Maroc 737 in loss-of-lift incident at FRA

[readywhenreaching]

I' m curious what comments there will be on this one:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqsvVCvWIAE8vaZ.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kle80KB_s3I)

[B737900er]

My guess is a performance error. Clearly in the video a low flap setting was used (flaps 1)so my guess is that performance was based on a higher flap setting but the pilots used a low flap setting instead, either intentional or not. Which resulted in rotating earlier and nearly tail striking. The airport is Frankfurt which has two very long runways, so flaps 1 could of easily been used (if performance allowed).

[lucavettu]

this one looks very ankward, especially when it touches down again after liftoff. It reminds me of people forgetting about density altitude or ice over the wings.

[josephfeatherweight]

Crikey, that's not flash!

[Nemrytter]

Maybe something to do with that big white triangle that's following them down the runway.:E

[172_driver]

I am curious what the trim was set to. To me seems like a rather short take off roll for a (my assumption) reduced thrust take off on a long runway.

[aviator]

Upon further examination - look like a 0 flaps takeoff.

A little something to talk about during the debrief for sure !!

[Bigpants]

Cock up up followed by cover up. They were lucky to get away with it.

[sudden Winds]

wrong derate maybe...incorrect flap setting. Had it been a 738 we woulda seen a show of sparks at the tail.
Another possibility is thrust setting and V speeds calculated for a wrong takeoff weight. ZFW entered prior to refueling, calculations made on a ZFW + fuel remaining from previous flight. Long flight ahead, 10-15 tons of fuel not accounted for.....otherwise it's real hard to not become airborne. Any airplane with the correct thurst setting and a smooth rotation rate, like the one in the vid, can be rotated 10 knots prior to Vr and it will fly. This sure was a combination of "wrongs".

[Capn Bloggs]

I think I can, I think I can, there, I can, I can! :D :ok:

[misd-agin]

Flaps 1 takeoff. Planes don't fly if you rotate at too slow a speed. You can see the nose wheel extended early in the TO roll.

[Pontius]

Well, he's definitely got at least Flap 1 set because you can see the slats extended. I cannot recall if Flap 1 is a takeoff flap setting for the 737 but, if it is not, they would have got a config warning on applying thrust. My quarterbacking would guess at wrong weights in the FMC (ZFW entered into the GWT field etc) giving the wrong speeds on the speed tape. I'm very glad the PF did the right thing when confronted with a lack of lift and gave the wings a few more drops of IAS before having another go when a bigger arrow of upward energy was formed. He didn't panic and try and stop, so I reckon he made a good job out of a bad situation, even if they did (maybe) cause that problem in the first place. Incorrect FMC entries have been around for quite some time now and I'm sure there will be more but let's hope better data entry procedures will mitigate against too many occurring.

[CHfour]

Looks like a zero fuel weight error, which can happen very easily, especially if you're rushing. However, a 1 tonne error only equates to around 1 knot on the speeds so it would have had to be a big discrepancy. The PF did a good job though IMHO as a tail strike was on the cards.

[Miles Magister]

Could be as simple as the PF rotating when the PM called V1.

[His dudeness]

Cock up up followed by cover up. They were lucky to get away with it.

So obviously past V1, what should they do but "cover up" ?

[dixi188]

Miles Magister
4000m runway so pretty sure V1 and Vr would be the same for a 737 even at max weight.

[Three Lima Charlie]

Airplanes I fly have an audio Takeoff Warning if flaps and trim are not set when throttles are advanced.

[CaptainSandL]

Royal Air Maroc has apparently responded as follows:

"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".

Really???

[readywhenreaching]

overhasty protective PR measure if you ask me..not very persuasive.

[A4]

Right..........:hmm:

[ACA856]

My BS sensor is showing a warning.

[oldchina]

My religion sensor is showing a warning ...

[RAT 5]

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.

[OntimeexceptACARS]

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.

[Capn Bloggs]

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.

A particularly poignant post in light of the "follow the SOP" talkfest on other threads... :ok:

[underfire]

was that rotate at V1 or v2...let me check the FM....

if they wanted to avoid wake from the A330, they would rotate earlier....not later.

[scifi]

.
I am sure the truth will emerge once they read the CVR and FDR.
.
.
.
Or maybe not....
.

[atlas12]

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.

[atakacs]

Is this being formally investigated as an incident by the BFU?

