double engine failure theory. I had the RAT deploy on one of my flights, but I will have to search my journals to find the details. I can't even remember the flight let alone the date. However, as Capt. Steve said, for all the higher the plane was, the RAT didn't do them much good. There just wasn't enough time because of the low altitude to take any correctable action to save the plane.

Honestly, I think Boeing should start looking at their vendors. Are they buying excellent parts or is Boeing trying to save money by buying less than excellent parts or what some would call "after market."

I remember in 1991 a United Boeing 737 crashed in Colorado Springs killing all 25 souls onboard. I think it was the third flight that had issues with the Parker-Hannifin servo valve that operates the rudder (PCU) power control unit. The first plane to crash because of the valve was a US Air that crashed in Pittsburgh killing all 132 souls onboard and Eastwind Airlines also had the issue, but luck was on their side as the valve became unstuck before crashing. It took the NTSB three crashes before they figured out the reason behind the crashes.

TMI?
 
I was speaking with an unnamed engineer at Boeing earlier today and he was telling me that their CEO was caught hiding deficiencies in the 787 and at last word, he heard Congress was going to investigate his lack of transparency.

I found this online:

Problems With 787 Being Falsified
 
oldman said:
I was speaking with an unnamed engineer at Boeing earlier today and he was telling me that their CEO was caught hiding deficiencies in the 787 and at last word, he heard Congress was going to investigate his lack of transparency.

I found this online:

Problems With 787 Being Falsified
Click to expand...
I was watching some if the senate hearings with Boeing. Josh Hawley had the CEO on the tops a few times because if his lack of transparency. He told the CEO that he put profit over safety.
 
I flew on a 787 in March from Chicago to Honolulu to see my son. It was or is a beautiful aircraft. If this crash was caused by mechanical failure, Boeing is going to pay out a small fortune.
 
We need to be patient and not indulge in guesswork. 240 people or so lost their lives. The black boxes have been recovered, and we'll soon learn the facts of the case.
 
Some officials at the US National Transportation Safety Board are concerned that India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau isn't willing to release the plane's recording devices until they're finished assessing them for "all technical, safety, and security considerations."

This raises concerns and suspicion with the NTSB because Indian airlines are known to have substandard pilot training programs, very sub-par safety and inspection standards, poor maintenance and abysmal maintenance record-keeping, and they've been accused of corruption a number of times.

None of that falls on the pilots. In fact, a lot of India's commercial pilots, especially the most experienced ones, have been begging for improvements in all those areas for almost 3 decades. Their lives are on the line, too, you know?
 
No fuel to either engine, mechanical failure and design flaws appear to be ruled out.


7/11/25 NYT - "Seconds after takeoff and moments before an Air India flight crashed last month, the fuel was cut off to both engines of the plane, investigators said early on Saturday, in a preliminary assessment of information from the aircraft’s voice and data recorder.

The narrowed focus on the fuel switches on Air India Flight 171 raised questions about the pilots’ actions and appeared to rule out mechanical failure or design flaws. The report said “there are no recommended actions” to the aircraft and engine manufacturers, Boeing and General Electric.

“In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off” the fuel, said the report, by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau. “The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”"
 
I had heard this also from Reuters. I am waiting on the India's safety board's determination. If what was reported is true, I know that they can't come out and say that this was intentional misconduct by the pilot, without risking a lawsuit if the final report states they are wrong.

There are two cutoff switches near the accelerators that are never engaged until the pilot either has an engine failure and then they shut off the fuel "only" to that engine or when the plane reaches its destination and then the pilot shuts off both switches when they pull into the gate,

Everyone was confused when they noticed the RAT drop down right after takeoff. The RAT or Ram Air Turbine is a small engine that I often said it looked like a small engine on a boat used for trolling. If both engines fail, the RAT will drop down (it's generally located just before the landing gears) and provides electric and hydraulic power to control the plane until the pilot can restart the engines, if able to do so. That's only the skinny of it. It's a bit more technical.

One other note is that although they are called "Fuel Cutoff" switches, they are a bit more technical than just an on/off switch. They can't be turned off accidentally by brushing against them. They have a spring loaded mechanism inside that requires the pilot to mechanically move the switch by pulling it out of its position and moving it to a guided position where it will lock in there.

Sorry, I couldn't find a decent picture of the switch to include it here. I pray this wasn't an act of pilot suicide.
 
Last edited:
Look at the two (2) green buttons below the accelerators. Different planes have different styles. The pilot has to pull out the switch, turn it and then let the switch snap into the position selected.
IMG_0716.jpeg
 
I think Boeing’s CEO should resign. He’s been called into senate hearings for his lack of transparency and has been accused of shortcuts and cooking the books. In production to save money, he’s been accused rushing to meet schedules. I flew Boeing planes my whole commercial career and had very few issues, but the last few years have been a nightmare for the company.

