Return to land or continue to destination...?

[Romeo E.T.]

Found a pic on Myaviation.net of SAAB737-800 with leading edge slat extended and the author says that they continued onto destination but at lower altitude. here is the link to the photo:http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00544151&size=large

My question: Max speed is now 250 kts, max altitude is now 20000ft as per Boeing 737 QRH and Limitations ....(or have I got this info wrong?)

How much extra fuel had to be on board to continue onto CPT in this configuration? would it not have beeen safer to return to JNB see-ing that this must have been evident shortly after take-off out of JNB?

Is landing weight restriction on the B737-800 maybee the reason for continuing?
On our B737-2/3/400 the limitations are as mentioned above, are they maybee different on the B737-800 to allow a higher altitude with L/E extended and is the max speed on the B737-800 with L/E extended higher than 250kts.

I would have returned to land at JNB but then I dont fly B738

[frogone]

Is that slat in a more of a landing confing than take off?

I know that as per the FCOM, flaps should not be deployed above 20,000ft.

My 2 cents, re the initial question, if there's maint at the destination, well why not continue? The aircraft won't fall out of the sky because a LE Slat is jammed. I would assume that the crew spoke with SAA maint whilst in the air, and possibly they may have said to go to CPT if the crew were happy to do so.

Anyway look like they arrived OK.

IR

[ANVAK]

The question was probably whether to return and take a two-three hour delay, or continue and arrive 30 minutes late. Spoories have maintenance in CPT so fixing shouldn't be a problem.
Whether they could make CPT with legal diversions and reserves would depend on how much they took off with. How much they burned should not be a problem, we - the taxpayers - foot SAA's bill...:hmm:

[skyvan]

Ref Boeing QRH for -800:

If any lights for only one leading edge device is illuminated:

Limit airspeed to 300 knots (280 knots for turbulent air penetration) or .65Mach, whichever is lower.

Seems like the crew did the right thing, tried to recycle the LED, did not work, and then used the Risk Management Model to make an informed decision.

At that slow speed, they probably used less fuel than at normal econ cruise.

R.E.T. On the -800, initial airspeed with LEDs extended is 230 knots initially, until the crew have checked for roll, if no roll, and only one extended, then they can use 300KIAS/M.65. The -200 had the 250 knot restriction. Ironic that it should happen now, refresher training last half of last year was "Flight Controls", with exactly this snag!!

[REAL ORCA]

If the QRH does not specify " Land at nearest suitable airport" the safety and legality aspect has been taken care of if fuel carried are sufficient at new burn rate. The next decision becomes a PRO one-where does the pax want to end up. Obviously at the destination. The next decision becomes a finacial one- continue and save money for the company or turn back and waste all the fuel.

The man made the right decision!:ok:

[Solid Rust Twotter]

That's why they earn the big bucks. Well done to the crew. Ops normal and no surprises, just as it should be.:ok: