Air India Ahmedabad-London flight crash

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Possibility of maintenance issues are there, but it spans numerous things.

But if considering FUEL CONTAMINATION then
Our expectation is that when initial contamination builds up,
at an international busy airport where continous refuelling take place,
it should cause engine sputter/stuter/shudder,
that too in multiple jets,
on multiple days & time,
forcing for maintenance,
not a sudden crash only for 1 jet,
that too late at 1:38 pm local time,
It is analogous to us sneezing, coughing & not straight away dropping dead on floor unless we inhaled nerve gas, cyanide, etc.

Common enthusiasts like us consider contamination as water, paste like dirt, some solid particles but not to the limit of 100% blocking valves, filters, etc, so rapidly in short time, causing complete loss of thrust & crash a vehicle.

In a default scenario, there are S.O.P.s & ISO standards to follow, multiple quality checks, quick checks & elaborated checks.
+ we would expect many filters & quality checks at every step used while transfering fuel from beginning till end -
- refinery to transport tanker
- transport tanker to airport storage
- airport storage to fuelling tanker
- fuelling tanker to aircraft

Captain Steve in his videos & statements said the fuelling trucks have contamination detection mechanism.

BUT, i realized that depending upon contaminant, catastrophic faults can be fast in 1st flight or span multiple flights.
So if those fuel giants are so careless then it would be a scam of unprecedented scale.
Citizens might stop taking fuel from them, their shares in stock market will collapse, the company or subsidiary might go bankrupt.

Each GenX-1B engine has -
- Fule Metering Unit
- LP & HP pumps
- LP & HP filters

View attachment 44589
View attachment 44590

So contamination should cause pressure & flow irregularities recorded by FMU (Fuel Metering Unit), forcing for maintenance.

IDK the Black Box contains data of how many flights.
The data can be recorded in redundant bit level for max data.
If it has last few flights data then irregulaties will be recorded there.

While discussing on other forum, I came across 2 examples of contamination on different jet models & different bludner mistakes of adding 38x fuel-additive biocide & bad construction practices of fuel storage area. it is worth to have a lookat them:




Cathay Pacific Flight 780, 13 April 2010,
Airbus A-330,
Surabaya, Indonesia, to Hong Kong International Airport
(Cathay Pacific Flight 780 - Wikipedia)


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPeZr9uSfTg

RAT was manually, proactively deployed.
In flight they had chance to use APU also.
Left engine N1 ran at 74% & right engine N1 at 17%.

The root cause was bad construction practice during rain leading to salt water getting into fuel pipe, reacting with filter & releasing SAP particles.

View attachment 44591
View attachment 44592
View attachment 44593
View attachment 44594




===============================================================



Titan Airways, Airbus A321,
24 Feb 2020, Cyprus - London, no errors !!!!!!.
25 Feb 2020, London - Gatwick, On ground for left engine -

HP Fuel valve warning, ​

engine took 2 attempts to start.​

25 Feb 2020, Gatwick - Balice (Poland), no errors !!!!!!
26 Febl 2020, Balice (Poland) - Gatwick, On ground for left engine -

2 times HP Fuel valve warning, ​

engine stall warning once,​

left engine took 3 attempts to start, ​

momentary errors in flight ​

& thumping sound after landing.​

26 Feb 2020, Gatwick - London, On ground for left engine -

ignitor fail alert, ​

engine fail alert 2 times, ​

engine took 4 attempts to start, ​

incident on take-off,​

Fortunately the engines didn't fail completely & the jet could turn around & land,

thumping sound after landing.​

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Qclymu2EA

This one happened due to multiple mistakes, that too on ground before 1st & 2nd flight & ultimately in 5th flight during takeoff -
- Language barrier in Cyprus, not understanding what is PPM (Parts Per Million).
- Wrong calculation & 38x quantity of Kathon biocide over-use & concentration in HMU, not due to algae.
- As per re-enacted animation it seems that biocide was added improperly from top access port, not mixed well with proper tools, leaving sludge on bottom & tank outlet, went into HMU & choked it. Hence right engine started but left engine took 4 attempts to start on ground.
- Before next flight the ground engineer referred to troubleshooting by fault code rather than engine model, hence of wrong engine.
- & no boroscope inspection was done.

View attachment 44595
View attachment 44596
View attachment 44597
View attachment 44598



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


> These incidents happened either mid-flight, means issues took time to manifest.
Or in 2nd example, many engine start faults happened on ground bcoz it is a unique series of blunder mistakes, but then ultimately in 5th flight during T/o.

