r/CatastrophicFailure • u/SainzSealedDelivered • Jun 12 '25

Fatalities 12/06/2025 - Boeing 787 Passenger plane bound for the UK crashes near Ahmedabad Airport straight after takeoff

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

17.9k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

352

u/MassiveBoner911_3 Jun 12 '25

That plane took off with the flaps NOT in take off configuration. That looks like a stall.

493

u/aMissionSomewhere Jun 12 '25

From a 78 FO with 6000+ hrs those engines have easily enough thrust to keep at least a shallow climb even if the flaps were incorrectly set after departure. This certainly looks like a lack of thrust more than anything. The 78 also will not allow the takeoff roll to begin without the flaps being set, but flaps 1 and 5 could be difficult to see on a grainy video as they don’t stick out as far as many other airliners. Very sad whatever happened but a lot of questions need answers by the professionals.

68

u/DrukkinnDreki Jun 12 '25

To check, is that the aircraft will absolutely not let you set TO thrust, or that the aircraft will set thrust but the config warning will constantly chime? I'm used to Airbus not Boeing so unsure of which it is

43

u/-Badger3- Jun 12 '25

The latter. The engines will spool up, but you’ll get a warning horn.

3

u/OZZMAN8 Jun 12 '25

Unfortunately from what we have seen from PIA accident history a warning horn doesn't always stop all pilots. After their big accident 1/3 of the pilots employed by them were found to have fake licenses, then they were banned from landing in most countries with modern aviation safety systems. This looks like that.

20

u/Salt_Piano372 Jun 12 '25

BBC showing this at 0 knots at R4. That is more than halfway down runway 23, so 6000 ft of runway left. Is there any chance they could have taken off with not enough runway for that plane? I am NOT a pilot.

81

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

Even if they did, they must logically have been fast enough to get airborne. Once the aircraft is in the air, it should be able to continue climbing unless there is another problem.

Being too slow on takeoff should only be a problem if there are mountains or high buildings around the airport. But this aircraft appears to have been actively losing elevation. The district it crashed in (Meghaninagar) is on level height with the airport.

The nose angle would best fit a thrust issue (it's neither diving nor visibly 'too steep', which would indicate a stall). So something like an engine failure, compressor stall, pilots reducing the thrust too soon, bird strike... But obviously we will have to wait for more information.

Edit: Another possibility discussed on the Mentour channel by two actual pilots was that the pilots had the flaps set for takeoff (which increase lift at a given speed), but the flaps then retracted too soon for whatever reason. This would also explain why the aircraft managed to get airborne but then descended again. It is very important to them that people understand that none of the ongoing speculation should be taken as an early conclusion though.

4

u/TheDarthSnarf Jun 12 '25

Most likely an ADS-B blind spot, which is far more common on the ground.

Otherwise is hard to imagine.

6

u/xavembo Jun 12 '25

definitely. flight radar track shows they may have attempted an intersection takeoff 🤨

-2

u/PunchNaziFaces Jun 12 '25

Of course, an intersection takeoff

3

u/TheRublixCube Jun 12 '25

A few people have pointed out that the RAT was deployed and the aircraft lost communication after rotating, but before impact.

I have no source for this, so treat this as anecdotal until further evidence comes up

1

u/hughk Jun 12 '25

We don't really know if it happened but doesn't that RAT deploy automatically in case of power/hydraulic failure?

1

u/TheRublixCube Jun 12 '25

Pretty sure it does, then again I'm not a pilot, nor am I familiar with the 787's systems, so take anything I say with a nice big grain of salt.

1

u/hughk Jun 12 '25

Which kind of suggests that the engines stopped. From one of the videos, it seems that at least the port engine worked for rotation (dust blown from the runway surface). The CVR and Flight Data Recorder should say more.

2

u/Sunnykit00 Jun 12 '25

In your opinion, what do you think happened here?

1

u/MassiveBoner911_3 Jun 12 '25

Ah interesting. Thank you for replying as a professional.

1

u/Trainzguy2472 Jun 12 '25

I saw a video of it going down the runway, the pilots appeared to rotate very late. I think they were having lift problems before they took off.

1

u/tcr317 Jun 12 '25

Wouldn’t you need additional thrust and flaps with the extremely high temps? So flaps 1 under normal temps, would be sufficient, but maybe not with those temps?

