Dreamliner Down in India

[shamrock104]

RIP

[boeingboy]

So - a little more info than the OP

Boeing 787 Travelling from Ahmedabad to Gatwick Crashed into a residential area right after takeoff. It only reached 625 feet and the crew issued 1 "Mayday" to ATC before crashing. 230 passengers and 12 crew onboard. This is the first loss of a 787.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/public-safety ... ngNewsSerp

There is video of the decent to the ground and to play armchair quarterback.....It's a little hard to see but it sure looks like the flaps are retracted. Either weren't set or maybe the crew retracted them instead of the gear. Either way she was nose high and descending.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MjHaqD70ySQ

[Sulako]

it crashed into a heavily populated residential area, which means there are going to be casualties on the ground also.
Boeing shares are already down 8% in premarket trading, which is to be expected after a major crash.
I agree it looks like the flaps are up, but I don't know the 787 very well.
Not a good day.

[MX-5]

Would lack of flaps (with engines operating nominally) cause zero or negative vertical speed?

[Bede]

Looks like the RAT is out suggesting complete loss of electrical (read engine) power.

[Me262]

From watching both videos, it looks like double engine power loss.

[BTD]

Would lack of flaps (with engines operating nominally) cause zero or negative vertical speed?

Yes if heavy and the flaps were fully retracted instead of the gear the airplane would likely immediately stall and descend. However it does look fairly stable in descent. There have been numerous accidents from airliners taking off without flaps extended and unable to climb out of ground effect end up crashing off the end of the runway. Northwest DC9 Detroit. Delta 727 Dallas.

There are some reports as well from pilots accidentally retracting flaps instead of gear. I’ll see if I can find those. Usually they are able to undo the mistake and save it.

Bede, you are able to see the RAT? I can’t. It does look like what I would imagine a dual engine failure after takeoff would look like. But if they made it too 600+ feet, prior to power loss, one would think that the gear would be up. However, often when something wild happens at liftoff the gear is often missed for a little bit while the pilots brain is trying to play catchup.

[digits_]

Would lack of flaps (with engines operating nominally) cause zero or negative vertical speed?

Yes if heavy and the flaps were fully retracted instead of the gear the airplane would likely immediately stall and descend. However it does look fairly stable in descent. There have been numerous accidents from airliners taking off without flaps extended and unable to climb out of ground effect end up crashing off the end of the runway. Northwest DC9 Detroit. Delta 727 Dallas.

Why would it stall? In what airplane mode does it climb out? Attitude? Speed? A combination? Flightpath?
Raising the flaps generally reduces the angle of attack. So yes, the plane will descend, but unless the AP forces an unsustainable flightpath, it should not stall, and definitely not right away.

[BTD]

Incidents where flaps were moved instead of gear after takeoff.

https://simpleflying.com/vietnam-airlin ... hatgpt.com

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/i ... o-2015-056

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/i ... r200302037

https://www.flightglobal.com/probe-det ... 61.article

[BTD]

Would lack of flaps (with engines operating nominally) cause zero or negative vertical speed?

Yes if heavy and the flaps were fully retracted instead of the gear the airplane would likely immediately stall and descend. However it does look fairly stable in descent. There have been numerous accidents from airliners taking off without flaps extended and unable to climb out of ground effect end up crashing off the end of the runway. Northwest DC9 Detroit. Delta 727 Dallas.

Why would it stall? In what airplane mode does it climb out? Attitude? Speed? A combination? Flightpath?
Raising the flaps generally reduces the angle of attack. So yes, the plane will descend, but unless the AP forces an unsustainable flightpath, it should not stall, and definitely not right away.

You can say that, but the evidence supports that if an airliner departs without flaps it will stall after leaving ground effect if the pilots are unaware and use the normal attitudes. In the case of retracting the flaps fully instead of the gear, the crew will immediately get the stick shaker and if recovery isn’t initiated immediately the aircraft will stall and descend. If recovery is initiated, you may not stall, but the shaker will be going and you will also descend. I suppose I should have clarified that. That is what the evidence points too. It is also part of the reason Boeings stall recovery procedures say that “in the event of stick shaker after takeoff select flaps 1.”

Normal takeoff attitudes and speeds for the segment of climb immediately after gear retraction will put you below your flaps up maneuver speed or flaps up green dot by a large margin. Even below the safety margins built into those speeds.

[atc_is_god]

Blurry spec on the right side might be the RAT?

[atc_is_god]

Blue circle

[Z28]

Why not use the whole runway especially on a very hot day?

[boeingboy]

Here is another video of the takeoff roll and crash from airport CCTV...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WEP2XsM_quE

Looks like they barely got it off the ground and with a very shallow climb. Maybe wrong FMC data?