> In these 2 cases both the engines did not cease but ran at low RPMs due choking of piston of FMU (Fuel Metering Unit) & valve of HMU (Hydro Mechanical Unit).
While in case of AI-171 the pilot's Mayday call reported something like "no thrust, no power, losing lift, going down", speculating 0% RPM.

So, for AI-171 we've to look at -
- maintenance records,
- maintenance areas
- historical warning messages also in Black Box apart from latest.

Rethinking about contamination -

Chemistry is such a tricky aspect of nature, it is difficult to proactively discover all chemical reactions.
The 2 examples we discussed were very educating -
- The excess biocide example, spanned across 5 flights, with errors in flight & on ground, yet the A/c survived.
- The salt water reacting with filter & releasing polymer particles jamming the FMU valve, within 1 flight itself, the flight surviving fortunately.

In a tropical country, during summer season, a possible contamination would have different reasons, most likey with poor maintenance.
But we don't know yet about historical maintenance records of AI-171 airframe, the H/w issues or the S/w alerts if any.

So on this angle we've to assume something similar to 2nd example of salt water causing full fuel contamination & rapid reaction within 1 flight, so much rapid that the problem didn't occur mid-flight but immediately after take-off.

What kind of chemical reaction can take place in fuelling chain -
- causing only 1 flight,
- impacting both engines same time,
- around mid-day noon,
- when local flights would depart in morning,
- probably taking fuel from same source?

Either it should be internal to airframe, or to the fuelling truck.

I checked some YT videos of fuel filter & pump in GenX-1B engine & found that there are multiple rings for sealing joints, just like in our kitchen pressure cooker.
I wonder if a reaction can take place here.

I couldn't find pic/vid of 787 fuel tank fuel pump. Perhaps it might little bigger but identical to this one i found - of A320.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

So far we know that -
> There are 2 CDNs/networks.
> The 2 EECs are dual channel redundant with power from PMA & backup. So 4x links out from FMC.
> If 6x fuel pumps fail then engine can suction feed.
> 4x redundant generators.
> Just 1 engine is sufficient for safe emergency landing.
> Batteries & RAT would be enough for emergency controls & landing.

> Now, when we look at some key points from the official video on 787's electrical system showcasing so much redundancy, then it becomes very difficult to believe that an electrical HARD fault can cause a crash, even if someone throws a bucket of water in equipment bay short circuiting everything.

>> On H/w aspect, just at least 1 control-link from FMC to 1 of the EECs should survive with batteries+RAT & PMA on the ends.

However, manufacturing mistakes, maintenance mistakes & S/w glitches remain a concern.

> List of electricity sources for various purposes -
- 4x engine driven main generators giving 235 VAC.
- 2 APU generators giving 235 VAC with battery.
- 3 PMGs (Permanent Magnet Generators)
- 2 PMAs (Permanent magnet Alternators) for EEC
- Main batteries in forward avionics bay.

> Power sources remain isolated throughout the generation & distribution channels (probably to avoid short circuit).
> During power transfers a brief power interruption may occur as buses are energised from new power source.
> APU is started electrically by main battery turning any 1 APU Starter/generator to turn APU.
> Engines are started electrically by main battery turning engine starter/generator to turn spool, not by bleed air from APU.



> Main battery gives power for -
- A/c start
- APU start
- Refuelling ops
- Towing ops
- Electric braking (as backup)
- Captain's flight instruments (till RAT deployed)

> APU on ground gives power for -
- APU start
- Navigation lights (during batter-only towing ops)

> Electricity for flight control electronics -
- primary - 3 PMGs fully independent.
- secondary - 28 VDC.
- Additional dedicated batteries during temporary power interruptions.

> Electricity for EEC -
- primary - fully independent PMA.
- secondary - 115 VAC bus.
- During engine start the 115 VAC bus gives initial power, then switching to PMA after minimum engine RPM.



> Power distribution methods -
- Primary for higher loads - 115 VAC, 28 VDC in forward bay & 135 VAC in aft bay.
- Remote for lower loads - 17 RPDUs (Remote Power Distribution Units)



> The 4 engine generators power the 4 AC buses in aft bay.
> If any generator & its bus fails, it is powered by remaining buses.



> There are multiple power modes -
- for ground ops, depending upon power sources available.
- For flight, obviously 4x generators should be working.
- With 1 engine loss, 2 generators would suffice for nearest safe landing.
- In-air RAT-only mode - powers Captain's flight instruments, flight controls, navigation, communication.
- In-air battery-only mode - powers all same things as in RAT-only mode except center pitot heat.

