Maroc 737 in loss-of-lift incident at FRA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all the comments about cock-ups, and there must have been one or more, may I commend the PF on a seemingly non-panic manoeuvre that kept the tail intact, i.er. good pitch control, allowed a gentle kiss to departing runway in fond farewell and an application of extra oomph that allowed the early bonds to be broken in a pitch controlled manner.
I suspect the TL's were advanced PDQ, but the nose didn't rear like Nick Skelton's Olympic winning show jumper.
I always say that pilots will dig holes, many times. It's what you do next that counts. There are those who jump in and keep digging; usually only once. There are those who have fallen in, are surprised, but find a climb out and there are those who teeter on the edge and retreat. I suspect this was the middle one.
I also reflect on the RTO section of the takeoff brief, where one reason is "aircraft unfit to fly." This was passed V1, but perhaps there was a lot of runway remaining at FRA: depends on where they started. I wonder if there was a momentary pause to consider an RTO, but the a/c behaviour didn't seem to suggest that. It would be interesting to know where their initial rotate point was and the final liftoff.
I suspect the TL's were advanced PDQ, but the nose didn't rear like Nick Skelton's Olympic winning show jumper.
I always say that pilots will dig holes, many times. It's what you do next that counts. There are those who jump in and keep digging; usually only once. There are those who have fallen in, are surprised, but find a climb out and there are those who teeter on the edge and retreat. I suspect this was the middle one.
I also reflect on the RTO section of the takeoff brief, where one reason is "aircraft unfit to fly." This was passed V1, but perhaps there was a lot of runway remaining at FRA: depends on where they started. I wonder if there was a momentary pause to consider an RTO, but the a/c behaviour didn't seem to suggest that. It would be interesting to know where their initial rotate point was and the final liftoff.
Last edited by RAT 5; 25th Aug 2016 at 21:57.
Is it possible all bags were loaded in the front, and the rear hold not checked in error? Saw it happen years ago, in reverse, when front of a GoFly aircraft wasn't checked and there was 500kg of freight (think it might have been a/c parts). Aircraft was very quickly re-trimmed to get it off the deck, I'm told.
Originally Posted by Rat
I always say that pilots will dig holes, many times. It's what you do next that counts. There are those who jump in and keep digging; usually only once. There are those who have fallen in, are surprised, but find a climb out and there are those who teeter on the edge and retreat. I suspect this was the middle one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Those flaps appear to be set at 1. Not enough for 5. I have never done a flaps 1 takeoff as our company's performance data doesn't cater for it, but I am pretty sure it is allowed. This is why you rotate slowly at higher weights, I so often see people try and launch the thing into the air and I think to myself... that is going to bite you in the ass one day. Rotate a bit, get a feel for the aircraft and it is usually abundantly clear if something isn't right. If it feels wrong then just rotate 1000ft before the end of the runway.
OntimeexceptACARS,
I'd be very surprised if 500kg of freight in the wrong locker would have such a severe effect. According to the FCTM, trim sit anywhere in the takeoff band the pilot should be able to rotate the aircraft successfully.
OntimeexceptACARS,
I'd be very surprised if 500kg of freight in the wrong locker would have such a severe effect. According to the FCTM, trim sit anywhere in the takeoff band the pilot should be able to rotate the aircraft successfully.
For a V-speeds gross error check on the B757/767 I compiled this form a few years back. The basic template could be used for other types. Nearly all our B757 take-offs were Flaps 15 and B767 Flaps 5. It took just a couple of seconds to cross-check the FMC data to prevent embarrassment (or worse).
Absolutely a flaps 1 attempted takeoff. I wonder whether this would have activated the auto-slats feature as they rotated. (The slats would automatically move from extend to full extend)
Don’t think it was much to do with trim as they were able to achieve a body angle greater than that for a normal rotation without leaving the ground, initially. That shows they were too slow for the aircraft configuration.
Whether they used a different flap setting than planned and/or the wrong speeds (weights) I don’t think you can tell. It does look like a fairly gross error, though.
A V1/Vr mixup is possible as technically you can have a V1 split off a 4,000m runway if you want but it's most unlikely IMHO.
Whether they used a different flap setting than planned and/or the wrong speeds (weights) I don’t think you can tell. It does look like a fairly gross error, though.
A V1/Vr mixup is possible as technically you can have a V1 split off a 4,000m runway if you want but it's most unlikely IMHO.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After false information was spread out regarding flight AT811 from FRA to CMN on July 23, we want to clarify that during take-off, ATC advised of possible wake turbulence from adjacent landing A330. In turn, the Captain decided to execute a manoeuvre to gain more speed until they reached speeds that would ensure a safe take-off".
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps all those substantial trees lining the runway at Frankfurt had an affect on the wind gradient at ground level. Nothing like a good strong headwind to improve airspeed while still rolling....