A company brings a new CEO into its family and the company continues on its downward trend, the board should also be dismissed. I own Boeing stock and have written several letters to the Boeing board urging them all to step down for the company’s sake. Ortberg, the CEO and President of Boeing was hired in 2024. True, Boeing was already on a slide, but he hasn’t made any improvements as the company is still on a slide downwards.

Airbus has signed huge contracts with large foreign airlines. Airbus advertises more legroom, which cuts down on the number of passengers that can fly in that plane on that flight because of having fewer seats, but the airlines are fine with this. I guess they aren’t as greedy as U.S. airlines. We try to stuff as many people as possible onto a plane. We call them Sardine Airlines. I heard a lot of complaints about how tight the seating was. I could only tell the passengers that complained, I didn’t design or build the aircraft, I only fly the plane.

I did learn through the grapevine that the President is planning on fixing some of the airport issues with takeoffs and landings and better communications. These improvements are way overdue and so are airport renovations or building new airports. I can name a number of airports that should be replaced with newer, more modern airports, but whoever the owners are, they have a love affair with money and are enjoying wading in it from all the ways they collect fees.

The last time I flew into BWI, (Baltimore), I was told they had made record profits for 10 straight years. BWI is a cash cow for the owners and the state with all the taxes they collect. They do support over 100,000 jobs. My home airport was Dulles in D.C. That airport definitely could use some renovations and more gates. Too often after I would land, I would have to sit on the tarmac until my gate would open. There is no need for that in this day and age.
 
oldman said:
I think Boeing’s CEO should resign. He’s been called into senate hearings for his lack of transparency and has been accused of shortcuts and cooking the books. In production to save money, he’s been accused rushing to meet schedules. I flew Boeing planes my whole commercial career and had very few issues, but the last few years have been a nightmare for the company.

A company brings a new CEO into its family and the company continues on its downward trend, the board should also be dismissed. I own Boeing stock and have written several letters to the Boeing board urging them all to step down for the company’s sake. Ortberg, the CEO and President of Boeing was hired in 2024. True, Boeing was already on a slide, but he hasn’t made any improvements as the company is still on a slide downwards.
Click to expand...
But when an airline purchases Boeing airliners, isn't that airline fully responsible for the maintenance and safety the planes they purchased? Boeing Corp is required to release recall notices, advisories, and alerts, but I think that's where their responsibility ends after their planes are sold (other than supplying replacements for faulty/recalled parts).

Yes, their top exec has been in hot water, and the corporation as a whole is expected to produce the best planes possible, but I'm sure you'll agree that doesn't let India Airlines off the hook for this tragic crash (or a pilot, if that's what's found).
 
Murrmurr said:
But when an airline purchases Boeing airliners, isn't that airline fully responsible for the maintenance and safety the planes they purchased? Boeing Corp is required to release recall notices, advisories, and alerts, but I think that's where their responsibility ends after their planes are sold (other than supplying replacements for faulty/recalled parts).

Yes, their top exec has been in hot water, and the corporation as a whole is expected to produce the best planes possible, but I'm sure you'll agree that doesn't let India Airlines off the hook for this tragic crash (or a pilot, if that's what's found).
Click to expand...
I have been retired for awhile now, but I wouldn’t know why any policies would have changed. I can only speak for Boeing’s relationship with United. I have been to Boeing’s facilities in Washington and GE’s engine facilities in several locations, here in the U.S., Canada and Internationally. There are three different brand names of engines used by Boeing. Rolls Royce (my favorite), GE (my second favorite) and P&W or Pratt and Whitney (my least favorite).

Parts, like engines have warranties, which the manufacturer is responsible for. In most cases, the warranty is based on the number of hours that the engine was operating. Other parts, like hydraulic cylinders, switches, valves, etc., also have warranties. Different parts have different lengths of warranties. Some warranties are based on hours and some warranties are based on length of time. If a part needs repaired or replaced during the warranty period, the company sends their own mechanics to make the repairs or replacements. After the warranties have expired, either the airline, Boeing or the manufacturer of the defective part would make the repair. United stocked a lot of parts, so they could just swap the parts to make a quick repair and get the plane back in the air.

Boeing is responsible for the aircraft itself that was made and assembled by Boeing’s employees. Boeing is responsible for sending to the airlines that own Boeing equipment any recalls, corrective actions that have been taken, advisories or alerts. (In the past, there have been times when Boeing failed to follow through on these requirements.) The FAA sets the standards and requirements as to what Boeing’s responsibilities are for such materials that must be sent to owners of Boeing equipment.

At one time, I was a huge fan of Boeing, but they have dropped the ball so many times in the past 10 years, it’s hard for me to remain loyal to them. The worse time was when they failed to include instructional material after they released the Boeing 737, MAX 8 with MCAS and two jetliners went down due to what was called pilot error at the time. A total of 346 people were killed in the two crashes because Boeing failed to warn the airlines that bought the 737-MAX 8 that the MCAS would take control if the plane’s nose suddenly dipped.

When that happened, MCAS was supposed to automatically adjust the plane’s nose down trim, but the pilots were unknown to this and they attempted to adjust it manually. The plane ended up crashing.