[Discorde]

For a V-speeds gross error check on the B757/767 I compiled this form (http://steemrok.com/V%20speeds) 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).

[fox niner]

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)

[vapilot2004]

Looks like they had the speed, but lacked lift. F1 takeoff - not enough lift upon rotation.

[rottenray]

There might be a good clue in the video. Wind noise to the max. Maybe a shift combined with wrong perf?

[FullWings]

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.

[vapilot2004]

"That shows they were too slow for the aircraft configuration."

Ding!

[virginblue]

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".

Isn't that a takeoff from runway 18, whereas the TK A330 is landing on 7R? Runway 18 and the flightpath of runway 7R intersect, I would guess, merely 1.200-1.500 feet form the threshold of runway 18. As the fire station gives a good indicator about locations, rotation appears to be rather early, although the angle from which the footage was taken could be misleading.

[Dufo]

Great response from RAM, truly honest, shows the safety culture.
Not signing the OFP is SAFA level 2 finding but such takeoff is ok. Next please.

[mary meagher]

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....

[readywhenreaching]

I estimate the rotation began somewhere around 600 m, crossing the approach of 07R about a second later.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eyR3w2D2ngQ/V7_3BaEEPjI/AAAAAAAAC04/YZJiaRkdZOc2p-QFYhjh4pC2K5cmIGSqwCL0B/w530-d-h225-p-rw/2016-07-23_CN-RNV_B737_AT%2540EDDF_lossoflift_MAP1.jpg

[framer]

Do they use data cards?

[ATC Watcher]

Is this being formally investigated as an incident by the BFU?
Depends if someone ask them.
Normally a you tube video does not start an investigation.
Anyway since the length of the flight I doubt CVR will be avail.
Possibly RAM internally, but result is unlikely to go out , other of what the PR said if you ask me

[Gordomac]

Oh to be overhasty protected by PR ! People seemed overhasty to drop me in the pooh if I squeeked too loudly.

[RVF750]

Hm. I know the -700 is often a F1 takeoff. Usually if you fly mixed fleet, you get to fly a -700 rarely. The weights and speeds always seem low. This one was a 700, was a F1 dep and on FRA's 4000m runway would probably have been an 18K with a fair bit of TASS as well. Thye rotaion was prompt so no W&B issues and probably a middle to rear trim anyway. FRA to N Africa would be 10T of fuel or so and Like a coupdl of pages earlier the most likely situation is the FZW was put in the top line of the FMC. With a good load, that would be in the low 50's and -700s do fly domestic and shorter flights at those weights, so not immediately a Gross Error item.

The crew's actions in lowering the nose carefully and waiting was safe enough, but going back to the hold for another go ant the right weight would have been safer....

I've flown a mixed fleet and with most aircraft -800s it was always a bit weird flying the sports model.

[Centaurus]

This is why you rotate slowly at higher weights,

Is that so? Couldn't find anything of that advice in the 737 FCTM for normal ops take off.. Another personal technique, maybe?:ok:

[Pontius]

going back to the hold for another go ant the right weight would have been safer....

What? The fact that they'd already rotated meant they were at Vr, albeit the wrong one if they had the incorrect GWT. Are you suggesting that they stopped (> V1) and then went back and had another go with the correct weights entered in the FMC? Yes, the V1 that would have been displayed (assuming an incorrect weight) would have been lower than that of the correct weight but I would challenge even the most gifted mathematician in the world to work out the difference between the two, as he tries to rotate, having miraculously realised how much heavier he really was and then calculate he had the distance to stop.

IF they cocked it up and entered the wrong weight then there are lessons to be learnt but having realised the machine was not going to take to the air the PF, I believe, did a good job of increasing the speed until it would fly safely. To have stopped above V1, even if it was artificially low, would have been a mistake.....in my opinion of course.

[LLuCCiFeR]

Royal Air Maroc has apparently responded as follows:

"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".

Really???
I would just love to see the Boeing FCTM or OM reference for this "manoeuvre.":ok:

[Downwind Lander]

Royal Air Maroc ... the Captain decided to execute a manoeuvre to gain more speed until they reached speeds that would ensure a safe take-off".


Phew! What a revolutionary concept.

Where is the successor to "Colemanballs" ?

