Just to add  to my last post a former pilot came on and said  this has happened before with a 787 on take off, the only difference is  that the said pilots of the 787 had managed to work out what was happening, they quickly pushed the go around button on the throttles and disconnected the auto thrust. Guess that boeing might be looking into this further if  this was  the  case  with this accident

I don't know... all I can go by is what my eyes tell me from the Video Mover showed; dust from the runway on TO, nose up +10, can't tell about Flaps, Gear down, plane settling like a soft flatly thrown Frisbee all the way to Impact.

Nonetheless, a tragic accident.

So many differing Posts in this Thread I can't discern what's what... 🙄 

And how is it Boeing's fault?

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by ViperPilot

Same plane taking off at Frankfurt 6 days before clearly see flaps still down gear up after takeoff.

 

...  ok.. everyone else has had a say...  my guess on it is -

They did an intersection takeoff from  R4  which gives 6180' of runway available  (this was seen in a Flightradar24 pic of the takeoff track I saw).  The takeoff run at weight and temps called for longer I think -don't know what the VR speed needed was but  they needed to get to 184 Knots for   V2 + 15 for the climb out ..so if someone has a 787 8 takeoff calculator to check the figures.   (more on weight later)

They struggled to get to that speed and collided with end of runway furniture - light poles, ILS antenna,  etc  as they rotated - evidenced by the dust cloud and debris from the left engine. This collision might be the bang which the survivor heard. The engines then started to disintegrate and the inital climb was dissipated .

The engines stopped generating power and therefore the RAT was automatically deployed... The RAT can be clearly heard in the Video of the crash at the very start just before the plane comes into view.

The pilots radioed a Mayday message about this time saying they had no power. (I read this in an article, it was not widely reported maybe because its illegal in India to listen in and report on ATC broadcasts, I've heard)

 

(weight) I have read that the plane was carrying over 100t of fuel - which is enough for a return trip too ,  need someone to do the maths...

therefore the aircraft was almost max weight. The temp was near 40deg C

... this is pure conjecture based on titbits and no evidence.. just my personal perusal

 

ps..  they say the leading edge slats were deployed when they checked the wreckage...  therefore they must have had at least  Flaps 1.   How much difference is 4deg of Flaps going to make even if they had accidentally retracted to Flaps 1. Not anywhere near enough to make a hoot of difference if they were supposed to be at Flaps 5. 

Also the gear is run off the hydraulics which failed because of no engine drive therefore no gear retraction.  (The RAT can power the gear up (probably slowly) , but the priorities for the pilots have now changed.

 

----------------------------------------

 

Listen for the RAT in this crash video.... you can hear it best just before the plane comes into view...

https://www.bbc.com/ws/av-embeds/articles/c626y121rxxo/p0lhxc15/en-GB 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Sound of the RAT.....  from a landing B787 8

 

 

 

Flightradar24 showing Runway 23 intersection  R4  Takeoff  -  6180 feet

 

 

 

Quote - in the text says- The Plane carried almost 125,000 litres of fuel ...   calculate x .8 for tonnes

 

 

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by aerostar

Nothing seems to be working; maybe an electrical problem?

 

 

 

This is ridiculous... 

Video: Airbus Senior Commander explains what led to Ahmedabad plane crash | Watch

She demonstrates on an A320 sim what supposedly happens and doesn't do anything that actually normally happens during takeoff. What was the point of this exercise?

I was amused she did the take off barefooted. 
 

 

It seems fairly certain the engines had failed or were running at very low thrust as A) the RAT deployed and B) the aircraft couldn’t maintain height.

With the absence of evidence of dead birds or other debris from the airfield I’m out of ides.If nothing external caused the engines to shut down then regrettably we have to start looking internally, and that’s either pilot error or major aircraft malfunction.

Personally I’m not of the opinion this was pilot error.

If as reported the aircraft was carrying electrical defects the complexity of the 787 and its electrical computerised architecture can grow up some very strange faults which are seemingly unrelated to the original defect, especially where cabin air compressors are concerned.

Is it possible a one in a million freak set of events and unrelated failures could cause both engines to shut down ? I don’t know but I’d say it’s more likely to be possible on this sort of software driven aircraft.

1 hour ago, aerostar said:

I have read that the plane was carrying over 100t of fuel - which is enough for a return trip too ,  need someone to do the maths...

I don’t think this would be true as the with that fuel and passenger load the aircraft would still be well above its max landing weight when it reached London.

33 minutes ago, jon b said:

I don’t think this would be true as the with that fuel and passenger load the aircraft would still be well above its max landing weight when it reached London.

That info was stated by an Indian Government minister... (I think it was 102T he stated)

 PS - That's  Tonne

Also the 787 8 is different figures from the MSFS 787 10 .....

 

 

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by aerostar

9 hours ago, pete_auau said:

Just to add  to my last post a former pilot came on and said  this has happened before with a 787 on take off, the only difference is  that the said pilots of the 787 had managed to work out what was happening, they quickly pushed the go around button on the throttles and disconnected the auto thrust. Guess that boeing might be looking into this further if  this was  the  case  with this accident

Peter, do you have a link to this ? It sounds of interest 

3 minutes ago, aerostar said:

That info was stated by an Indian Government minister...

 

Yeah, they’ll have misunderstood something, the maths with 250+ POB and 100T of fuel just don’t work

42 minutes ago, jon b said:

Yeah, they’ll have misunderstood something, the maths with 250+ POB and 100T of fuel just don’t work

242 persons .....   I posted another quote from a minister in my original post. This says the aircraft was carrying  125,000 Litres of fuel...  which is about 100Tonne

I also posted a pic of Flightradar24 airport track which indicates an   R4  intersection takeoff  (6180' of runway)

... in my ORIGINAL post  

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by aerostar

That 125,000 litre figure sounds suspiciously like the fuel tank maximum capacity figure (126,000 litre) is being quoted, not the amount that was actually onboard.

242 POB and 100T of fuel would put it with a very rough calculation about 13T above certified MTOW before they even started , there was more than likely a restricted TOW with that temperature, and then still above max landing weight reaching London.

 

1 hour ago, jon b said:

Is it possible a one in a million freak set of events and unrelated failures could cause both engines to shut down ? I don’t know but I’d say it’s more likely to be possible on this sort of software driven aircraft.

This is what I have been thinking. That multitude of electrical problems on the previous flight could have been a warning sign that really should have been sorted out before the aircraft was allowed to fly again.

42 minutes ago, jon b said:

That 125,000 litre figure sounds suspiciously like the fuel tank maximum capacity figure (126,000 litre) is being quoted, not the amount that was actually onboard.

242 POB and 100T of fuel would put it with a very rough calculation about 13T above certified MTOW before they even started , there was more than likely a restricted TOW with that temperature, and then still above max landing weight reaching London.

 

I just done a Simbrief plan and it seems to suggest that the figures are ok....   the plane can land at Gatwick just fine....