It’s been over two days since Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, crashed in Ahmedabad, India, on June 12, 2025. This was the first ever crash of a 787 and the first major widebody aircraft crash in over a decade. The flight took off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, runway 23, bound for London Gatwick with 242 people on board. Tragically, just 30 seconds after takeoff, the plane lost altitude and crashed into a hostel near the city, killing all but one passenger and many on the ground. The latest reports confirm a death toll of 274, making it one of the deadliest aviation disasters in recent years.
As an aviation enthusiast and an ACD (Air Crew Diver), having spent a big portion of my service life on air, I’ve been grappling with the question of how a modern, reliable aircraft like the 787 could crash so suddenly. It is an extra ordinary event, as widebody planes don’t just fall from the sky. A key clue was the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), a small propeller that deploys from the fuselage to generate emergency power for flight controls and hydraulics during a dual engine failure. In widely shared video footage, you can hear a distinctive sound, like a small propeller plane, which strongly suggests the RAT was active. This led me to believe both engines failed, as the RAT only deploys in such a scenario.
Thousands of people are trying to analyze the accident with theories ranging from pilot error to mechanical failure. Many of these I disagree with, but new information has emerged, including eyewitness accounts and preliminary investigation updates. In this expanded analysis, I’ll dive deeper into the leading theories, incorporate new insights, and explore the possibility of sabotage, all while keeping the discussion accessible and grounded in evidence.
Theory 1: Did the Pilots Forget the Flaps?
One of the most discussed theories is that the pilots took off without deploying the flaps, which are critical for generating lift during takeoff. Video footage shows the wings appearing flat, and the plane used nearly the entire 3,600-metre runway, struggling to get airborne. This has led some to speculate that the flaps were set to zero, hampering the plane’s ability to climb.
However, I find this theory implausible. The Boeing 787 is equipped with a Takeoff Configuration Warning System that alerts pilots if the flaps, slats, or other critical settings are not configured for takeoff. This system is part of the pre-flight checklist, and even if the pilots overlooked the flaps, the plane would have sounded an alarm. While it’s theoretically possible for the warning system to malfunction, this is highly unlikely, as such systems are rigorously maintained and redundant.
Instead, I believe the weather played a significant role. At the time of the crash, Ahmedabad was experiencing extreme conditions: a temperature of 38°C and very low air pressure of 1,000 millibars. Hot, low-pressure air is less dense, reducing engine thrust and wing lift. The 787’s GE NX engines, while powerful, would have struggled to generate sufficient thrust in these conditions, especially with a full load of passengers and fuel for a nine-hour flight. In flight simulator tests replicating these conditions, the plane used nearly the entire runway, even with flaps set correctly, mirroring the real event.
To further debunk the flap theory, video evidence shows the leading-edge slats extended, indicating some flap configuration was active. While the exact flap setting (e.g., 5° or 10°) is unclear, it’s evident the wings were not completely “clean” (flapless). The struggle to climb was likely due to environmental factors, not a pilot oversight.
Theory 2: Did the Pilots Retract the Flaps Too Soon?
Another popular theory suggests the pilots accidentally retracted the flaps immediately after takeoff, causing a sudden loss of lift. Some speculate the first officer might have mistaken the flap lever for the landing gear lever, a critical error in the high-pressure moments after rotation.
I’m skeptical of this idea. Retracting flaps too early can reduce lift, but it’s unlikely to cause an immediate crash. Pilots are trained to follow a strict sequence: after achieving a positive climb rate, they raise the landing gear, then gradually retract flaps as the plane accelerates. The 787’s flight control systems also provide feedback to prevent drastic configuration changes at low altitudes. In simulator tests, retracting flaps prematurely caused a slight sink, but not a catastrophic loss of control.
Moreover, video evidence shows the slats extended and the flaps in some degree of deployment, suggesting they weren’t fully retracted. The theory also assumes a significant pilot error, which I’m reluctant to accept without evidence. Blaming the pilots feels premature and unfair, especially given their likely efforts to manage an already dire situation.
The Landing Gear Clue
A critical piece of evidence is the landing gear’s position. Normally, pilots raise the gear about nine seconds after takeoff, once a positive climb is confirmed. In the crash footage, the gear remains down, which some interpret as evidence of a pilot mix-up (e.g., pulling the flap lever instead of the gear lever). However, a closer look reveals something intriguing: the gear appears tilted forward, which is not its natural resting position on a 787.
During retraction, the 787’s landing gear tilts forward as the gear doors open, a process driven by hydraulic power. The tilted gear suggests the pilots initiated retraction, but the process was interrupted. I hypothesize this was due to a loss of hydraulic power, most likely caused by a dual engine failure. The GE NX engines power the hydraulic pumps, and if both failed, the gear would have been stuck mid-retraction. This aligns with the RAT’s deployment, as the turbine activates when both engines fail, providing emergency power to critical systems.
This clue also helps pinpoint when the engines failed. Initially, I thought the failure occurred on the ground, but the partial gear retraction suggests it happened 8–10 seconds after takeoff, as the plane was climbing. This explains why the plane reached a few hundred feet before losing altitude.
Why Did the Engines Fail?
The central mystery is how two modern GE NX engines could fail simultaneously. These engines are designed with redundancy and undergo rigorous maintenance, making a dual failure exceedingly rare. Investigators from India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) have ordered urgent safety inspections of Air India’s 787 fleet, focusing on fuel systems, electronic engine controls, cabin air compressors, oil systems, and hydraulics. This suggests they’re looking for a systemic issue.
