June 12, 2025, AI 171 crashed. The world is speculating. This is mine.
I suspect a total electrical failure on takeoff that caused distraction, and the pilots forget to raise the gear. Then at acceleration height of 400 feet they began to and retracted the flaps. By the time they reached 625 feet (425 above ground) feet the plane did not want to climb anymore. Perhaps they input the wrong temperature to exacerbate the problem. But also, without engine instruments due to the electrical issue, they would not see they had more power available. With these automated aircraft, pilots set the thrust and then don’t touch the thrust levers until arrival. Did they not know they had more power available, and did they push the thrust levers forward? One would think that would be a natural response of a pilot. But then, was it too late? Did they get behind the power curve? Data will show us the answers to these questions.
I’ll explain the FADEC, and why I don’t think that was the source of the issue. The RAT needs both engines to fail in order to deploy, not reduced thrust. Otherwise, reduced thrust on arrival would deploy the RAT on every approach. However, “if” the FADEC did switch power, reduce to ground idle, the pilot could have selected the RAT manually. But that too, due to the timing, might be unlikely. And I don’t think she would climb in ground idle either.
SPECULATION:
I had placed a pause on publicly speculating with this accident but have been listening to others. Now, it’s time to step in. I personally don’t believe any airplane can rotate and climb to 625 feet with a dual engine failure.
On June 12, Jeff Ostroff noticed the RAT was out. He identified that the first video floating around was a video of a video. He explained the Rat buzzing as the plane flew by.
On June 13 Captain Steeve gave us three possibilities: Engine failure, flaps not out, and final reason that he believed to be the most likely was that the copilot raised the flaps instead of the gear. However, on June 14, Captain Steeve “jumped camps,” after he listened to Jeff’s video, and learned about the RAT and believes the plane lost both engines. I still don’t think it would perform as it did without engine power.
June 15, Patrick Smith “Ask the Pilot” speculated that the evidence suggested, “The Boeing 787 suffered either a loss of thrust in both engines, or an inadvertent retraction of the plane’s flaps and slats before reaching sufficient speed.”
June 16, Jeff Ostroff brought up the density altitude. The temperature was 41 C which is 105 F. He presents and excellent discussion on density altitude and we learn they were departing at 3900 feet density altitude. Which impacts performance. Pilots if you don’t know how to compute density altitude watch the video.
Today I listened to one of my favorite aviation reporters, Dan Millican, and realized he posted yesterday, June 17, and shared something I had not heard. He reported the exact words by Captain Sumit 36 seconds after takeoff: “Mayday Mayday no power no thrust going down.” And he is also the first to discuss the FADEC. But, I’m not sold on the FADEC in entirety and I’ll tell you why.
FLAPS not Set for takeoff?
I will say NO.
During my trial when Judge Morris asked the Delta captain witness, “I want to know, can you tell me… you talk about this flap check not set, how was that significant to either takeoff or landing?”
The captain said, “Without the right flaps, you’re going to die!”
When Judge Morris asked for the record, “And why is that? Just in layman’s terms, flaps aren’t set and you’re rolling down the runway, and you’re heavy, what’s going to happen?”
The captain said, “If you do not have flaps set the airplane will not fly, you will run out of balance field length, there’s either not enough runway where you’re going to crash, or if you try to pull the airplane off the ground early it doesn’t have enough flight characteristics to maintain flight and you’re going to crash.”
Notwithstanding warnings would have been screaming and the pilots would have aborted. With that heat, they would not have been able to depart the runway and crashed off the end.
RAT was Extended: Why?
There are four reasons why the RAT will deploy: Hydraulic failure, Electrical failure, Dual Engine failure, or manually. I will eliminate engine failure simply because, without engines the plane would not do a fly by as the videos depicted and then climb to an altitude of 625 (425 above the ground) feet. In the videos we hear the plane fly past with the buzzing from the RAT, and then she continues to climb. I don’t believe that to be possible without engines. Besides, he didn’t say “Engine failure.”
