Why would someone select flaps up during the landing roll?

Go around perhaps ?:ooh:

"Why would anyone select flaps up during the landing run".

A F/O did this to me without being asked just seconds after touch down on a very wet runway one night. He told me that it made the aeroplane sit down better. He had come from DC-3s!

After my debrief, I doubt he ever did such a daft thing again (unless he went back to DC-3s).

Go around perhaps ? Go Around after reverse selected.. no.. but go-around would not be at Flap 0 in any event,,

As for "unweighting" the aircraft.. ground spoilers do that job... retracting flaps would have no positive effect and is certainly a wreckless action during the high speed regime of roll out.

Lets see what the CVR reveals :ok:

A flapless go-around is the same as a takeoff without flaps.
Normally you will not survive that.
The normal go-around flaps setting is 15. (Or 1 if the approach was conducted with flaps 15 - single engine.)
And if it was a go around, why is the reversers open then?

I doubt flaps were selected up deliberately – the travel time takes easily 25 seconds from 40 to 0.

Again – no flap motion can have taken place after the crash, the flaps motors needs inputs from the cockpit, and is driven by the hydraulic system, whist must be broken when we look at the pictures. The alternate system (an electrical motor) can only deploy the leading edge flaps and slats, not retract them.

A flapless landing is very rear on the 738 – if ever have happened - but if so, you will follow the checklist, and have declared EMERGENCY, because you land with much higher speed, and that might end up in an uncomfortable situation. So IF an EMERGENCY were announced the rescue team should have been at the plane before the passengers had time to take a taxi…..(according to the newspapers….)

If the configuration horn did not sound – (that happened in the Madrid accident) they should have been suspicious to the indication on the speed tape, and IF they had tried to fly with the speed for flaps 30 or 40 (but with flaps up) they would have stick shaker too. Furthermore the Ground Proximity Warning would have shouted “Too low – FLAPS” – as another on this forum already have mentioned. (As I remember it is not in connection with the configuration warning – so it should have sounded as well!)

I still really wander what happened here?????

Plenty of chance for damage to wiring to actuate flap retraction...

Only electrical - and then the leading edges will not retract - they can´t!
The hydraulic flapsmotors can not operate if the lines are broken, and the lines goes to the nosegear too - they must be broken!

But let´s se what the investigators finds - maybe I AM vrong:ouch:

More info on the flight BW 523 from the Captain
 

This is from a local newspaper in Trinidad. I have not posted the whole article, only the relevant portions. While his name is mentioned in the link, I have removed his name from the excerpts below.


Trinidad and Tobago's Newsday : newsday.co.tt :

'I DID MY BEST TO SAVE LIVES'

By Nalinee Seelal Sunday, July 31 2011



Trinidadian pilot , who crash-landed an Air Caribbean Boeing 737-800 at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport early yesterday morning, told relatives in Trinidad that poor visibility due to heavy rainfall resulted in the aircraft over-shooting the runway, but insisted he did his best to prevent the loss of lives.

The pilot 52, who was traumatised by the incident and suffered injuries to his legs, spent some of the time nursing his injuries at the Pegasus hotel in Guyana yesterday, but when Sunday Newsday telephoned to speak with him last evening he had already checked out of the hotel.

However, a relative of the pilot, who preferred not to give her name, said his main concern was ensuring that no lives were lost when he negotiated the aircraft on the runway early yesterday.

He reportedly said the runway had poor lighting and this contributed to the poor visibility when he attempted to land at about 1.32 am. the captain, his co-pilot and crew members are expected to receive counselling from professional counsellors in the coming days, the Sunday Newsday was told.

Sunday Newsday understands that the pilot’s wife was distraught on learning of the incident and gave a prayer of thanks that her husband and others aboard the aircraft escaped serious injuries. It remained unclear yesterday when he will be returning home.

.........................

According to reports, the pilot barely missed going into a 200-feet wide ravine; this could have resulted in dozens of deaths. Following the incident, the airport was closed, leaving hundreds of passengers from other parts of the region stranded. The airport was reopened at 11 am yesterday.

..............

According to reports reaching Sunday Newsday, the aircraft, which is valued at US$38 million, left New York and made a stop in Trinidad before eventually landing in Guyana. The airline said it was carrying 157 passengers and six crew members.

...................

