BA 747 Crew commended

[Pugilistic Animus]

isn't 'dual maintenance illegal., not ETOPS?

[protectthehornet]

dear airclues

my sincere thanks for explaning that the slats retract on landing and why.

I now have to say, we are simply making airplanes that are too complex for our own good. KISS.

PTH

[ExSp33db1rd]

Old Piedmont crews used this unauthorized 'technique' on the classic 737's

My reference referred to propellers on - I think - a Capitol Viscount, but I don't want to malign anyone, so I didn't say that !

My source was a solicitor acting for the insurers, I've never read the report, and some legal skullduggery ( Shock ! Horror ! Really ? ) was involved when it came to apportioning liability, which is why he was telling me - over a beer one day.

Hoot said at the time that his aerobatic training allowed him to regain control of the aircraft

It shouldn't be necessary to be an Aerobatic ace to be in command of a public transport a/c. I recall a Comet captain converting to, and maligning, our much loved 707 of the day because he reckoned it could turn around and bite you, he reckoned a public transport a/c should be capable of being flown by the companys' worst pilot - on a day when he felt poorly ! ( I know, I know, we shouldn't fly when we feel poorly, but you might not when you start the flight )

[DozyWannabe]

Lonewolf 50:
At risk of sounding vastly ignorant, might a design strategy for such a capability, thrust reversers, tie in to a weight-on-wheels switch?

Boeing's engineers went one level deeper. As I understand it, the logic as designed was :

WoW + Thrust reverser deployed -> Stow LE Flaps (to protect them from jet blast or foreign object damage)

No WoW for whatever reason -> Deploy LE Flaps as commanded

From the original post (emphasis mine):

The slats stayed retracted for a total of 23s. They started to redeploy 7s after the jet became airborne - as the undercarriage was retracting, at a height of 56ft - and were fully extended 9s later. The stick-shaker, which had activated intermittently over a 15s interval, stopped as the airspeed rose to 186kt.

Congrats to the crew, who kept a level head and did the right thing.

[Smilin_Ed]

They Actually FLEW It Off The Runway

Instead of following the typical climb profile, the first officer - whose aerobatic experience meant he was familiar with buffet - controlled the aircraft through the stall warning and buffeting by executing a shallower climb,

Too bad the guys at Madrid didn't try this.

[protectthehornet]

I have a grand total of one hour of aerobatic training, about 35 years ago...but I assure you, and I am sure, that any ATP could handle buffet.

wondering why they didn't go to ''firewall '' power.

and extend more flaps, I know that is what I would do on my type.

[Huck]

I know in a freighter I'd have been thinking the weights were wrong. That means speed up, trading altitude until you get flyable. And dump.....

[Taildragger67]

Lonewolf 50,

The slats retracted whilst the aircraft was still on the ground - that is, with 'weight on wheels' - which I'd suggest would normally be the condition under which reversers would be deployed on landing. Hence an oleo-linked switch would not have prevented the slats from retracting in this instance (given that the slat retraction was based on the reverser indication).

Protectthehornet,

Maybe they didn't firewall as they believed they had a problem with the inboard engines; certainly, at least a (spurious, apparently) reverser deployment warning.

A previous inflight (actual) deployment (Lauda 767 out of Bangkok) resulted in the engine blasting itself off the wing and the loss of the aircraft; maybe the BAW056 pilots were mindful of this.

[protectthehornet]

taildragger...good point

but I know that if you have a reverser truly deployed, you would have YAW and you would reduce power on the affected engine/s

it is beyond me why we are making planes so complex that the added complexity actually works against us. if something can go wrong, it will...so don't put it on the darn thing in the first place.

don't get me wrong, the crew flew the plane and should be congratulated.

[crazyaviator]

"I have a grand total of one hour of aerobatic training, about 35 years ago...but I assure you, and I am sure, that any ATP could handle buffet"

Remember colgan at niagara falls ??

[Taildragger67]

Protectthehornet,

but I know that if you have a reverser truly deployed, you would have YAW and you would reduce power on the affected engine/s

my reading of this incident is that the spurious indication affected the two inboard engines - meaning that had it been an actual deployment, the effect would've been largely symmetrical.

