Posted on 06/15/2025 3:39:57 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
In this update to our original video on Air India Flight 171, Captain Steeeve revisits his initial theory—and sets the record straight.
Previously, Steeeve leaned heavily into the possibility that the pilot may have accidentally retracted the flaps instead of the landing gear during the takeoff roll, resulting in a critical loss of lift. But new, higher-quality footage tells a different story.
In this video, we clearly see the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed—something that only happens in the event of significant power loss. This changes everything. Steeeve breaks down what the RAT deployment means, walks through the new evidence frame by frame, and explores the very real possibility that this was a dual engine failure scenario.
It’s important to get these stories right. Aviation is a world of learning—and when new information comes to light, good pilots update their understanding.
If you watched the original video, don’t miss this one.
Bkmk
The plane appeared to still be nose up as it stalled in like he was trying to power for altitude. One would think if he had no thrust, he’d at least try to bring the nose to level or slightly down to try to establish a glide away from folks on the ground. I don’t think he could have gotten to open ground where there doesn’t appear to be enough room to try to put down the plane with any chance of success, but he could have tried to avoid the buildings, or to the river, but it doesn’t appear that he even tried to turn in that direction (to the right for either).
At 500 feet altitude I don’t believe the pilot had time to do much of anything other than try to keep the plane in the air.
That's what I've heard.
Very interesting - thanks for posting! Makes sense.
Deployment of the RAT ( unseen in published pic, videos) is the game changer. Back in the day when I worked on ETOPS aircraft, it was an unwanted job to have to deploy and test them.
Fully agree on his theory.
The flap activation leveris on the central console, the gear actuation lever is on the panel and is in the shape of a wheel, gray in color and about three inches in diameter. The spacing is due to inadvertently actuating gear vs flaps. The F/O controls both levers.
Anybody know anything about the gear lifting hydraulics on this plane? A guy yesterday came out with the same idea steeeve is now expressing but he added something Steeeve hasn’t mentioned. The position of the wheels carriage as the plane went down. Usually prior to lifting the gear the wheels are back wheel low front wheel high. As the gear retracts however the carriage goes forward with front wheel lower rear higher in order to clear the bay. In the vid based on the seeming position of the carriage it looks like they may have tried to raise the gear . Was there a coincidental dual engine failure or could some blowout in the hydraulics have interfered with the engines running? If the latter it’ll probably take forever to figure out
Agreed. And during the time that was available to fly the plane and analyze the WTF unbelievable, subtract any conversations he had on the radio with the mayday transmission. Tough spot to be in real-time, even if one is fully trained.
No discussion of engine noise or lack of.
The sole survivor said he heard a bang right after takeoff. Perhaps the RAT started because of dual engine failure.
I believe the RAT has enough power to *lower* the landing gear and operate the flaps and control surfaces, but it does not have the power to *raise* the gear from a lowered and locked position.
A total hydraulic systems loss that isn’t in the engine nacelle has zero chance of killing the engine, let alone both. One that’s in the engine nacelle could only kill that one engine, not both.
That was what I thought, but the rat sort of destroys that theory. I’d never heard of the rat before, but from what I’m hearing, the reason for its deployment - along with the angle of the tires, strongly suggests both engines died.
It suggests ground crew put some “bad gas” in the tank.
Perhaps the RAT started because of dual engine failure.
“may have accidentally retracted the flaps instead of the landing gear during the takeoff roll, resulting in a critical loss of lift.”
Would that have deployed the RAT?
I think he was trying to hold altitude and glide as far as he could. The 787, like a lot of post-WW2 large aircraft, has a significant wing angle of incidence or angle of attack. A 787 that’s flying level will actually be about 5 or so degrees nose up angle.
The B-52 having an opposite angle of attack is why those things look like they’re nose down when they’re flying level.
I saw a video of the undercarriage of the aircraft while it was taking off. Was the RAT / RAM deployed just before the crash?
But it got across the tarmac, down the runway and airborne on ‘bad gas’. Maybe the fuel filters clogged up from tank contamination and eventually stopped fuel flow? Happens on boats with water in fuel tanks. When the fuel filters go the engines go. Ship goes stern to the sea and, if rough weather eventually ...sinks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.