> RAT deploys automatically under 1 of the conditions -
- both engines failure.
- all 3 hydraulic system pressure low.
- loss of all electrical power to Captain's & FO's flight instruments.
- loss of all 4 EMPs (Electric Motor Pumps) & FCS fault on approach.
- loss of all 4 AMPs & 1 engine failure on take-off or landing.



> 2 redundant BPCUs (Bus Power Control Units) provides function -
- Flight deck control/indication.
- Power transfer.
- Overall load management.
- some loads are automatically prioritised or inhibited at predefined conditions.



> CBIC (Circuit Breaker Indication & Control) shows status of Thermal & Electronic circuit breakers & control the electronic ones.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

After looking at hydraulic system, there seems to be redundancy here also, may not cause a crash.

Also found a detailed diagram in video for changing hydraulic filter.




OBSERVATIONS from CBT video -

> There are 3 hydraulic systems - center, left, right, with their reservoirs.
> The center one has control over highest # of control surfaces.
> The left & right systems seem to have very limited controls, but the CBT says it is adequate.

> Left system controls -
- some flight control surfaces - 1 flaperon pair, 1 spoiler pair.
- thrust reverser
- left tail-stab
- rudder

> Right system controls -
- some flight control surfaces - aeleron, 1 flaperon pair, 1 spoiler pair.
- thrust reverser
- right tail-stab
- rudder

> Center system controls -
- aelerons, flaps, most flaperons, 2 spoiler pairs.
- both tail stabs
- rudder

> Total 7 hydraulic pumps - 2 engine driven left/right, 2 electrical left/right, 2 electrical central, 1 RAT.
> Engine driven pumps are primary & mechanically driven by N2 spool.
> Demand pumps are secondary/supplementary & electrical & work under conditions -
- system pressure low.
- for 3 mins after both engines started on ground.
- from time the T/o thrust is set to flaps retraction or Radar Altitude >2000 ft.
- flaps or slats are in motion.
- from gear down or Radar Altimeter <1000 ft. to ground speed <40 knots.
- for thrust reverser.

> Secondary Demand electric pumps &/or central electric pumps will display fault when -
- low pressure
- excess fluid temperature
- switched OFF

> The 2 central electric pumps take primary/secondary role based on odd/even calendar days.



> RAT pump in emergency caters to flight controls of center hydraulic system.

> RAT will auto-deploy when -
- both engines have failed.
- all 3 hydraulic system pressure low.
- loss of electricity to Captain's & FO's flight instruments.
- loss of all 4 EMPs & FCS fault on approach.
- loss of all 4 EMPs & 1 engine fail on T/o or landing.



> Hydraulic isolation function gives safety during leaks by -
- Nose gear isolation valve.
- Reserve steering isolation valve.
- Alternate extended isolation valve.
- Reserve standpipe.
- All isolation valves are automatic FMC controlled, no manual operation available.

> When fire handle is pulled up, it shuts the EDP valve depressurising the EDP.

> If big electrical failure happens then load shed might disable 1 or more Demand electrical pumps, but RAT pump will backup central system.


DERIVATIONS from observations -
> During T/o, central EMPs, primary EDPs & secondary EMPs are operational.

> Hydraulic isolation function may not be for gear retraction.

> RAT pump may not retract the landing gears. I guess it would be last priority. Or may be the RAT electricity might do it if/when sufficient.

> The hydraulic & electrical videos don't say about secondary electricity to central EMPs or secondary Demand EMPs.
The 28 VDC system & additional battery are backups of 3x PMGs, they support fuel pumps, but may not be for hydraulic EMPs.
So perhaps EMPs don't have backup directly from generators or PMGs, but only indirect loop from central busses.

> We saw in Electrical video that central electrical bus fail should not affect basic flight due to battery+RAT for cockpit & FMC; 2x PMAs for their EECs, 3x PMGs for GCUs & hence generators should function.

> If electricals fine but some glitch in air data sensors &/or FMC &/or EEC pulling back the engine RPMs, then primary EDPs will be INOP but secondary Demand EMPs would function.

> If central electric busses fail then central EMPs & secondary Demand EMPs would be INOP but RAT pump will backup central hydraulics & the primary EDPs will still remain primary.

