Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apparent flight profile and video evidence

  • Multiple videos (CCTV and bystanders) show a normal rotation, slow climb to only a few hundred feet, then loss of climb and a shallow descent into the city.
  • Flightradar24 data suggests the aircraft reached 625 ft barometric (425 ft AGL) before descending.
  • Early claims of an “intersection departure” (half-runway takeoff) were later corrected by Flightradar24: the 787 backtracked and used the full ~11,500 ft runway.
  • Viewers debate whether the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) can be seen; several say its distinct sound is audible, implying major loss of engine‑driven power.

Speculation on technical cause (with strong caveats)

  • Leading lay theories, all explicitly labelled as speculation:
    • Dual engine failure (bird strike, fuel contamination, or shared-system failure), with the RAT deploying and no usable thrust.
    • Mis-handling of configuration after takeoff (e.g., premature flap retraction instead of gear-up), causing loss of lift and stall at low altitude.
  • Others mention compressor stall, possible incorrect engine shutdown, or other cascading failures, but no consensus; many stress that cockpit voice/data recorders are needed.

Fuel, engines, and survivability discussions

  • Because the crash occurred just after takeoff, the aircraft was likely near maximum fuel, explaining the large post‑impact fire.
  • Several explain that fuel dumping exists mainly to reduce landing weight and takes many minutes at altitude; it would be useless and dangerous over a city at a few hundred feet.
  • Debate over whether four engines would materially help in dual‑engine events; many argue more engines add complexity and single‑engine failure risk without clearly reducing total-thrust-loss probability.

Boeing, 787 record, and maintenance context

  • This is noted as the first fatal hull loss of a 787 after a long, generally strong safety record.
  • Some immediately connect it to recent Boeing whistleblower stories about 787 quality; others push back, noting those allegations focus on fuselage structure and there’s no evidence yet this was a structural failure.
  • Air India’s cabin-maintenance reputation (e.g., broken IFE, AC) is discussed as a possible proxy for organizational culture, but several point out cabin defects are not on safety-critical equipment lists.

Airport, environment, and ground impact

  • The crash site appears to include dorms/mess halls of a medical college; injuries and deaths on the ground are expected.
  • Commenters debate airport siting: many large airports worldwide, including in developed countries, are now surrounded by dense housing despite originally being “remote”.
  • Bird-strike risk around Indian airports (linked to waste management and urban density) is highlighted by some; others note this is currently unproven for this event.

Survivors and “11A”

  • Initial media vacillation between “some injured evacuated” and “no survivors”; later reports converge on one surviving passenger.
  • That survivor was reportedly seated at an over‑wing exit (11A). Commenters note survivability often depends on very local structural break patterns and is partly luck.

Meta: speculation norms, media, and social platforms

  • A sizable subthread urges waiting at least a week, or even for the official report, before drawing causal conclusions, citing past misreporting and conspiracy theories.
  • Others argue that disciplined, clearly labelled early speculation is part of how pilots and enthusiasts mentally rehearse emergencies.
  • Broader criticism of “breaking news” culture, social‑media monetization of crash videos, and politicized blame (Boeing, countries, demographics) appears throughout, with several recommending expert channels and accident reports over real‑time feeds.