Flightradar24 now reporting full length takeoff after backtracking.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1220081213492328&set=a.585822600251529&type=3

26 minutes ago, jon b said:

 

Again if I were to speculate, I’d suspect a flock of large birds is involved somewhere.

Like the US Airways flight that made it to the Hudson River. Hitting the birds just between V1 and VR, or at 1000' or 2000' agl and so on, rather not at all of course, but if so the higher the better. Hitting them just at takeoff and losing both engines, plus being in a crowded area. It's a really horrible thought. I just checked, the US Airways flight back then apparenty hit the large flock of geese around 2800'.

The only obviously unusual event is the cloud of dust, or whatever that was.

What would the fuel load for this flight be? Surely not a "fully loaded aircraft" as the media is saying?

"Thirty seconds after takeoff, there was a loud noise and then the plane crashed. It all happened so quickly," the Hindustan Times quoted Ramesh as saying. The newspaper said he reported suffering "impact injuries" to his chest, face and feet." news said.

So most likely it's a bird strike.

 

 

The dust is the ground off the end of the runway that`s not cleaned. Bird strike unlikely no one reported birds in the area when the plane took off, and you would see evidence off dead birds with such a short flight.

4 minutes ago, G-RFRY said:

The dust is the ground off the end of the runway that`s not cleaned. Bird strike unlikely no one reported birds in the area when the plane took off, and you would see evidence off dead birds with such a short flight.

the airplane exploded,  to where you can find dead bird? 

Let us hope that it was a bird strike to both engines, because the thought of both engines suffering mechanical (or other) failures at the same time is not a comfortable one.

1 hour ago, gabriel122 said:

the airplane exploded,  to where you can find dead bird? 

That`s not unusual at a crash site but you would find them around the runway or at the end of the runway, as it appears it did not have enough power to climb. 

PS In NY died birds were found flouting just off the LaGaurdia airport in the Hudson the rest is well documented.

Latest sources indicate that pilots declared a mayday with loss of thrust on engines - this makes sense as the plane literally flew right down after lifting off. The thing about VAAH is it is not located in strategic location, Just end of runway 23 there is a dense populated residential/business area. In the event of dual engine failure there is not a lot of place for pilots to make forced landing into at least from low altitude. There is a river that runs parallel to the airport but it is bit further away from field and in case of Air India - it just did not have enough height to glide there. Bird strike has also been speculated as this particular airport has been prone to bird strikes in the past. The biggest feedback however comes from surviving passenger who reported hearing loud bang as plane was about to lift off. This could again potentially mean that airplane experienced a compressor stall which caused both engines to fail, there are several reasons as to why compressor stall could occur (Bird strike, FOD, improper engine management. Etc). There were also reports of problems with the aircraft on previous flight from New Delhi so question is did the technicians actually fix any of the problems reported. 

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by CAP1234

Still very puzzling, everything fits with a multiple bird strike apart the lack of birds in the videos.

If there’s an issue with the aircraft which could cause both engines to quit simultaneously (and the 787 is so computerised I’m sure it’s possible something lurking in there somewhere)I would have expected a grounding of the worlds 787 fleet by now

I know from experience of operating there India and Pakistan has major problems with birds at their airfields, and I mean MAJOR problems, I was speechless first time I landed into Lahore….check this video out…

edited: linked to a different video, the first video more dramatically showed the scale of the bird problem however I hadn’t realised that towards the end it included footage of the birds being shot down with a shotgun, which wasn’t pleasant viewing.

 

Edited June 13, 2025Jun 13 by jon b

3 hours ago, gabriel122 said:

"Thirty seconds after takeoff, there was a loud noise and then the plane crashed. It all happened so quickly," the Hindustan Times quoted Ramesh as saying. The newspaper said he reported suffering "impact injuries" to his chest, face and feet." news said.

So most likely it's a bird strike.

 

 

So...now, in 2025, after more than 120 years of development in aviation we can say that flock of stupid birds can kill a modern plane?

BBC One ‘Clock News reported that “flaps weren’t extended when they should have been” and “gear was down when it shouldn’t have been”.

That was the news broadcast, nothing on the website yet.

5 hours ago, jon b said:

Again if I were to speculate, I’d suspect a flock of large birds is involved somewhere.

If indeed two engines flamed out, I started to understand why we contract our fueler. Besides the birds mentioned in the vicinity of the airport, another consideration might be fuel contamination, if that's the case. Who knows, it's so complicated.

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

BBC One ‘Clock News reported that “flaps weren’t extended when they should have been” and “gear was down when it shouldn’t have been”.

That was the news broadcast, nothing on the website yet.

Ray, in pictures of the crash scene- which I recommend everyone avoid due to the horrific and graphic nature - the wings are mostly intact and the slats are clearly extended. At the very least they had flaps 1, I suspect flaps 5. The BBC commentator is likely incorrect unless flaps 1 or 5 is insufficient. 

18 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Ray, in pictures of the crash scene- which I recommend everyone avoid due to the horrific and graphic nature - the wings are mostly intact and the slats are clearly extended. At the very least they had flaps 1, I suspect flaps 5. The BBC commentator is likely incorrect unless flaps 1 or 5 is insufficient. 

I’m not speculating, just reporting what was broadcast by who you hope is a trusted source.