> If central busses fail & RPM glitch then central EMPs, primary EDPs & secondary Demand EMPs would be INOP, but RAT would backup central hydraulics enough for emergency flight & landing.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

> Many impulsive mistakes done recently by them in defence & aviation reporting, no corrections.
> 1 person in team makes mistakes w/o homework, scrutiny, entire team or media house might loose competition on quality to others.
> Wrong visuals, especially for non-tech citizens, is a BIG mistake for a disaster investigation, it can change narrative & belief.
> And as sabotage angle is also considered, these guys came up with some funny ways of sabotaging like ground crew locking the gear not to retract, etc. when multiple ground crew & pilots also do a walk-around before every flight.
> "What if" can be anything. When so many pilot errors are suspected then someone would say - What if pilot(s) wanted to commit suicide?

> But if we consider this wild theory of fuel switches also, why/how would a pilot wrongly close BOTH fuel switches????
Or it sounds like a "Final Destination" movie script that some object like a diary, logbook, iPad, handbag, coffee mug, etc dropped on both the fuel switches???
IMO such critical switches should have a guard cap, however, the pilots would immediately switch them on back, re-opening the fuel valves & arming the ignitors which EEC would ignite. That's exacty what historically pilots did in other mid-air incidents globally at higher altitudes.

> Historically, proving error of defenceless dead pilots benfits the airframe & engine makers, airline operator. Many engineers & lawyers globally have pointed this possible corruption.

> Tomorrow these guys might say that the pilot accidentally pressed fuel pumps buttons or the hydraullic buttons!!!

View attachment 45016
View attachment 45017

So now it seems that many news channels & journalists, domestic & abroad, are highlighting possible pilot error on fuel switches.
Earlier they were highlighting possible pilot error operating flaps lever instead of gear lever.

The speculations can be endless till Black Box data is made transparent & publicly understandable under judicial enquiry.

In various accidents, Pilot errors have been there but the accusation theory needs to be careful & believable.
In past there have been muscle memory errors by pilots where either the switches look/feel identical or pilots are made to operate multiple jets with different cockpit layout.
So such errors can be believable.

For example,
on another forum someone shared this case of pilot error:

Circumstances of Swiftair 737 crash appear to parallel previous anti-ice switch errors

While Lithuanian investigators have yet to reach conclusions on last November's fatal Boeing 737-400 freighter crash near Vilnius, they are likely to consider a possible switch mix-up that has previously occurred on other 737 flights. Preliminary indications point to the Swiftair jet's losing...

www.flightglobal.com

"Swift Air 737 crashed after descending without anti-ice, hydraulic circuit B had also been disabled. Multiple pilots report accidentally disabling Hydraulic Circuit B when actually trying to turn on the anti-ice."

In B-737 those overhead hydraulics & anti-ice switches are adjacant & look identical.
And there is no immediate sound or vibration to notice the functions like engines rev up/down.
So muscle memory error by a pilot not serious about his/her life threatening job can be understood.




But in B-787 during T/o, as per checklist & real videos, the pilots don't have any need to reach the center panel behind throttle having communications & navigation setup before flight.

The fuel switches are adjacant to flaps lever but they look/feel different & the T/o flaps position in the notches is well ahead.
There are side guard bracket + the switch has to be pulled up then swtched.
So an object falling on switch might bend it but not switch it off.
And 1st the co-pilot would retract the gear & then the flaps as speed increases.




As the gear was seen tipped front means gear lever was put up. During this time some glitch or mistake is suspected.

Black box data can reveal the most unexpected thing but at this time it is difficult to imagine that pilot reached for fuel switches instead of or after gear lever, flaps lever.

But assuming this pilot error also they might immediately switch them back on by muscle memory.
They would be cursing themselves "Oh! shit! What the hell did i do? Damn!"
This should happen around Apogee, the engine would stutter, RPM coming down to 70-80% & then again catching up.

From tech PoV -
- IDK if the spools have rotation braking kind of thing upon shut off.
- Zero to idle RPM takes 45-60 seconds for any engine.
- From numerous take-off videos we see that idle to 100% RPM takes 2-3 seconds only, considering EEC/FADEC avoiding engine damage by sudden rapid RPM change.
- So under full throttle IFF fuel switch is turned off for few seconds & then on again considering exceptional stupidity, then the 100% RPM would not drop rapidly, may be to say 70-80%, then again fuel supplied & ignitors on, the engine(s) should relight to 100% power.

