Vietnam Airlines 787 suffers tailstrike and tyre damage in Munich

A Vietnam Airlines Boeing 787-9 operating a long-haul flight from Munich to Hanoi sustained serious airframe and landing-gear damage after a troubled takeoff run and emergency return to Munich on 15 August, according to multiple aviation tracking feeds and eyewitness accounts shared publicly.

Long takeoff run ends in suspected tailstrike

The aircraft, identified in publicly shared flight-tracking data as Vietnam Airlines flight VN34 from Munich to Hanoi, accelerated along Munich Airport’s 4,000‑metre runway 26L on Saturday before lifting off unusually close to the end of the paved surface. Video recordings circulated on aviation forums show the Boeing 787‑9 using nearly the entire runway length before becoming airborne, followed by a visible plume of dust and smoke from the rear of the jet.

Aviation enthusiasts commenting on the footage have interpreted the dust cloud as consistent with a tailstrike, when the underside of the rear fuselage or tail contacts the runway during rotation. Images posted after the event appear to show abrasion and structural damage to the underside of the aft fuselage, as well as scuffing in the area of the horizontal and vertical stabilisers.

Despite the apparent contact with the runway, the aircraft climbed away and continued its initial departure. Publicly available tracking data indicates that the 787‑9 levelled off at a relatively low cruising altitude near 9,000 feet and began holding near Munich, rather than proceeding on its scheduled route toward Vietnam.

There were no immediate reports of injuries among passengers or crew, and images taken after landing show the aircraft stationary on the runway with emergency vehicles present and slides not deployed, suggesting an orderly disembarkation via mobile stairs.

Emergency return, fuel jettison and tyre failures

After the suspected tailstrike, the crew kept the aircraft in the vicinity of Munich for an extended period, reportedly to reduce weight and assess potential structural damage. Flight-tracking plots and eyewitness reports from the ground indicate that the 787‑9 carried out multiple holding patterns and fuel jettison manoeuvres over southern Germany before lining up for an emergency landing.

The return was conducted to runway 26R, Munich’s northern runway. Images released by plane spotters shortly after the landing show extensive damage to several main-gear tyres, with rubber shredded from the wheels and debris scattered on the runway surface. Observers have suggested that the aircraft may still have been relatively heavy despite the fuel dump, contributing to the stress on the landing gear at touchdown.

Photos taken from the ground during the landing sequence show fire and rescue vehicles positioned along the runway and following the aircraft after it came to a stop. Airport operations were significantly affected, with reports from passengers and local media describing delays and temporary disruption as one runway was closed for inspections and debris removal.

According to publicly available information, all occupants were safely transported to the terminal following the incident. The aircraft remained on the runway for some time while specialists and ground crews secured the site and began an initial damage assessment.

Visible structural damage raises repair questions

High-resolution photographs of the aircraft at rest reveal pronounced scraping and structural penetration along the lower rear fuselage, where the composite skin appears to have been ground away by contact with the runway. Additional marks can be seen near the tail cone and on control surfaces, indicating that the impact forces extended beyond superficial paint loss.

Aviation maintenance professionals commenting on the images have noted that while Boeing 787 composite structures can be repaired in the field, the extent of the damage will determine whether the aircraft can be restored locally or will require factory-level intervention. Comparable tailstrike events on other 787 operators have led to lengthy repair periods while specialist teams inspected internal structures and replaced affected composite panels.

In addition to fuselage damage, the condition of the main landing gear will be a central focus. Several wheels appear to have lost their tyres entirely, leaving bare rims in contact with the runway. Any associated damage to brake assemblies, wheel hubs and gear struts will have to be examined in detail before any decision on returning the jet to service can be made.

The aircraft, carrying Vietnam registration VN‑A867 according to public records, is one of the Boeing 787‑9s deployed by the carrier on long-haul routes linking Europe and Asia. Its removal from service for repairs may require schedule adjustments on Vietnam Airlines’ transcontinental network in the coming weeks.

Investigation under way into takeoff performance

While the precise sequence of events remains to be formally established, early discussion within the aviation community has focused on the 787‑9’s unusually long takeoff roll and the late rotation visible in available footage. Commentators have raised the possibility of issues related to takeoff performance calculations, thrust setting, or configuration, although no official cause has been identified.

Enthusiast posts referencing cockpit procedures note that modern long-haul jets rely on pre-calculated performance data that factor in aircraft weight, runway length, temperature and wind to determine rotation speeds and required thrust. Any error in data entry or configuration can result in slower acceleration, higher-than-expected takeoff distance or inadequate climb performance.

A formal technical inquiry is expected to examine flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder information, as well as crew actions, weather conditions and the physical state of the runway at Munich. Investigators are also likely to review maintenance records for the aircraft and any reported anomalies prior to departure.

Runway inspections at Munich following the event will play a critical role in reconstructing the incident. Marks on the pavement, potential gouges beyond the paved threshold and debris fields from the tyres can help determine the exact point and severity of the tailstrike and subsequent landing-gear failures.

Operational impact at Munich and for Vietnam Airlines

The incident had immediate consequences for air traffic in and out of Munich. With one runway closed to accommodate the emergency landing and subsequent recovery, the airport operated at reduced capacity for a period, prompting diversions and delays that affected both short-haul and long-haul services.

Passengers at Munich and at other airports linked to the hub reported waiting on taxiways and at departure gates while crews awaited clearance slots. Aviation discussion boards tracking the situation noted that some inbound flights diverted to alternate airports to avoid extended holding patterns during the runway closure.

For Vietnam Airlines, the damage to a widebody aircraft on an important European route represents a significant operational challenge. The carrier has been expanding and modernising its long-haul fleet, and the temporary loss of a 787‑9 may necessitate equipment swaps, wet-leasing arrangements or short-term timetable changes on selected routes.

Publicly available corporate documents show that Vietnam Airlines relies heavily on its Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 fleets for intercontinental services. Any prolonged downtime for VN‑A867 will likely be balanced by adjustments elsewhere in the network as the airline works to maintain capacity and minimise disruption for passengers already booked on future flights.