‘Something horrible': Experts analyse Air India crash
Air India Flight 171 crashed into a residential area within seconds of lift-off at Ahmedabad airport, killing 241 on board and others at the crash site.
One passenger miraculously survived after boarding the flight bound for London's Gatwick Airport on Thursday, as speculation mounts over what caused the tragedy.
Keith Tonkin, an aviation consultant, told news.com.au that although the cause was not yet clear, it was obvious that 'something horrible has happened'.
'Whether it's to do with the engines or some other, equipment on the aircraft, it's not really obvious at the moment,' he said.
'The fact that the landing gear was left down tells me that they either did that deliberately or for some reason, didn't have enough time to think of doing that when they probably should have.
'And that could mean that they had other things that they were dealing with at the time.
'So there's a little, little moment in time somewhere between taking off and somewhere in that very short climb out where something horrible is happening that the pilots weren't able to manage.'
Mr Tonkin said the short time frame between take off and the crash was 'very unusual' compared to other air disasters.
'Because it's so close to this time start of the flight,' he said.
'Normally, you have an opportunity when you're taking an aircraft off to stop if it's not working properly.
'And so the pilots have got to a point where they just sort of continue that take off. And very shortly after that, the aircraft has stopped operating as you'd expect it to.
'So everything has been compressed into a very short time frame that you would not normally see.'
Peter Carter, an aviation lawyer, said it did not appear to be an engine failure but was 'likely a case of aircraft configuration and the physics of airspeed, lift and drag'.
'The first thing that needs to be determined is whether the pilot chose an intersection departure rather than backtracking on the runway to make use of its full length of 3,500m.
He said Flight Radar 24 appeared to show the aircraft did not backtrack to use the full length of the runway, which could have meant 'it did not have sufficient speed to safely 'rotate' and lift off by the time it arrived at the runway's end'.
But, he added, it was possible this was an error by the flight tracking software.
'It also appears from the video that the landing gear was still in the 'down' position at a height it would normally be retracted so as to reduce drag and assist the aircraft's climb.
'And from the video it's unclear whether the flaps were in the takeoff position as they were required to be, so as to increase the lift on the wings during the initial climb.'
Chrystal Zhang, from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, said that based on the footage she did not believe the crash was caused by a bird strike – as has been speculated.
'There are some facts that perhaps we cannot deny,' she said.
'The weather is clear, so it's good for takeoff. There is nothing hindering the aircraft from taking off.
'So weather wise, perhaps, is being ruled out at this stage.
'So in that case, the focus is really to understand how the pilots are operating and whether there are any other issues.'
Although global air safety records are improving, Ms Zhang said some countries were still catching up.
'There has been some report saying that the air safety record in India had been experiencing issues and problems,' she said.
'In particular with increasing demand with the increase of the middle class and also the emergence of the low-cost carriers.'
Tourism expert David Beirman said it was important to put the incident into context, saying, 'air travel statistically is probably the safest way to travel anywhere in the world'.
'So when you have an air crash off of the scale that that happened last night, it becomes big news because it is very rare that that such a such an incident occurs,' he said.
'From everything that's been said so far, it seems to have been a mechanical problem in the plane, which is very, very rare.
'The pilot was incredibly experienced, so I think it had 8000 hours or something.'
Dr Beirman said it was a 'terrible tragedy' but a 'very unusual' incident.
'So I don't think it actually compromises the safety of the air travel as a whole, but it certainly will be a big question for Air India, who I'm sure will be investigating this one very carefully.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
8 hours ago
- News.com.au
Bali chopper crash victims release shocking new footage, claim operator abandoned medical bills
Aussie miner Russell Harris has described the spine-tingling moment he thought he was 'about to die in a fireball' after a terrifying helicopter joy ride in Bali a year ago. Mr Harris and partner Keylla from Indonesia chose to relive the traumatic experience on the one-year anniversary for a grim reason: they feel abandoned by the operator who was on the hook for their medical recovery costs. The pair alleged on 9 News on Friday night that the operator, PT. Whitesky Aviation stopped paying their medical bills after just three months despite an agreement to do so long-term. They also used the occasion to share footage from inside the chopper, capturing the 300 metre fall from the sky after the aircraft struck a ceremonial kite that is common in Bali's skies. Five people were on board, including two Australian tourists and three Indonesian nationals, and all survived. Authorities have launched an investigation and are reviewing kite�flying regulations near airports and flight paths in Bali to prevent similar incidents in the future. Early investigations confirmed that the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X became entangled in a kite string, causing its rotor blades to jam and forcing a crash just minutes after takeoff near Suluban Beach in Pecatu Village, South Kuta. PT Whitesky Aviation (operating as Bali Heli Tour) also acknowledged that the incident occurred when the helicopter's rotor got wrapped in a kite string. Government and aviation authorities used the incident to strengthen safety protocols and regulations, particularly rules on kite-flying near airports and aviation flight paths. But recounting the moment the chopper struck the ground a year on, Mr Harris said, 'I'm upside down. I cannot release myself. I cannot get out. I'm trying for all my life because all I'm looking at is this fluid dripping in front of me.' 'I'm thinking, 'I've survived before, but now I'm about to die in a fireball.' The pair detailed the importance of the ongoing medical expenses the operator has allegedly agreed to cover. 'If they stuck to their agreement and we got the right treatment that we're supposed to get, would we be sitting here in a comfortable state? Absolutely,' Mr Harris said Keylla told the program, 'since the accident. I can't work, I can't even take care of my kids. So these people need to know that our life is totally messed up.' PT. Whitesky Aviation, which hasn't responded to the claims, still operates scenic flights in Bali.

ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
Washington DC crash investigation shows chopper flying above altitude limit
Investigators probing the January midair collision of a passenger plane and a US army helicopter over Washington that killed 67 people have found the chopper was flying higher than it should have been and its altitude readings were inaccurate. The details came out of the first day of National Transportation Safety Board hearings, chaired by Jennifer Homendy, in Washington, where investigators aim to uncover insights into what caused the crash between the American Airlines plane from Wichita, Kansas, and the Black Hawk helicopter over Ronald Reagan National Airport. The board opened the three days of hearings by showing an animation and playing audio and video from the night of the collision, as well as questioning witnesses and investigators about how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the army may have contributed to the nation's deadliest plane crash since November 2001. The board's final report will not be released until sometime next year, but it became clear on Wednesday how small a margin of error there was for helicopters flying the route the Black Hawk took the night of the nation's crash. The January night-time incident was the first in a string of crashes and near misses this year that have alarmed officials and the travelling public, despite statistics that still show flying remains the safest form of transportation. The hearing opened on Wednesday with a video animation showing where the helicopter and airliner were leading up to the collision. It showed how the helicopter flew above the 200 feet (61 metres) altitude limit on the helicopter route along the Potomac River before colliding with the plane. Investigators said the flight data recorder showed the helicopter was actually 80 to 100 feet higher than the barometric altimeter the pilots relied upon showed they were flying. So the NTSB conducted tests on three other helicopters from the same unit in a flight over the same area and found similar discrepancies in their altimeters. Sikorsky Aircraft's Dan Cooper said when the Black Hawk helicopter involved in the crash was designed in the 1970s, it used a style of altimeter that was common at the time. Newer helicopters have air data computers that did not exist back then that helped provide more accurate altitude readings. Chief Warrant Officer Kylene Lewis told the board that she would not find a 80 to 100 feet discrepancy between the different altimeters on a helicopter alarming because at lower altitudes she would be relying more on the radar altimeter than the barometric altimeter. Below 500 feet, Ms Lewis said she would be checking both instruments and cross-referencing them. She said as long as an altimeter registered an altitude within 70 feet of the published altitude before take-off, the altimeter was considered accurate under the checklists. Army officials said a discrepancy of 70 feet to 100 feet between the Black Hawk's altimeters was within the acceptable range because pilots were expected to maintain their altitude plus or minus 100 feet. The greater concern is that the FAA approved routes around Reagan airport that included such small separation distances between helicopters and planes when planes were landing. "The fact that we have less than 500 foot separation is a concern for me," said Scott Rosengren, chief engineer in the office that manages the army's utility helicopters. But Rosengren said that "if he was king for a day" he would immediately retire all the older Black Hawk models like the one involved in this crash and replace them with newer versions of the helicopters. Army officials and the head of a local medevac helicopter company that flies around Washington told the board they believed air traffic controllers would never let them fly the helicopter route involved in the crash anytime a plane was approaching the runway. Chief Warrant Officer David Van Vechten said after the crash, he talked to many of his fellow pilots and everyone had the same assumption that controllers would never allow them to fly across the path of the runway the American plane was approaching before the crash. Citing the numbers for runways, Mr Van Vetchen said that "100 per cent of the time when I was on route four and 33/15 was active" he would be instructed to hold until after the plane landed or took off from that runway. During the two minutes before the crash, one air traffic controller was directing airport traffic and helicopters in the area, a task that involved speaking to or receiving communications from several different aircraft, according to the NTSB's History of Flight Performance Study. The air traffic controller had spoken to or received communications from the Black Hawk helicopter, an airplane that was taking off, an Air Force helicopter, an airplane on the ground, a medical helicopter and an inbound flight that was not the American Airlines plane that would crash. "All aircraft could hear the controller, but helicopters could only hear other helicopters on their frequency and airplanes only other airplanes," the