I don't think the ATSB would be interested, we'd just need to call 1800-howsmydriving. :8

Have to agree with Bullwinkle. I am no airline pilot but obviously it was NOT a safety breach because the system worked! If the plane had of taken-off, or even worse - overun the runway without the t/o flap then "aircraft" would really have something to talk about. Somewhere there the safety defences that good training and communication have put in to place have stopped the swiss cheese model from becoming a problem - congratulations to the cabin crew!

Good to see everyone getting involved....:uhoh:

sorry, cockpit crew? crew? pilots? - what do they call those people in the front?
good on the cabin crew anyway, I'm sure they did a great job on that flight....

Valuable lesson
 

If the pilots did stuff up, then they are surely much better pilots now, because of this experience. I am confident that they would take this VERY seriously. An experience like this is something you do not want, cannot buy.and usually cannot forget.

No-one needs to say anything. They know.

An incorreect response could be very damaging.

I think Aircraft and a few other are loosing vision as to what the actual point of this thread is all about.

Aircraft you seem to have a grasp of 'flight safety' basics which means you are in the process or just completed studying. I will commend you because the points you raise are valid BUT you are lacking the practicalities of the situation. Unfortunatly the old codgers on here believe because of your lack of said 'expereince' that your opinions on the matter are fruitless and invalid. Them them I say:

"Did he not clear the runway - that Pan American?"

Aircarft and most people here are picking up that an error of ommission was made. The intention of the pilots was always to lower the flaps but for reasons unknown to Pax (and the crew) this wasn't done. It must be remembered that if the EICAS called flaps once power was applied the safety system works.

You are right that this could have lead to disasterous consequences but was safely averted. The "cheese" wasn't completly swiss because the safety barrier EICAS provides prevented the accident/ serious incident from occuring.

As you said everyone here claims to be a professional. It is the job of the companies legislative requirement for a 'safety sytem', hence the safety department to deal with such things. The ATSB will probably want to know about this as well. CASA's only responsibility is to ensure that these systems are in place. They have no place to receive reports of incidents such as this.

However, if the passenger notices that the pilot are dressed as mexican circus clowns, seat belts are made from rope and you have an aircraft with 350 souls on board with one stressed out hostie in control, then they might want to know prior to an incident occurring.

I know one thing.... if they line up without the flaps extended.. the hostess will have me in her ear quite quickly and someone will probably have to crash tackle me as I try to get the hosties attention..... haha what a site. A 6 ft fijian sitting in row 15 briskly walking/ running down the isle saying flaps then crash.. tackled by a member of the NZ rubgy team....Aaaahhhh....What a sight... god love the world we live in today.... eh'bro

hey bula, yeah i'd do the same too but didn't even notice or bother to look at the wing/flaps when we were ready to launch, however did take a look after coming to a stop on the rwy...thats when i saw movement/lowering of the flaps..

hi warbo, yep i gotta agree, they did a great job.... another rum n coke thnx..;)

Scrotometer.
There is no such direction in the Boeing FCTM about using Flap 30 in lieu of Flap 40 at the max crosswind limit. Handling is the same technique for both.

The difference between all engines climb at Flap 40 and Flap 30 on GA is negligable because the first thing after GA thrust is to select Flap 15 regardless of the Flap 40/30 landing flap. The main reasons for Flaps 30 landings is it saves 20 kgs of fuel over Flaps 40 when measured from the outer marker to threshold. Also slightly less noise footprint.

A3575. absolute rubbish.

if you look at the low vis approach climb minima which you don't operate to in australia you will see there can be uo to a ton difference in landing weight restriction depending on the flap setting.
this is also true for icing conditions.

with a flap 30 autoland, which again you don't do regularly in australia you will find that with an rvr of 200m at the touchdown point there is significantly less forward visibility as opposed to that offered by flap 40.

unless I missed something in basic aerodynamics the higher the airspeed the greater the control surface effectiveness hence flap 30 over 40 for strong crosswind approaches.

Folks, aircraft is an internet troll. Whether he or she is actually 22 and as daft as they come across I don't know but either way the comments are always posted to elicit a response. If you have a look at every one of aircraft's posts they are naieve, childish and specifically aimed at winding someone (anyone?) up.

Try a search of their previous posts and you'll get the drift. Best way to deal with someone like aircraft is to view anything they say as the rantings of someone who is either breathtakingly naieve or otherwise very twisted. Either way the correct response should be contempt and to not bother wasting your efforts as aircraft takes great joy from it.

Troll.

This could be a local policy perculiar to your own operator. If so, it would be interesting to know if Boeing has been advised of its findings in terms of aircraft controllability. Certainly there is no such advice or restriction regarding use of Flap 40 at max crosswind component in the various types of Boeing 737 FCTM or Flight Manuals. In any case the difference in Vref for a given weight between Flap 40 and Flap 30 is only 2-4 knots and I doubt if the extra airspeed would make an significant difference in handling.

Similarly I must say I have not seen any Boeing published document that alters the climb limit weights based on visibility for landing. If there is a British CAA limit on the above then that is your problem I guess.

Re Flap 40 for better cut off angles - that is well known since the first B737-100 was produced.