On June 12, 2025, a tragic Air India AI171 Boeing 787 Dreamliner crash in Ahmedabad shocked the nation, claiming numerous lives. Initial investigations reveal a critical configuration error during takeoff, raising questions about aviation safety and airline regulations in India. This article explores the key findings, compares the incident to past crashes, and highlights the urgent need for stricter oversight.
Key Findings from the Air India AI171 Crash Footage
Analysis of video footage from the Ahmedabad plane crash reveals three critical anomalies in the aircraft’s configuration, contributing to the catastrophic failure of Air India AI171:
- Retracted Wing Flaps and Slats: The Boeing 787’s wings were in a “clean configuration,” with flaps and slats retracted at 0° or near-flat (possibly 5°). During a standard takeoff, flaps and slats extend at 10–15° to create an angle of attack, generating the lift needed for flight. The retracted wings severely reduced lift, a primary factor in the crash.
- Extended Landing Gear: The landing gear remained deployed during takeoff, increasing drag significantly. Normally, landing gear retracts immediately after takeoff to streamline aerodynamics. This failure compounded the lift issues caused by the flat wings.
- Upward Nose Attitude: The aircraft’s nose was tilted upward, mimicking a takeoff attempt. This conflicting setup—retracted wings, extended landing gear, and nose-up posture—created a dangerous configuration where the plane was caught between takeoff and landing modes.
This irregular setup made it nearly impossible for the Boeing 787 to achieve sufficient lift, leading to the Ahmedabad plane crash.
Why the Configuration Failure Was Catastrophic
A successful takeoff requires an aerodynamic structure: extended flaps and slats create a curved wing profile, the nose tilts upward, and the landing gear retracts to minimize drag. Once a safe altitude is reached, flaps retract for cruising. In the Air India AI171 crash, the retracted wings and extended landing gear drastically increased drag and reduced lift, preventing the plane from climbing effectively.
Impact of Environmental Conditions
The crash occurred in 40°C heat, reducing air density and making lift generation even more challenging. In such conditions, flaps may need to be tilted at 20–25° to compensate. The 3.5-kilometer runway at Ahmedabad’s airport was sufficient for a Boeing 787 under normal conditions, but the flawed configuration required an unattainable speed of approximately 450 km/h (compared to the recorded 322 km/h at 625 feet altitude).
Potential Engine Issues
While the Boeing 787’s engines are powerful, there’s a possibility that one or both engines were compromised. A survivor reported hearing the engines “racing,” suggesting pilots attempted full throttle to counter the loss of altitude. A recent video also captured a turbine-like sound and a small dot, potentially indicating the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which activates during dual engine failure or electrical/hydraulic issues.
Comparison with Historical Plane Crashes
The Ahmedabad plane crash shares striking similarities with two notable incidents, highlighting recurring issues in aviation safety:
- Madrid Crash (August 20, 2008): A Spanair McDonnell Douglas MD-82 crashed shortly after takeoff, killing 154 of 172 passengers. Like Air India AI171, the plane’s flaps and slats were not extended, and a disabled safety alarm (due to maintenance errors) failed to alert pilots to the configuration issue. The plane reached only 40–50 feet, achieving 250 km/h—below the 380 km/h needed for flat-wing takeoff—before crashing 300 meters from the runway.
- Detroit Crash (1987): A McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82 crashed in hot weather (31°C) with retracted flaps and a failed alarm system. The heavily loaded plane reached 40–50 meters and crashed 800 meters from the runway, killing 156 people.
Unlike these crashes, Air India AI171 reached 625 feet and covered 2.5 kilometers, likely due to the Boeing 787’s superior engine power and larger wingspan. However, the insufficient speed and potential engine issues led to its descent.
Related Article: Learn about the Madrid Plane Crash Investigation
Possible Causes of the Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Based on current data, two primary scenarios explain the Air India AI171 crash:
- Pilot Error and Technical Failure: The most likely cause is a combination of human error (failing to extend flaps) and a malfunctioning alarm system, possibly disabled during maintenance. The Boeing 787’s robust alarm system typically prevents takeoff with incorrect configurations, but a technical glitch or manual override could have bypassed it, as seen in the Madrid crash.
- Engine Failure: Though less likely, a single or dual engine failure could have exacerbated the situation. The probability of one engine failing is 1 in 3.5 lakh, and both failing is 1 in 100 crore. However, the absence of visible sparks or smoke in the footage and the survivor’s account of “racing” engines suggest the engines were operational, though possibly insufficient to overcome the high drag.
External Link: Boeing 787 Safety Features
Key Differences from Past Crashes
- Altitude and Distance: AI171 reached 625 feet and covered 2.5 kilometers, compared to 40–50 feet and 300–800 meters in the Madrid and Detroit crashes, thanks to the Boeing 787’s advanced design.
- Takeoff Speed: AI171 achieved 322 km/h, higher than the 250 km/h in Madrid but below the 450 km/h needed for flat-wing takeoff.
- Stability: Unlike the earlier crashes, where planes tilted to one side, AI171 remained stable during descent, possibly due to advanced wing stabilization or lack of forward thrust.
Ongoing Investigation and Black Box Analysis
Investigators have recovered the Flight Data Recorder, which logs critical data like airspeed, altitude, engine performance, and wing positions. The Cockpit Voice Recorder, capturing pilot conversations and system alerts, is still missing but vital for understanding the crash’s root cause. A comprehensive report is expected within months, shedding light on whether human error, technical issues, or both were responsible.
Related Article: Understanding Black Box Data in Aviation
Aviation Safety and Regulatory Challenges in India
The Ahmedabad plane crash underscores significant gaps in India’s aviation regulations. Under the Indian Aircraft Act 2024, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) can impose a maximum fine of ₹1 crore, regardless of violation severity—a negligible penalty for airlines with daily revenues exceeding ₹100 crore. In contrast, the U.S. FAA imposes substantial fines, such as $140 million on Southwest Airlines for flight cancellations and $2.5 billion on Boeing for 737 MAX crashes.
Air India’s history of safety lapses, including a 2023 suspension of its chief safety officer for falsifying compliance reports, raises concerns about accountability. The Boeing 787, despite its “safest aircraft” branding, has faced scrutiny for manufacturing shortcuts, with whistleblowers exposing safety compromises.
External Link: DGCA Regulations Overview
Conclusion: A Call for Stronger Aviation Safety Measures
The Air India AI171 crash in Ahmedabad is a tragic reminder of the consequences of human error, technical failures, and lax regulations. With over 240 casualties, the incident demands a thorough investigation and accountability from Air India and Boeing. The retrieved black box data will be crucial in determining the exact cause, but similarities to past crashes suggest preventable mistakes played a significant role. India must adopt stricter aviation safety regulations to prevent future tragedies and honor the victims and their families.
Heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families. Jai Hind.