Aviation Law Group PS (ALG) is closely monitoring the events from Ahmedabad, India, and has begun our own investigation into the tragic crash of Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787, scheduled to fly from Ahmedabad Airport to London’s Gatwick Airport. Video footage captured the aircraft as it lifted off from Runway 23 at Ahmedabad Airport, climbed initially, and then began a slow descent until it crashed into a student hostel building at the B.J. Medical College.
The Boeing 787 “Dreamliner” is a long-haul, widebody, twin-engine jetliner. The 787 is one of Boeing’s newest airplanes, having conducted its initial flight testing in December 2009 and being first delivered to All Nippon Airways (ANA) on September 25, 2011. This aircraft, with registration VT-ANB, was among the first fifty 787s built by Boeing and was delivered to Air India on September 6, 2012. Air India Flight 171 is the first crash involving the Boeing 787.
Initial reports indicate that all of the passengers except one were killed in the crash. Miraculously, one 40-year-old male escaped from the burning wreckage by jumping through an emergency window. In total, the plane was carrying 242 people, consisting of 230 passengers and 12 crew members. There are also reports of many additional victims who were in the student hostel. Our deepest condolences go out to the families of those who were injured or killed in this terrible accident.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India, will be joined by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the United States’ National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate the cause of yet another airliner crash involving a Boeing aircraft.
Initial Investigation
The 787 is equipped with two Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFR), one installed at the front of the aircraft and the other at the rear. The EAFR is a multifunction recorder that records 25 hours of Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data and 120 minutes of Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) audio into a crash-protected solid-state memory.
Investigators will review the video evidence as well as the data contained on the CVR and FDR to determine what could have caused the widebody airliner to descend after only climbing to an altitude of approximately 625 feet above the ground. The aircraft appeared to remain in controlled flight throughout the entirety of the flight as it slowly descended. Based on the video evidence, the investigators will look at the following factors to determine if they played a role in the accident.
Loss of Engine Power
Initial evidence points to a lack of thrust from both of the two engines. Video evidence appears to show the aircraft in a wings-level attitude, indicating that the engines were not producing dissimilar thrust. If one engine failed completely, we would expect to see one wing higher than the other and the rudder deployed to maintain directional control due to the asymmetric thrust. All jet aircraft are required to be able to maintain a climb after takeoff with one engine inoperative. Investigators will focus on why the aircraft’s engines do not appear to be producing sufficient thrust to maintain a climb. Potential causes of a dual engine failure or thrust reduction could be bird ingestion, fuel exhaustion or contamination, or mechanical irregularity.
Notably, video of the aircraft in flight captures minimal engine noise and a distinct high-pitched whine consistent with deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT). The RAT is a backup power source that automatically deploys when both engines lose power or when there is a complete loss of electrical power. Its activation strongly suggests a dual engine failure or loss of electrical power associated with engine failure.
Loss of ADS-B Data Loss
Investigators will also look at the loss of ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast) data at an altitude of approximately 625 feet. ADS-B is a system that determines the aircraft’s position and periodically broadcasts this and other data, enabling the aircraft to be tracked in real time. The ADS-B system will not work if the plane’s transponder is not working or not powered. The failure of the ADS-B could point to a potential electrical failure on the aircraft.
Landing Gear Remained Extended
The landing gear of the Boeing 787 is operated by the hydraulic system. There are three independent hydraulic systems on the 787: Left, Right, and Center, with the Center Hydraulic system providing 5,000 psi of pressure. The Center Hydraulic system is powered by two high-flow electric motor-driven pumps. The Center Hydraulic system can also receive backup hydraulic power from a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) in an emergency.
The Boeing 787 was designed with a unique landing gear retraction system that is not found on any other Boeing aircraft. The Landing Gear Control and Indication System (LGCIS) will optimize the reaction time on takeoff to reduce aerodynamic drag, increasing both safety and efficiency. The Landing Gear Electronic United (LEGU) monitors the weight on wheels and as the aircraft begins to lift off the runway, will open the landing gear doors automatically without pilot input in anticipation of gear retraction.
In the initial video of the accident 787 lifting off, it appears that the landing gear doors may not have opened as designed. Investigators will examine what potential system failures might have contributed to the landing gear not operating as expected.
Another point of examination for investigators will be the position of the landing gear. In the video evidence, the landing gear of the 787 remains down for the entirety of the doomed flight. It is standard practice in all airline operations to raise the landing gear as soon as the aircraft begins a “positive rate” of climb within seconds of lifting off from the runway. This landing gear retraction should be made even if the aircraft were to experience an engine failure, and would be especially important in order to reduce drag as much as possible. Investigators will question why the crew did not raise, or could not raise, the landing gear.
Flap Configuration
Various experts, upon viewing video footage of the crash sequence, have noted that the aircraft’s flaps may not have been deployed to the proper take-off position. Jetliners like the Dreamliner rely on aerodynamic flaps at the rear of the wing and slats at the front of the wing to increase lift for slow flight and to decrease take-off and landing distances. This is especially important for the 787 as it has a very low-drag wing that would encounter high landing and take-off speeds without these systems deployed.
Normally, the aircraft’s internal monitoring systems would have indicated to the cockpit crew whether the aircraft was properly configured with the proper flap and slat settings prior to the take-off roll. If the aircraft were somehow not configured properly for takeoff, or if the flaps and slats were retracted too early, it could have caused or contributed to a critical loss of lift during takeoff.
Design and Production Issues
Finally, it bears noting that the 787 had some notable problems during its initial certification and production. Multiple instances of fires resulted in the grounding of the entire fleet while a redesign was implemented to the aircraft’s lithium-ion battery installation. Fires related to the aircraft’s electrical systems also necessitated significant reworking and redesign.
Moreover, the extensive use of composites in the aircraft and the remote manufacturing of large-scale structures also resulted in significant production delays.
Reports also indicate that the accident aircraft was equipped with engines manufactured by GE. These engines have a history of problems related to blade wear, high-altitude in-flight flameouts, and fan shaft fracturing. Initial observations do not seem to indicate that these problems would be issues in this case.
Accident Investigation Begins
Investigators will recover the CVR and FDR from the tail section of the aircraft and begin analyzing the multitude of parameters monitored by those systems. Based on an investigation of the above factors and any other evidence contained on the CVR and FDR, the investigating agencies will provide an initial report in the coming weeks, with a final report expected within 18 months to two years.
Christopher Rusing is an attorney with Aviation Law Group PS and has over 20 years’ experience as a commercial airline pilot. He is currently Captain on the A320 series of aircraft, is a Line Check Airman, Simulator Check Airman and Simulator Instructor at his airline.
Aviation Law Group PS, (ALG) is a law firm that limits its practice to aviation accidents and has represented clients involved in major airline disasters to general aviation accidents. ALG currently represents clients involved in Hawaii Airlines Flight 35, Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, and Delta Airlines Flight 4819. ALG has offices in Seattle, Washington, Honolulu, Hawaii, and Jupiter Florida. ALG attorneys are licensed in Washington State, Hawaii, Alaska, California, and Florida, but can represent clients in all 50 states and have represented many international clients involved in major airline disasters.