Easyjet B737 pitch-down incident 12 January
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: leeds
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. absolutely hats off to the flight crew for recovering from such a scary attitude.. just lucky that they had enough altitude to do so, and a good job for easyjet that this wasnt a commercial flight..
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X13CDX
“.. a violent pitch down exceeding 100 knots past it vmo loosing 10,000 ft altitude.. cant imagine how frightening that must have been for the flight crew..”
“.. absolutely hats off to the flight crew for recovering from such a scary attitude.. just lucky that they had enough altitude to do so, and a good job for easyjet that this wasnt a commercial flight..”
Ermm, won’t that be why it is a requirement in the maintenance manual to do the (non-revenue) flight test if control rod adjustment or other designated criteria are met and usually performed by specific crew at specific height and specific flight conditions (i.e. visual horizon, etc.)?
“.. a violent pitch down exceeding 100 knots past it vmo loosing 10,000 ft altitude.. cant imagine how frightening that must have been for the flight crew..”
“.. absolutely hats off to the flight crew for recovering from such a scary attitude.. just lucky that they had enough altitude to do so, and a good job for easyjet that this wasnt a commercial flight..”
Ermm, won’t that be why it is a requirement in the maintenance manual to do the (non-revenue) flight test if control rod adjustment or other designated criteria are met and usually performed by specific crew at specific height and specific flight conditions (i.e. visual horizon, etc.)?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: leeds
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. Sonic Bam..
"Ermm, won’t that be why it is a requirement in the maintenance manual to do the (non-revenue) flight test if control rod adjustment or other designated criteria are met and usually performed by specific crew at specific height and specific flight conditions (i.e. visual horizon, etc.)?
"
.. is this not a "professional" pilots rumour network?.. therefore shouldnt critisim of someones remarks not be made constructively rather than in a negative way.. n with all the facts as to the nature of this flight not being disclosed as of yet.. shouldnt any asumptions as to maintanence carried out before the flight or not be left as asumptions for now and not spoken as if they are fact..
as for the above Stator Vane.. definately hats off the aircraft too!
"Ermm, won’t that be why it is a requirement in the maintenance manual to do the (non-revenue) flight test if control rod adjustment or other designated criteria are met and usually performed by specific crew at specific height and specific flight conditions (i.e. visual horizon, etc.)?
".. is this not a "professional" pilots rumour network?.. therefore shouldnt critisim of someones remarks not be made constructively rather than in a negative way.. n with all the facts as to the nature of this flight not being disclosed as of yet.. shouldnt any asumptions as to maintanence carried out before the flight or not be left as asumptions for now and not spoken as if they are fact..
as for the above Stator Vane.. definately hats off the aircraft too!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southend (SEN/EGMC)
Age: 30
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations to the crew, who i'm sure handled the situation very well indeed
Where abouts exactly is the aircraft parked up now at Southend?
Will it be grounded until the exact cause of what happened is diagnosed?
Where abouts exactly is the aircraft parked up now at Southend?
Will it be grounded until the exact cause of what happened is diagnosed?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recovery
If indeed this "upset" was caused by testing manual reversion, it will be very interesting to learn if the crew recovered through sheer effort on manual controls or if perhaps they had the wherewithal and indeed the capacity under such dramatic circumstances to reinstate the hydraulics. Either way looks like a remarkable effort to recover at all.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X13CDX, there are enough facts to know that it was a test flight and therefore the crew will know explicitly what they are doing so there is no "luck" that they had the altitude to recover. Planning!
Yes this is a "professional" pilots rumour network, enjoy the PPL training!
Certainly sounds like brown pants time.....
Yes this is a "professional" pilots rumour network, enjoy the PPL training!
Certainly sounds like brown pants time.....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Post Only - yes, it was a test flight and the crew knew what they were doing... However, when the aeroplane does something that's not expected then it's no longer a test flight..