Hours later in Guyana, Nicholas hosted a news conference, where he stated that it was too early for any preliminary comment about what may have caused the crash-landing. He added, however, that the United States Transportation and Safety Board, as well as the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority, will be conducting investigations into what happened.

Should the fuselage have stayed in tact?....
 

May/may not be related but definitely worthy of scrutiny... Dateline, a current affairs program in Australia, did a story just last month about three other 737NG aircraft that have crashed on landing and broken up because of defective parts by a Boeing supplier which Boeing ignored even after two employees made them aware of the problems: "They say they couldn't keep quiet any longer over defective parts being made by a subcontractor, Ducommun, which they say were then allowed into 737 Next Generation planes between 1996 and 2004… some even had to be hammered into shape or packed with filler to make them fit."

See the story and read the transcript here: SBS Dateline | A Wing and a Prayer

The prospect of a flaps up landing would probably incur a return to TTPP where the runway is long enough and there is a mx. base and also not raining. SYCJ with its sub-par short runway away from a maintenance base is quite blatantly not ideal.

The way the fuselage bent could (and I stress the word could) have moved the slat/flap cable run to the retract position. Assuming the engines were still running or at least wind milling there would have been enough hydraulic power to allow the slat/flaps to retract.

I would think a no slat/flap landing would have resulted in a much longer over run.

Re sbs story
 

The same story claimed the Turkish Airlines 737 at Amsterdam broke up after overshooting the runway. It never made it to the runway! A plane dropping the way it did from the height it did - effectively straight down - is going to break. All the people interviewed were ex-employees who may or may not have had an axe to grind. I'm sure the relevant authorities would notice a fault given the number of examples but so far no alarm has been raised by the NTSB etc. Simple fact is - planes travelling at high speed off the end of runways tend to get damaged.

Once my airplane departs a prepared surface at high speed I stop really caring whether or not the airplane survives to fly again. Once that excursion is made, the only thing that really matters are the people on the plane. In this case, the airplane did as well as anyone can ask considering the lack of fatalities.

From the pictures....

Translating sleeves are still aft. Forward idle has therefore not been selected.

No flaps, slats or spoilers.... So no hydraulics you say ? So how did they apparently select reverse on both engines without hydraulics ?

On landing you normally select reverse idle by 60 kts and forward idle at taxy speed. Looks like these guys never reached taxy speed on the rollout. After landing cx with selection of flaps/slats up would follow selection of forward idle..... not precede it.

An inadvertent selection of flaps up on landing roll maybe ? That would stow the spoilers and make stopping far more difficult. But what would you be possibly doing during the landing roll to mistakenly select the flaps up? When landing on a short wet runway all eyes are on the decel and the remaining distance... not pulling levers.

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/imag...ines-crash.jpg

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/C...p.grid-8x2.jpg

This was a very slow speed upwind excursion where 10-15 feet of level wet grass would have stopped the jet. Unfortunately that was not the lie of the land.

Maybe the speed was under control on landing, the after landing checks were in progress and as they approached the runway end.... someone inadvertently selected TOGA? Stranger things have happened! Or simply a case of speed misjudged ?

Just a theoretical possibility, from someone with no NG experience..

During the excursion, the fuselage broke. The flap lever may have mechanical linkage to the control system in the wheel well. The linkage may have been pulled to the retracted position during the fuselage fracture. I'm sure the hyd lines that service the NLG extension/retraction/NWS would have been severed, but thats served by system A. System B therefore remaining intact to retract the flaps by either an idling engine or windmilling core rotor of the no2 engine.

Shoot me, its just a theory!

I think I am seeing some spoiler panels up, but a strange mix. Dont think it is possible to get that config in a normal manner, so hydraulics/selectors are somehow out of kilter. Possibly same problem with flaps? Post impact damage?

Wish more runways had crushed concrete arresting pads at the end. Can't be that expensive? I remember Chicago-Midway added some after spilling a plane onto a highway.

I believe it has already earned its keep too!

I see ...
 

long runway ... plane off the end. How ? Why ?

They could have achieved taxi speed well before the runway end, stowed reversers. F/O starts his after landing flow, selecting flaps up, then arriving at the turn-off point at runway end, find nil braking on a flooded, ungrooved runway... nose wheels just slide when turned. Capt reselects reverse, but too late to prevent over run. I've seen it happen...but on a -200 where much more effective reverse saved the day.

Would a fuselage break apart after a taxi speed excursion? How fast would he be?