[IcePack]

Took a 767 out of Cancun. At rotate she didn't want to fly. So held the pitch below tail bumping attitude. She flew off 15 knots later. Spent the next 91/2 hours trying to work out why. Never found a reason so just assumed the standard baggage weight of 15 kg, was garbage.
What I now find interest is how many new pilots would just keep pulling?
Somehow the seat of pants feel is disappearing so well done the pilot of the 737.

[TylerMonkey]

Royal Air Maroc has apparently responded as follows:

"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".

Really???
As an old uncle used to say . . . " You can wish in one hand and poop in the other , see which one fills up first ! "

Air Maroc PR shows some original wishful thinking here. :-)

[Callsign Kilo]

Clearly a Flaps 1 takeoff, however I would be completely staggered to believe a Flaps 1 takeoff would be necessary at FRA. As far as the FCTM is interpreted, Flaps 1 departures are certainly not recommendable when considering tail strike avoidance technique. Considering that it appeared to be gusty, it should probably be a no no. So, if any credit is due, the PF did pretty well to avoid the final few holes in the Swiss cheese with the technique that he or she applied. That aside, there appears to be an element of good fortune that it was FRA and not somewhere more limiting. I'll add though that I don't have -700 experience however I was under the impression that Flaps 5 is the standard takeoff setting for the 737, and certainly would be company policy if the company was flying mixed fleet.

Probably another case of incorrect application of SOP, CRM breakdown, distraction or poor checklist philosophy? Whether it be through incorrect use of OPTs or rushing through the PERF INIT page without thought (the old ZFW and GW mismatch), these type of incidents continue to crop up. Challenge, verify and respond exists as an error trap, however it's commonly disregarded when you hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see. I know I've been guilty in the past and have learned valuable lessons observing my own performance and those of others.

As for the A330 wake turbulence argument that RAM applied. No one buys it. Why would you take off, or even consider it?

[Capn Bloggs]

completely staggered to believe a Flaps 1 takeoff would be necessary at FRA.
I'll have to think about that one too!

[oldchina]

"I was under the impression that Flaps 5 is the standard takeoff setting for the 737"

Then why does Boeing provide a Flaps 1 setting? For runways longer than 4000m ???

[ACMS]

Reall RAM? So the PIC was told about the A330 at Vr and THEN decided to lower the nose, something that is not tested or trained or indeed approved, something he's never attempted before and get more speed?

What utter crap.....

They stuffed up, nicely recovered but a stuff up none the less...

[Stan Woolley]

This sums up 2016.

Everything is spin. Why not just accept that a mistake was made, admit the mistake and move on.

What is the truth anymore?

[nomorecatering]

I heared on another form that that PNF's airspeed indicator had a pitot problem and was over reading. Seems plausalbe enough.

[dubaigong]

Nomorecatering,

That is why we have a speed check at 80 Kts which will detect a difference between the speed indicators and allow a low speed rejected take off...
So if it is true , it means that they did not perform the check or not properly.

[Clandestino]

Dear PPRuNefolk

The RAM PR exercise is aimed at general flying public and really needs not be related to reality as long it paints company operations in positive light and info seems plausible to gal/guy who knows next to nothing about aviation. Visitors of PPRuNe, Airliners.net and similar fora represent statistically insignificant part of target public and their opinions be safely disregarded.

There are many ways one can make B737-700 behave in a way shown in the video: too early rotation, mistrimming, misloading, actual configuration lower than planned, actual weight higher than the one takeoff performance were calculated for and I'm pretty sure there are other ways I can't think of right now. As there were no damage or injury, chances are incident will be dealt with internally, within airline and any public knowledge of the investigation results will be strictly unofficial. As for potential BFU involvement, I don't expect any. Those who have read some of their recent incident reports and noticed their quality and time needed to prepare them can see that austerity measures are really working - not in the hyped way though.

700's certified takeoff flaps are 1, 25 and anything in between. If it occurs to you that you're 700 pilot and some of these are off limit to you, it's about the performance calculation package your company has bought. If one sets the wrong config but still in takeoff range, config alert will stay mum.

Tailstrike is possible on 700 but, unlike 800s, they really need to be pushed hard to perform so. WIWO700, usually it was flaps 1 takeoff with 18k derate and assumed temperature on top of everything. Personally I found 700s far more fun to fly than 800s and I yearn for the day when Southwest takes in TRDECs, Green Cards are given away liberally and EASA to FAA conversion is two days affair.

