By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Air India chairman N Chandrasekaran stated that one engine on the crashed Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner was new, installed in March 2025, while the other’s last service was in 2023, with the next scheduled for December 2025. Both engines reportedly had clean operational histories prior to the crash. Investigators are analyzing the flight data and cockpit voice recorders to determine the cause of the crash, which killed at least 270 people. While engine age isn’t necessarily indicative of engine health, especially with the Genx-1B engines used, the investigation will focus on all factors contributing to the incident.
Read the original article here
Air India’s statement that one engine on the crashed plane was new immediately raises questions. It’s tempting to assume a new engine would be highly reliable, essentially ruling it out as the primary cause. However, this overlooks the crucial point that even brand-new components can fail if maintenance standards are lacking or if crews are overworked. The plane’s age is also relevant, being described as neither particularly old nor new, suggesting it’s seen substantial use and routine maintenance, possibly affecting the reliability of newer components.
The focus should remain on the simultaneous loss of thrust in both engines. The fact that one engine was relatively new doesn’t inherently resolve the mystery; it complicates things by adding another layer of analysis. The deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), as evidenced by videos, strongly suggests a complete loss of power, impacting both engines simultaneously. This scenario seems far more likely than a single engine failure leading to pilot error—the pilots would likely have aborted take-off if they detected an issue on the ground.
The incident is raising serious concerns regarding the maintenance practices of Air India. While the airline’s safety record has generally been good over the years, a single incident like this calls everything into question. The suggestion of “shoddy maintenance” needs to be investigated thoroughly and not dismissed lightly. Focusing solely on the age or newness of individual parts ignores the wider system of maintenance that supports the safety and operation of an aircraft.
The black box’s condition and the time it will take to decode it are also important. While initial reports varied from it being unrecoverable to already being decoded, the most realistic expectation is a delay of several weeks, possibly months, before any reliable data emerges. Even then, the data might only confirm the obvious—that both engines failed. The real challenge lies in understanding *why*.
Several theories are circulating, ranging from electrical or fuel system failures to environmental factors such as a dual bird strike or unusual wind shear. Pilot error seems unlikely, given the simultaneous engine failure and the deployment of the RAT, a system that automatically activates in critical scenarios beyond simple engine malfunctions. The possibility of a “common cause” failure is also raised—where one initial failure cascades, causing a domino effect on multiple systems.
The timeline is crucial. It’s unreasonable to expect a definitive answer within days or even weeks, as investigations of this nature often take months, sometimes years. The Miracle on the Hudson investigation provides a relevant example of even a relatively straightforward incident taking several weeks to fully analyze and determine causality. Premature conclusions based on limited information are not only unhelpful, but could lead to incorrect assumptions.
Ultimately, the focus should shift away from the age of individual components and concentrate on identifying the root cause of the simultaneous engine failure. This is a multifaceted issue requiring thorough investigation, covering various aspects like maintenance protocols, potential design flaws, and any environmental factors. The investigations by the relevant authorities will be crucial, hopefully providing concrete answers and enabling improvements in aviation safety. Until their conclusions are released, speculation, however well-intentioned, should be treated with caution.