I have considerable NG time as part of my 30,000+ hours. I will assume there is HUD installed. There were massive failures-mechanical-electronic-intellectual, or simply horrible pilot skills. The -800 is an easy dream to fly, and 7,500ft is more than enough for it in almost any circumstances. The HUD makes it easy, even in bad weather.

It obviouly wasn't going fast 'cause it didn't go far...but down a steep 30ft embankment, through a fence, across the crown of a road...

HUD
 

CAL 737s are not equipped with HUD.

For info for non pilots reading the 738 can be stopped in approx 3000ft or 1000m after touchdown with flap 40 and autobrake max on a dry runway.

“For info for non pilots reading the 738 can be stopped in approx 3000ft or 1000m after touchdown with flap 40 and autobrake max on a dry runway.”

Plus some small print.

Providing the aircraft crosses the threshold at Vref at 50 ft, touches down within 1000 ft (HUD / Autoland distances are longer), at the assumed touchdown speed (Vref -7?), and that the spoilers / airbrake / reversers are deployed without delay (1sec buffer) and maximum braking used until stopped. And that the tyres and brakes are in reasonable condition, the runway surface and friction characteristics are as assumed by the performance chart, that the wind is as reported, and no doubt a few other minor items such as aircraft weight and all systems remain serviceable.

In practice, because the aircraft and flying techniques do not meet the accuracies above, an aircraft operation is planned to stop within a certification distance consisting of a ‘theoretical’ minimum (similar to the above) plus a factored safety margin. However, even this distance is often exceeded in overrun accidents due to a combination of factors, dominated by false belief, assumption, inappropriate action, or unknown / unreliable values.

“… long runway ... plane off the end. How ? Why ?” Not even a HUD will answer those questions.

Missed Approach
 

Funny how everyone here is doing the "armchair" quarterback talking about what happened here. In the interview with the Captain he is talking about "saving lives"? Why didn't they do a go around and take a hold until the weather improved? I fly the 737-800 into 7000 foot runways and when it is wet we use Autobrake max and flaps 40. That equates to about a 138 knot ref speed roughly at 140,000 pound landing weight.

Lets wait and see the final report before jumping to conclusions!

If in doubt-Go Around! Thats what we train for in the "box" every 6 months!

There is a big difference between dry stopping distance, wet stopping distance, and flooded runway stopping distance. When downpours happen, the runway can have areas of ponding where the water may be more than 1/4"deep.
All bets are off then as braking may be close to zero.
Ask any pilot who has experienced it, it feels like ice, like someone gave the aircraft a big push in the back.
Add to that, the particular runway has "good" areas where constant use has left a relatively clean surface, but the lesser used areas have a kind of moss coating that is greasy and slippery. Once off the beaten track so to speak, braking can be very variable. The far (eastern) end of R 06 does not see much use other than the odd taxiing aircraft after a long roll-out.
There have been several attempts at improving the runway surface in the past,and its 10 years since I was last there, but the policy used to be, do not stow (idle) reverse until down to a walking pace.
The last 1500' of the runway was not a place to try to slow from, say, 60kts. Depending on conditions you might have your hands full.
I used to operate there in L-1011s and the "relax" point was not until down to a walking pace with a decent bit of runway left!
Being a wee bit long or a wee bit fast was not an option.

used to be? I thought you were meant to do that anyway according to Boeing - that way you can always take reverse again without any delay.

:ok:
Thanks FFBob, I said "used to be" because I passed my use-by-date some time ago and was not sure if things have changed!

Just to qualify my comments I did say "dry runway" and "stopped within" - the latter obviously assumes that the aircraft is on the ground first and travelling at the recommended speed! :ok:

You do wonder sometimes if the landing performance criteria for landing on wet runways is really up to it if "average" pilots are taking it off the end.

I don't suppose somewhere like Georgetown would be up to providing up to date braking action reports for the runway, especially when wet.

On a slightly different tack, many years ago in the USA they put experienced pilots in the simulator ostensibly for some other reason but then gave them a major failure close to v1 on a field length limited runway. Something like 75 % went off piste at the end which led to the conclusion that maybe the take off performance criteria needed re-assessing (not sure whether they did).

Maybe the same applies to landing on slick runways. Personally I never relax till the machine is stopped.

Significant?
 

In the image here. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post6612041 For what it's worth, has anyone noticed and is it significant that the gouges in the grass show only TWO tracks for landing gear? Unless a main gear rolled over the nose gear track and obscured it, the nose gear wasn't on the ground at that point.