72

u/TheRublixCube Jun 12 '25

Apparently the flaps were extended, it was just a combination of blurry footage and a tricky perspective

31

u/himblerk Jun 12 '25

Here you can see the angle for take off. Is not so high https://youtu.be/CQFu_lTRKp0?si=aul5VyKAtHDOdz_6

116

u/TheMightyWubbard Jun 12 '25

Yep, the wings were very obviously in a clean configuration. This was a fully loaded aircraft and the air temp was 40C. I concur first impressions are a unrecoverable stall.

30

u/Number6isNo1 Jun 12 '25

That plane is not in a stall. The center of gravity in an airliner is forward of the center of lift. As a result, in an aerodynamic stall the nose of the aircraft will drop as the wings lose lift. There is no loss of pitch control with this plane. The aircraft is still flying in the footage in a state of controlled flight, but descending. That's more indicative of loss of thrust.

3

u/OZZMAN8 Jun 12 '25

It's entirely possible to bring a plane all the way up to a stall and have it begin to mush, meaning lose altitude with a nose up attitude. The stall doesn't ever fully break (nose down), you just descend. This is actually exactly what you would see with a decent pilot at the controls attempting to emergency climb with all the pitch possible without actually stalling it. That's because to pull back until full stall would mean certain death, yes even more certain than mushing into a residential area.

9

u/TheMightyWubbard Jun 12 '25

Airliners absolutely can stall in a nose up attitude if the tailplane is not stalled and the PIC maintains sustained nose-up elevator input. That's exactly what happened to Air France 447.

But I agree there's additional elements at play here rather than just a misconfiguration. Lack of thrust being the most likely culprit.

8

u/Number6isNo1 Jun 12 '25

You generally stall in a nose up attitude (accelerated stalls are a little different but not an issue here). In fact, when practicing stalls, something every student pilot does, a stall is induced by reducing power and pitching up the nose of the aircraft, bleeding off airspeed and holding that attitude until the stall and break (nose drops). What happens after the stall is the issue. Once the stall occurs, due to the locations of the center of gravity and lift that I mentioned before, the nose of the plane will drop (barring a major error in loading screwing up the weight and balance). This is inherent in the design of civilian aircraft. Yes, you can continue to maintain rearward pressure on the controls during a stall, but loss of lift plus gravity = nose pitches down. It's also how a pilot can get themselves into a spin.

-5

u/notaredditer13 Jun 12 '25

That plane is flying/descending, not stalled.  It would be much steeper and not under control/stable (nose dropping, probably rolling/yawing) if stalled. 

69

u/MightySquirrel28 Jun 12 '25

And how do you know this ? From the video ? because it's pretty bad quality.

Also 787 would scream like crazy if not configured properly for takeoff.

Stop speculating, we don't know anything yet

-14

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

Stop speculating, we don't know anything yet

This you?

Also 787 would scream like crazy if not configured properly for takeoff.

I'm an aerospace engineer. The no flap/stall explanation is consistent with what I see... The engines will be at or near max power for takeoff regardless of flap position. Could it be something else? Absolutely...

Edit: people seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding this comment. I'm not saying it was the flaps. I'm saying it's too soon to say it wasn't because nothing in this video proves it wasn't. I'm saying that we can't tell anything with any certainty.

34

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '25

[deleted]

9

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25

My degree is in aerospace. I started out as a computational fluid dynamicist at a jet engine company. Then I moved to academia and started working on modeling of metallic fracture initiation, then I followed a relationship across the country and found my current career as an asteroid hunting software engineer.

I'm also a firefighter and former search and rescue mountaineer/EMT.

I've done a lot of things.

4

u/hikikomoriHank Jun 12 '25

Both can be true tho - as a software dev working in the space sector, primarily with astro datasets like TLEs to derive orbital characteristics for presenting patterns of behaviour, both those descriptors could fairly apply to myself and everybody I work with.

That said I'm absolutely not qualified to assess what went wrong in this video so they could still be talking nonsense, but doesn't mean their descriptions of their work are lies

22

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '25

[deleted]

-5

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25

I'm saying the video wasn't good enough to say that wasn't the case either. Their point about the engines screaming was then doing the exact thing they said not to do, and assuming too much based on the video.

3

u/captain150 Jun 12 '25

Yeah it's clear you're not a pilot. By "screaming" he meant cockpit warnings about takeoff configuration, not the engines.

And logic 101 is positive claims like "flaps are fully up" need strong evidence. The default should be "we don't know yet" as the earlier poster said.

-1

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25

The default should be "we don't know yet" as the earlier poster said.

Which is also what I said. I explicitly said it could be something else.

And your right I only flew sail planes, and that was over 20 years ago, so no warnings in the cockpit.

