Not a pilot, just a SLF. I have read the whole thread but with so many posts, it’s hard to remember all of them and some of the very techie ones are beyond my comprehension. So I’m not trying to promote any theories, second guess investigations, impugn anyone’s reputation or tell them how to do their jobs – just trying to understand.
To my untutored mind, the more serious aspect of this event is not the tailstrike(s) but why the plane used up nearly the whole runway (a very long one, as I understand it, well capable of allowing an A340 loaded for a non-stop flight to DXB to get off safely) and then was still so low that it took out antennae (or whatever) beyond the end of the r/w. The tailstrike(s) were a symptom of the bigger problem of the delayed t/o
Posters who sound like they know what they're talking about seem to be suggesting it's very hard to cock up take-off computations (speeds, powers settings) and that weight or flap setting miscalculations/errors should not have had that much of an effect on such a long runway.
I'm guessing that professional airline pilots don't just sit there going "Computer says no" while they gobble up 7/8ths of the r/w length without having reached take off speed and then yank the stick fully back and scrape the tail along the ground in a last gasp attempt to get the thing off the ground.
So, as I understand it, a more plausible theory is that (and, as I say, I'm not having a go at anyone) the pilot misjudged the rotation, put the nose back down leading to "porpoising" with one or tail strikes (and loss of speed?) and by the time this situation had stabilised, they were nearly at the end of the runway - is that right?
Thanks.