Could it be total loss of hydraulics? Perhaps, but that would not create loss of lift. And highly unlikely due to redudancy. The most probably cause was loss of electrics.
ELECTRICAL FAILURE
The 787: An Electric Airplane
The 787 Dreamliner uses more electricity instead of pneumatics to power airplane systems such as hydraulics, engine start and wing ice protection. These engines have a FADEC, Full Authority Digital Engine Control system, of which provides full control of the engine. If the FADEC fails, the engine will fail and there are no manual controls for the pilot to restart the engine or adjust throttle settings. But there is redundancy which makes this unlikely. But the question is, could a faulty FADEC cause a power issue?
Modern jets use FADEC systems that rely on electricity for engine control. Each engine typically has two FADECs. So four of them would have to quit to fail both engines, to deploy the RAT. Not a malfunctioning FADEC. They also each have their own dedicate generators. This redundant power source in the engine is separate from the main electrical system to avoid total engine loss with an electrical system failure.
I will never say never, as anything is possible. But, I do not think a shift of FADEC power would deploy the RAT. Could they have deployed it? I suspect they would have got the gear up first without knowing what was happening, with the intent to climb. But anything is possible.
A total electrical failure would deploy the RAT.
Airplane History
I did a little investigation on this aircraft and its history. While Dan reminded us of the initial whistleblowers in production, what you might not know is that there was another whistle blower, Martin Bickeboeller who filed a complaint due to lack of ethics compliance on this particular aircraft in October 2021. While the entire report is interesting, pages 55 and 60-63 might be the most pertinent. You can read the complaint here.
Bickeboeller was concerned for this very aircraft, number 26, and filed a complaint because the required work and or inspections were not conducted in accordance with policy and regulatory requirements. I don’t know if Boeing ever addressed these issues. I know first-hand, however, when an employee files a complaint the solution is never solving the problem. The legal system only addresses retaliation, it cannot force the FAA, the aircraft manufacturer, or the airline to solve the problem. That was proven in my case.
The manufacturer serial number on this aircraft is 36729, built in 2010 and delivered to Air India in 2014. Below the serial number matches the line number of 26.
My Analysis: The Perfect Storm.
As I said, I suspect a total electrical failure on takeoff caused distraction and the pilots forget to raise the gear. Then at acceleration height of 400 feet they retracted the flaps. By the time they reached 625 feet the plane did not want to climb anymore.
There was the potential that the pilots inserted the wrong data into the computer, which may have resulted in the incorrect density altitude, therefore a wrong power setting. A possibility that could exacerbate a performance problem. But if they did not have the correct power set, did these pilots know they had more available? Maybe not because the visual depiction was gone.
The temperature was high. This is an electric airplane and electronics don’t like heat. This plane has a history of ethical non-compliance when she was in production. People have said that electronics went out in the back, during a previous flight.
If I had to speculate, I would say that this plane lost all electrical power, and the reason for the RAT extension. The plane climbed to 625 feet (425 feet above the airport), which doesn’t happen with a dual engine failure. With the loss of electrics, on an electric plane and the startle effect (panic) the first officer could have brought up the flaps instead of the gear. But I doubt it, due to the location.
Flaps right of the thrust levers and gear on the forward panel. Even a 1000-hour pilot should distinguish between the difference. But anything is possible when we react.
When and if they release the cockpit voice recorder we’ll hear if the captain called gear up or not. If he called for it, and it remained down but the flaps raised instead, we will know what happened.
But I have watched pilots over the years forget to raise the gear during simulator training with a low level emergency. This is not unrealistic event that he simply forgot to bring it up. The first officer, or the pilot flying may have forgotten to say, “Positive rate” due to the distraction.
All of this combined could be the perfect storm. Rarely is an accident one reason. But if you watch the plane go in. It did not glide with an engine failure. It did not fall with a stall. It mushed into the ground. She was trying to fly, but did not have the performance. Flaps up, gear down, high heat, high density altitude and incorrect thrust this plane would be challenged to fly.
