View Full Version : Korean Air's Next Accident?
Colonel Klink
9th May 2002, 18:42
I heard an interesting story the other day, which I believe may have some truth. Some local (Korean) pilots are starting the takeoff roll on the Boeing 777 fleet, with the flaps up in a misguided attempt to save fuel, then setting them on the takeoff roll at 80 knots or so. Naturally, the takeoff configuration warning is blaring until the flaps reach their requested position. I cannot belive this could be allowed to happen, so can anyone confirm or deny this?? By my calculations, Korean have killed 697 passengers and crew in 10 accidents since 1983. This practice, if true, may be the cause of the next one.
yotter
9th May 2002, 19:00
Surely not, Colonel - all the other reasons for a config. warning would be masked - I can't think any crew worth their salt would operate like that - would they?
Colonel Klink
9th May 2002, 19:28
That's what makes it so dangerous, and that is why I am asking!!
There is a rumour at the moment that in the last few weeks KAL departed to the the north at Nadi, Fiji. Instead of turning left as per SID they climbed straight ahead missing the hills by an extremely narrow margin. Maybe someone out there knows more.
Hey guys, straight from the horses concerned...."forgot" the flaps, and it was not on a 777, 'twas a 747-400.
Look out below, here comes Korean.:eek: :eek:
On second thought, this was a few months ago.....could be there is/are more of this nonsense...good grief !!!
Kalium Chloride
9th May 2002, 19:34
Would it really save a significant amount of fuel?
I wish I could feel a hundred percent sure that it wasn't true. Jeez.
Are Delta and Air France aware of these 'practises'?-I thought Delta's safety auditors were happy things had changed for the better at KE, and thus code-sharing could begin again?
Shame, cabin service right up there with the best...
Cheers
swashplate
9th May 2002, 20:00
If the crew waited until 80kts before setting t/o flaps, would the flaps actually deploy to the t/o setting in time for rotation?
I've only ever watched the videos, but it seemed a very few seconds from '80kts' to 'rotate'..... :eek:
I flew on easy 737 last year as SLF, and it seemed to be quite a few secs for flaps to deploy on approach......
Do I have this right? :confused:
Notso Fantastic
9th May 2002, 20:56
I should be VERY careful about taking this seriously!
ironbutt57
9th May 2002, 21:02
Delta safety auditor...mmmmm....pot calling the kettle black...like ALPO calling somebody a scab......
RatherBeFlying
9th May 2002, 21:43
As drag increases with the square of the speed, the savings of not deploying flaps until 80 kt. would be negligeable. How much? Forgot how to do the integral a looong time ago.
And when deploying the flaps, you would be sucking air, hydraulics, electricity from the engines at a rather delicate time:rolleyes:
The floatplane drivers do this all the time with an Armstrong lever, but it would seem to lose in the translation to a 777.
Yeah, that's it, they did it on purpose! To, ah, save drag! Yeah, that's it....
DownIn3Green
10th May 2002, 03:50
Ironbutt...you got that one right!!!!:D
747400CA
10th May 2002, 10:46
I think this may be old news.
A KAL 747-400 captain did continue a takeoff roll after selecting flaps 'on the go' almost a year ago.
The fellow rotated and got airborne just as flaps reached takeoff range - caught by the QAR download some days later.
Haven't heard a similar story involving a 777 - any knowledgeable comment?
cwatters
10th May 2002, 19:34
Just for info....
I believe this or something like it is standard for some gliders. Not
to save fuel (in the tug) but to improve roll control during the initial take off run.
Flight Detent
11th May 2002, 12:49
Not sure about the -400 (never am!), but how do they get past the flight control checks item on the before take-off list?
On the Classics, no flaps means no outboard ailerons!
Not to mention, of course, both the danger of the t/o warning horn NOT silencing when the flaps finally reach their selected position, ie, some other problem being masked by the 'accepted' horn.
And, the case of either a split flap or asmymetric flap happening during extension, with absolutely no time to contemplate either.
Even with a very heavy load, the flaps would not have time to extend to even the 10deg position in the time available, both outboard ADP's would be running, and the FE would have to split his instrument scan even further, not even daring to consider the consequences of leading edge malfunctions!
The whole thing is totally absurd in the extreme, these are not professional operators or airmen, just cowboys with no common sense!
Cheers (I think)
Captain Stable
11th May 2002, 13:36
FD, it is telling that your post assumes that the rumour is correct. It also makes a very insulting accusation against all KAL pilots.
That the rumour is so incredible and an explanation is available (flaps forgotten, T/O roll continued with the flaps running) is certainly worrying, but that does not excuse the tone of your post.
Would you care to amend it?
gengis
11th May 2002, 13:39
Col Klink:
Jeesh.... I find that story really hard to believe. Really hope you got it wrong there!
What'll they think of next - extending the gear at 100' to minimums on approach?
Mad Dog Driver
11th May 2002, 15:26
GEEZ, last time I checked, flaps were considered high lift devices :rolleyes:
Dead Leg...Dead ?
12th May 2002, 08:37
I am sure there are other ways of saving fuel on take-off, how about packs off? or flex?
or how about........
...leave two engines off during the roll, and flick on the hp cocks at 80kts, by the time they have spooled up it would be at VR and they will be off and away.
I should not post this as they might take it seriously.
Happy flying all!!!
Colonel Klink
13th May 2002, 10:35
gengis,
This rumour was told to me by an EK 777 Captain who has many expat friends on the 777 fleet at Korean. My reaction was as incredulous as many who have posted replies, that is why I posted this topic - to see if in fact it was correct. I personally cannot see why this would save fuel, in any event the safety cosiderations would far outweigh any small gains.
Yet consider history, and not only at Korean whose safety record can only improve. Remember the 727 driver who used to get small performance increases by deploying the flaps at altiude to 1 degree or so, until one day the FE came in, saw the CB popped and reset it, so that the slats immediately deployed and one ripped off, causing the aircraft to flip over and enter a spiral dive? No-one could have believed they would be so stupid, either......!!
Unfortunately, these things do happen, and I for one would like to know if it is true..............!
Anti Skid On
14th May 2002, 02:24
Not the first time this has been raised here. See this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=669&highlight=korean+and+auckland) or this one (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36419&highlight=korean+and+auckland) (relates to the first thread).
The story made the news here (the thought of a 744 hitting a resedential area does wonders for news ratings!)
It is interesting to note that the thread talks about flaps on departure, when most of their 17 hull losses have been on approach or landing (3 relate to shooting down/explosions, 2 to departure). They seem to get them up (just), but struggle to bring them down safely (check here) (http://aviation-safety.net/cgi-bin/dbsearch.cgi?writeoff+search+retrieve+&&1-30&Operatorcode=KAL%%%%dm=Line+cs=No+em=Yes+ob=Key+dfd=No)