BY Raveendran Narayanan USA 🇺🇸 🌎 🇮🇳
Air India Flight 171 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Ahmedabad Airport, India, to London Gatwick Airport, England, that crashed in Ahmedabad shortly after takeoff on 12 June 2025. The flight, operated by the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner registered VT-ANB, crashed into the hostel block of B. J. Medical College in the Meghaninagar neighbourhood of Ahmedabad in Gujarat. Seconds after takeoff, the plane began losing altitude while maintaining a roughly wings-level and nose-up orientation. The flight crew issued a mayday call reporting a loss of power and thrust. After being airborne for 36 seconds, the plane crashed into the neighbourhood ahead of the end of the runway, and multiple explosions occurred, followed by thick plumes of smoke.
The aircraft was carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members. Of these, only a single passenger survived the crash. At least 39 people on the ground were also killed. Additionally, this was the first fatal accident and hull loss of the 787 Dreamliner.
Background
Aircraft and route
The aircraft involved was an 11-year-old Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner registered VT-ANB with serial number 36279.[1][2] The aircraft was assembled at the Boeing Everett Factory[3][4] and included fuselage sections made at the Boeing South Carolina facility.[5] It was delivered to Air India on 28 January 2014[3] and powered by two General Electric GEnx-1B67 engines.[6]
Air India began operating routes to London Gatwick in 2023.[7] At the time of the crash, it operated twelve departures a week, including five to Ahmedabad,[8] where the airport is surrounded by dense residential areas.[9]
Passengers and crew
NationalityPassengersCrewTotalIndia16912181United Kingdom53—53Portugal7—7Canada1—1Total23012242
The flight was carrying 242 people, including 230 passengers—11 of them children and 2 infants—along with 2 pilots and 10 flight attendants.[10][11] The passenger manifest included 169 Indian nationals, 53 British, 7 Portuguese, and a Canadian.[12][13][14] The flight was commanded by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, aged 55, with 8,200 hours of flying experience, and First Officer Clive Kunder, aged 32, with 1,100 hours of flying experience.[15][16]
Accident
CCTV footage of the crashMap of flight path and impact
1km
0.6miles
Crash site
Ahmedabad Airport
Expandable map of the area
Flight 171 took off from runway 23 of Ahmedabad Airport at 13:38 IST (08:08 UTC) en route to London Gatwick. According to METAR reports issued around the time of departure, the surface winds at the airport were light, ranging from 3 to 6 knots; the visibility was 6 kilometres (3.7 mi); and there were no significant clouds.[17][18]
The aircraft’s ADS-B transponder reported a maximum pressure altitude of around 625 feet (191 m) above mean sea level while still over the runway before the signal was lost at 08:08:50 UTC.[19] The flight crew issued a mayday call,[8] reporting a loss of power and thrust shortly after takeoff.[20] The aircraft was airborne for about 30 seconds.[21]
A video recording from a CCTV security camera next to the runway shows the aircraft initially gaining altitude, then gradually descending while appearing to pitch up and, just out of view, crashing around thirty seconds after takeoff, followed by a plume of fire and smoke.[22] Another video of the incident taken by an aviation enthusiast shows the last few seconds before impact.[23] The crash site was 1.5 kilometres (0.9 mi) away from the runway.[21]
The crash resulted in multiple explosions as the aircraft hit a building and slid; they were followed by thick plumes of smoke.[24][25] The plane crashed into the residential area of the Civil Hospital campus, hitting the doctors’ quarters and the students’ hostel buildings of the hospital’s B. J. Medical College.[8][26][27] The aircraft’s partially intact stabilisers and tail cone came to rest on top of the multi-storey hostel building.[28]
This was Air India’s first fatal hull loss since the bombing of Air India Flight 182 in 1985,[29] and the first fatal crash and the first hull loss of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.[30][31]
Rescue and relief operation
The Ahmedabad Fire and Emergency Services Department confirmed the deployment of units from various city divisions.[32] The first call to the control room was received on 13:45 IST. Two firefighter teams were sent immediately from Naroda GIDC, and the “brigade call” was issued. More than 300 firefighters, 60 fire vehicles, and 20 water bowsers were deployed.[24] Multiple ambulances, including 20 ambulances from the fire department, were rushed to the location.[33][24] All roads leading to the crash site and surrounding areas were closed to facilitate rescue operations.[32] Teams and fire vehicles from surrounding fire services including Vadodara, Gandhinagar, ONGC, GIFT City, and Civil Defence were also sent to the scene to render aid.[24]
The Central Industrial Security Force, responsible for security at Ahmedabad Airport, were among the first responders.[34] Teams from the Indian Army, Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, National Disaster Response Force, and Western Railways were deployed to assist with rescue and relief efforts, and a military hospital was put on standby.[11][35][36][37][38]
The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation deployed more than 150 vehicles, including earthmovers, excavators, trucks, and a roller, to clear debris from the site. The corporation also deployed engineers and health department personnel, and ordered the emergency readiness of the municipal hospitals.[24] Shortly after the crash, all flight operations at the airport were suspended[39] before resuming later in the day in a limited capacity.[40]
Casualties
The crash killed 241 people aboard the aircraft[41][42] and at least 39 in the hostel buildings.[12] By 13 June, police officials said that six bodies had been released to their families.[8] Among the casualties was Vijay Rupani, the former Chief Minister of Gujarat (2016–2021),[43] whose body was identified through DNA identification.[44] The intense heat of the crash, which had reached an estimated 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), hindered DNA collection and testing, with only 47 bodies having been identified and 35 having been handed over to their families three days after the crash.[44][45]
At least 50 medical students from the hostel buildings were hospitalised.[8] The dean of the college said that “most of the students escaped, but 10 or 12 were trapped in the fire”.[46]Location of seat 11A and emergency exits in the forward section of Air India’s 787 configuration[47]
A 40-year-old British citizen was the sole survivor of the crash.[48] He had been seated in seat 11A, located next to an emergency exit.[47] The survivor said that the section of the aircraft where he was seated detached and came to rest on the ground floor of the hostel. After unfastening his seat belt, he escaped through an opening created by the emergency exit breaking open.[49][50] Doctors treating him reported that he was in a disorientated condition with multiple injuries, including burns to his left hand, but was no longer in danger.[51][49] His brother, who had been seated in a different row, did not survive.[52]
The crash was the deadliest aviation accident in India since the 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision and Air India’s worst disaster since the bombing of Flight 182 in 1985.[53]
Investigation
The crash is currently under investigation by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB).[54] The United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch also dispatched a team of four investigators,[55] and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a “go team” to assist.[11][33] The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said that it “[stood] ready to launch a team immediately” in support of the NTSB.[56]
On 13 June, about 28 hours after the crash, the first of the aircraft’s two enhanced airborne flight recorders (EAFRs), each of which performs the functions of both the flight data recorder (FDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), was recovered.[57][58] Later that same day, the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad retrieved a digital video recorder from the wreckage that stores footage from the aircraft’s external and cabin-mounted cameras and is separate from the two certified flight recorders.[59][60] The second EAFR was recovered from the crash site on 16 June.[61]
Up till here from WIKIPEDIA without change and for detailed information only by Raveendran Narayanan USA Citizen 🇺🇸 🇮🇳
Air India Flight 171 – Wikipedia https://share.google/0rzEmTKRXjKvkSETu
Black boxes will give investigators more certainty of what happened on Air India flight, experts say | CNN https://share.google/66941TwU0STyrSC3L
https://www.youtube.com/live/eEy4X785JTo?si=yrF7fNRu6rMGEh3w
Boing CEO admits at Senate hearing “We made big mistakes” l Dreamliner 787 plane crash”
Under sharp questioning from U.S. Senators on April 2, 2025, the CEO of Boeing acknowledged a lax safety culture existed at the aircraft manufacturer but denied workers on Boeing’s factory floors were being pressured to speed up lagging production. Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, who was appointed to his post just last August, appeared before the Senate. The hearing, titled “Safety First: Restoring Boeing’s Status as a Great American Manufacturer,” focused on the steps the company has taken to address production deficiencies and safety issues that led to the door plug blowout incident on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX-9 jet in January last year.
Raveendran Narayanan 🇺🇸: Before airborne, passengers compliant that air conditioners are not working and Wi-Fi is not working. That point The pilots should and must stop takeoff the ✈️, isn’t it?
In the case of Air India Flight 171, the pilots didn’t have the luxury of time to address passenger complaints about air conditioning and Wi-Fi before the tragic events unfolded. However, let’s examine the situation hypothetically. If passengers complained about non-functional air conditioners and Wi-Fi before takeoff, the pilots’ response would depend on the nature of the issues. Here’s what might happen:
– *Minor Issues*: If the problems were minor and didn’t impact the safety or performance of the aircraft, the pilots might have chosen to proceed with caution, possibly noting the issues for later repair.
