Vietnam Airlines 787 twice lost speed in tense Munich takeoff

A Vietnam Airlines Boeing 787-9 departing Munich for Hanoi twice lost speed during its takeoff roll and only became airborne near the end of the runway before suffering a tailstrike and returning for an emergency landing, according to flight tracking data and early technical commentary.

Unusual acceleration and speed loss on runway 26R

The incident occurred on August 15 at Munich Airport, involving Vietnam Airlines flight VN34 to Hanoi, operated by a Boeing 787-9 registered VN-A867. Publicly available data from flight tracking platforms and independent analysis show that during the takeoff run on runway 26R, the aircraft’s acceleration was inconsistent, with its groundspeed increasing normally at first before decreasing twice in quick succession.

Specialist discussions based on the recorded speed profile indicate that the jet initially accelerated through around 130 to 140 knots, then experienced a brief loss of speed before recovering. A second loss of speed followed as the aircraft approached its calculated decision and rotation speeds. Commentators reviewing the traces have highlighted an unusual “plateau” in acceleration at a critical phase in the roll, suggesting that something was preventing the 787 from gaining speed as expected.

Despite the speed fluctuations, publicly shared information shows the aircraft continued past the point on the runway where it would typically lift off. Observers reviewing video from the airport perimeter have noted that the 787 remained on the ground close to the runway end, appearing to rotate and climb only after passing the normal lift-off point for similar long-haul departures from Munich.

Reports circulating in aviation forums and regional media describe the flight crew as choosing to continue the takeoff rather than reject it, as they assessed that there was no remaining runway length to safely stop. Shortly after becoming airborne, cockpit warnings reportedly indicated a tailstrike and issues with multiple main-gear tires.

Tailstrike, tire damage and emergency return to Munich

After lift-off, the 787 is reported to have generated alerts consistent with a tailstrike, in which the rear fuselage contacts the runway during rotation. Images shared after the incident show scraping and tearing on the underside of the aft fuselage, as well as significant damage to several main landing gear tires.

According to accounts from aviation observers, the crew levelled off and entered a holding pattern near Munich to burn and dump fuel in order to reduce landing weight. The aircraft remained in the vicinity of the airport for roughly two hours, allowing emergency services to position along the runway and giving time for checks on the status of the landing gear and braking systems.

On returning to Munich, the 787 landed on runway 26R with visible structural and tire damage. Photographs taken from the ground show shredded rubber on at least one main-gear truck and scarring on the fuselage skin toward the tail. The landing and subsequent rollout scattered debris on the runway, leading to lengthy closure of the arrival and departure strip while recovery and inspections took place.

Images and local reports indicate that passengers were eventually disembarked via mobile stairs on a taxiway after the aircraft halted and ground crews confirmed there was no sign of fire or smoke. There were no reports of injuries among passengers or crew, though the aircraft remains grounded as detailed inspections and structural assessments proceed.

Emerging technical theories on the speed loss

The focus of early technical commentary has turned to why the aircraft twice lost speed during the takeoff roll. Pilots familiar with the 787 who have reviewed publicly accessible data suggest several possible scenarios, ranging from partial thrust loss to abnormal braking or drag during the acceleration.

One line of discussion points to potential residual braking, where brake pressure remains higher than normal during the roll, increasing drag and limiting acceleration. References in online discussions to unusually elevated brake temperature or pressure readings after departure have been cited by some commentators as circumstantial support for this hypothesis, although no official technical finding has been released.

Other analyses compare the accident flight’s acceleration profile with that of a routine Vietnam Airlines 787 departure from Munich, noting that the earlier flight showed steady and continuous acceleration, while the incident flight displays two distinct dips in speed between approximately 138 and 147 knots. Specialists note that on modern airliners, a brief loss of thrust from one engine, incorrect thrust setting, or a configuration that adds drag could produce a similar pattern, though data so far remains incomplete.

There has also been discussion around flap settings and takeoff performance calculations, referencing past events where low-speed takeoffs were traced to miscalculated speeds or incorrect flap configurations. However, video from inside the cabin and external imagery suggest that the 787 departed with a commonly used flap setting, leading some experienced pilots participating in public forums to consider flap misconfiguration less likely in this case.

Investigators to examine performance data and prior incidents

A formal investigation is expected to examine the flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder and aircraft maintenance records to determine the exact sequence of events at Munich. Regulators and safety specialists will likely focus on the interaction between the 787’s performance calculations, thrust setting, brake system, and any warning messages generated during the takeoff roll.

Aviation safety reports published in recent years have documented several low-speed or performance-related takeoff incidents across different widebody types, including cases where erroneous weight entries or incomplete performance data led to insufficient thrust settings. Investigators are expected to compare the Munich event with those earlier cases to identify whether similar human factors or system design issues contributed.

Another area of interest will be how close the aircraft came to a runway excursion. Publicly shared analysis of surveillance and tracking data suggests that the 787 became airborne very near the runway end, leaving minimal margin if the climb had not been successful. Safety experts commonly note that such reduced margins increase the likelihood of structural damage in the event of a tailstrike and complicate the decision on whether to reject or continue a takeoff.

The tailstrike and substantial tire damage raise questions about inspection and repair requirements for the composite fuselage and landing gear systems. Specialists indicate that repairs to a 787’s carbon-fiber structure after a severe tailstrike can be complex and time-consuming, potentially keeping the aircraft out of service for an extended period.

Impact on operations and passenger confidence

The incident at Munich caused notable disruption at one of Europe’s busiest hubs. Runway 26R was temporarily closed while emergency services, airport staff and airline personnel coordinated the aircraft’s landing, towing and debris removal. Reports from passengers on unrelated flights describe delays and diversions as traffic was rerouted to the airport’s other runway and to alternate destinations.

Boeing 787 operations at other airlines are continuing as normal, but the Munich event has prompted renewed discussion among travelers about long-haul safety and takeoff performance. Online communities dedicated to fear of flying and passenger rights have seen a rise in questions from travelers scheduled to fly on the 787-9 in the coming days, particularly from those departing Munich.

Flight safety specialists note in published commentary that the safe outcome, with no injuries, reflects the resilience built into modern widebody aircraft and the multiple layers of training that prepare flight crews for abnormal takeoff scenarios. Even so, the combination of a long, low-speed run, tailstrike, tire failures and an overweight return landing ensures that the Munich incident will be studied closely by investigators, regulators and operators in the months ahead.