Not with 100T of fuel at take off and 242 POB it won’t be.

That flight plan is 35T light on fuel at 65T and down on passenger weight.

With the figures you mention 100T of fuel and 242 POB and 37c the aircraft would be well above its RTOW and MLW

There’s no way anyone would be tankering return trip fuel between India and Europe with a full pax load.

Youre barking up the wrong tree here.

4 hours ago, jon b said:

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

so no was listening to our talk back radio and this pilot always comes on when their is  a issues with aircraft will try  to find  the radio clip ok found  the clip dont know if your able  to play it in your  country though, what caught my attention was  that he  said it happened  before

https://www.3aw.com.au/an-airplane-crash-experts-theory-on-doomed-air-india-flight/

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by pete_auau

I’ve just returned home from our monthly flight sim meeting. Talking to a retired First Choice captain (amongst many other airlines over a 35 year career) his gut feeling was a double bird strike.

More 787 pilots chip in.

16 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

What has happened and wouldn't they already be in TO/GA mode on takeoff?  

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

his gut feeling was a double bird strike.

That was mine too, but the lack of bird remains and evidence of severe engine damage seems to be pointing the at something else.

Regarding the flaps in Raymond’s video, you would have to ignore a lot of warning noise and big red lights to get airborne with no flaps. Even if as has been suggested they were retracted by accident during the climb, it still doesn’t explain the mayday call and RAT deployment.

The silence is deafening on this one, normally there’s stuff being bounced around between pilots who have inside knowledge on WhatsApp, but in this case there’s nothing, and no obvious reason for the incident.

3 hours ago, pete_auau said:

ok found  the clip dont know if your able  to play it in your  country though, what caught my attention was  that he  said it happened  before

Thanks Peter.

I’m not entirely sure what he’s referring to there, but again I can’t get past the RAT deployment, for that to deploy the aircraft has sensed 2 engine failures.

14 minutes ago, jon b said:

That was mine too, but the lack of bird remains and evidence of severe engine damage seems to be pointing the at something else.

Regarding the flaps in Raymond’s video, you would have to ignore a lot of warning noise and big red lights to get airborne with no flaps. Even if as has been suggested they were retracted by accident during the climb, it still doesn’t explain the mayday call and RAT deployment.

The silence is deafening on this one, normally there’s stuff being bounced around between pilots who have inside knowledge on WhatsApp, but in this case there’s nothing, and no obvious reason for the incident.

I get the feeling that those previously mentioned electrical issues could have caused all sorts of problems. Maybe that could include the lack of an aural warning if the flaps were not extended (and problems with both engines if I am being brutally honest)?

Edited June 14, 2025Jun 14 by Christopher Low

The fact is that things had to be working nominally as the plane was able to take off, so whatever it was happened right after rotation only a few hundred feet off the ground, leaving almost no time for the pilots to try to sort things out even if they knew what to do.  

I'm skeptical that the flaps weren't deployed after reading some of the posts about all the config warnings that would make it unlikely that they weren't set for takeoff.

We've seen both engines disabled by bird strikes before with the NYC Hudson River landing, so this is certainly possible.  It could have also been a total electrical failure which would explain the RAT deployment(if it was actually deployed), which would disable the hydraulic pumps, plus the 787 being fly by wire(I believe) might also disable all the controls including throttle.  Are there any 787 systems experts here?

Hopefully we'll get a preliminary assessment from the authorities in the next few months that might explain things.

Dave

37 minutes ago, jon b said:

That was mine too, but the lack of bird remains and evidence of severe engine damage seems to be pointing the at something else.

I haven’t seen much today on the crash. The news has just reported the flight data recorder is being analysed but no mention of the CVR. Given the tail section was the least damaged it’s surprising both haven’t been analysed.

I don’t believe the copilot would operate the wrong control. They’re not remotely close. It’s not as if he’s a rookie. Something electronic that controls power to the engines and suffered a failure could be a possibility but that would be almost unheard of wouldn’t it?

I still can’t work out why it took most of a 11,500ft runway for the aircraft to get airborne. It sounds like the problem started on the takeoff roll.

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I still can’t work out why it took most of a 11,500ft runway for the aircraft to get airborne. It sounds like the problem started on the takeoff roll.

That’s a characteristic of the 787 I’m afraid. It uses all the available runway to accelerate to a higher speed and use a lower flap setting on climb out.

I am not sure that I like that characteristic. Longer runways should be used as extended safety nets rather than opportunities to save a bit of fuel.

28 minutes ago, jon b said:

That’s a characteristic of the 787 I’m afraid. It uses all the available runway to accelerate to a higher speed and use a lower flap setting on climb out.

Crikey! It’s almost it has a double derated takeoff. Presumably it can’t coast along the runway as it needs to reach V1 in a reasonable time. It seems an odd way to save a bit of fuel.

27 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I am not sure that I like that characteristic. Longer runways should be used as extended safety nets rather than opportunities to save a bit of fuel.

I like your way of thinking Christopher 👍😉

It feels as though the wheels are about to come off doing 175kts still on the ground !

21 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Crikey! It’s almost it has a double derated takeoff. Presumably it can’t coast along the runway as it needs to reach V1 in a reasonable time. It seems an odd way to save a bit of fuel.

The idea is use all the runway to accelerate on the ground to a higher speed and then you can climb out using lower flap, less drag,= more efficient.

The 747’s default flap on take off is 20, its VR speed is surprisingly routinely lower than the 787’s. It therefore rotates earlier and uses less runway, it still maintains a more than adequate climb gradient despite having this draggy flap 20 out due to having plenty of thrust available..

You force the 787 to use flap 20, indeed it’s the recommended setting for potential windshear.

The lower flap settings on the 78 allow for slight increases in RTOW which I presume are due to improved second segment climb gradients.

3 hours ago, jon b said:

The idea is use all the runway to accelerate on the ground to a higher speed and then you can climb out using lower flap, less drag,= more efficient.

That sounds great until something goes wrong late into the takeoff roll and you don’t have enough runway left to safely stop. I cannot understand the logic of that procedure. It sounds pretty damn dangerous.