6 theories explaining what caused the Air India crash, what raw video shows

It’s been about 96 hours since the Air India crash.

Experts have cited new information from a video that could help establish what brought the 12-year-old Boeing 787‑8 Dreamliner down.

The fully-fuelled jet (tail VT‑ANB, serial no. 36279) was carrying 242 people as it taxied along the runway at Ahmedabad International and took off on June 12, 2025.

Until then, at 13:39 local time (08:09 GMT), the aircraft had a clean service record and about 41,700 flight hours.

Investigators are currently pouring through the ill-fated jet's black box recovered on June 13.

It is being analysed by the India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), with help from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), UK AAIB, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

Multi-theory investigation

India’s Aviation Minister, meanwhile, confirmed the "multi-theory investigation", looking at multiple angles.

Meanwhile, all Boeing 787s in India have been grounded/subjected to safety inspections.

Now, the new video shows prominent indicator: a protrusion underneath the plane's belly: It shows the door that opened to allow the ram air turbine (RAT) to come down.

It’s considered an important piece of evidence, and one important bit of the puzzle.

Given what’s known so far, industry experts and aviation geeks have offered a number of theories to explain what caused the disaster:

This is also known as “dual engine failure” theory. This is based on a 19-second new video that emerged, which investigators could refer to in their post-mortem analysis of the crash. 

There were two main videos: the first one shows the airplane running down the runway and took off before crashing in the distance.

The other video, taken from kind of a rooftop or a window, shows the airplane coming from left to right and then descending down out of the screen before a huge fireball was seen.

Initially, a version of the latter video played up by every major news network was, in fact, a video-of-a-video, with a rather poor quality. 

When the sharper original video emerged, it points to a number of visual and sound indicators that could help probes, which led aviation observers to a possible dual engine failure.

Captain Steve Scheibner, a former US Navy pilot and seasoned aviation analyst, says the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT) on Flight AI-171 Dreamliner is compelling evidence of a catastrophic dual engine failure.

It's considered "game changer" in understanding what may have brought down the aircraft.

As speculations surrounding the Flight AI-171 crash intensify, some experts have focussed on potential electrical system failure in the Boeing 787. 

The aircraft, which uses electrical systems instead of conventional ones. Pilots are exploring if these contributed after a possible engine failure. While jewel engine failure is a rare, that seven 8/7 reliance on electrical systems prompts scrutiny. 

Experts point to the RAT deployment to explain what could have happened – and is considered a key point in the investigation.

The sudden thrust loss was confirmed by an urgent “Mayday” and “loss of power” message from the pilot, as per Aviation Week. 

The black boxes, now recovered, promise clarification.

A catastrophic bird strike is also suspected to have caused the Ahmedabad-to-London Gatwick flight.

Bird strikes are a persistent hazard in aviation, and some experts point to this possibility as a leading cause. A strike involving a flock of birds could have disabled the aircraft’s twin General Electric engines.

Ahmedabad is known for the presence of flocks of birds on the flight path, due to the existence of a slaughterhouse nearby. 

Captain C.S. Randhawa, a Boeing 777 veteran, told The New Indian Express that bird strikes are “the most probable” cause, given that both Ahmedabad and Agra airports are known for high bird activity. Captain Mohan Ranganathan, an aviation safety consultant, echoed the concern, pointing out that bird populations are drawn to nearby slaughterhouses — many allegedly protected due to political ties.

In a notorious 2009 incident, US Airways Flight 1549 lost both engines to a flock of Canada geese, leading to an emergency landing in the Hudson River. While all passengers survived that “Miracle on the Hudson,” the Air India crash ended in tragic loss of life.

What we know so far: Investigators, however, have found no evidence of a bird strike in the wake of the Air India crash.

Related to #1 and #2. Video footage in the seconds prior to the crash appears to show the wing flaps either fully retracted or set to a minimal position — insufficient for the lift typically needed during takeoff.

Wing flaps provide extra lift at lower speeds, especially during takeoff and landing. If retracted or malfunctioning, the aircraft could easily stall. Moreover, the landing gear reportedly remained deployed throughout the incident, which would have increased drag and hindered takeoff.

Aviation expert Terry Tozer told the BBC that the absence of visible flap extension could explain the failed liftoff. Marco Chan, a former pilot and lecturer at Buckinghamshire New University, noted that such a malfunction — if confirmed — could point investigators to a logical conclusion, though current video evidence remains inconclusive.

This theory is based on the videos widely shared on social media. The videos indicated the possibility that the pilots didn’t have the flaps set properly for takeoff.

In other words, the flaps were up and as they ran down the runway they got a little bit of air but eventually the airplane waddled down and crashed because the flaps weren't set properly.

So there was no evidence out of the engines that there was any sort of failure — no fire, no sparks, no smoke coming out of the engines. 

The pilot-error theory seemed most evident initially – because the landing gear stayed down for the entire duration, short as it would be for this flight. 

There was speculation that at the time that the pilot flying (captain) would ask “for gear up”, the other pilot (first officer) mistakenly grabbed the flap handle and prematurely raised the flaps, instead of the landing gear.

Saligram J. Murlidhar, former Deputy Director at India’s National Aerospace Laboratories, pointed out that fuel contamination is a plausible cause for simultaneous thrust loss in both engines. 

With over 35 tonnes of fuel onboard, if it were tainted, “both engines will behave the same way,” preventing sufficient climb rate. India’s official probe, is considering fuel contamination alongside other possible causes.

Fuel contamination has not been ruled out; it remains one of several theories under active review by investigators.

While not directly tied to AI‑171, past incidents like Cathay Pacific Flight 780 (from Surabaya to Hong Kong) illustrate how fuel contamination can impair engine operation. That case involved polymer/lubricant particles causing engine control issues by seizing critical valves.

Questions linger. Why did the 787‑8 Dreamliner fail to retract the landing gear and flaps normally? Why were the gears down, flaps retracted or prematurely up? Why was the RAT deployed?