It sounds like the switches were pulled almost at rotation. It takes awhile for the engines to spool down and that giant fan blade is going to be delivering thrust for a few seconds in the process.
I would be interested to know if the switches were flipped simultaneously or one at a time. If it’s one at a time that’s easier to hide than using both hands and flipping them at the same time.
The commercial pilots can weigh in on this but they pulled the nose up to soften the impact instead of leveling off in an attempt to gain airspeed as the engines spool up.
After the dust settles we will be able to see if this was remotely possible using the plane data and simulating the flight.
Yeah fully loaded plane, hot day and both engines cut out 3 seconds after take off, the rat deploys, someone flips the switches back on and one engine catches and spools and the other starts to. Damn that’s a lot happening in seconds. 
Just occurred to me - the pilots knew they were losing lift but maybe did not know which engine…flipped both off then both back on. 
One second difference, as expected for switching them off one at a time. 
To save everyone a lot of back and forth research here’s the pertinent excerpt from the Preliminary Report
Is it possible to do them both simultaneously? My impression is that you are required to pull the switch upwards against a spring before moving it down. So is it normal to pull each sequentially and quickly, or can you grip both at once between fingers of a curled fist and pull them? Because that seems like an awkward manus manuver.
As mentioned upthread, the same switches are installed on the 737. I can’t guarantee the spacing between them is the same as on the 787, but probably close. The pic in the accident report of an undamaged 787 quadrant looks very, very similar to the 737 parts.
I’ve never seen anyone switch both at once by trying to grip both stumps between the knuckles of one hand. I know I never experimented with it. The strength of the detent spring is probably not the main obstacle; just having a large enough handspan is. IMO you’d need to put one switch stump between thumb & forefinger and the other between ring & little finger. I rate it “doable for largish strong hands, but awkward.”
Were the two switches not properly mechanically locked in their detents, then a simple sweep of the palm & fingers of one hand could knock them both to “off” simultaneously. How the electrical contacts mesh with the mechanical arrangements are unclear. I can’t say for sure whether the engines would or would not even start with the switches not fully in the locked “on” position.
One of the questions that is obvious, and for which no official discussion is forthcoming that I’ve seen, is whether there was anyone else in the cockpit with the two pilots, either officially or unofficially.
That non-stop flight takes over 10 hours. Such that under US regs it would require three pilots in the crew. And in typical US practice that third pilot would be occupying a cockpit seat behind the working first officer during the takeoff. From which seat that pilot can reach many, but not all, of the cockpit controls other than the yokes & pedals. Including reaching the engine run switches. I do not know the specifics on Indian regulations, and perhaps a third pilot is not required, or if so, is that person in the cockpit or commonly riding in the back during takeoff?
In addition to a possible required third pilot crewmember, another possibility is a properly credentialed and ticketed jumpseat rider(s), either one or two. The details vary by carrier and country, but such a person would typically have to be either a pilot, an executive, or a government official, of certain airlines or government agencies, and be included on the passenger manifest and be noted as occupying a cockpit seat. So the records would show this person existed.
A final possibility is someone unofficially in the cockpit on the Captain’s say-so. Which may, or may not, represent the Captain exceeding his legal authority, or the customary bounds of that company’s culture, or both. And if this is the case it’s a virtual certainty that fact is written nowhere, although the person is almost certainly on the passenger manifest as an ordinary passenger.
I’d really like to get some clarity from the investigators on the presence or absence of any 3rd person.
The other thread posted a timeline and there’s a 4 second gap between when the first switch was turned back on and the 2nd. That’s an eternity when the plane is going down.
True. Lots else is going on, and taking the time to make sure in your haste you don’t have the wrong switch or move it the wrong way is useful too.
The report lists 2 flight crew, 10 cabin crew, and 230 passengers. Your point is taken about the published schedule of 10 hours 15 minutes but the actual flights seem to be well under 10 hours.
Indian flight time limitations for two pilots are 10 hours flight time and 13 hours duty time. Given the flight times for AMD-LGW are typically less than 10 hours and the scheduled duty would comfortably fit within 13 hours, I’m guessing India just rosters the flight as two crew.
As for someone other than a pilot in the jump seat I can only think that there was no one there, otherwise it would have been reported given how relevant that information would be to the investigation.
If you ask why the switches are off and the plane is going down because neither engine is running then it’s a known problem. There is no checklist or thought involved. Certain death is measured in seconds and there is nothing to lose by flipping both switches on. I think it’s possible something happened to delay that from happening.
There will be reconstructed test flights in a simulator and those 4 seconds combined with lowering the nose could have been the difference. They only needed enough power from both engines for straight and level flight until they fully spool up.
My bet right now is there was more going on in there than 2 people both struggling to stay alive by saving the airplane.
We’ll know more when they release more. If they ever do. The rest is now guesswork.
It’s obvious two seconds earlier would not have hurt. Would it have helped enough to matter?
Even the first engine did not reach even idle before impact. It was accelerating up towards idle. They were not going to achieve level flight w constant airspeed until they had one up near takeoff power or two at midrange power. That takes time. Probably more time than even instant zero-confusion (read “improbably magical”) reactions would have given them.
According to India’s NDTV, serious consideration is being given to the possibility that this may have been a pilot suicide, with the first pilot reportedly having health problems. If this is true, one wonders why he did not commit suicide alone, but instead took hundreds of people with him to their deaths and plunged countless families into misery. On the other hand, one might wonder whether this approach is not intended to distract attention from mistakes made by Boeing, given that the Dreamliner has repeatedly experienced technical problems.
You were good until the Boeing smear. 
I am in no way trying to make Boeing look bad. I am trying to take a rational approach to the situation: two-thirds of India’s NDTV was acquired by Gautam Adani, a close confidant of Modi, to whom he owes a great deal. So there are grounds for doubting NDTV’s independence as a news source. On the other hand, Boeing has a vested interest in not being in the media spotlight again because of technical defects in one of its aircraft (think of the problems with the 737 MAX). If potential customers put their Dreamliner orders on hold, that is not without its problems for Boeing.
They won’t and it’s not.
Ok. I beg to differ.
Is there a huge suicide taboo in Indian culture like there was in Egyptian, where the E. investigators bent over backwards to absolve Al-Batouti of any malfeasance?
As LSL pointed out the switches involved are long standing industry-standard switches.
And as planes go the Dreamliner has shown itself to be a very reliable plane.
There is always an element of politics between the manufacturer, the airline, the pilot union, the supervising government agency, and the investigating government agency. In general it’s pretty minor, but, humans being humans, it’s never zero.
Some countries are much more about the politics, and if the government is the owner or major shareholder of the airline that generally adds a lot of politics into the mix. When everyone is a separate entity, the mutual shoving for advantage tends to net near zero.
I do not have any feel for how much politics infuses the typical Indian airline accident investigation. I know they’re not infamous for whitewashes, which suggests, but does not prove, that they’re about like everybody else.
IMO …
This utterly does NOT look like a design defect accident. It looks like either a procedural error accident, an unlawful interference accident, or a suicide / crazy pilot accident. Sadly the latter tend to invoke a lot of other sorts of politics, and as mentioned above, cultural taboos.