Lack of Understanding and Rote Procedures
How is it possible to not know you had more power available and not use it? Look at a converse example. At Delta there was a crew on the A330 arriving into Boston. That electronic plane requires you to put the aircraft into an approach mode, not just navigation approach. The computer must be there too. If that step is missed, then on final, when the pilot engages “managed thrust” the plane doesn’t know it’s landing. She wants to fly and will increase the power to speed up to 210 knots.
This happened on three approaches into Boston. They kept going around. Not one of the three pilots (instructor in a jump seat) knew what the plane was doing or why it did that, or even thought to manually reduce the thrust.
On the third approach, the captain told the first officer, who was flying the entire time, (meaning the captain programed the computer) to go around again. He said, “No, I’m landing.” Then at 20 feet when the plane told them “retard” (time to pull back thrust) the first officer pulled thrust levers back. At any time when the speed jumped unexpectedly, the pilot always had control. But the pilots had been trained to be “monkey, push the button, get the banana.” That’s what they did. Only because they were so low on fuel, that they were able to stop on the runway when they were at 200 knots at 20 feet.
Therefore, would it not be possible that if the computers were programmed incorrectly, that there could have been more thrust available? It would not surprise me.
This, too, we will learn when the final reports are released.
AUTOMATION and PILOT Performance
We don’t know what caused this accident. But what we do know is that planes are going to break. Equipment is fallible. When airlines don’t train pilots to understand aerodynamics, performance, and don’t require systems knowledge, but teach rote memorization, then we’re going to have problems. Without a solid understanding, pilots will “react” not respond. I am not saying that was the case here. Just a fact.
Captain Sullenberger was the perfect example of assessing the situation and then making a decision. Not a reaction. That comes from experience, or extensive knowledge. I am obviously in support of the increased retirement age in the US, to retain that experience.
The Industry knows why planes are crashing
I want to thank 7400 pilots worldwide, who participated in my research that has identified the problem. We have the data and the knowledge that informed the world we will see more crashes unless we do something about training, sooner than later. That research was completed in 2019. Airline incidents and accidents have been at an all-time high and are increasing. How many more accidents must we have before someone does something? How many more people must die?
A professor asked during my dissertation defense, “What do you think they will do now?” So far, they have done nothing. Planes are crashing. People are dying. Something must be done.
If you have not read the research, you can here: Normalization of Deviance, a Threat to Aviation Safety. Its an eye-opener.
Hopefully we will all learn from this.
29 Comments
All Boeings regardless of Reduced Thrust settings…or EICAS indications, just push the Thrust Levers Full Forward if acceleration and/or climb performance is poor.
That’s the case with “all” airplanes. Not just Boeings. But even if they did push them forward…and were behind the power curve with high density altitude, gear down and flaps up.. would it be enough? Probably not.
Bravo Karlene, what a perfect and analytical essay!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I totally agree that modern pilot-training, initial and recurrent needs to address and reflect the actual environment we are working in – NOT only ROTE learning!
Kind regards,
Pit
Captain MD-11F🇺🇸🇩🇪
Thanks Pit! While we don’t know why this plane crashed, we do know that something happened and the pilots couldn’t handle the situation. A bad combination that will get worse with the current training practices and the next generation of pilots.
Nice compilation! I have read that the truck tilt in video indicates gear handle was raised, yet with electrical interruption the gear remained down in position for doors to open. Electrical issue seems viable.
There was Delta B767-300 returning from Asia that had EEC problem causing one engine to roll back. I believe they flew nearly two hours single engine to land at a military base in Aleutian Islands. So I think EEC, despite all the backups, is also a possibility – if an electrical issue could adversely affect both of them.
This accident is a tricky one because it obviously has everyone guessing. No one can readily figure it out.
I hope we get a solid conclusion as to what went wrong and I hope that it’s not technology failing us.