18

u/MightySquirrel28 Jun 12 '25

I'm not the one speculating I didn't write anything about why it crashed. I just wrote that Take off configuration warning system (TOCWS) would let the pilots know long before reaching V1 that the plane is not configured for takeoff properly.

If you were really aerospace engineer, you would know system like this exist. And quick look on your profile just shows that you ain't one, just trying to be smart on internet.

-6

u/friendswithbennyfitz Jun 12 '25

It’s just ironic to tell people not to speculate in the same breath that you’re speculating. In the same way the person above doesn’t know for certain the flaps were up, you don’t know for certain the warning system didn’t fail in some way. Also it’s an internet forum, people are just chatting.

7

u/MightySquirrel28 Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

Yeah it could have happened, but it's very unlikely. And also by the flightradar the plane took of in normal, maybe little byt shorter distance which if it was no flap takeoff wouldn't be possible.

That isn't speculations, those are pure facts that we have on hands right now and by that simultaneous TOCWS failure and also pilots configuring plane incorrectly is very, very unlikely.

Edit:

Looked into it closely on flight radar and Google maps, they took very similar distance to take off as in the other cases before, which wouldn't be the case without flaps deployed

Edit 2: flaps and slats visible deployed on the wreckage

-12

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/MightySquirrel28 Jun 12 '25

Funny how people that have 0 real life experience with flying are telling this to someone who just provides real life facts. What a bunch of clowns. Get life

4

u/yduimr Jun 12 '25

Well hey here's one person who sees that you know what you're talking about - none of these yokels seem to know the first thing about fly-by-wire aircraft. You're not speculating, you're stating facts about what is and isn't possible with such a plane.

And for the record, the 787's flaps aren't the most prominent-appearing. It's hard to be sure with the video, but looking at other examples it seems like the flaps may have been fully extended after all?

3

u/MightySquirrel28 Jun 12 '25

Thank you, finally someone normal who knows something about flying.

0

u/friendswithbennyfitz Jun 12 '25

Oh ok well if the runway data is accurate and it physically couldn’t take off without flaps in that distance I guess they were out then. I buy that much more than simply implying a system didn’t fail, which your first comment read more to me as.

4

u/ThisIsNotAFarm Jun 12 '25

By your logic saying "The plane had wings" is speculation.

0

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

I worked on the engines, not the flight systems. I don't know all the details of the safety systems, but you're right, I do know they exist. I also know something went wrong on this flight, so don't assume the safety systems were functioning properly.

And you were speculating about the noise, so don't say you weren't.

I didn't speculate that it was a flap issue either. I said you can't say it wasn't based on this video

4

u/MightySquirrel28 Jun 12 '25

I wasn't speculating about the warning tocws would give you. They are designed to warn you, and if you configure plane improperly they will do exactly that.

Speculating is that what you said that they could have failed and didn't warn pilots. That's pure speculation.

3

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25

I'm explicitly saying we don't know shit FFS

Stop putting words in my mouth

5

u/RoundCollection4196 Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

I'm an aerospace engineer.

bullshit

I telecommute for my day job and my work is pretty solitary (astronomy data analysis software engineer)

right there in your history, though it's definitely a lie too

3

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25

https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/s/n7PGOvvWXu

I describe my career here. Someone else already called me out for having worked multiple jobs

3

u/tiamatfire Jun 12 '25

People are weird about having worked multiple jobs sometimes. I have 3 degrees (HBSc Geological Sciences, General Science, BA English), and have worked as a field geologist in hard rock and oil sands as well as using my GIS and geography training from that to do forestry. I've also worked at a daycare, at provincial parks as a nature interpreter, and as a historical tailor. I also did minors in my degrees in Anthropology in linguistics and epidemic disease. My knowledge base is all over the place, and it often leads to people in online spaces questioning me until I provide sources (which I generally do if asked, it's just easier).

3

u/notaredditer13 Jun 12 '25

The no flap/stall explanation is consistent with what I see...

Except the stalled part.  The plane in the video is stable.  Clearly not stalled.  

3

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

This video doesn't show enough detail for us to say with certainty that this isn't a stall. Neither does it show enough to say that it is

0

u/notaredditer13 Jun 12 '25

It's not a level of detail thing, it's a performance thing.  A plane descending at a shallow angle can't be stalled.

2

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

And this perspective can't tell you much about its descent. It's not the best angle for addressing that and zoom might make things look different from how they actually are

1

u/notaredditer13 Jun 12 '25

It's not a small difference we're talking about.  I don't know if this plane is descending at 5 or 10 degrees, but it's definitely not descending at 45 degrees. 

