You gotta love this forum!

The Grim EPR - You have to be a Microsoft Flight Sim kinda guy?

"Apparently the crew experienced an auto throttle problem (uncommanded thrust reduction). They tried unsuccessfully to increase thrust, but were unable until the auto pilot and auto throttle were switched off" :confused::confused:

You clearly have zero concept of how basic this aircraft is - Both the flight controls and the thrust levers are mechanically linked, directly to the actuators. ie - Push the throttles forward and the MEC fuel valves on the engine will command more fuel into the cans.

Perhaps we need a closed forum for Pro-pilots.

Dogma
With reference to the "Perhaps we should have a closed forum for Pro -Pilots"
Whilst i have nothing to do with aviation industry as far as employment goes, i read the opinions of all people on these boards with interest(some with far more knowledge of aviation than i will ever have! ), and whilst some forums have to be closed (understandable in some circumstances).making it closed to the likes of me is in my opinion a little unfair.
I find it interesting to read what the aviation fraternity think about things that are happening or have happened to increase my overall knowledge of this industry and to make my travelling experience as pleasurable as possible.
I am not one for commenting on things normally on PPRune but feel it would be a shame for people like me who are not in the industry but are interested in it all the same not being able to read the wealth of knowledge and experience that appear on these boards.


HLXPAX

Difficult to assess what actually happend from these post's but one thing is for sure - the basics weren't happening, i.e no-one was flying the aeroplane!!!

Not meaning to be awkward here, but it was previously mentioned that the a/c was configured with flap 30 at the time, thus making it likely that it was during the last 1200 feet of the approach. Wouldn't that make a full stall recovery a bit unlikely?

Much more probable (if true at all) that the speed got low for whatever reason and the stick-shaker triggered. This in itself isn't that uncommon - my Company used to operate the B737-300 and I can remember at least three occasions when reports were filed for stick-shaker activation: twice due loss of situational awareness when dispatching with A/T u/s, and once due to the A/T being disconnected when a/c was high on glideslope.

Also, this would not be noticeable to the pax... however, a full stall recovery losing so much height, with 45 degrees NU pitch, at 90 knots with overboosted CFM's... I'd say that the pax would find that mildly uneasing. It's not like they would just get off the plane thinking "well that wasn't weird at all, was it?"... I had a pax phone a newspaper once just to report that we had stopped the a/c on the runway, and he'd never noticed that before (?!)...

Fine if people like you in these sections stuck to 'reading' but far too many people with limited knowledge are involving themselves in discourse way beyond their comprehension or knowledge, without letting on. It makes a mockery of any serious discussion by industry people. We've even had aviation armchair hobbyists announcing here how they would have handled a recent emergency (differently to the pilots involved)!

Dogma raised a very valid point, and was quite correct in criticising the post. It is an absurd statement for anyone that knows the 737-300. Perhaps until more information is released, we can refrain from postulating or stabbing in the dark? A lot of what has been written is evidently junk.

Here, here.

Too many are not open about who they are. Fewer fantacist armchair enthusiast comments would be fabulous.

There must be more to this than the 'rumours' reported. I really cannot believe a qualified crew from a major european company have actually stalled a servicable 737? :confused:

I too say leave this one to rest for the full picture to emerge.

I used to fly for TFly and remember we always disconnected A/T to land. At BA we ARM Speed mode by presseing the SPEED button and thus A/T stays in, this gives alpha floor protection. I think that this is a better method in light of this conversation. Doesn't help my landings though!

FlyingTom - you need to re-read your manuals! It does NOT provide 'alpha-floor protection' - it merely applies power if the speed gets too low. Someone in BA has always thought this was 'apha-floor'.

IF you mishandle a low-engined a/c and get the speed too low, with full power you get a lot of nose-up. Have a re-read also of your 'unusual attitude' notes or whatever BA call them.

BA themselves nearly lost a 747 recently at LHR at an extreme attitude and low speed, and I think with stick-shake. It is somewhere on here.

OK, minimum speed reversion is the proper name (with an A symbol in the window, hence it is incorrectly named by people like me).

Power is applied if you let the speed get to low, which is a good thing in my book.

PS. the 747 was TOGA' itus.

unbelievable
 

NineForks Said
Don't read any accident/incident reports, or you might get overwhelmed with what some fully qualified crews can do with perfectly serviceable aircraft... :eek:

The Invisible Man wrote:

...absolute rubbish. :cool:

Still, it's nice to see so many experts here who have already got the whole thing worked out. :ugh:

Then we had:

Whilst the grammar and syntax here are unforgiveable, the sentiment is laudable. :ok:

...especially when they rely on automatics day in, day out.:ugh:

I'm afraid we rely on auto thrust so much now it is actually becoming a serious problem whenever you fly with an aeroplane where it is unserviceable. I don't know if that is a factor with this incident. The level of relying on automatics is such now that Airbuses are banned without autothrust in various places now, aren't they? I know when I have flown without A/T, sooner or later it is inevitable the speed does something unexpected through you relying on it so throroughly.

Flight story:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...stigation.html

Flight story. Who needs FDRs.......... :hmm:

FOK

Along with the details I picked up I gather it's been tried a few times in the sim as part of the investigation - outcome wasn't good! Which is why the AAIB are considering it an accident.

It never fails to amaze me how ridiculously trusting people are of the results of using a TRAINING simulator to investigate the behaviour of an aircraft operated outside of the training envelope.

@Mad

Correct.:)

@FlyingOfficerkite

If you want to know how an A310 with 88 pitch up and 30 kts reacts, check this:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19910211-0