All of those MAX 8’s were grounded by the FAA and it took Boeing over a year to fix the software problem and get FAA approval to release the planes the were sitting in the desert.
 
oldman said:
I have been retired for awhile now, but I wouldn’t know why any policies would have changed. I can only speak for Boeing’s relationship with United. I have been to Boeing’s facilities in Washington and GE’s engine facilities in several locations, here in the U.S., Canada and Internationally. There are three different brand names of engines used by Boeing. Rolls Royce (my favorite), GE (my second favorite) and P&W or Pratt and Whitney (my least favorite).

Parts, like engines have warranties, which the manufacturer is responsible for. In most cases, the warranty is based on the number of hours that the engine was operating. Other parts, like hydraulic cylinders, switches, valves, etc., also have warranties. Different parts have different lengths of warranties. Some warranties are based on hours and some warranties are based on length of time. If a part needs repaired or replaced during the warranty period, the company sends their own mechanics to make the repairs or replacements. After the warranties have expired, either the airline, Boeing or the manufacturer of the defective part would make the repair. United stocked a lot of parts, so they could just swap the parts to make a quick repair and get the plane back in the air.

Boeing is responsible for the aircraft itself that was made and assembled by Boeing’s employees. Boeing is responsible for sending to the airlines that own Boeing equipment any recalls, corrective actions that have been taken, advisories or alerts. (In the past, there have been times when Boeing failed to follow through on these requirements.) The FAA sets the standards and requirements as to what Boeing’s responsibilities are for such materials that must be sent to owners of Boeing equipment.

At one time, I was a huge fan of Boeing, but they have dropped the ball so many times in the past 10 years, it’s hard for me to remain loyal to them. The worse time was when they failed to include instructional material after they released the Boeing 737, MAX 8 with MCAS and two jetliners went down due to what was called pilot error at the time. A total of 346 people were killed in the two crashes because Boeing failed to warn the airlines that bought the 737-MAX 8 that the MCAS would take control if the plane’s nose suddenly dipped.

When that happened, MCAS was supposed to automatically adjust the plane’s nose down trim, but the pilots were unknown to this and they attempted to adjust it manually. The plane ended up crashing.

All of those MAX 8’s were grounded by the FAA and it took Boeing over a year to fix the software problem and get FAA approval to release the planes the were sitting in the desert.
Click to expand...
I saw a recent video, I think by Mentour Pilot, that said Boeing sent out an advisory about the fuel cutoff switch (on the crashed India model), stressing that it should have been an alert instead of an advisory. I think he said it went out a couple years ago. Had it been an alert, replacements would have been required sooner than later.

But then I watched a video saying the switches HAD been replaced on that plane, and in a timely manner. Lots of experts and pilots are contradicting each other about this crash. Obviously, no one will have the full picture until a complete report with audio recordings is published. Meanwhile, thousands of these planes are still in the air everyday.

Thanks, oldman!
 
I have little knowledge of the fuel cutoff switches on a commercial plane, but I doubt if the blame will be placed on the switches. From what I read here in this thread, the switches are not like a light switch where a pilot can flip them or they aren’t like a toggle either. They are spring loaded and must be pulled up and turned to the “On” or “Off” location by hand and the switch is then placed in the desired location and held in place by the spring. It can’t be bumped by accident to move it. That’s the way I understand it.

The poster “oldman” wrote that he hopes that it wasn’t done by the pilot intentionally. I hope not too. That’s just sick.
 
Been There said:
I have little knowledge of the fuel cutoff switches on a commercial plane, but I doubt if the blame will be placed on the switches. From what I read here in this thread, the switches are not like a light switch where a pilot can flip them or they aren’t like a toggle either. They are spring loaded and must be pulled up and turned to the “On” or “Off” location by hand and the switch is then placed in the desired location and held in place by the spring. It can’t be bumped by accident to move it. That’s the way I understand it.

The poster “oldman” wrote that he hopes that it wasn’t done by the pilot intentionally. I hope not too. That’s just sick.
Click to expand...
The spring inside the switch could weaken, which is what the Boeing advisory was about, so some were arguing a weakened spring could cause movement while others are saying No, and Irrelevant because it had been replaced.

But it's obvious the switch was moved, twice, and that it was done manually, intentionally but possibly mistakenly.
 
NYT - "According to the report, the fuel control switches were turned off “one after another” about a second apart, and “the aircraft started to lose altitude before crossing the airport perimeter wall.”

Safety experts said it appeared unlikely that the switches were moved without human involvement, whether intentional or accidental."

"The report, however, noted that the Federal Aviation Administration had issued a bulletin in 2018 recommending that airlines inspect the fuel control switches on the 787 and other Boeing jets amid reports that some may have been installed with the locking mechanism disengaged.

But the F.A.A. did not rule that to be an unsafe condition at the time, the report said. The switches on the Air India plane were replaced by 2023, with no defects reported since."
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top