A Trini colleague walking past my desk pointed that out to me.

Azumi, the only two tracks are pretty correct IMHO cause they only depicted the 2 wheels on the right main landing gear.... the other 2 from the left one even the nose one, are out of photo range.
The nose ones due to the angle of the ravine, and according to some remaining speed, could be still out of ground contact (inertia too).

Yes I think it looks like that photo was zoomed in on on the tyre tracks of the RH MLG which makes it look like there were only two tyre tracks

I'm puzzled by all the interpretations here:confused:

In the recently referenced Photos of tire tracks, my first reaction was the RH gear in an obviously foreshorten photo (and not nose and single tire track)

I have seen the absence in other accidents of LH gear track where the gear was sheared off in the first ditch after it left the runway, so is this the case here ?

I have heard that slap retractions are automatic if the hydraulics are breached, could this be part of the explanation. It seems like all the info that is needed to investigate this accident is available on-site, so why are we guessing?

Here is a Thought:

I did my initial DC-10 type rating with AA at DFW. My simulator instructor was a truly wonderful character called Frank Meyers. I think Frank first flew the DC-2 when he joined AA.

On an early exercise in the sim he had us taking off from a runway at Waco, Texas which exactly met Performance A requirements. He failed No.3 just before V1 and we both ended up just off the end of the runway.

"Right gentlemen" said Frank "Let us have a look at your seat position".

Now I tended to have my seat quite low and I sat a bit back from the rudder pedals (just like I did in a sailplane). Frank pointed out that in this position I could only get my ankle muscles on to the brake pedals whereas if I sat a bit higher and a bit closer, I could bear down with my thigh muscles etc and get much more pressure on to the brake pedals and much quicker.

I have to say that I did not really feel comfortable with having my seat in this new suggested position but it worked really well. I was easily able to stop next time we tried the Waco trick and from that time on I taught a hell of a lot of young men Frank's trick.

Can YOU apply FULL BRAKING in your present position?

Why are we guessing?
 

Lomapaseo, "Why are we guessing?".

Well, were bored and have nothing better to do.

OK, that's not entirely correct. Some people like to "stir the pot", aka Boeing vs Airbus, ect.

Seriously, by nature we are an inquisitive lot. We search for answers, and barring that, propose some hypotheses of our own. Any "official" report is y-e-a-r-s down the road, yet "we" as a group, often flying these exact planes, have concerns. After every accident and mishap I have seen here, I put, or at least try to put myself into the operating pilots position, and mentally try to see what I would do. "Cargo Fire" over the North Pacific ( maybe get more life insurance ), ect. And NO, I can't exactly replicate what the pilot's in question actually do, as I don't have all the "facts" as "they" saw them. Maybe "they" saw a TRW on the LOC, and decided to cut in short, and didn't give themselves time to get stabilized, ect. I'm not saying that happened here, by any means, but these type of things do happen, and often the pilots aren't around to give their side of the story. More often than not they're dead. So, even though there are a lot of factors that I can't take into consideration, I try at least to learn from the experiences of others, in my own way.
Also, there is a wealth of information and experience in the heads of those on this forum. Personal experience flying the same type of plane, sometimes the exact plane. Personal experience flying into a particular field, airspace, ect. You can learn a lot, I almost always do.
You can also be misled. There are those on this forum that have NO credible experience, yet speak as if they do. How can you tell?. Often, you can't. I suspect they're are "news" types that are looking for a sensational pilot perspective. They may get it from a 16 year old kid, who flies an X-box, with a Forum tag of "OldSalty727". If that name exists I apologise in advance...
These are just my thoughts on "why we guess".

B737 accident at CJIA
 

That doesn't sound a very plausible scenario.

Firstly, it assumes a crew cycling the flaps while on approach - hardly conducive to a stabilized approach.

Secondly, if they were approaching with the flaps not fully extended and hoping that they would extend somehow, then they should have been considering the flaps failed landing distance - which since they overran it seems unlikely.

Had the scenario of flaps retracting during the final stages of the approach been possible, then there wouldn't have been a need to add power - if anything, the cleaned up config would need less power. It'd also be needing more AOA, though - something you'd think might be noticeable.

Depending on the system architecture, having the handle in the wrong position might be the input to a config warning, rather than the surface itself. Either are plausible. Would need to know the system specifics to know if thats a plausible suggestion.