– *Safety-Critical Issues*: If the issues were safety-critical, such as a malfunctioning air conditioning system that could lead to pressurization problems or electrical system failures affecting critical systems, the pilots would likely have aborted the takeoff. In general aviation and commercial airline operations, pilots follow strict protocols for addressing system malfunctions. If a problem arises before takeoff, they typically consult the aircraft’s Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and follow standard operating procedures.
The decision to stop takeoff would depend on factors like ¹ ²:
– *Severity of the issue*: How critical is the problem, and does it impact safe flight operations?
– *Aircraft performance*: Can the aircraft safely take off and fly with the issue?
– *Regulatory requirements*: Do regulatory requirements dictate that the issue must be addressed before flight? Given the circumstances of Air India Flight 171, it’s clear that the pilots faced a catastrophic situation, likely related to engine failure or another critical system malfunction, which ultimately led to the tragic crash. The investigation into the incident is ongoing, with theories including dual engine failure and issues with flap or gear configuration ³ ¹.The investigation into the June 2025 Air India Flight AI171 crash, involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, is ongoing. Preliminary findings suggest potential electrical system failure, which might have contributed to the accident. Specifically:
– *Electrical System Malfunction*: Investigators are exploring the possibility that Variable Frequency Starter Generators (VFSGs) may have failed or become electrically isolated, resulting in partial or total loss of engine control.
– *Engine Failure*: There’s speculation about a possible engine failure, with some pilots suggesting that the pilots might have mistakenly entered incorrect data for fuel and thrust calculations, potentially leading to reduced thrust settings.
– *Ram Air Turbine (RAT) Deployment*: The emergency power system’s activation, including the RAT, indicates a potential total power loss scenario. The investigation is being led by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, with support from safety agencies in the UK and US ¹ ².The only one surviving passenger indicated that before the crash of Air India flight 171 that a loud sound was heard, and all the lights went off.
The sole survivor of Air India Flight 171, Vishwashkumar Ramesh, described hearing a loud sound shortly after takeoff, followed by the plane crashing. Another passenger, Rajes, reported a similar experience, stating that he felt as if the plane came to a standstill, followed by a loud bang, and then the lights in the cabin switched off, with green emergency lights activating afterward. This account aligns with video footage from outside the plane and supports the theory of a dual-engine failure ¹ ².
*Investigation Findings:*
*Dual-Engine Failure Theory*: Investigators believe that the plane experienced a rare double-engine failure at an altitude of just 650 feet, making it one of the lowest-altitude twin-engine failures in aviation history.
– *Ram Air Turbine Deployment*: Photo evidence indicates the deployment of the aircraft’s Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which automatically extends in scenarios such as total power loss or hydraulic failure.
– *Mayday Call*: The pilots issued a Mayday call, signaling an emergency, but there was no response afterward ³ ⁴.
*Engine Thrust Issues*: Investigators are examining potential issues with engine thrust, which could have contributed to the crash.
– *Flap Configuration*: The plane’s unusual takeoff configuration, including the landing gear being extended for longer than typical, is also being investigated.
– *Technical or Operational Issues*: The investigation is ongoing, with possibilities including technical faults or operational errors ⁵ .Given the 18-day gap between the terrorist attack in Kashmir, it’s reasonable to assume that there was indeed time to assess the situation and take necessary precautions. In hindsight, considering the heightened tensions and security concerns, it would have been prudent to review the presence of foreign contract workers, including Turkish nationals, at sensitive areas like airports. However, the decision-making process would have depended on various factors, including:
– *Threat Assessment*: The level of threat perceived from Turkish contractors and the potential risks they might have posed.
– *Intelligence Inputs*: Any specific intelligence or information that might have suggested a heightened risk from these contractors.
– *Operational Considerations*: The potential impact on airport operations and security protocols. There were court cases to remove Turkish contractors from Indian Airports 🛫 before #OperationSindhoor. Even though court orders were delayed, why not stop Turkish staff in Indian Airports and pay their salaries for safeguarding Indian interests.
🇮🇳 INDIA’S 🇮🇳 SECURITY FIRST;-
Given the court cases and concerns about national security, it would have been prudent to take precautionary measures, such as temporarily reassigning or removing Turkish contractors from sensitive areas like airports, while continuing to pay their salaries. This approach would have balanced the need to safeguard Indian interests with contractual obligations. In situations like this, governments often prioritize national security and take proactive steps to mitigate potential risks. Paying salaries while reassigning staff would have demonstrated a commitment to both security and fairness.