Sandy, I had not heard the gear tilt. Did a little search and apparently GaryBPilot discussed this. I can’t tell from the video myself. So, they may have thought they brought the gear up… but, if that were the case, they would have indications from RAT provided electronics that it did not come up. Yet, still retracted the flaps. Or did they? It’s hard to tell that too. But on this plane, the EEC is a component of a FADEC. So, could that have failed inside the FADEC and not failed the system entirely… that could be. With an EEC only plane, we have control. But the FADEC there is none. I think I like EEC better. But what about this happening on both engines? That’s the oddity. The video doesn’t show any yaw at all. So, I would guess both were doing the same thing. What are the odds? 4 independent FADECs all have the same failure. I wish I had the systems manual… this will be interesting to diagnose. I would love to be an airplane doctor and find out what she did and if it were even possible to control.
One of your conclusions regarding training deficiencies is spot on.
The perception is that the new hire pilots do not have the same experience or training levels as those before them.
Yet training has been cut back instead of ramped up to accommodate some of the reported deficiencies.
I was surprised to read the FO had only 1100 hours and was flying a 787. This made me wonder if the Captain felt like he was “solo” in their final minutes instead of looking for potential solutions every second they had.
Annette, Did he have only 1000 hours total time or 1000 hours in type? That’s good hours on a plane. Short on experience. And the 787 is the sister to the B777 and they get easier the bigger they get. Not like that A350. The 787 is a straight forward aircraft. The training is the issue. The industry cut back training and it worked when we had experienced pilots who had understanding. This training methodology does NOT work for the new and inexperienced pilots. Worse yet, with a few of the exceptions, many airlines newbie first officer instructors, without flight experience, are teaching. This happens in the flight schools also, where they allow fewer hours. At my FBO I was trained by retired airline pilots and those who were actively flying for the airlines who loved teaching. I would have been required 1500 hours. But the kids, being taught by other students, in these flight schools only need 1000 hours. Where is the logic? We MUST extend the age 65 rule. Keep our experience around a little longer.
Very interesting theories about the multiple things that might have happened. All very well technically supported. One thing only. I’ve read and seen a lot of theories regarding the retraction of the flaps by mistake. Most, if not all, blamed the Copilot (First Officer). I think this is an accusation made based on the difference in flight experience of the crew. But evidence shows that even an experienced aviator can make this kind of mistake. Remember the Yeti Airlines crash in Pokhara, Nepal.
I agree, any human can make a mistake. Absolutely! If this were an accidental move the flaps instead of gear (I don’t think it was) but… that probably wouldn’t happen from the left seat. It’s far more difficult to reach over the thrust levers and to do that… not an easy mistake. We also don’t know who was flying. I think 1000 hours on type is experienced. I also don’t think they accidentally did that. I think they forgot the gear and cleaned it up to fly. Then they realized they couldn’t too late. Thanks for your thoughts and great reminder. Being a captain does not make you error free.
According to Aviation Herald, the given altitude was pressure altitude. QNH was 1001 hPa, so the aircraft was actually much lower than 625 feet.
I think they were actually 425 feet above the ground.
Gut feeling double fadec failure via some electric failures/ seconds left, stall
There were four FADECs… all would have had to do something more than fail.Change the power of the engines. But when I watch that plane pancake, mushing into the ground, she looked like she had power, was trying to fly, but just not enough. Perhaps she stalled before they crashed beyond the video.
Hi Karlene
I agree with your thoughts on the low standard of pilot training.
Many of the instructors at the ab-initio flying schools, are pilots who got their 200 hours for a commercial license and then got their instructors ratings, and they are using instruction to build their hours to 1500 so that they can apply to the airlines.
Although there are exceptions where the young pilots have a passion for flying and may be good instructors, unfortunately most are not.
At 200 hours what experience do you have to teach another pilot ?
Instructors salary is pathetic so the flying schools do not attract older experienced pilots.
In an ideal world, instructors should be amongst the highest paid pilots, so that the flying schools attract pilots who have come to the end of their commercial flying careers and now want to plough back their experience into training and mentoring new pilots.
