Sunwing Airlines 737-800 take-off at Belfast
Thread Starter
Sunwing Airlines 737-800 take-off at Belfast
The crew entered the wrong temperature into the FMC before departure resulting in too low a thrust setting. When they noticed that the aircraft was 'not accelerating normally' they continued and did nothing. The aircraft was so low that it struck a runway light situated 29 metres beyond the take-off run. Surely most of us would immediately have applied full power. I know acceleration can be difficult to judge - but - but what do readers think?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...e-blun-453814/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...e-blun-453814/
Thread Starter
Probably, as it happened in July last year. But I posted it because I am amazed the crew did not apply full power, either during the take-off run when they became aware of the incorrect acceleration, or immediately after leaving the ground when presumably the climb was rather shallow. Is it that crews place too much reliance on the auto-throttle system without maintaining a common sense overview? Or are there other factors at play here?
This was discussed last summer, but the Daily Mail has resurrected it this morning so it must be news again 
This was discussed last summer, but the Daily Mail has resurrected it this morning so it must be news again
Thread Starter
Clearly I missed it last year but only found the FlightGlobal article today - my apologies to one and all!
However, (1) this type of incident is, unfortunately, fairly common. (2) Mistakes when entering data are easy to make, and I realise, with the use of derated power, neither is it always so easy to recognise what is a normal power setting - it has become more complicated since my day. (3) I also realise that a pilot's subjective appreciation of acceleration is not reliable, and take-off monitoring systems are difficult to engineer. But (4) I find it very hard to understand why the pilots did not increase power once a problem had been detected - and that they did not do so until 4kms from the end of the runway and at 800ft aal.
With both engines working, it is not as though they needed to beware of VMCG and VMCA, both of which can be a factor following an engine failure on take-off. Is it yet another case of lack of basic stick and rudder skills?
However, (1) this type of incident is, unfortunately, fairly common. (2) Mistakes when entering data are easy to make, and I realise, with the use of derated power, neither is it always so easy to recognise what is a normal power setting - it has become more complicated since my day. (3) I also realise that a pilot's subjective appreciation of acceleration is not reliable, and take-off monitoring systems are difficult to engineer. But (4) I find it very hard to understand why the pilots did not increase power once a problem had been detected - and that they did not do so until 4kms from the end of the runway and at 800ft aal.
With both engines working, it is not as though they needed to beware of VMCG and VMCA, both of which can be a factor following an engine failure on take-off. Is it yet another case of lack of basic stick and rudder skills?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But they are not entirely wrong are they? When incidents like this keep happening. At least since1982 with, oddly enough another B737 -Air Florida Flight 90, into the Potomac. Yes I know the lead up was different but once on the runway, pretty much same effect if not results...luckily. Many more examples out there.
Some years ago there was a suggestion of a blue light speed. Obvious blue light by the runway, your perf calcs say you should be doing, say 80kts, passing that; if you are not then you need to do something.
Old heavy turboprop with crap performance, we used 30sec to 80 kts as a ball park, just as a check.
Old heavy turboprop with crap performance, we used 30sec to 80 kts as a ball park, just as a check.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago there was a suggestion of a blue light speed. Obvious blue light by the runway, your perf calcs say you should be doing, say 80kts, passing that; if you are not then you need to do something.
Old heavy turboprop with crap performance, we used 30sec to 80 kts as a ball park, just as a check.
Old heavy turboprop with crap performance, we used 30sec to 80 kts as a ball park, just as a check.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(5) reporting of this incident was quite poor to say the least. Bluntly the crew tried to evade reporting it - they basically scuttled off hoping noone would notice. Then the airport dropped the ball by not calling the AAIB hotline as the AAIB intends they should, and eventually someone at Sunwing sent their regulator (Canadian TSA) some paperwork probably hoping it would gather dust in an in-tray. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, the TSA is not incompetent, the AAIB does check its messages in office hours, and then the investigation started.
As a non-pilot, albeit a reasonably well-informed one I would like to think, I can't understand how situations like this arise.
We are talking about two experienced pilots (or at least one very experienced one). They will have taken off many times and know their machine backwards. They should know weights, thrust settings and speeds like the backs of their hands.
An error of input is understandable but surely when it throws up a thrust setting of 81% for a four-hour flight with a full load, when previously it came up say with 90+ % for a Palma or Ibiza, alarm bells should start ringing in their heads? Especially as there are two of them!
Or am I missing something?
We are talking about two experienced pilots (or at least one very experienced one). They will have taken off many times and know their machine backwards. They should know weights, thrust settings and speeds like the backs of their hands.
An error of input is understandable but surely when it throws up a thrust setting of 81% for a four-hour flight with a full load, when previously it came up say with 90+ % for a Palma or Ibiza, alarm bells should start ringing in their heads? Especially as there are two of them!
Or am I missing something?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automation Engineering Induced Ineptitude is the cause of this 'un
Click click, when the autothrottles ain't workin like you thought they were going to, push those bad boys to the wall. Works every time.
81% N1, you have got to be kidding me. That is gross incompetence of the worst kind. Does that airline have checklists?
Click click, when the autothrottles ain't workin like you thought they were going to, push those bad boys to the wall. Works every time.
81% N1, you have got to be kidding me. That is gross incompetence of the worst kind. Does that airline have checklists?
Not excusing what they did but apparently those types of N1 values (under 90%) are not uncommon on cold winter days in Canada. Does not mitigate the fact that they should have slammed the throttles at some point but perhaps that is part of the reasons they missed it initially.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not excusing what they did but apparently those types of N1 values (under 90%) are not uncommon on cold winter days in Canada. Does not mitigate the fact that they should have slammed the throttles at some point but perhaps that is part of the reasons they missed it initially.
They should have moved the throttles.
As an SLF I find it incomprehensible that a pilot who sees the runway threshold below him at an altitude < 1ft -that must be hard to miss even for a pilot used to automation- does not slam the throttles forward while *trying* to climb, and waits a minute or so to a distance of 4km. But of course my lack of understanding presumably stems from SLF stupidity. I am also amazed that the plane did not descend again when ground effect was lost.
Edmund
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not excusing what they did but apparently those types of N1 values (under 90%) are not uncommon on cold winter days in Canada. Does not mitigate the fact that they should have slammed the throttles at some point but perhaps that is part of the reasons they missed it initially.
Thread Starter
Another incorrect FMC entry. This one is different but with a similar result.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ht-dat-453942/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ht-dat-453942/