Take care

C

[Denti]

I was under the impression that Flaps 5 is the standard takeoff setting for the 737, and certainly would be company policy if the company was flying mixed fleet.

That depends on company policy. In my outfit, with a mix of -700 and -800s flaps 1 was the standard take off flap setting. Other companies might decide otherwise, as far as i know ryanair uses flaps 5. There are a lot of factors at work deciding those standard settings, such as average experience level, fuel saving, usual airport type used. In FRA we always used flaps 1, the runways are too long to care about a lower flap setting (1 through 25 were the normal take off flaps settings for us). Good fun to take off with an N1 of 74% or so and then getting that almighty kick in the behind at thrust reduction altitude :)

[RVF750]

I suspect most companies use F1 for he -700 and F5 for the -800. As you say 18K plus a good 50+ on the TASS but the kick depends on what you set the climb thrust to. CLM-2 probably would be ok. My last outfit had an SOP of not derating climb thrust but on hte -700 we mostly still did it as the kick is pretty uncomfortable for the pax.

The thing with these things is this. What is most likely cause?

With the known gotcha of the Gross weight/ZFW in thje FMC and this flight probbly needing in the regon of 10T to go home, the result is exactly as seen. Well below actual V1 so if they'd abandoned the takeoff and slowed to vacate they'd have been only halfway down the strip... Hence my earlier comment.

Either way, it's not the first or last time these things will happen and as said, nice pitch control and a safe outcome in the end.

[RoyHudd]

Poor airmanship, whatever. A stop would have been ok at FRA, Easily seen from the video clip of the short run before "rotation". Miscalculation of speeds likely, but whatever the cause an abort was the safe way to operate. What sort of flight safety culture does RAM have that would have allowed that type of manoeuvre I wonder?

(Perhaps the sort that claims it was nothing much, and just down to windshear from a decelerating adjacent aircraft on the ground :))

[armchairpilot94116]

I heared on another form that that PNF's airspeed indicator had a pitot problem and was over reading. Seems plausalbe enough.
This Ci 738 reported a problem reading the speed as well IIRC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21qZPaCRSQI

[too_much]

What a bunch of amateurs at HR trying to defend this take off - you would get more respect if you just hold up your hands and say we ****** up, we are human! Not try and tell us the moon is made out of cream cheese.

[ZeBedie]

A stop would have been ok at FRA
Presumably, since they were rotating, they had passed V1. Are you advocating a stop after V1?

[RAT 5]

I think the 'monday morning fly halfs, and scrum halfs' who are sharpening their knives for a beheading are still waiting for their turn in the real world. If these guys screwed up they did a good job of not burying themselves in a burning hole. Let's wait for the full facts: although I share the pessimism in that.

[WeMadeYou]

There is no problem at all departing with flaps1 on a 4000m rwy even with a 800.

[rageye]

Is this being formally investigated as an incident by the BFU?
This question was asked to BFU

Their answer:
"BFU has no knowledge about this incident.
BFU is not investigating."

[WingNut60]

Looking at the footage, does it seem likely to anyone else, that the technique used by the PF may be something that he has used previously (on many occasions) in a Mirage or an F-16?
Although I'm not sure how that fits in with managing an encounter with wake turbulence.

[RealUlli]

(SLF here)

I've been watching a lot of YT videos about flight training etc. While these 152s etc. didn't set any speed bugs, part of the takeoff briefing was sometimes, "In case of engine failure below 500ft, land straight ahead on the runway, if below 1000ft, land straight ahead in a field, if above, turn back and land on whatever runway".

Living near EDDN, I see 738s etc. taking off from the 2700m runway with what looks like 50+% to spare.

Presumably, since they were rotating, they had passed V1. Are you advocating a stop after V1?

Now I wonder - is it possible that V1 on the 4000m runway at EDDF is actually above Vr or even V2?

I guess it's possibly a matter of definition - a problem above V2 is probably not a rejected takeoff any more but a forced landing that just happens to be on the runway just taken off of... ;-)

[FlyingStone]

What a bunch of amateurs at HR trying to defend this take off - you would get more respect if you just hold up your hands and say we ****** up, we are human! Not try and tell us the moon is made out of cream cheese.

This will never happen in certain cultures, captain is God and is never wrong. Blame it on the ATC, weather, maintenance, aircraft, passengers, but - captain is never wrong.

