Could Both Engines Go Idle Mid-Air? AI-171 Crash Raises Tough Questions

Among the most debated possibilities is a potential electrical failure in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner—an aircraft known for its "more-electric" architecture, which replaces many conventional hydraulic and pneumatic systems with advanced electrical systems.

author-image
PratidinTime News Desk
New Update
Air India Tragedy: US to Help Decode Boeing 787 Disaster in Ahmedabad

Could Both Engines Go Idle Mid-Air? AI-171 Crash Raises Tough Questions

As investigations into the tragic crash of Air India Flight AI-171 continue, a number of competing theories have surfaced regarding the possible cause of the disaster that killed 231 people, sparing only one survivor. Among the most debated possibilities is a potential electrical failure in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner—an aircraft known for its "more-electric" architecture, which replaces many conventional hydraulic and pneumatic systems with advanced electrical systems.

Advertisment

A video released recently shows the aircraft gaining speed for take-off before a sudden "boom" was heard by the sole survivor, indicating a possible engine failure. However, aviation experts argue that a single engine failure in a twin-engine aircraft like the Boeing 787 would not typically result in a crash. This raises the pressing question: What else went wrong?

Dual Engine Failure or Electrical System Malfunction?

Dual engine failures are exceedingly rare, with only seven known cases globally over the past 70 years. Most of those were caused by bird strikes, incorrect engine shutdowns, or fuel contamination. In the case of AI-171, bird strike has been largely ruled out, prompting experts to look elsewhere.

Several experienced pilots now suspect a possible failure in the aircraft’s electrical systems, specifically the Variable Frequency Starter Generators (VFSGs). These components are critical for both starting the engines and supplying electrical power during flight.

A senior Airbus commander familiar with Boeing operations suggested that a failure or electrical isolation of one or more VFSGs during take-off could have led to a loss of engine control, especially if the Electronic Engine Controllers (EECs)—the aircraft's throttle computers—also failed. “If both the engines and the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) disconnect from the electrical system, the EECs may stop controlling thrust,” he said. “Even if the engines are technically running, they may be stuck at idle with no way to increase power.”

However, experts also pointed out that the APU takes nearly 90 seconds to spool up to the required RPM, and since the AI-171 incident unfolded in just 32 seconds, there was likely no time for backup systems to engage.

Was the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) Deployed?

Another theory gaining attention revolves around the possible deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—a small wind-powered device that deploys in emergencies to provide limited electrical power for flight controls. A few pilots reviewing footage of the crash have noted what appears to be a small black patch beneath the aircraft, which they speculate could be the RAT.

However, unlike the APU, the RAT does not generate enough power to maintain safe flight or restart engines. If deployed, it may suggest a total or near-total electrical failure, forcing the aircraft to rely on emergency power to maintain minimal control.

Other Theories: Startle Effect, Flap Retraction, or Load Error?

Psychological responses and human error are also part of the ongoing analysis. Some experts believe that the startle effect—a pilot’s involuntary response to sudden, high-stress events—may have led to operational mistakes. For instance, flaps might have been retracted instead of the landing gear, reducing lift at a critical moment. Still, with one engine operational, the plane should have been able to climb out safely, experts say.

There’s also speculation that cargo overloading may have played a role. Aviation safety expert Capt Amit Singh pointed out that the aircraft used an unusually long take-off roll, which could suggest excess weight. “If the aircraft was overloaded and then suffered an engine failure, maintaining altitude would have been nearly impossible,” he stated.

Another senior pilot raised concerns about a potential fuel weight entry error. He theorized that pilots may have mistakenly entered the aircraft’s zero fuel weight, ignoring the 50-60 tons of fuel onboard. This would result in thrust settings too low for the aircraft’s actual weight. However, a B787 commander refuted this, noting that the aircraft’s sensors would have detected the actual weight and alerted the pilots accordingly.

No Consensus Yet, But Focus Shifts to Systems

While the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has yet to issue an official cause, safety directives issued just a day after the crash hint at preliminary findings that point to an electrical malfunction. This has led pilots to reevaluate assumptions about the Boeing 787’s reliance on electrically powered systems.

“There’s no consensus,” said a senior commander. “But the electrical failure theory is gaining ground, especially in the context of the 787’s architecture. This wasn’t just a mechanical failure—this might have been a systems failure.”

As investigations continue, families and the aviation community await clarity on what exactly led to the horrifying chain of events that brought down AI-171 within seconds of take-off. The answers may lie deep within the Dreamliner’s electric heart.

Also Read: Air India Tragedy: 72 Hours On, No Answers for Families of Crash Victims

Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) Boeing Air India Flight AI171 Crash