Following the Air India Boeing 787-8 crash the Internet has been swirling with misinformation about the safety of the Boeing 787-8 family. Some have suggested the former Boeing employees had alerted on technical deficiencies that went unheeded, and their prognosis could be unfolding now in the form of preventable accidents.
Others have based their allegations on what was said by the sole survivor of the Indian Air crash while others have pointed an accusing finger on regional terrorists or environmental factors such as birds damaging the engines to pitch their tents.
This article revisits all of these contrarian speculations, and draw up likely Scenarios based on information available. This discussion will also consider whether the ATCL few dream liner of the same family could also be affected. Here is the exploration. Enjoy.
ATCL 786-8 DREAMLINER FLEET.
Air Tanzania (ATCL) acquired its fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners gradually, with the first one delivered on July 8, 2018. Subsequently, a second Dreamliner was added on October 26, 2019. The airline recently acquired a third 787-8 Dreamliner on August 20, 2024, further expanding its long-haul capabilities.
Here’s a more detailed timeline:
- July 8, 2018: ATCL took delivery of its first Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
- October 26, 2019: ATCL received its second Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
- August 20, 2024: ATCL acquired its third Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, named “The Great Serengeti Migration”.
- Key Details:-
Model: 787-8 (the smallest variant of the Dreamliner family).
– Delivery:
Acquisitions of Dreamliner 787-8 was part of ATCL’s fleet modernization.
What caused Air India – Dreamliner 787-8 to crash?
An Air India flight crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad in northwest India on Thursday afternoon local time, killing more than 260 people.
The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, Flight AI171, was carrying 242 people bound for London. Only one passenger, a British man, survived.
The cause of the Air India Flight AI171 Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crash on June 12, 2025, is under active investigation, with no definitive conclusion yet. However, based on preliminary evidence and expert analysis from the search results, the following factors are being scrutinized:
⚙️ 1. Engine Failure and Thrust Issues.
– The aircraft struggled to gain altitude immediately after takeoff, reaching only 625 feet before descending. Experts observed a potential “significant loss of thrust,” which could cause a stall due to insufficient lift .
– Double engine failure is a leading theory. Possible causes include:
– Bird strikes:
Ahmedabad airport has a high incidence of bird strikes (462 incidents in 5 years), and warm temperatures increase bird activity. A loud noise reported by the survivor seconds after takeoff supports this.
– Fuel contamination/clogging:
Blocked fuel systems could starve engines, though this is rare.
– Engine manufacturer GE Aerospace is assisting the investigation.
✈️ 2. Aircraft Configuration Errors.
– Flap deployment:
Suspected improper flap settings during takeoff, critical for generating lift. High temperatures (~40°C) in Ahmedabad demanded higher flap settings, but visual evidence is inconclusive. The 787’s warning system should alert pilots to such errors.
– Landing gear anomaly:
Footage showed the landing gear extended during flight, unusual for post-takeoff phases. This could indicate hydraulic or system failures.
👨✈️ 3. Human or Maintenance Factors.
– Pilot error:
Despite both pilots being highly experienced, potential misconfiguration of thrust or flaps is under review. The mayday call was issued immediately after takeoff, leaving minimal reaction time.
– Maintenance lapses:
India’s regulator ordered urgent safety checks on Air India’s 787 fleet, including engine power verification and flight control inspections. Past whistleblower allegations about Boeing 787 assembly defects (e.g., debris in components) are also noted, though unlinked to this crash.
🌍 4. External and Unlikely Factors.
– Sabotage/terrorism:
Political tensions in Gujarat prompted consideration of foul play, but no evidence supports this.
– Structural issues:
The 11-year-old aircraft had 41,000 flight hours. While Boeing faces scrutiny over past safety crises (e.g., 737 Max), the 787-8 had a flawless safety record until this crash.
🔍 Investigation Progress.
– Black boxes:
The flight data recorder (FDR) was recovered; the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) remains missing. FDR analysis will reveal engine performance, flap positions, and system warnings.
– International involvement:
Teams from India’s AAIB, U.S. NTSB, and UK AAIB are collaborating. A preliminary report is expected in 30 days, but final conclusions may take 1–2 years.
– Regulatory actions:
India may ground its 787-8 fleet pending the investigation. Air India was ordered to conduct engine power checks within two weeks.
💎 Key Flight Details.
| No. | Detail. | Information. |
| 1.0 | Flight Number. | AI171 (Ahmedabad to London Gatwick). |
| 2.0 | Date/Time. | June 12, 2025; 13:39 local time. |
| 3.0 | Aircraft. | Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner (delivered to Air India in 2014). |
| 4.0 | Occupants. | 242 onboard (241 fatalities); additional ground casualties. |
| 5.0 | Survivor. | 1 passenger (seat 11A, near emergency exit). |
| 6.0 | Critical Findings. | Mayday call at takeoff; crashed at 625 ft altitude within 30 seconds. |
Conclusion
While engine failure (potentially from bird strikes) and configuration errors (e.g., flaps, landing gear) are primary focuses, the investigation must integrate black box data, wreckage analysis, and maintenance records. Until then, all theories remain speculative. This is the first fatal crash of a 787 Dreamliner since its 2011 debut, intensifying global scrutiny on Boeing and Air India’s safety protocols.