From timeline, operation PoV -
- Total flight time was 32 seconds.
- This RPM glitch or mistake would happen just after takeoff around say 25% of horizontal distance & 50% of vertical height, around 8 seconds after take-off.
- In next 8 seconds till Apogee the error should be expected to be corrected after quickly checking fire, fuel, electricity, then switches back to ON, the engines should drop to 70-80% RPM then back to 100%. There is no time to follow a slow checklist of 1 engine failure.
- In next 8 seconds after Apogee, the temporary loss of thrust would lower the jet's altitude but regain of thrust should allow a narrow escape just above the buildings, similar to Go-Around 'touch & go' scenario.

The lone survivor said he heard the engines RPM going up, but it was too late.

But apart from possible pilot error, it can be possible FMC/EEC glitch or maintenance/manufacturing issues, perhaps sabotage also.

 

[Shan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1943762803644674180

 

[jmaxwell_]

So the Black Box confirms - (1) both switches moved to OFF within a second and (2) the pilot asking if the other had turned it OFF and co-pilot responding "NO"

Now see FAA informational bulletin SAIB NM-18-33. It says the fuel switch "locking" mechanism could fail on 787s, particularly the model used here.

Normal conclusion -- let's put two-and-two together.
Social media conclusion -- are these planes too advanced for *some* people causing them to get easily stressed and want to take their life (and naturally being too pea brained, didn't think about the passengers)?

 

[Shan]

So the Black Box confirms - (1) both switches moved to OFF within a second and (2) the pilot asking if the other had turned it OFF and co-pilot responding "NO"

Now see FAA informational bulletin SAIB NM-18-33. It says the fuel switch "locking" mechanism could fail on 787s, particularly the model used here.

Normal conclusion -- let's put two-and-two together.
Social media conclusion -- are these planes too advanced for *some* people causing them to get easily stressed and want to take their life (and naturally being too pea brained, didn't think about the passengers)?

Good ole race baiting. Does well on X.

Now see FAA informational bulletin SAIB NM-18-33. It says the fuel switch "locking" mechanism could fail on 787s, particularly the model used here.
Normal conclusion - this will not get views on their social a/cs.

 

[Shan]

Air India B787-8 Accident Summary - Ahmedabad, June 12, 2025
Key Details

Aircraft: Boeing 787-8 (VT-ANB)
Flight: AI171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick
Date/Time: June 12, 2025, 08:09 UTC (13:39 IST)
Phase: Initial climb after takeoff
Location: Crashed 0.9 NM from runway departure end

Casualties

Total Fatalities: 260 (12 crew + 229 passengers + 19 on ground)
Survivors: 68 (1 passenger serious, 67 minor injuries)
Total on board: 242 (230 passengers + 12 crew)

Critical Sequence of Events
Takeoff Phase

Aircraft lifted off at 08:08:39 UTC
Reached maximum speed of 180 knots at 08:08:42 UTC
CRITICAL: Both engine fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF within 1 second of each other
Engines began losing power as fuel supply was cut off

Emergency Response

Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed immediately after liftoff
Cockpit voice recording captured pilots discussing the fuel cutoff - neither pilot claimed to have initiated it
Fuel switches returned to RUN position (~10-14 seconds later)
Engine relight attempted but insufficient time/altitude for recovery
MAYDAY call transmitted at 08:09:05 UTC

Impact and Damage

Aircraft struck BJ Medical College hostel
Wreckage scattered over 1000 ft × 400 ft area
Five buildings suffered major structural and fire damage
Aircraft completely destroyed by impact and fire

Key Technical Findings

Aircraft was airworthy with valid certificates
Crew properly licensed and rested
Weather conditions normal
Fuel cutoff switches found in RUN position post-crash
Flight data recorder captured the entire sequence
No bird strike or external factors identified

Investigation Status

Led by Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), India
International participation from NTSB (USA), Boeing, GE, FAA
Flight recorder data successfully recovered and analyzed
Root cause of fuel cutoff switch activation remains under investigation
No immediate safety recommendations issued to B787/GEnx operators

Significance
This appears to be an unprecedented event involving simultaneous fuel cutoff during initial climb, with the mechanism of switch activation being the primary focus of ongoing investigation.

 

[GuardianRED]

 

[South block]

Look like a suicide.....need to look out for terrorist angle as well.... sad

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

I'm busy today. But quick look at prelim report, i see fishy/suspicious things which i'll share tonight or tomorrow, like -
- Some other frame from other airport CCTVs from left side whileT/o have been shown but not allowed to public earlier except the only one, WHY??????? So that media can have their TRP?????
- if gear lever was down then how the MLGs tipped forward? Upon impact also the switches, knobs, levers can move.
- Then, thrust levers found at idle but EAFR data says they remained forward till impact.
- IDK about CVR data. Some people say that 1 of the pilot actually did some blunder error. 1 pilot said "why did you cut off fuel switch" & other replied he didn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only FDR data can reveal truth if not manipulated.
CVR might sound frightenning but still should be made public, like in case of Nepal ATR crash.