In my opinion that is the only way we are going to mitigate the training gap which has been steadily growing with the growth of automation on the flight deck.
You are quite correct when you say that many pilots, including Captains do not have a thorough understanding of what the automation is doing
Ken, this is true. Kids teaching kids and not experience. Worse yet… in a Cirrus! Not all schools, not all students… but for the most part, this is what is happening. There is no depth of understanding. One of the professors at one of these schools told me he thought that with more automation that pilots needed to know less and would be more apt to hand fly if they did not understand the automation. But that’s not true. If they don’t understand the computer information, they won’t try to fly and think at the same time. They will push the button. Technology provides so much data that when hand flying the pilot must understand the information. If they don’t… the allow the plane to do it. Thanks for your comment.
Karlene, I tend to agree with you about the electrical issue and 100% agree with you on the distraction that was caused by the electrical or other system failure. I agree that it is highly unlikely that they lost two engines. Time will tell but I think that you present the most likely scenario. I am positive that the lack of training will be a huge factor in this accident. When will airlines figure out that cutting training to save money causes accidents and incidents. How sad.
As a Bus boy you probably see substandard training on your fleet too. Whatever happened, I suspect there was enough to startle them, and then nothing went right. If nothing else, this shows us that even the superstar 787 is capable of failure. Planes break. When they break, will our pilots be ready? Scary thought. I don’t think so. If only we could keep experienced pilots around a little bit longer.
Nothing about this accident makes sense. A total electrical failure? Why would that cause the engines to roll back? I don’t know the B787, but other FADEC jets I do know have multiple power sources, including dedicated power supplies driven by the engines themselves. And the captain never said “engine failure”, he said “no thrust” which I think is a different situation – the FADEC commanded flight idle. However, “no thrust” shouldn’t have made the RAT deploy. I don’t personally have a lot of time with auto-throttles, but loss of engine power will always make me push the thrust levers fully forward no matter what. It’s just very hard to think of a single failure mode that explains everything, and very difficult to image situation of multiple independent failures. I think it has to some kind of cascading systems failure that no-one at Boeing, the FAA, GE or anywhere else imagined could happen.
Paul, I don’t think the engines rolled back. I suspect they never had the appropriate amount of power. And I was telling a captain that too, “Engine failure” or “Dual engine failure” is a universal message. The “No thrust” he was saying he didn’t have enough thrust. But that RAT, from the videos, showed it came out, the plane flew by and then climbed. That means it probably was electrical. I think they got distracted and didn’t bring the gear up. Maybe had wrong temp set in the box. And after they brought flaps up that killed their lift. All they had was drag. What is getting me… is the visual of the nose up, and she was moving forward… I call it mushing through the air. If no engines she would have fallen… with the angle of attack nose up… If no engines, they should have pointed nose down and glided to the landing site. Looks like she was trying to fly, angle of attack was enough to keep her going forward, but too much drag pulling her down. Watch the video again and look at the performance of that plane. Gliding is one thing. Planes do that without engines. That was not a glide. And yes… about pushing the thrust levers forward. That should have been instinctive. Thus at what point do you get so behind the power curve and then apply the thrust and it’s too little too late? It’s a mystery. But it’s a plane. If we go back to the basics… what makes a plane fly. What will make it not climb any longer?
I think the major flaw in this theory is that you can clearly see that the trucks were angled upward indicating landing gear had been selected up. And to add to that, the wreckage of the wing has ten flaps and slats deployed.
John, Thanks for the added information. Flaps “10”? The 787 typically uses flaps 5 or 15 for takeoff, depending on factors like runway length, aircraft weight, and weather conditions. The 787-9 and 787-10 have additional flap settings (10, 17, and 18) not found on the 787-8, which can be used for takeoff to enhance performance, particularly at higher weights. The 10 is questioned. This was an older aircraft that would be 5 or 15 for takeoff… Not 10. Thanks for your thoughts. Where did you hear they had flaps ten?
