Understanding the causes of the accident that happened at the Boeing 787 plane in India will be a long company, which will involve many experts. Here, for now, what we know (and what we don’t know).
A Boeing 787-8 Air India Dreamliner, flight to 171, fell a few minutes after take -off from Ahmedabad, causing the death of 241 of the 242 people on board. The only survivor is a passenger sitting in the central section of theairplane. This is the first fatal accident recorded for a 787 family aircraft from its entry into service in 2011.
The Indian Aeronautical Authorities, supported by DA NTSB (the US investigative body for transport safety) e Faa (the American federal agency that regulates civil aviation) are investigating the causes of the accident. However, it should be noted that the reconstruction of a aerial disaster of this scope is a long process, technically complex and entirely entrusted to specialists with rigorous training in engineering aeronauticssecurity of flight and forensic analysis. They will be them, through the examination of black boxesdata radarof the recorders on board and the remains of the aircraft, to determine precisely dynamics And responsibility.
First hypotheses in circulation: some partly plausible, others bizarre
In these hours, however, as usual, they are making their way – in traditional media such as TV and radio, as well as on social networks – the first hypothesis What could have happened on. Some may prove to be plausible, even if only partially, while others have already been denied.
Among the most recurring hypotheses at the moment there is that i flap (the “hypersenters”, the mobile appendices that are extracted to increase to increase the surface from the wings and, consequently, the vertical force that “pulls” the plane upwards, the lift) may not have been extended adequately, drastically reducing the lift same at the time of take -off. In this case the plane may not have had lift enough. It is a little compatible hypothesis with the high level of Boeing 787 technology (in such an eventuality its alarm systems would have been activated) and with the great crew experience.
There are those who point out that the cartin the phases following the detachment from the ground, is still extracted, an element that according to some suggests that the sequence of post-decking has not been completed: It is conceivable that at that moment the crew was taken from the causes of the emergency.
About the video of disasterwe have decided not to show them here: we believe that, in addition to not adding substantial information elements to the reconstruction, their dissemination – especially in the case of rescue films – is read the dignity of the victims. The competent authorities, and is what matters, already have access to all the material useful for the investigation.
Instrumentation of the instrumentation?
Another under examination concerns the determination of the so -called critical speeds. Among these, the V1 – Decision speed: in case of anomaly during the race of take -offThe pilot must read the value of the speed the plane.
-
If the speed is less than V1: in case of anomaly (e.g. engine failure, alarm, something on the track) the pilot owe stop take -off and stop safely on the track.
-
If the speed is greater than V1: in case of serious anomaly, the pilot it must continue the take -off Because there would not be enough track to stop safely.
A (improbable) error in the reading from the speed Or an error in detecting malfunctioning tools may have pushed the pilot to make a wrong decision.
Birds in engines? Other problems?
Some witnesses would report a strong roar immediately after the take -offcompatible with an anomaly ai engineslike a bird strike (“sucked” birds by the engines) or a sudden drop in push. However, no flames or signals typical of these eventualities have been observed. Recall that theairplane it is able to complete the take -off even with a motor in failure (while it is unlikely reasoning that both engines were unusable due to the bird Strike).
Have you been noting before today?
In recent months, some internal figures in Boeing – including engineer Sam Salehpour – had raised worry about potentially critical structural defects in the joints of the fuselage of 787. Salehpour said that some units would have tolerances out specific (in simple words, the dimensions of some components would not be sufficiently accurate) such as to risk progressive failure in flightif not correct. It was not confirmed if the aircraft involved inaccident would be among those inspected or reported.
A relatively recent episode, dating back to March 2024, in Australia, involved a Boeing 787-9 Latam, who suffered a sudden loss of control in flight Due to aanomaly to the system of command. Even if not directly connected to the Indian case, the event has reopened the debate on the reliability of the electrical and electronic systems of the Dreamliner, that, a few years after his debut, he had shown problems at on -board batteries (then resolved).
In recent years Boeing It is under pressure for quality problems that emerged on different models, including 737 Max. The international press speaks of a systemic crisis, which goes beyond the individual accident and invests corporate culture on safety and control.
