Flaps - They could've been on their way UP too

Just for the record, there is no system on modern Boeing aircraft to prevent the accidental retraction of flaps when too low or slow when airborne. You wouldn't even get a warning on Boeing aircraft that is related to Flaps, you'd eventually get one related to Low Speed or Stall. The Airbus has a safety feature called "Alpha-Lock" which physically stops the Flaps from moving when the AoA or speed? is deemed too low. But that's not a safety net for all flap settings, just the lowest for takeoff. It will save the day in 95% of situations though Mr Boeing (hint hint)

Takeoff config warnings and checklists may not have helped if the flap setting was not enough given the weight and conditions. A good handling pilot could recover from an incorrect flap setting (providing there's no obstacles to deal with), by gently lowering the nose allowing the airspeed to build up before resuming the climb. However, various human factors such as startle and over reliance on automation (my thrust setting must be good) will not help the situation.

In order of likelihood:

1.) Flaps moved instead of gear
2.) Incorrect Flap settings and inability of crew to recover from that
3.) Double engine failure
4.) Some electrical event that distracted them

Not a big or busy airport. Taxi time would've been minimal. Aircraft was on the ground for around 2 hours from the previous flight which is enough in most cases. It's every so slightly possible though.

Interesting, it's not an Airbus procedure either yet I've seen both types doing it out of UK airports.

That airport video shows an abrupt loss of lift with the aircraft pointing upwards the entire time which would explain (you know what). An engine failure would create some kind of yawing or change in pitch.

No trail or puff of smoke from any engine once airborne though. These things don't disappear in a second, they tend to linger around a bit longer. The "bang" needs to be corroborated.

The sink happens at precisely the time you would expect the gear to be up. A bang does not explain the sinking. The aircraft almost pancakes to the ground

Deep breath... I wasn't convinced before, I am now. The RAT is definitely out guys. We are now potentially looking at a problem with the aircraft. Possibly a big one!

I found a post on X where the sole survivor describes the flashing cabin lights (in Hindi/Gujarati) before the crash.


At 20 seconds he describes the aircraft being "stuck" which I think refers to a sinking or "not climbing" feeling. He then goes on to say that some lights flashed - green and white. He says that bit in English.

Some kind of thrust problem, whether real or incorrectly perceived, might have prompted for the DUAL ENG FAIL memory item being carried out. This calls for cutting off both engines and then on again.

Edit: How do we know it happened at 100ft?

I'm trying to explain the appearance of the RAT and the onboard green/white flashing lights. The alternatives right now are dual engine failure with no birds around.

Come on guys, "Vrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooom" (propellor), a few seconds in

There's two things which are unlikely to be related to this accident, but thought I'd mention them because they both concern software bugs that impacted 1.) The Electrical System and 2.) The Engines (both of them at the same time!)

US aviation authority: Boeing 787 bug could cause 'loss of control'

https://www.theguardian.com/business...oss-of-control

ANA Boeing 787 Dreamliner Suffers Dual Engine Failure On Landing:

https://simpleflying.com/ana-dual-en...re-on-landing/

No evidence of engine failure - Depends how you look at it, the sinking and inability to remain airborne points towards a possibility

No evidence of RAT deployment from a poor image - There absolutely is, you're not following fully I'm afraid. There's a brilliant video by Juan Brown where he compares the sound of the plane passing with that of an American 787 on final with the RAT deployed. Identical sound. The image is not conclusive but I'd wager a bet on it.

No evidence of electrical failure - Except, mention of flashing lights inside cabin moments before by the sole survivor and (sorry old boy) - The RAT ;-)

The teams of lawyers in the UK representing 53 grieving families will be working over the weekend to sign up said families to a class action - Well....

​​​​​​​This is going to get messy. - Agreed
​​​​​​​

Can any 78 driver think of a scenario where an abnormal switch position (I'm thinking far up on the overhead panel like one of those Engineer test switches) or a pulled CB may have allowed the flight to continue the takeoff roll with perhaps one (or two) simple EICAS messages (which the crew might have ignored), to then later on result in something catastrophic?

I agree. Either this was an intentional act or it didn't happen at all. If there was some other defect that caused this, I cannot envisage a scenario where Boeing would survive a global grounding of 1200 x 787s. Plus the almost certain bankruptcy of Air India given the 787 is more than half their wide-body fleet.