What is the relevance of a sole survivor who alleged malfunctions prior to departure?
The sole survivor of the Air India Flight AI171 crash, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh (a British national in seat 11A), holds significant relevance to the investigation, but there is no evidence from the search results that he alleged malfunctions prior to departure.
His relevance stems from his eyewitness account of the crash sequence and survival, which provides critical clues for investigators. Here’s a breakdown of his relevance:
1. Eyewitness Account of the Crash Sequence.
Ramesh described key events during the flight’s final moments:
– The aircraft seemed to “come to a standstill midair” shortly after takeoff.
– Cabin lights (green and white) activated, followed by increased engine thrust before the plane plummeted.
– He observed crew members and passengers dying during the impact, confirming rapid cabin decompression or structural failure.
This timeline aligns with the CCTV footage showing the plane ascending, stalling, and crashing, supporting theories like engine failure or aerodynamic stall.
2. Survival Location and Evacuation Dynamics.
– Ramesh’s seat (11A) was an emergency exit row near the wing. His escape through a broken hatch after the fuselage struck a building’s ground floor highlights:
– The role of exit accessibility in survival.
– The crash’s impact angle:
His side of the plane was exposed, while the opposite side was crushed against a wall, trapping others.
– Studies note that proximity to exits improves survival odds, making his experience crucial for future safety designs.
3. Discrediting Pre-Departure Malfunction Theories.
– Ramesh did not report pre-flight issues. His account begins *after* takeoff, focusing on in-flight anomalies (e.g., stalling, lights).
– Allegations of pre-existing technical problems (e.g., Boeing 787 manufacturing defects raised by whistleblower Sam Salehpour) remain separate from Ramesh’s testimony. Investigators are reviewing maintenance records, not survivor claims, for pre-departure failures.
4. Psychological and Investigative Utility.
– As the only passenger survivor, his description of crew actions and passenger reactions aids in reconstructing human factors (e.g., pilot responses, emergency protocols).
– His statement about unbuckling and escaping underscores potential flaws in evacuation training or cabin design.
5. Symbolic and Mediated Significance.
– Dubbed the “miracle of seat 11A” in media, his survival underscores randomness in aviation disasters, countering deterministic safety narratives.
– His meeting with Prime Minister Modi amplified public attention, pressuring authorities for transparent investigation updates.
Key Takeaways.
Ramesh’s relevance lies in his **real-time observations during the crash**—not pre-flight allegations. His account directly informs inquiries into “engine performance, crew response, and evacuation efficacy”. While whistleblower claims about Boeing’s 787 technical issues are part of the broader investigation, they are unrelated to the survivor’s testimony. The integrity of his account will be scrutinized against black box data once recovered.
Do Boeing Whistle-blower collaborate with potential reasons for the crash?
The warnings from Boeing whistleblowers “do not establish a direct causal link” to the Air India Flight AI171 crash (June 12, 2025), but their allegations about “structural flaws, production shortcuts, and safety culture failures” align with potential factors under investigation. Here’s how their concerns intersect with the crash inquiry:
🔍 1. Structural Integrity: Fuselage “Gaps” and Premature Fatigue.
– Whistleblower Sam Salehpour (a Boeing engineer) alleged in 2024 that improperly filled gaps in the 787’s fuselage joints—caused by workers “jumping on parts” to force alignment—could lead to “catastrophic failure” due to accelerated structural fatigue.
– The FAA had previously halted 787 deliveries (2021–2023) over similar gaps, though Boeing claimed fixes were implemented.
– Relevance to crash:
If fatigue-induced fuselage failure occurred mid-flight, it could explain the sudden loss of control. However, investigators have not yet confirmed structural failure as a factor.
⚠️ 2. Substandard Parts and Oxygen System Failures.
– Whistleblower John Barnett (former quality manager) reported in 2019 that:
– Up to “25% of oxygen masks” on 787s might fail due to defective systems.
– Substandard parts were installed from scrap bins to meet deadlines, risking critical system failures.
– Relevance to crash:
Survivor accounts noted cabin decompression and crew fatalities. Defective oxygen systems could impair crew response during emergencies , though no evidence links this to AI171’s pre-crash sequence.
🏭 3. Production Pressures and Quality Control Lapses,
– Multiple whistleblowers (Salehpour, Barnett, Richard Cuevas) described a “culture of rushing production”, falsifying records, and retaliating against employees who reported defects.
– FAA audits confirmed “gaps” in Boeing’s safety culture and failure to address internal warnings.