In short i still suspect that report could be fabricated in favor of Boeing's, GE's & Tata's upcopming business.
If Boeing has been caught lying earlier in many cases,
people like Boeing employees,
then Mary Schiavo (former IG, US Dept. of Transportation),
some of our experts like Dr. Vandana Singh,
retired IAF & civil pilots (domestic & foreign) can suspect glitch,
then why can't we?

 

[redpanda]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1943970848890585265

 

[Shan]

Look like a suicide.....need to look out for terrorist angle as well.... sad

I doubt that. A Mayday call without disruption or cockpit skirmish is interesting. In such cases, it is easiest to target pilots to take the fall as they are no longer present to refute the claims by the investigation boards. Let the whole investigation come out. What surprised me is that the findings leaked even before the government published it on its website. You're talking about sabotage as are several others. The final finding will provide a conclusive list of events.

 

[GuardianRED]

I doubt that. A Mayday call without disruption or cockpit skirmish is interesting. In such cases, it is easiest to target pilots to take the fall as they are no longer present to refute the claims by the investigation boards. Let the whole investigation come out. What surprised me is that the findings leaked even before the government published it on its website. You're talking about sabotage as are several others. The final finding will provide a conclusive list of events.

The query here is, how does one turn both switches off and on in 1sec?

 

[Shan]

The query here is, how does one turn both switches off and on in 1sec?

Exactly. Look here at how it was being covered in by the BBC :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1943870297129599282

 

[Asterion Moloc]

What surprised me is that the findings leaked even before the government published it on its website. You're talking about sabotage as are several others. The final finding will provide a conclusive list of events.

Are they leaked? I don't know the rules but leak is a serious matter. Generally we find these leaks from inside giving to media, who then publish them without even checking like they did with the passenger list of this flight before govt got chance to inform family like done everywhere. That is still morally wrong but if sensitive/confidential info is also getting leaked each department or organization should conduct thorough investigation.

During Op Sindoor some HD pics of PL-15 were released in chinese social media, I did not got to reverse image search them to identify from where chinese got it but still info leaks by insiders is a big issue due to less impulse control.

PL 15 Seeker..... Pakistan f***d up hard here

View attachment 43009
View attachment 43010View attachment 43011View attachment 43012

Type WNB7068H-A Ku-band TR component

Production Date: July 2015

No. 55 Research Facility, China Electronics Technology Group Corporation

Interesting how chongkis got these hi-def images, any impages from our side of these on social media? if not we leaked it to them to show how pakees messed up?

 

[GuardianRED]

Exactly. Look here at how it was being covered in by the BBC :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1943870297129599282

Yes - unfortunately - looks like the fuel cutoff to the engine is the primary fault here - how it happened is the issue here, either the pilots or faulty switches

 

[Shan]

Yes - unfortunately - looks like the fuel cutoff to the engine is the primary fault here - how it happened is the issue here, either the pilots or faulty switches

Yep. Not only that there might be other bits that have not come out yet. I have never seen preliminary reports being used to conclusively declare findings as final. It shows just how much narratives are twisted.

 

[Shan]

Why look to the BBC. Here is Indian media. At this point it has become engagement farming:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1943968503444152710

 

[South block]

Are they leaked? I don't know the rules but leak is a serious matter. Generally we find these leaks from inside giving to media, who then publish them without even checking like they did with the passenger list of this flight before govt got chance to inform family like done everywhere. That is still morally wrong but if sensitive/confidential info is also getting leaked each department or organization should conduct thorough investigation.

During Op Sindoor some HD pics of PL-15 were released in chinese social media, I did not got to reverse image search them to identify from where chinese got it but still info leaks by insiders is a big issue due to less impulse control.

I have a theory about what really transpired......... A theory so unsettling that it could shake the very foundations of this nation......... It points to elements within the establishment, including the military itself, and exposes a deep-seated collusion , what we now commonly call a “fixed game” or conspiracy......... what we witnessed was not just an unfortunate event, but a deliberate act of sabotage, shaped by internal compromise and hidden agendas, with implications far beyond what the public has been told.