I truly wonder if anyone contributing their thoughts actually reads the posts that have come before their own.
It is certainly frustrating to see the same points and the same questions arise so early in the thread, when they have been dealt with in one form or another in earlier posts.
While it may be that someone believes that what has been thus far contributed by experienced people on the airplane may be questioned, at least have the courtesy to pose the question and standby for an informed response so that the conversation can be developed.
Questions about how the Airbus and standard operating procedures handle takeoff weights, takeoff data and takeoff thrust have all been responded to by experienced, knowledgeable contributors. Questions about fuel loads, enroute times, takeoff V speeds and calculations of same have similarly been dealt with by experienced people on the equipment. I posted a lengthy description of the rotation technique, including cautions, concerning the A340-500. These are relevant points to a tailstrike incident. They are necessary aspects of the discussion yet continue to be ignored in favour of the wildest theories. Most theories regarding early gear or flap retraction, cargo shifting, wrong trim setting on takeoff range from much less likely to not-a-chance.
Of interest are reports that the aircraft was still on the ground at the end of the runway. Can anyone confirm this or is this just another media story? Thanks.