Possibility 1: Fuel Contamination
Fuel contamination is a leading theory. If water or another contaminant entered the fuel, it could cause both engines to fail rapidly. Aviation fuel (AVCAT, a type of kerosene) floats on water, so any water in the tanks would quickly reach the engines, causing a surge (a disruption in airflow) or flame-out (extinguishing the combustion). Eyewitnesses, including the sole survivor, reported a loud bang, which could indicate a compressor surge caused by water creating steam in the engines.
A precedent exists: in 2010, Cathay Pacific Flight 780 suffered engine issues due to contaminated fuel. That flight, an Airbus A330, lost one engine and had the other partially functional, but it was at 39,000 feet, giving pilots time to react. In contrast, Flight 171’s low altitude (a few hundred feet) left no margin for recovery. The simultaneous failure of both engines suggests a severe contamination event, possibly from improper fuel handling or storage at Ahmedabad.
Possibility 2: Avionics Fire or Electrical Failure
Another possibility is an avionics fire or electrical failure. The 787 has a history of battery-related issues, notably lithium-ion battery fires that led to the fleet’s grounding in 2013. A fire in the avionics bay could disrupt the Electronic Engine Control (EEC) system, causing the engines to roll back or shut down. This might explain the RAT’s deployment, as an electrical failure would trigger its activation.
Unlike a mechanical engine failure, an avionics issue wouldn’t produce visible smoke or damage, consistent with the crash footage. However, such a failure would likely leave diagnostic evidence in the flight data recorder, which investigators are analyzing.
Possibility 3: Sabotage
The possibility of sabotage, while speculative, cannot be ruled out. Fuel contamination or an avionics fire could result from deliberate tampering, such as introducing water into the fuel supply or compromising the electrical system. Ground staff, responsible for fueling and maintenance, would be key to such an act. The DGCA’s focus on fuel and hydraulic systems suggests they’re considering all angles, including human interference.
Sabotage is rare in aviation but not unprecedented. For example, the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 was initially suspected to be sabotage, though later attributed to a fuel tank explosion. The loud bang reported by witnesses could indicate an explosive event, though no evidence of a bomb has surfaced. Until the investigation provides clarity, sabotage remains a possibility, albeit a low-probability one.
The presence of Vijay Rupani, Gujarat’s former Chief Minister (2016–2021), among the passengers raises the chilling possibility of sabotage. High-profile murders disguised as accidents with significant collateral damage are not unheard of in history. For example, the 1940 crash of a plane carrying Mexican revolutionary Álvaro Obregón’s allies was suspected to be sabotage, though never proven. Similarly, the 1988 Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was a deliberate act, killing 270 people to target specific individuals.
Ruling Out Bird Strikes
I’ve ruled out a bird strike as the cause. The footage shows no birds, smoke, or engine damage, and a dual-engine failure from birds would require an unusually large flock. Compressor stalls, common in bird strikes, would produce visible or audible signs, none of which are present.
The Pilots’ Actions
I firmly believe the pilots were not at fault. The evidence—slats extended, gear partially retracted, and the RAT deployed—suggests they followed procedure until a catastrophic failure overwhelmed them. In training, pilots learn to lower the nose after an engine failure to maximize glide distance, but in this case, keeping the nose up was likely the best decision. The plane crashed 1.6 km from the runway in a less populated area, avoiding a potentially worse disaster in central Ahmedabad, a densely packed city of over 8 million.
The pilots had mere seconds to react, with no altitude to trade for time. Their decision to maintain pitch likely minimized ground casualties, though the loss of 274 lives is heartbreaking.
This crash raises serious questions about Air India’s 787 fleet and ground operations. If fuel contamination is confirmed, it could point to lapses in fuel storage, testing, or supply chain oversight. Ahmedabad’s airport, a major hub, must ensure rigorous fuel quality checks, especially in extreme weather, as high temperatures and humidity can exacerbate contamination risks.
An avionics fire would reignite concerns about the 787’s electrical systems, potentially leading to new safety mandates. Sabotage, if proven, would have profound implications for airport security and personnel vetting, both in India and globally.
The sole survivor, whose identity remains undisclosed, may provide critical testimony, though their physical and emotional state could limit immediate insights. The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, if recovered intact, will be pivotal in piecing together the final moments.
My Final Thoughts
We’re still far from the full story, but I’m convinced pilot error was not the cause. The evidence points to a mechanical or external factor—most likely fuel contamination or an electrical failure, with sabotage as a remote possibility. The loud bang, the RAT’s activation, and the stuck landing gear paint a picture of a sudden, catastrophic loss of power that left the pilots helpless.
This tragedy underscores the complexity of aviation safety. Even modern aircraft like the 787, with their advanced systems, are vulnerable to rare but devastating failures. The DGCA’s inspections, due to conclude soon, may identify a fleet-wide issue, potentially grounding Air India’s 787s or prompting global scrutiny of the model.
For now, we must await the official report and respect the victims and their families. The sole survivor offers a glimmer of hope amid the grief, and their account may unlock key details. As an aviation enthusiast, I’m committed to following this investigation and sharing updates as they emerge. Let’s keep the discussion respectful and grounded in facts.