[boeingboy]

Why not use the whole runway especially on a very hot day?

Apparently Flightradar is confirming that it appears they backtracked to the end of the runway. Temp being reported as 100 degrees.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tec ... 806389.cms

Screenshot_12-6-2025_15216_timesofindia.indiatimes.com.jpeg (179.89 KiB) Viewed 2145 times

[TCAS II]

The aircraft would give you many warnings when thrust is pushed forward and the flaps aren’t selected. Perhaps incorrect WAT numbers? Perhaps dual engine failure on takeoff? Perhaps flaps retracted too early? Some other pilot error? Why was the gear not retracted? The FDR and CVR will tell the story.

“The aircraft was being piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a seasoned commander with over 8,200 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kundar, who had 1,100 hours of flying experience.”

Should we be surprised at the low time and be demanding more experience from crews? The FO on British European Airways Flight 548 only had 1,400 hrs and it sounds like a similar accident.

First fatal 787 crash. It’s a very sad day in commercial aviation!

[digits_]

Should we be surprised at the low time and be demanding more experience from crews? The FO on British European Airways Flight 548 only had 1,400 hrs and it sounds like a similar accident.

Where do you suggest these pilots get more of their experience? Send them all to the Canadian North? Have them pay to fly 1500 hours on a 172?

[BTD]

The aircraft would give you many warnings when thrust is pushed forward and the flaps aren’t selected.

And yet there have been numerous accidents in airliners after a takeoff without flaps extended, where warnings should have alerted the crew. Sometimes they were not functioning, other times crews didn’t hear them etc. None of this is to suggest this is the case here.

Although it doesn’t appear there was a tail strike here.

[DanWEC]

I think there has to be more to this than just flap retraction, even if instead of gear. A 788 should be able to power out of one notch of flap in that amount of time, even on a single engine, gear extended, thought I'm not specifically familiar with the type and TOGA application.
They also had time for, and did a Mayday call, so they weren't freezing up. I suspect other factors at play and I really have no idea what. Awful. My thoughts are with everyone affected.

[dustyroads]

The aircraft would give you many warnings when thrust is pushed forward and the flaps aren’t selected. Perhaps incorrect WAT numbers? Perhaps dual engine failure on takeoff? Perhaps flaps retracted too early? Some other pilot error? Why was the gear not retracted? The FDR and CVR will tell the story.

“The aircraft was being piloted by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, a seasoned commander with over 8,200 flight hours, and First Officer Clive Kundar, who had 1,100 hours of flying experience.”

Should we be surprised at the low time and be demanding more experience from crews? The FO on British European Airways Flight 548 only had 1,400 hrs and it sounds like a similar accident.

First fatal 787 crash. It’s a very sad day in commercial aviation!

The airlines seem to demand low experience. My thinking is airlines think the low time newly licensed are more up to date on regs etc whereas more experienced people have not done the heavy study work of late that it takes to get one’s licences. That’s the companies desire but if you ask the paying passengers I’m sure almost all would rather have the airlines hire the most experienced applicants, experienced line flying applicants, not flight training instructors.

[Canoehead]

The airlines seem to demand low experience. My thinking is airlines think the low time newly licensed are more up to date on regs etc whereas more experienced people have not done the heavy study work of late that it takes to get one’s licences. That’s the companies desire...

This is not true in any sense.

[cdnavater]

The airlines seem to demand low experience. My thinking is airlines think the low time newly licensed are more up to date on regs etc whereas more experienced people have not done the heavy study work of late that it takes to get one’s licences. That’s the companies desire...

This is not true in any sense.

Yep, ridiculous statement!

[flieslikeachicken]

From watching both videos, it looks like double engine power loss.

This is an image of the aircraft kicking up a lot of dust at the end of the runway. Suggests to me (not an expert) that the left engine at least was producing power.

[Me262]

From watching both videos, it looks like double engine power loss.

This is an image of the aircraft kicking up a lot of dust at the end of the runway. Suggests to me (not an expert) that the left engine at least was producing power.

I'm saying after the AC took off. Some say they see flaps are retracted, so that is also very plausible. With dust kicked up, did the AC took off with 0 flaps?

Still, it went up quite high before starting to come down, so I'm still going with my double engine failure theory very shortly after T/O

Lastly, I'm just going to wait and hear from the official investigation, there can be too many variable/reasons. I expect something very quickly since the black box and voice recorder are already retrieved, and I'm sure the governments want to know ASAP if this was a Boeing problem or pilot error.

[boeingboy]

Except that in the first video you can hear the engines running.

A 787 should not take up every inch (and maybe a couple more judging by the dust at the end of the runway) of 11,500 ft to get airborne. An incorrect takeoff thrust setting however would. It also explains the initial climb and subsequent settling.