– Relevance to crash:
If AI171 had undetected defects (e.g., engine components, flight controls), systemic quality failures could be contributory. The NTSB is reviewing maintenance records.
⚖️ 4. Boeing’s Response and Regulatory Actions.
– Boeing consistently denied whistleblower claims, calling them “inaccurate“.
– Post-crash, the FAA ordered inspections of Air India’s 787 fleet, including “engine thrust tests” and flight control checks.
– Key limitation:
Whistleblower warnings targeted **long-term risks** (e.g., fatigue after thousands of flights), while AI171’s aircraft was 11 years old—potentially within the “risk window“.
🔬 5. **Investigation Status:
No Confirmed Link Yet.
– Investigators prioritize **short-term factors**: engine thrust loss (potentially from bird strikes), flap misconfiguration, or pilot error.
– “Black box data” will determine if structural failure or system malfunctions occurred. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) remains missing.
– Whistleblower claims are part of the broader context but lack direct evidence connecting them to AI171.
💎 Key Observations.
Whistleblower allegations highlight **systemic safety risks** in Boeing’s 787 production that *could theoretically* contribute to a crash. However, their relevance to AI171 remains “speculative pending investigation results”.
If the inquiry reveals fuselage fatigue, defective parts, or oxygen system failures, these warnings may gain retroactive significance. For now, they underscore “long-standing concerns about Boeing’s quality culture” but are not proven causal factors in this tragedy .
Updates will depend on black box analysis and FAA findings, expected within 30 days.
Can ATCL Dreamliners 787-8 potentially face similar crash?
Based on the Air India Flight AI171 crash investigation details and the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner’s broader safety context, “ATCL’s three 787-8 Dreamliner face minimal direct risk of a similar crash”, but systemic factors warrant attention. Here’s a breakdown:
⚙️ 1. Key Risk Factors from the Air India Crash.
– Engine/Thrust Failure:
Investigators suspect dual engine failure (potentially from bird strikes, fuel contamination, or mechanical flaws). Ahmedabad’s high bird-strike frequency (462 incidents in 5 years) was a critical factor.
– Configuration Errors:
Misdeployed flaps or landing gear during takeoff may have contributed, exacerbated by Ahmedabad’s 40°C heat reducing lift.
– Maintenance/Production Issues:
Whistleblower allegations highlighted Boeing’s 787 assembly defects (e.g., structural gaps, debris in components), though no link to this crash is proven.
– Regulatory Gaps:
India’s regulator ordered urgent checks on Air India’s 787 fleet post-crash, including engine thrust tests and flight control inspections.
✈️ 2. ATCL’s Operational Context Mitigates Similar Risks.
– Fleet Size:
ATCL operates only one 787-8 (delivered in 2018), simplifying maintenance oversight vs. Air India’s 27-aircraft fleet.
– Route & Environmental Factors:
Tanzania airports (e.g., Dar es Salaam) lack Ahmedabad’s extreme bird-strike density or 40°C+ takeoff conditions.
– Aircraft Age:
ATCL’s Dreamliner is newer (6–7 years old) vs. Air India’s crashed plane (11 years, 41,000 flight hours).
– Regulatory Scrutiny:
Tanzania’s authorities may impose stricter inspections if global 787 concerns escalate, but no defects are reported in ATCL’s aircraft.
⚠️ 3. Potential Shared Vulnerabilities.
– Boeing’s Systemic Issues:
All 787s face theoretical risks from past production shortcuts (e.g., fuselage gaps, oxygen system flaws alleged by whistleblowers). However, these relate to long-term fatigue, not immediate failure.
– Engine Reliability:
ATCL’s 787-8 uses the same GEnx engines as Air India’s crashed jet. GE Aerospace is now mandating power-assurance checks globally.
– Pilot Training:
Takeoff configuration errors (e.g., flap misuse) require simulator training rigor—unknown if ATCL matches Air India’s protocols.
🔍 4. Investigation Outcomes Will Shape Global 787 Safety.
– “Black Box Data”:
Findings from AI171’s flight recorders (e.g., confirmed engine thrust loss/flap errors) could trigger FAA/ICAO airworthiness directives affecting “all 787 operators”, including ATCL.
– Whistleblower Impact:
If proven, Sam Salehpour’s allegations about 787 structural defects might force fleet-wide inspections, but current probes focus on Air India’s maintenance.
💎 Conclusion: Low Probability, High Vigilance.
ATCL’s Dreamliner is unlikely to replicate this crash given its operational profile and newer airframe. However, the Air India disaster underscores that **all 787 operators must**:
1. Audit engine/fuel systems for contamination risks.
2. Verify flap/landing gear protocols in hot climates.
3. Monitor Boeing’s production quality reforms.
Proactive maintenance and adherence to future FAA/ICAO directives will be critical for ATCL’s safety record.
For real-time updates, track the AI171 investigation via India’s AAIB or Boeing’s technical bulletins.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