I am a 41+ year DAL avionics mechanic. Retired.
FADEC is a broad term used to describe a compilation of many and varied components and integrated systems in an engine control environment. It is not in and of itself a stand alone entity. In the FADEC environment the are no manual controls available. No “throttle cables”. Thus, the redundancies and failsafes designed into THE FADEC concept are such that total engine control failure…. Let alone both engines simultaneously….is for all intents and purposes a statistical improbability. Given that the 787 is an “electric jet”, the FADEC concept and its inherent redundancies and failsafes is incorporated into the entire aircraft system. This includes the aircraft electrical systems. While your theory of a total electrical failure is certainly plausible, that failure alone would not account for the accident. As you well know, human factors come into play. An “electric jet” in theory reduces crew workload, however, in an extremis situation…..especially during the take off and landing evolutions…..over saturation of information can and does lead to poor decision making, slowed and incoherent actions, and catastrophic outcomes. Again, as you well know, the VR moment does not give a pilot the luxury of time. Only two factors will give a pilot a fighting chance in the event of the extremis situation:
Experience and Training.
As you know……these two essential factors are subject to the whims and vagaries of the economic, regulatory, and cultural environments within which a pilot and his/her passengers find themselves in on any given flight.
The results of the investigation of this accident will be very interesting, as will be the attendant reactions of regulatory agencies and the industry as a whole.
We shall see.
Joe, Thanks for the information. You are so correct… a total electrical failure should not bring down an airplane. But, it could be enough of a distraction that the pilots forgot to bring up the gear. Weight, wrong temp into the computer, flaps up, gear down …that could make a plane not want to fly. And spot on with the “experience and training” comment too. Sadly at our old company, we’re losing the experience and the training was designed for the experienced, not for those who have none. Therefore, I don’t believe it’s enough. Time will tell… on everything. Congratulations on your retirement.
Pictures of the wreckage show both the flaps & slats deployed (at least on the right wing)
Ref: newsx coverage. Please google for the image
Greetings Karlene,
I think you are on to something in regard to the possibility of improper data was input into the flight computer. Miscalculation of density altitude would be an issue with the estimation of 110+ degrees on the runway. I just flew out of Las Vegas when it was 100 degrees. My buddy’s flight was 4 hours delayed due airplane interior cabin temperature of 115! His AA jet was parked at LAS for 2 days. It took maintenance 1.5 hours to get the interior to 100 and another 2 hours to get it to 80 degrees. The ambient temperature (IMHO) has to be a factor and accounted for.
My take on “the real video”. Sure, you can clearly hear the RAT, but shouldn’t we also hear the engines at full thrust too? Pretty quiet there.
Maybe your eyesight is better than mine, but I see flaps deployed. Did they need more? For example, let’s hypothesize that incorrect data into the flight computer led to a lower throttle and flap setting (e.g. 10 degrees when there should have been 20)?
I’ll close with GaryBPilot’s latest via his YouTube channel. He makes a good case for the fuel shutoff valves (FSOVs) closing automatically on the 787 per the design. Something that your Airbus birds would not be susceptible to, due to constant battery power to the FSOVs.
Lastly, he and Captain Steeeve theorize that there was not enough hydraulic power to fully retract the gear and that they believe the pilots tried. The video shows the main gear “tilted toe forward”, which is the last step before the mains swing into the gear bays (the 787 gears go “toes pointed down” for landing).
I will be having dinner with a long time Boeing Engineer in a couple of weeks, and I bet we will talk about this.
Gordon Thanks for your insight! I’ve watched multiple angles, rat down, rat up, flaps down, flaps up, etc… the reality is he said, “No thrust” yes… temperature was part of the issue… but why did they not lower their nose down? Without thrust the only answer is to lower the nose. To fly the plane. Check this out. Yes… check out this post. https://karlenepetitt.com/ai-171-pilot-error/
Thanks Karlene. I just came to know about you. I intend to read your writings. This goes beyond aviation.
Prashant, yes it does. Thank you!