report stated. "This resulted in a number of stepped on transmissions as helicopters and airplanes were not aware when the other was communicating." Stepped on transmissions are those that are unheard or blocked because of other transmissions. The NTSB report provides a list of 29 separate communications between the airport tower and other aircraft during approximately the 1 minute and 57 seconds before the collision. Previously disclosed air traffic control audio had the helicopter pilot telling the controller twice that they saw the airplane and would avoid it. Officials on Wednesday also raised the use of night vision goggles, which limit the wearer's field of view, on the helicopter as a factor. The animation ended with surveillance video showing the helicopter colliding with the plane in a fiery crash. Investigations have already shown the FAA failed to recognise a troubling history of 85 near misses around Ronald Reagan National Airport in the years before the collision, and that the army's helicopters routinely flew around the nation's capital with a key piece of locating equipment, known as ADS-B Out, turned off. US senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, introduced legislation on Tuesday to require all aircraft operators to use both forms of ADS-B, or Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, the technology to broadcast aircraft location data to other planes and air traffic controllers. Most aircraft today are equipped with ADS-B Out equipment, but the airlines would have to add the more comprehensive ADS-B In technology to their planes. The legislation would revoke an exemption on ADS-B transmission requests for Department of Defense aircrafts. National Transportation Safety Board chair Ms Homendy said her agency had been recommending that move for decades after several other crashes. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that while he would like to discuss "a few tweaks," the legislation was "the right approach." He also suggested that the previous administration "was asleep at the wheel" amid dozens of near-misses in the airspace around Washington's airspace. AP

Daily Telegraph
24-07-2025
- Daily Telegraph
Plane carrying 49 passengers crashes in Russia's far east
Don't miss out on the headlines from World. Followed categories will be added to My News. A passenger plane carrying nearly 50 people crashed in a remote spot in Russia's far eastern region of Amur on Thursday, with no immediate signs of survivors, authorities said. The aircraft, a twin-propeller Antonov-24 operated by Angara Airlines, was headed to the town of Tynda from the city of Blagoveshchensk when it disappeared from radar at around 1:00 pm local time (0400 GMT). A rescue helicopter later spotted the burning fuselage of the plane on a forested mountain slope about 16 kilometres (10 miles) from Tynda. Videos published by Russian investigators showed what appeared to be columns of smoke billowing from the wreckage of the plane in a dense, forested area. Rescuers in the helicopter saw no evidence of survivors, local rescuers said, as the Amur region's civil defence agency said it was dispatching a ground team to the scene. 'At the moment, 25 people and five units of equipment have been dispatched, and four aircraft with crews are on standby,' it said. The forest terrain has made getting to the site difficult, a rescuer told the state TASS news agency. 'The main search operations are being conducted from the air,' they said. Angara Airlines, a small regional carrier based in the Russian city of Irkutsk, made no immediate public comment. This video grab from a handout footage released by the Eastern Interregional Directorate for Transport of the Russian Investigative Committee on July 24, 2025, (Photo by Handout / Investigative Committee of Russia / AFP) Plane attempted 'second landing' The plane was carrying 43 passengers and six crew members on board, according to the region's governor Vassily Orlov. Among the passengers were five children, he said. Russia's state TASS news agency, citing emergency services, said the plane was carrying 40 passengers and six crew. The plane crashed while attempting a second approach to Tynda airport, Russia's Far Eastern Transport Prosecutor's Office said. 'While approaching Tynda Airport, the aircraft went around for a second landing, after which contact was lost,' it said. 'The circumstances are being investigated,' it said. It did not make any immediate comment on what caused the crash. The state TASS news agency reported that the plane was manufactured almost 50 years ago. 'In 2021, the aircraft's airworthiness certificate was extended until 2036,' it reported, citing a source in aviation services. AFP was not able to immediately verify this information. The Antonov-24 is a popular, Soviet-designed twin-propeller plane that first entered into service in 1959. Russia has taken steps to switch from Soviet aircraft to modern jets in recent years, but ageing light aircraft are still widely used in far-flung regions, with accidents being frequent. Originally published as Plane carrying 49 passengers crashes in Russia's far east