I'm sure 'manual reversion' in the 737 (can't quantify 'cos I'm not a boeing guy) is not certified to act like that
And obviously a test flight after maintenance is to make sure it does what it's CERTIFIED to do..
Now, off YOU toddle for your PPL training
I'm sure 'manual reversion' in the 737 (can't quantify 'cos I'm not a boeing guy) is not certified to act like that
And obviously a test flight after maintenance is to make sure it does what it's CERTIFIED to do..Now, off YOU toddle for your PPL training
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X13CDX
".. is this not a "professional" pilots rumour network?.. therefore shouldnt critisim of someones remarks not be made constructively rather than in a negative way.. n with all the facts as to the nature of this flight not being disclosed as of yet.. shouldnt any asumptions as to maintanence carried out before the flight or not be left as asumptions for now and not spoken as if they are fact.."
Ermm, sorry, obviously touched a nerve.
Regarding whether maintenance before the flight is a contributory factor or not, my post said “if” and I thought I had posted quote “IF (repeat IF) control rod adjustment ….” but I acknowledge that this is not what appears in my post on the forum but my intent remains the same ….
IF this was a post maintenance flight test for hand-back to the lessor OR hand-on to the lessee or buyer OR maintenance manual requirement following tab rod adjustment, the potential failure was / should have been planned and briefed for by the crew who are “normally” trained to react to a potential failure of this test.
As a couple of other posts have said, this was an occurrence that, though very severe in nature and would initiate a “brown trousers” response in the best of us, was something that had safety in mind throughout.
It could not have occurred with pax on board.
That was the point of my post.
A further posts has suggested it took 25,000ft to recover from the disturbance – if that is true, something else has to be taken into account, in my humble opinion.
".. is this not a "professional" pilots rumour network?.. therefore shouldnt critisim of someones remarks not be made constructively rather than in a negative way.. n with all the facts as to the nature of this flight not being disclosed as of yet.. shouldnt any asumptions as to maintanence carried out before the flight or not be left as asumptions for now and not spoken as if they are fact.."
Ermm, sorry, obviously touched a nerve.
Regarding whether maintenance before the flight is a contributory factor or not, my post said “if” and I thought I had posted quote “IF (repeat IF) control rod adjustment ….” but I acknowledge that this is not what appears in my post on the forum but my intent remains the same ….
IF this was a post maintenance flight test for hand-back to the lessor OR hand-on to the lessee or buyer OR maintenance manual requirement following tab rod adjustment, the potential failure was / should have been planned and briefed for by the crew who are “normally” trained to react to a potential failure of this test.
As a couple of other posts have said, this was an occurrence that, though very severe in nature and would initiate a “brown trousers” response in the best of us, was something that had safety in mind throughout.
It could not have occurred with pax on board.
That was the point of my post.
A further posts has suggested it took 25,000ft to recover from the disturbance – if that is true, something else has to be taken into account, in my humble opinion.
Last edited by Sonic Bam; 17th Jan 2009 at 09:53.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Night, err no thats not what is supposed to happen on manual reversion. Thats why its tested though!!! To make sure it does what its supposed to and if it doesn't to sort it!! Still keeping it in the bounds of a test flight surely?!?!? If not what does it then become? A fairground ride???? Answers on a postcard!
This isn't the first time something unusual has happened on a test flight (well not this eye wateringly dramatic!!), and certainly won't be the last. Hence why the crews are selected and well trained.
Whatever, good job by the crew! And all for only 1 sector payment!!!!
This isn't the first time something unusual has happened on a test flight (well not this eye wateringly dramatic!!), and certainly won't be the last. Hence why the crews are selected and well trained.
Whatever, good job by the crew! And all for only 1 sector payment!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am impressed with the Boeing, how sturdy it is. But I also have a question. Can Boeing be really flown in manual reversion in case of the loss of all hydraulics, as somebody mentioned? A 320 cannot do that. No hydraulics = no flight controls (not even manual reversion)