There don't appear to be any hazardous meteorological conditions obviously present at the time of the accident, as far as I can discern  - no active thunderstorms in the area and no obvious signs of severe wind shear that would then impact aircraft operations. 

The only additional issue is that the relatively high temperature at the time (37C) with light surface winds, plus the long distance the aircraft was travelling (non-stop to London) would have meant the aircraft would have been very heavy because of carrying maximum fuel (and a full load of passengers, it seems) and would have needed maximum runway length and maximum lift capability to get airborne.

Hot conditions can cause extra strain on aircraft under such conditions. 

The additional, possibly relevant, feature is that it appears the flaps were retracted at only 600ft after take off, reducing lift when the aircraft (under such hot conditions and at maximum weight) would have needed all the lift it could get.  

Perhaps this combination of conditions, especially the worrying image of retracted flaps so early after take off in such conditions, contributed to the accident. 

Safety expert Sidney Dekker has previously described accident investigation as being like a tunnel, and at this point in time, we're all standing outside the tunnel going, oh, what did they do? Why did they do that? Whereas the only way to understand an accident is to go down the tunnel with the crew and work out what was going on from their perspective. So until we can go down the tunnel with the crew and find out what decisions they were making, we won't know what happened.

The way it works, in Dekker's analogy, is that once you make one decision, the tunnel narrows, and it's very hard at any point to say, do I need to make other decisions here? Because one decision leads to the next. So until we can know what the tunnel looked like for them, then I think it's difficult to make any comments about what happened.

We can only speculate at this stage, from the video and other information at hand, what the cause of the accident of Flight AI171was.  What is apparent though, is that the configuration of the aircraft at the time of the accident, either engine thrust or aerodynamic, was not sufficient to keep the aircraft airborne.  The B787 has very powerful engines and can easily operate if one engine fails, so for this accident to occur, we would be looking at a very rare double engine failure.  This could occur from fuel exhaustion (very unlikely given the explosion and phase of flight), fuel contamination, bird strikes (miracle of the Hudson) or some form mode error or ACFS problem associated with the auto throttles. 

As far as aerodynamic misconfiguration goes, it is unusual to see the gear down at that stage of flight; it is usually the first thing to retract after becoming airborne, so why is it down?  Aircrew have been known in the past to retract the flap instead of the gear by mistake.  This, in the early stages of flight, can lead to a significant loss of lift which can lead to an accident.

This is a very tragic disaster, and aircraft accidents during takeoff are extremely rare. The most probable scenario appears to be the failure of both engines, which is a very uncommon occurrence in aviation. Aircraft accidents typically result from either human error or mechanical failure - these are the two main contributors.

While the pilot was very experienced, which tends to rule out pilot error, we cannot determine the cause without thorough investigation. Teams from the UK, US and India will be working on this case to understand what happened.

From a safety and risk perspective, aviation maintains some of the highest safety protocols in industry, alongside the nuclear sector. There is ongoing discussion around condition-based maintenance rather than just regular scheduled maintenance, which helps with better identification of problems and early detection of faults.

The goal is always to minimise the chance of accidents and make them as close to zero as possible. With access to data and advanced monitoring systems, we have opportunities to make continuous improvements in safety aspects across different sectors, including aviation.

Surviving a disaster can be a deeply challenging experience, characterised by intense emotional and psychological reactions. It’s a process that can take time, and survivors may experience a range of emotions, from grief and anxiety to feelings of loss and uncertainty. 

Most people recover after disasters by drawing on their own strengths and the support of others, and most will gradually rebuild their lives and achieve a sense of wellbeing again. Being a sole survivor of a disaster is an incredibly challenging experience marked by a complex blend of physical and psychological trauma. Sole survivors may experience intense grief, survivor guilt, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and difficulty adjusting to a new reality after witnessing immense loss.

So many unfair expectations can be placed on the survivors’ shoulders – Did they live for a reason? Why did they live when so many others died?  The pressure placed on them can make them withdraw from their life and not want to be found by the public or the victims’ families. Long-term outcomes for survivors of mass shootings are improved with the help of community connections and continuing access to mental health support.

The Air India plane crash is regrettable and an unfortunate tragedy in the aviation industry – my deepest sympathy is with those affected.

The Boeing 787 likely experienced a significant loss of lift, which is necessary to maintain flight, ultimately leading to a loss of altitude and resulting in the crash. During take-off, there is minimal altitude, hence limited time to react and overcome any potential issues.

The loss of lift is likely due to the plane's inability to sustain the needed speed to climb. If this was caused by engine failure, bird strike is a likely cause. The loss of one engine means the plane is not able to maintain the speed needed to keep it in the air to continue its climb.

Based on the video footage available, the aircraft appears to be flying normally but is not gaining altitude during takeoff. Recent reports indicate the pilots reported lacking engine power during the attempted takeoff, which is consistent with the aircraft's behaviour visible in the footage.

An aircraft of this type should have the capability of taking off with a single engine - even if one engine failed, they should be able to safely take off. This suggests we're likely seeing a potential double engine failure, which is extremely rare in the aerospace industry.