Personally, I don't know what I would have done in this scenario, either abort or continue the roll until GS approaches tyre limit and then rotate. Certainly I wouldn't try to hold the aircraft at ~ 10° pitch or so and wait for it to gain speed to finally lift off. It's not a soft field takeoff in a C172...

[LLuCCiFeR]

Isn't it quite astonishing that none of the media seem to pick up this story and the subsequent Twitter message?

[discus2]

Still remember that day when travelling as pax on a RAM flight out of MRS to CMN.
Captain was still doing his welcome PA during roll out.
Finally ended up 'I wish you a pleasant flight' while we were then doing a good 80kts.
Wasn't impressed and wondered when the approach brief would start...

[neila83]

I'm interested here in the question of whether it's better to try and continue takeoff rather than reject.

Given they had probably 3000m+ of runway left is it really a good idea to try and force the thing into the air, when you don't have any real idea why it isn't flying? Yes if it's a short runway then you may have no option, but with that much runway remaining, a rejected takeoff needn't even be aggressive.

I'm always slightly perplexed by the way in which rejected take-offs are talked about as extremely risky manouvers, anywhere above 100 knots. Especially if you're in a narrowbody, and have a lot of runway left, what's the big deal? Think about high altitude airports, the same planes are routinely landing at ground speeds of 170+ knots and it's no big deal.

[ManaAdaSystem]

A 700 will use about 1200 meters from start to rotation on a derated take off. You can take off, land and stop safely with a touch of brakes and idle reverse on a 4000 meter runway.
Fl 1 is perfectly safe on both 700 and 800 NGs. The only time I use more is when I am runway limited.
Yes, you get less tail clearance with FL 1, but if you know how to rotate an aircraft, it will never be a problem.

[Smilin_Ed]

At least he didn't keep pulling, hoping it would start to fly like was done in AF447.:D

[neila83]

Presumably, since they were rotating, they had passed V1. Are you advocating a stop after V1?

Yes, if V1 is limted by Vr rather than stopping distance. If they were heavier, Vr would be higher and so would V1. Would it then suddenly become unsafe to stop at that higher speed?

It's about using common sense. If you know you've got 3000m of runway left, you pull back, the plane won't fly, you don't know why, perhaps staying on the ground and starting to stop with plenty of room left for gentle braking is best?

Planes land all day long at high altitude airports at 170 knots +. If you're in a narrow body on a 4000m runway, stopping after V1 isn't an issue. Too many seem to think a plane has some kind of self destruct mode built into it if you even think about it and would rather take a potentially crippled plane into the air.

Of course, if there is ambiguity about stopping distance remaining, its different, but here there absolutely isn't

[glad rag]

I quite like the idea of being flown by pilots who can not only **** up but can get themselves unfecked.

Novel, according to some who post on here...

[Check Airman]

It appears that we have the "CVR"

https://youtu.be/s8ptLtYt7wk

[atlas12]

Is that so? Couldn't find anything of that advice in the 737 FCTM for normal ops take off.. Another personal technique, maybe?:ok:
Sure, it hasn't failed me yet :)

[ACMS]

Realulli---no never, V1 can never be faster than VR or V2....

A single engine Cessna 152 is just a little bit different to a twin engine Jet.....

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-TOFF_DEP_SEQ07.pdf

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-TOFF_DEP-SEQ04.pdf

And this JAR25 extract

http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/vorschriften/JAR-25.html

[Capn Bloggs]

https://youtu.be/s8ptLtYt7wk
Only in America!! :D

[oldchina]

"You said we won't get found out if we stash all the booze at the front of the forward hold"

[RAT 5]

Glad Rag: I'm with you. Somehow a stuff up was made; we don't yet know what or how. The crew found themselves in unknown territory and had to device a recovery procedure 'on the fly', so to speak. There was a choice of options, some of which could have could have ended in tears. They chose this one and succeeded. It would never have been practiced and showed some coolness.
I'd love to hear the CVR. Who was initially PF, who executed this delicate manoeuvre, and if & how control was transferred. Someone must have said something along the lines of WTF in Moroccan, and then what to do. I wonder if the captain was ex-mil. I assume there was a hand full of thrust applied, after the reins pulled the head up, and to stop the horse rearing up and tossing the rider off the back as no small feat.