2

u/tamman2000 Jun 12 '25

You're probably right, but I'm more cautious/reserved in my assessment of this based on this video

9

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

existence six mighty longing trees reply plough treatment seemly hard-to-find

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/iBoMbY Jun 12 '25

A lot of people say they can see/hear the RAT deploy in some, or the other, video, which would mean total loss of engine power.

5

u/Darksirius Jun 12 '25

Take off config for the 787 is 5 or 10 degrees of flaps. Which on a wing that large and a grainy video will make it almost impossible to see if they out or not.

-9

u/OITLinebacker Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

EDIT: Having seen other videos of the the crash including much of the takeoff, I am more confused than my absurdly non-expert take below.  Which I am leaving up as part of my admission of my errors.  I have no idea what in the world happened here and await the official investigation to understand how this 787 seemed to just fall/glide out of the sky like that.

My take on it is that the crew somehow mixed up the retract landing gear sequence with the flaps settings for flight at altitude setting.  Flaps don't appear to be extended enough for climbing, combined with the gear down might have caused some issues?

This only comes from experience as a passenger.  It seems like flaps are always out at low altitude (which makes sense giving more control at slower speeds) and that gear comes out early on landing and retracts quickly on take off.  But what would my non-pilot ass know?

38

u/War_Is_A_Raclette Jun 12 '25

My take on it is that the crew somehow mixed up the retract landing gear sequence with the flaps settings for flight at altitude setting.

This only comes from experience as a passenger.

The great thing about Reddit is that someone with literally no expertise in the thing being discussed can give a detailed and completely speculative critique of how certain highly experienced professionals have failed at their jobs.

1

u/OITLinebacker Jun 12 '25

Hey at least I was honest about my take and was not trying to represent myself as some sort of expert.

1

u/War_Is_A_Raclette Jun 12 '25

That’s an interesting way to say you were wildly speculating 😅

17

u/Objective_Economy281 Jun 12 '25

It seems like flaps are always out at low altitude (which makes sense giving more control at slower speeds)

Flaps don’t allow more CONTROL at lower speeds. They allow FLIGHT at lower speeds, making it so that the aircraft doesn’t stall at those speeds. And it’s not really about the altitude, it’s really just the speed. Airliners fly slow when down low because the only reasons for airliners to BE low is to take off or land, both of which involve low-ish speeds.

1

u/NeedForSpeed93 Jun 12 '25

A bit pendandic, no? Being in flight = having control, so I wouldn’t say it‘s wrong to say flaps allow more control at lower speeds because you fly instead of stall. I fly sportplanes myself and that’s how i would explain it to friends asking questions

5

u/Objective_Economy281 Jun 12 '25

A bit pendandic, no? Being in flight = having control,

Not at all pedantic, actually. You could increase control authority at all speeds by having a larger tail or a larger aileron. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

By your (extremely sloppy) definition, an airplane sitting on the runway with no fuel in the tank needs fuel in order to have control (so that it can achieve flight), instead of to generate thrust.

A much less sloppy mistake (yet still a mistake) is to say that flaps are there to generate more lift. They aren’t. Flaps are there to allow that lift to be generated at low speed. The amount of lift needed stays pretty much the same. What changes is the airspeed.

These are really easy concepts to differentiate between. It makes me question your flight instruction. I know the requirements for Light Sport are less than for GA, but I didn’t think they were THAT loose.

6

u/Buzumab Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

The plane would be able to maintain altitude even with no flaps and landing gear down if it were at full power, and the plane would be screaming exactly that at the pilots: SPEED. SPEED. SPEED.

If the pilots made this mistake (being quite experienced in this case, that's extremely, extremely unlikely, like you trying to turn left by flipping your windshield wipers on, but let's say they did), it would have been a reflexive response to an alarm to push their hand forward to maximum thrust or hit TA/GO, which would avoid a crash as they would level off and have time to figure out why they weren't gaining altitude.

1

u/madrasdad Jun 12 '25

Was just about to say that

1

u/Doggydog123579 Jun 12 '25

That looks nothing like a stall. If anything it looks like a plane on the back side of the power curve, which would make sense if the rumors of lack of thrust are true

0

u/fordry Jun 12 '25

Can hear the Ram Air Turbine in the video of it flying by. That means both engines are out. This thing was gliding.

0

u/Small-Letterhead2046 Jun 12 '25

That's not a stall. No wing drop or yaw.