PDA

View Full Version : S7 Close one at Domodedovo


OntimeexceptACARS
8th Aug 2019, 20:27
Video here :

https://www.rt.com/russia/466077-russia-plane-takeoff-domodedovo-s7/

Shades of IL76? Or tech issue? Or maybe loadsheet issues?

OTEA

IRRenewal
8th Aug 2019, 20:37
The carrier confirmed the emergency situation, adding that it didnít prevent the jet from completing its flight and safely landing at Simferopol airport in Russiaís Crimea.

So after nearly running out of runway and hitting a bunch of lights it safely continued to an airport in Russia's Crimea. Where would you even start to comment on that? There is so much wrong in that one sentence alone, and that is even before you start looking at flight safety issues.

Gipsy Queen
8th Aug 2019, 21:01
So after nearly running out of runway and hitting a bunch of lights it safely continued to an airport in Russia's Crimea. Where would you even start to comment on that? There is so much wrong in that one sentence alone, and that is even before you start looking at flight safety issues.

I would not be surprised if added to all that there was evidence of a tail strike; the driver certainly was keen to get airborne.

pattern_is_full
8th Aug 2019, 21:14
Always subject to confirmation, of course - Aviation Herald quotes sources reporting erroneous weight calculation: using ZFW for gross weight, either/or error of 15 tons (!)

Tires damaged, glass from lights found in gear. Nothing (yet) on evidence of tail strike.

Incident: S7 B738 at Moscow on Aug 5th 2019, overran runway on takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb53df5&opt=0)

Ex Cargo Clown
8th Aug 2019, 23:13
Always subject to confirmation, of course - Aviation Herald quotes sources reporting erroneous weight calculation: using ZFW for gross weight, either/or error of 15 tons (!)

Tires damaged, glass from lights found in gear. Nothing (yet) on evidence of tail strike.

Incident: S7 B738 at Moscow on Aug 5th 2019, overran runway on takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb53df5&opt=0)

Sources? Twitter Ha-ha.

Icarus2001
9th Aug 2019, 05:00
"Damage to the chassis" classic line.

ljdramone
9th Aug 2019, 15:49
"Damage to the chassis" classic line.

The Russian term for "landing gear" is "шасси", pronounced "shassi". A lot of technical words in Russian are loanwords from other languages.

nivsy
9th Aug 2019, 16:29
How long is that runway used?

ex-EGLL
9th Aug 2019, 16:48
How long is that runway used?
Not quite long enough.

dixi188
9th Aug 2019, 16:59
Looks about 11,500 ft on GE.
How does a 737 use all of that, even with max flex?
Normally see them use up to about 6,000 ft to get airborne, so with max flex (75% thrust I guess) instead of full thrust, I would have thought 8 to 9,000 ft to get airborne.
It may have been an intersection T.O. of course. Never liked the idea of leaving good runway behind.

DaveReidUK
9th Aug 2019, 17:48
32L is 3,500 m

Double Back
9th Aug 2019, 18:20
Dixi.
There were always lots of opinions about "leaving RWY behind You" as a risk issue. I tend to disagree, then why Take Off from runways that did not have room to spare? Or carry another 10T of fuel just because it feels better?
I saw my job as being a risk manager, and if time or money could be saved I'd always opt for the cheapest/quickest way to get airborne.
Come to speak of risk: I was never very much at ease when after waiting on the TWY for the one degree drop in temperature in Mexico city, to be legal for the evening T/O, getting the fully laden B744 off the ground. Seeing the opposite red THR lights pass under You, still slowly rotating towards target climb attitude....
BTW, as far as I know all airlines use the OAT as reference for the TO Distance, how about TOR (Temperature Over RWY....) Probably airlines will not like to be remembered at this. Black tarmac sitting in the sun all day with no wind....engines sucking that hot air from just a few feet above it...

This video shows the the 737 not really willing to get airborne, even with its nose pointed up. Looks like not enough power. Will be interesting to read the report, if the pilots used old style "firewalling" the throttles when they saw they were running out of concrete. Or is that something the glass cockpit drivers are forgetting also? OK, OK, we old style manual flyers, we had the "Potomac" accident as well...so nothing new...

AAKEE
9th Aug 2019, 18:33
32L is 3,500 m

After 3500 m the curvature of the earth should have made them airborne...?

DaveReidUK
9th Aug 2019, 19:03
After 3500 m the curvature of the earth should have made them airborne...?

Yes, that certainly used to work for the Trident. :O

Airbanda
10th Aug 2019, 09:23
Looks similar to the Sunwing incident at BFS a few years ago? Flex thrust wrong due error in inputting air temperature but mistake in weight calculation could have same effect. .

Herod
10th Aug 2019, 12:42
Agreed Airbanda, but there is still the firewall option. If you need it, use it, and explain afterwards.

b263354
10th Aug 2019, 19:25
It seems more and more discussions are occurring with fellow colleagues about safety in the aviation as of late. Safety at the lowest cost, obtainable profit being the common denominator. The only ones now stopping the buck going lower are the insurance companies, but if they could make that MEL shorter by managing the risk, well... :rolleyes: Then we are all to wholeheartedly support that decision...risk management. "Every flight is a mission after all L-O-L :rolleyes:"( tv series background laughter popping up somehow in real life:ugh:)

This example here just should not have happened at all, period. And if it continued flight, well, bring out the gimp. I understand the pressure one is submitted to as in command, I've seen both ends of the rope, private and airline. But this sh*t just doesn't fly! Certainly not continuing to destination!! (If so...)

BTW, like that TOR, they have RVR now too don't they... Nah, common sense is flying out the window too these days. I've flown jump seat many a times, and when waiting bring up those little "quirks" he (or she/ it/ they/ whatever) made during the flight that had that potential to REALLY work out bad, but worked out luckily after all. They first become agitated that you bring it up, then become even more agitated that you made them agitated. Yes, that's right, YOU! are the wrong one here dude, TWICE!
But then again I'm seeing this everywhere. It's these times more and more I just don't want to discuss with them anymore, but slap sense into them; get off your lazy ass every time yes, verify input 100% yes, do that crawl around and get on your knees in the pouring rain if needed yes, every time yes, and unless well within tolerable? margins, make ALL those performance calculations again if delayed and weather is changing yes. And stop getting all worked up if someone verifies your input or work!

If you act like a Boss, be the Boss and do it like a Boss You mess up, own it! After 3 strikes you're out. Re-certify or go to ground handling.

Just my 1 cent these days.

(ps. There are also some very wonderful colleagues to work with, some...)

gearlever
10th Aug 2019, 20:45
This video shows the the 737 not really willing to get airborne, even with its nose pointed up. Looks like not enough power.

To me it looks like not enough lift, like RAM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kle80KB_s3I&t=28s

Lake1952
10th Aug 2019, 21:19
RAM flaps look to me fully retracted.

megan
11th Aug 2019, 01:21
A small amount of flap extended

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/583458-maroc-737-loss-lift-incident-fra.html

jantar99
11th Aug 2019, 10:31
S7 commenced the TO run from some TWY intersection (not full RWY length) with ZFW entered into FMC as TOW and engine power calculated (in)appropriately.

Herod
11th Aug 2019, 10:35
Either "this doesn't look right" and reject early, or bin the autothrottle (shock, horror) and manually select full power. After all that's one of the things your right hand is for...

gearlever
11th Aug 2019, 17:00
After 3500 m the curvature of the earth should have made them airborne...?

There is no curvature on flat earth;)

Double Back
11th Aug 2019, 19:56
Gear lever.
You are right of course, should have added that too. Wrong speed for Vr, more weight than entered, wrong flap setting. Hopefully we will hear some time what went on there.