35 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I am surprised by that. If these aircraft are designed to be able to climb out of trouble at take off with only one engine running, then I would expect there to be a significant excess of power with both engines operational, even at MTOW.

The performance requirement on one engine is to out climb obstacles by a minimum of 35ft, that’s all, and the 787 tends to derate things as far as it can to meet its obligations and not much else.

If you actually remove the derate it can have quite spritely performance on 2 engines, but the engine out performance is literally no better than a GA light twin , that’s the way it was designed.

Every ex 747 guy I’ve spoken to has said the same thing about their first engine failure and climb out in the 787 sim which is, I thought the simulator had broken as it wasn’t going up.

@jon b, given you’re a RWP of the 787 is one good enough to try various scenarios and see how the aircraft handles?

I know the QW was probably the best for P3D but I’m unaware of anything for MSFS. I was just wondering if you were curious enough to try and replicate the takeoff for 08:09GMT on 12 June 2025.

I know ActiveSky for P3D has historical weather for many weeks but only 24 hours in MSFS24. So maybe not possible. ☹️

The 787 in MSFS2024 isn’t that accurate with its performance to be honest.

Ive operated the 787 heavy  out of  various Indian airports and there’s almost always a performance restricted RTOW in the heat.

someone asked fuel load earlier , on a London flight you’d be looking at the 50 to 60 tonne range just off the top of my head, depending on routing 

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I still have faith in the BBC on news reporting. Maybe because it’s always been my go-to in times of national tragedy or significant world events.

I trust some aviation experts on YT but as for news it’s BBC and ITV for me. Let’s see what BBC Verify report probably later today.

I'm soured on mainstream media for this reason:

I have never seen them get the facts straight, or report accurately on any aviation incident....ever.

Aviation is my lane, where I have a little expertise. So if, in the one, narrow area, where I can actually personally verify information, they can't get basic facts straight.....how can I trust them to be accurate anywhere else?

Not saying they can't be accurate, but I can't trust their methods anymore.

/end rant.

 

DB

14 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

Not saying they can't be accurate, but I can't trust their methods anymore.

But you don’t say who you trust for general news reporting.

No mistaking the flaps on a 787 from other aircraft landing, they are not visible ion the air india.

That definitely has the RAT out then.

So for that scenario it would be one of 3 things

1)Loss of all 4 electric hydraulic pumps and an engine failure on take off

2) loss of all 3 hydraulic systems

3) dual engine failure

So pointing towards either dual engine failure or major electrical failure causing the hydraulic pump failure or a loss of all hydraulic fluids) the fact it descended would therefore tend to suggest it being a dual engine failure scenario.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But you don’t say who you trust for general news reporting.

For aviation related news we generally trust Avsim, but not any one specific post.  Eventually we get a reasonable picture.

For general news, I've found it best to take everything with a grain of salt and compare sources.

Hook

2 minutes ago, LHookins said:

For general news, I've found it best to take everything with a grain of salt and compare sources.

Vague. Broadcasters or dubious internet sites?

Just curious...has there been any credible information of the actual Mayday call that was placed (and what may have been said)? Yesterday, VASAviation reported that he could not obtain the recorded ATC data (possibly illegal under Indian law).

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But you don’t say who you trust for general news reporting.

That was deliberate 🙃

DB

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Vague. Broadcasters or dubious internet sites?

You mean like Al Jazeera or Times of India? 😄  Sometimes you can get good information from someone who "doesn't have a dog in that race."  I can't give examples without going into forbidden territory.

Hook

44 minutes ago, LHookins said:

You mean like Al Jazeera or Times of India? 😄  Sometimes you can get good information from someone who "doesn't have a dog in that race."  I can't give examples without going into forbidden territory.

Hook

Heard of the first, not the second. I would have thought CNN and US newspapers like Washington Post and New York Times would be credible sites.

8 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Heard of the first, not the second. I would have thought CNN and US newspapers like Washington Post and New York Times would be credible sites.

I knew about Al Jazeera from previous contacts, and three of the India media sources were recommended to me by YouTube.

Even the most credible sites may not have all the facts, or get some of them wrong, and everyone bends stories to their own editorial preferences.  If you've seen ads for Ground News you've seen examples of how various stories are reported across various media.  If not, check their site at ground.news  No, I do not have a subscription. 🙂 

I follow a few independent center-right news aggregators and like I said, take them all with a grain of salt.

Hook

I would not worry they have found the black box and all will be revealed.