I would expect this highlights an environmental cause rather than an engine or maintenance issue. It would be very unusual for two engines on the same aircraft to be on the exact same maintenance schedule, making simultaneous mechanical failure unlikely.

There have been reports about bird strikes, which would be consistent with this type of scenario. We've seen similar situations before, such as the Miracle on the Hudson incident in New York. However, this particular airport is densely populated around its perimeter, which means the pilots likely didn't have the opportunity to find a safe landing area.

There will be an extensive investigation to determine what went wrong and prevent similar incidents - that's how the aerospace industry continuously improves safety.
 

We woke to the tragic news of an Air India crash in Ahmedabad, India. Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner bound for London Gatwick, went down shortly after takeoff, crashing into a residential area within 60 seconds of departure. Shocking footage circulating on social media shows the aircraft struggling to gain altitude before impact. According to FlightRadar24, the aircraft failed to reach 625 feet and reportedly declared an emergency shortly before crashing.

Video evidence also suggests the landing gear remained extended—an unusual condition, as gear is typically retracted moments after liftoff. This raises several possibilities. Could it have been a dual engine failure due to bird strike, as in the Hudson River ditching? A flap misconfiguration like the LAPA Flight 3142 crash in 1999? Or perhaps a weather or operational issue that impaired climb performance?

Remarkably, one passenger seated in row 11 reportedly survived with minimal injuries. How is this possible? We don’t yet know.

India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, with support from the U.S. NTSB and U.K. AAIB, is leading the investigation. A preliminary report is expected within 30 days, with the final report due within 12 months, as per ICAO Annex 13 guidelines for aviation accident investigations.

Commercial aviation is very well protected (with multiple redundancies, layers of defence, procedures) against the deleterious effects of single errors or failures. Accidents are the result of a line-up or concatenation of multiple causes and contributors, all necessary and only jointly sufficient to push a system over the edge into catastrophe.
 
The inability to gain adequate height after take-off can have a number of reasons, related to for instance the inability of the engines to produce adequate thrust (which itself can have a host of different reasons) or the configuration of the airframe/wings/wingflaps, or a combination of both (which itself can once again have a number of reasons).
 
Investigations take time and often prove initial speculations wrong. 

While the full circumstances surrounding Air India flight AI171, operated by a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, are still emerging, we must refrain from speculation and wait for investigators to conduct a thorough, evidence-based review.
 
My deepest thoughts are with the families and loved ones affected by this tragedy.  

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner entered service in 2011 and is a technologically advanced long-haul aircraft operated by airlines such as Qantas and Jetstar globally. It features a carbon fibre composite fuselage, highly fuel-efficient engines, and advanced safety redundancies, including real-time systems monitoring and enhanced flight control protections designed to assist crews in complex scenarios. 

Incidents involving modern commercial aircraft are rare. When they do occur, they are rigorously investigated by independent safety bodies. The aviation industry operates under some of the world's most stringent safety regulations. 

As confronting as this event is, it is through careful investigation and shared learning that the aviation sector continues to improve.

Whilst the exact circumstances of the Air India Flight 171 crash are not known, what we can be sure of is that multiple contributory factors will have interacted to create the incident. Though there is often a strong focus on the flight crew and their behaviour in the immediate aftermath of such incidents, we also typically see contributory factors relating to the aircraft and its design, airports and air traffic controllers, the airline and its policies, procedures, and processes (e.g., training, maintenance, risk assessment), the aircraft manufacturer, regulatory bodies, and government to name only a few.

In the case of Air India Flight 171, whilst there are some early indicators of what may have happened, it is important to let the investigation take its course. This will be exhaustive, will adopt a systems thinking perspective, and will be underpinned by a no-blame approach.

Critically, rather than seeking to identify ‘human errors’ which are misleading and often prevent learning, the investigation will seek to understand why the flight crew’s actions made sense to them at the time. This perspective will enable us to understand the full network of contributory factors involved and will reveal how the overall aviation system failed.

Obviously, air accident investigation is a data-driven exercise and until the flight data recordings are analysed it's impossible to give any definitive answers.

"I have looked at the data available on FlightRadar24 which shows the aircraft reached 675ft above ground level. The rate of climb appears lower than normal (approximately half as much as the flight the previous day) which could be caused by a number of factors:

• Engine power loss - the pilots monitor engine power carefully during take-off and could reject the take off if there was a problem. This does not seem to have been the case here as take off was continued and the aircraft rotated and began to climb out.
• Flap setting - an incorrect flap setting could compromise climb out performance. Retracting the flaps too early can cause loss of lift. The data recordings will show exactly what happened with the flaps.
• Undercarriage - if the undercarriage failed to retract then this would cause excess drag and loss of lift. Again, this will be shown on the flight data recorder.

"This aircraft appears to have had a normal take off roll but something has compromised the climb out performance. This might be something to do with the undercarriage and/or the flaps or something else entirely (e.g. Bird strike although a double strike affecting both engines is extremely rare).

"Air transport is exceedingly safe with very few accidents. The majority of these do occur on either take off or landing.

"Horrific events like this can make air travel appear less safe but these events are exceedingly rare and NZ and Pacific journalists should know that airlines in this region have some of the best safety records in the world.