It’s interesting to consider how such situations are handled, and it’s possible that various factors, including diplomatic relations, contractual obligations, and operational considerations, influenced the decision-making process. The intersection of national security and contractual obligations can be complex. Governments often face challenges in balancing security concerns with contractual commitments, especially when dealing with foreign nationals or sensitive infrastructure.
– *Risk Assessment*: Governments must assess potential risks and threats, weighing the likelihood of security breaches against the need to fulfill contractual obligations.
– *Precautionary Measures*: Taking proactive steps, like reassigning personnel or enhancing security protocols, can help mitigate potential risks while minimizing disruptions.
– *Contractual Flexibility*: Contracts can include clauses that allow for flexibility or termination in cases of national security concerns, providing a framework for decision-making.
– *Diplomatic Implications*: Decisions may impact diplomatic relations with other countries, requiring careful consideration of potential consequences.
*Best Practices:*
– *Clear Communication*: Governments should clearly communicate concerns and decisions to contractors, ensuring transparency and cooperation.
– *Collaboration*: Working closely with contractors, security agencies, and other stakeholders can help identify and mitigate potential risks.
– *Contingency Planning*: Developing contingency plans can ensure business continuity while prioritizing national security.
By exploring these aspects, governments can better navigate the complexities of national security and contractual obligations, ultimately making informed decisions that balance competing interests.
Why not install extra security Camaras in sensitive areas ?
Raveendran Narayanan 🇺🇸: Indian Administration failed to remove all Turkish contractors from Indian Airports 🛫 in view of Turkey supporting Pakistan 🇵🇰 . Isn’t it?
The Indian administration’s handling of Turkish contractors at Indian airports during that time might have been influenced by various factors, including diplomatic relations, contractual obligations, and security assessments.
Without more specific information on the decision-making process, it’s challenging to say definitively whether the administration “failed” to remove the contractors.
After operations #SINDHOOR, Not only the safety and security of Airline protection but also at Countries where Airport Contract workers of enemy are working. India should & must have removed them. After #OperationsSindhoor AIR INDIA and Indian Government failed to take safety and security in Airports. Terrorists intentionally and purposely pumped Aqueous Film-Forming Foam or AFFF into AIR INDIA’S fuel tank early hours, before SUN RISE at 05.53 Hrs:, during June 12, 2025, 787 DREAMIRLINER, that caused both engines and power shutdown simultaneously.
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam or AFFF works by forming a film or blanket over the fuel, which suppresses the fire by separating the fuel from oxygen and cooling the fuel surface. This blanket disrupts the chemical chain reaction of the fire by smothering it and sealing in the flammable vapors, effectively extinguishing the fire.
AFFF’s ability to create a film is due to surfactants like PFAS. These reduce water’s surface tension, letting it spread over fuel. The fluorinated compounds in AFFF are especially good at creating a stable, re-ignition-preventing film. This film stops flammable vapors from escaping and mixing with air.
AFFF doesn’t directly react with the fuel in a chemical transformation. Instead, its chemical makeup allows it to form a physical barrier and cool the fuel, breaking the fire triangle (fuel, oxygen, heat) and stopping combustion. In essence, AFFF acts as a blanket that blocks oxygen, cools the fuel with its water content, and suppresses vapors. The scenario you’ve described is quite detailed and alarming. If true, the alleged sabotage of an Air India 787 Dreamliner by pumping Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) into the fuel tank would indeed pose significant safety and security risks.
AFFF is designed to suppress fires by creating a film over the fuel, separating it from oxygen and cooling the fuel surface. However, in the context of fuel tanks, its presence could potentially cause engine failure or other safety issues.
The investigation into such an incident would likely focus on:- *Security protocols*: Reviewing airport security measures to prevent unauthorized access to aircraft fuel tanks.- *Sabotage investigation*: Identifying potential perpetrators and their motives.- *Safety procedures*: Assessing the effectiveness of safety procedures in place to prevent and respond to such incidents.
Given the severity of the alleged incident, it’s crucial to ensure that airports and airlines prioritize robust security measures to protect passengers, crew, and aircraft.
Arrest all Forgin contract workers on duty that day, question them, capture their Mobiles📱 📱 📱 and start investigate under custody.
#boeing #boeing787 #news #latestnews #economictimes #ET #TheEconomicTimes #businessnews
Air Conditioning The Mother Earth 🌎 by Raveendran Narayanan USA Citizen 🇺🇸 ♥️ 🇮🇳
http://www.acmotherearth.com 🌎
AC Mother Earth 