The Air India Fatal Crash: New Evidence and the Role of the RAT

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, met with a catastrophic end shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad International Airport, claiming 241 lives and leaving only one survivor. This tragedy, one of the deadliest in Indian aviation history, initially baffled investigators and the public alike, with early theories pointing to bird strikes, aerodynamic stalls, or pilot error. However, newly surfaced evidence has shifted the narrative, providing a clearer picture of the disaster’s cause. Video footage showing an object protruding from the aircraft’s underside—identified as the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—coupled with the survivor’s account of a loud bang, points to a critical emergency that overwhelmed the plane during its vulnerable takeoff phase.

The Crash: A Brief Overview

Flight AI171 was in the initial climb phase when disaster struck. Departing from Ahmedabad, the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of just 625 feet before it began an uncontrolled descent, crashing into a nearby structure. Of the 242 passengers and crew aboard, only one individual, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, survived—an event dubbed the "miracle of seat 11A." The scale of the loss and the mystery surrounding its cause prompted immediate speculation, but it is the emergence of new evidence that has begun to unravel the sequence of events leading to the crash.

Understanding the Ram Air Turbine (RAT)

To comprehend the significance of the new evidence, it’s essential to understand the Ram Air Turbine, or RAT. The RAT is a small, propeller-like device stored within an aircraft’s fuselage, designed as an emergency backup system. It deploys automatically in situations where the plane experiences a total loss of power—whether from engine failure, electrical system collapse, or hydraulic malfunction. Once extended into the airstream, the RAT’s turbine spins, generating emergency power for critical systems such as flight controls and instrumentation. This allows pilots to maintain limited control of the aircraft, ideally guiding it to a safe landing.

However, the RAT’s effectiveness is heavily dependent on altitude. At cruising levels, pilots have time and space to maneuver and plan an emergency landing. During takeoff, as was the case with Flight AI171, the low altitude—mere hundreds of feet—offers little margin for error or recovery. This limitation is a key factor in understanding why the RAT deployment, while a lifesaving measure in theory, could not avert the tragedy.

New Evidence: Video Footage Reveals the RAT

The breakthrough in the investigation came with the release of a video captured by a CCTV camera near Ahmedabad International Airport. The footage, documenting the final moments of Flight AI171, reveals a striking detail: an object protruding from the bottom of the aircraft shortly after takeoff, accompanied by a slight opening in the fuselage. Aviation experts have unanimously identified this as the RAT, fully deployed mid-flight. The video’s audio further corroborates this finding, capturing a distinct "propeller-type" sound—the unmistakable whir of the RAT’s turbine spinning in the airflow.

This visual and auditory evidence marks a turning point in the investigation. The RAT’s deployment is not a routine occurrence; it signals a dire emergency aboard the aircraft, one severe enough to incapacitate its primary power systems. The fact that this happened during takeoff, when the plane was still climbing and far from a safe altitude, underscores the gravity of the situation the pilots faced.

The Survivor’s Testimony: A Bang Before the Crash

Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, a 40-year-old British national of Indian origin, was seated in 11A, near an emergency exit, when the crash occurred. His survival is attributed to his proximity to a structurally reinforced section of the plane—protected by a bar, one of the strongest parts of the aircraft—which shielded him during the impact. In his account to investigators, Ramesh recalled a critical detail: a loud "bang" moments after takeoff, followed by the plane’s struggle to gain altitude. He also noted the cabin lights flickering and a green light appearing, possibly the emergency lighting system activating.

Ramesh’s description aligns seamlessly with the video evidence. The "bang" he heard is widely believed to be the sound of the RAT deploying from its compartment in the fuselage—a sudden, explosive noise consistent with the device’s rapid extension into the airstream. His testimony provides a rare firsthand perspective, reinforcing the conclusion that the RAT’s activation was a pivotal moment in the flight’s final seconds.

What Triggered the RAT Deployment?

The RAT’s deployment indicates a catastrophic failure, but it does not pinpoint the exact cause. Experts have identified three primary scenarios that could have necessitated its use, each representing a severe emergency:

1. Engine Failure: The simultaneous failure of both engines—though exceedingly rare—would cut power to the aircraft’s systems, prompting the RAT to deploy. Possible triggers include fuel contamination or mechanical faults. While a bird strike could theoretically disable an engine, the absence of bird remains at the crash site or on the runway rules out this as a likely cause for dual engine failure.

2. Electrical Failure: A total collapse of the aircraft’s electrical system, potentially due to a fault in the wiring or a failure of the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), would also trigger the RAT. This would leave the plane without power for instruments and controls, relying solely on the RAT’s limited output.

3. Hydraulic Failure: The hydraulic systems govern the movement of flight surfaces like ailerons, elevators, and rudders. A complete hydraulic failure would render the plane uncontrollable, forcing the RAT to provide emergency hydraulic pressure. However, at low altitude, even this measure would offer little reprieve.

The plane’s low altitude—only 625 feet—compounded the crisis. Unlike at cruising altitude, where pilots might have time to troubleshoot or glide to a runway, the takeoff phase left them with seconds to react. The RAT, while a critical safety feature, was not designed to salvage such a scenario.

Debunking Early Speculations

Before the video evidence emerged, speculation ran rampant about the crash’s cause:

• Bird Strike: A common aviation hazard, bird strikes can damage engines, but they rarely incapacitate both simultaneously, especially at low altitude. The lack of physical evidence—such as bird remains—further diminishes this theory’s credibility.

• Stall: An aerodynamic stall, where the wings lose lift due to insufficient speed or misconfiguration, was another early hypothesis. However, the video shows the plane maintaining forward motion, and the RAT deployment points to a power issue, not a stall.

• Pilot Error: Questions about human factors, such as incorrect flap settings or failure to retract landing gear, were raised initially. Yet, the pilots—Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and co-pilot Clive Kundar—were seasoned professionals with thousands of flight hours. The RAT’s activation suggests an emergency beyond their control, exonerating them from blame.

The new evidence effectively sidelines these theories, redirecting focus to the mechanical or systemic failure indicated by the RAT.

A Tragedy Unraveled

The crash of Air India Flight AI171 stands as a somber chapter in aviation history, marked by the loss of 241 lives and the extraordinary survival of Vishwash Kumar Ramesh. The video footage and survivor testimony have illuminated a critical clue: the deployment of the RAT, a last-ditch effort to regain control amid a devastating power failure. Whether caused by engine, electrical, or hydraulic collapse, the emergency struck at the worst possible moment—during takeoff—leaving the pilots with no viable options.

As investigators continue to probe the precise cause, this new evidence underscores the limitations of even the most advanced safety systems when faced with such unforgiving circumstances. The lessons from Flight AI171 will undoubtedly shape future aviation protocols, aiming to prevent a repeat of this heartbreak. For now, it remains a poignant reminder of the fragility of flight—and the resilience of one survivor who lived to tell the tale.