I guess the point remains that these engines were at take-off power so if they were ever going to shear themselves off a la the Lauda 767, this would've been that time, but maybe the drivers took into account the fact that they appeared to still be working so worked with what they had.

Anyway... I think we agree the crew did some good flying using skills developed over years. Well done.

[sooperfrank]

All 4 engines were firewalled...

http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20cent.../2009/0717.pdf

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Protectthehornet; you'd "firewall" the power would you?

It's a hot and high airfield; probably max take-off weight en-route back to London; do you not think that all of the available thrust was being used anyway?

TCF

[L337]

wondering why they didn't go to ''firewall '' power.

JNB is hot and high. They were very close to MAX ToW and there would have been little or no extra left.

and extend more flaps, I know that is what I would do on my type.

Then they would have had "Land" Flap with no extra lift and a bucket full of drag, and then they definitely would have died.

The 744 takes off with Flap 20. Flap 25, one extra stage, is land flap.

[ProfEng]

Errr, excuse me interrupting....isn't lowering the nose to restore airspeed, aka

controlling the aircraft through the stall warning and buffeting by executing a shallower climb,

a basic flying skill, usually mastered prior to a first solo for good reasons, and not an aerobatic skill?

I accept readily that recognising the situation as one which may be resolved by doing that is the product of experience and knowledge, though. I hope that Easyjet takes note.

BTW, isn't "go to firewall power" either Top Gun or FlightSim territory?

[Mike Whiskey Romeo]

I do not want to take anything away from the excellent work of the crew on this flight, which without doubt prevented a serious incident becoming something worse.

BUT

Should the crew not have aborted take off as soon as the No.3 Engine TR ‘REV’ amber EICAS message displayed at
approximately 125.6kt i.e prior to V1?

Also, hats off to the SACAA for their safety recommendations especially

Operators should provide flight crews with more basic hand flying and
simulator flight training on new generation aircraft to address the
technological developments in aviation, inclusive of effective stall
training.

and their observation:

The apparent increase in the number of software related incidents
involving various type certificated aircraft is becoming a cause of concern.
There is also a common thread through many recent accidents and it is time to
train for a new type of emergency that addresses the failure modes in highly
automated aircraft. The interface between pilots and aircraft automation, as well
as how this should be incorporated into aviation training, requires a review. This
includes addressing how automation fails, how pilots should cope with it and
how to get through the failures

[ETOPS]

Should the crew not have aborted take off as soon as the No.3 Engine TR ‘REV’ amber EICAS message displayed at
approximately 125.6kt i.e prior to V1?

We don't call stop above 100kts for a single amber caution as a general rule. At JNB stopping from around 130kts would have resulted in hot brakes and a nightstop. As the "rev" amber had no other symptoms such as vibration or thrust loss the decision to continue was correct. When the second "rev" came on they were above V1............

[autobrake3]

I wonder if the 200 hour cadet pilots that my company deem to be of acceptable experience would have handled such a frightening situation with such aplomb.

[protectthehornet]

sooperfrank

thanks for confirming that all engines were firewalled.

TheChitterneFlyer and profeng...see above. profeng...no, ''firewall power'' isn't top gun or fight sim. it is part of our flight ops and aircraft flight manuals. granted , we don't operate 747-400, but we have other modern jet transports.

crazyaviator, yes, I do.. your point is well taken...let me change my words to MOST atp's could handle buffet. I do wonder about fatigue in that one, the takeoff crew in the 747 was likely more rested at the start of their flight than at the end of it...as the colgan crew.

[protectthehornet]

while I've just read the PDF file report, I could not find any indication that the engines were firewalled. HOWEVER it states plainly that the takeoff was a REDUCED POWER TAKEOFF.

going to firewall power would have been a good thing to do...perhaps sooperfrank may have found the information saying that the crew firewalled the engines.

so TCF and L377 you might want to read the report...also some 31,000 kg below max to weight...or was it pounds? either way not at full weight.