Not sure of the protocol here, but would the Irish Aviation people not be involved in the incident investigation? If so, any idea of whether or when they would report, or would they report separately? Assuming the 737 was EI registered?

If the reports of the Prestwick stuff I saw elsewhere about the Captain are true surely the IAA should have an opinion, but she isn't Irish licensed I presume.

Is that a trick question ? :)

http://i45.tinypic.com/a26xeb.jpg

The datestamp on the photo (which is the same one as in the CIAIAC report) is 14th April 2011 (the date of the incident). The photo is clearly taken on the gate at JFK (STA would have been around 1245 local).

As you rightly say, the damage shown is to the horizontal stabiliser, and not the elevator.

Say again?

Why is it when it comes to aircraft safety that we are always wise after the event?
When you are a passenger on an airliner, you are in effect one of many eyes and ears which crews (both cabin and flightdeck) should make good use of when it comes to monitoring the aircraft.

Quite often, passenger comments are dismissed due to the attitude that they don't know what they are talking about.

In the Ryanair incident, when one of the passengers who observed the collision identified himself as an engineer, the immediate action would have been to at least allow him to talk to the Captain in person. The aircraft should have either returned to stand or remained at the hold while a discussion took place.

Everybody on board an aircraft has equal rights when it comes to self preservation. A Captain has no right what so ever to put any passengers life in danger unnecessarily.
There is no defence of these actions what so ever.
Hiding behind the operational pressure excuse is getting a little tiresome.
A commander of an aeroplane is just that. Once he takes command of a flight then all the responsibilites pertaining to that flight are his. If fearing for his/her job is the top of his priorities then he or she shouldn't be sat there in the first place.
If there is a problem with Company Culture then the hundreds/thousands of crews employed should make a stance to the IAA before the day comes when there is an accident. Then we can all play at wise after the event again.
Coop

Agreed Coopervane.

Just a few weeks ago, I was sitting aboard one of FRs competitors (as SLF) when we had taxied just short of the holding point. After aileron and spoiler checks were done (twice on the Airbus) I noted no flap or slat deployment.

I immediately undid my belt and went to the back of the aircraft as it was the nearest to me and told one of the cabin crew. He immediately told me to get back to my seat and I said no, not until he called the flight deck to let them know of my concern. He duly made the call and indeed, half way through the call - control surfaces were deployed.

After the flight, I was called to the flight deck to chat with the flightdeck crew. They had selected flaps after engine 1 start but they had not deployed until much later- something I had not seen before. The crew duly thanked me and said they would inform maintenance immediately.

I didn't fancy a short flight on a full A320 ISA+15 with no flaps/slats selected for take off!!

- I smell finest hogwash:) I have never heard of flaps selected before engine start is complete, and if they 'failed to deploy' the a/c is not safe to fly.:ugh:.

BOAC Call it what you will my friend. Did I say they selected flaps before engine 1 start or did I imply they should have done this? Perhaps I should have put .....selected flaps after engine 1 start AS NORMAL?

The fact that the crew did not know they had not deployed immediately after selection was why they called maintenance afterwards!

Is there something I'm not making clear? Or you trying to gain brownie points? :mad:

Actually I had a similar experience some years ago, on a TWA DC-9. I happened to be sitting where I could see both ailerons. We were in the last stages of taxi. One aileron was full up, the other full down. This did not look at all right to me. I flagged down the attendant as she made her way to the back crew seat and pointed this out. She fairly sprinted to the cabin and sure enough, we pulled out of line near the threshold. I saw the control surfaces move and the flaps deploy and stow a couple of times. A crew member came into the passenger cabin and took a quick look. The captain apologized for the delay and put it down to instrumentation problems. After 10 minutes or so we were underway. No harm in using the meatware this way :)

-drl

Try not to be so sensitive. The 'hogwash' was for the crew.

By the way, you said
"They had selected flaps after engine 1 start" which is NOT normal procedure. I said "before engine start is complete" and as you no doubt know there are two engines on a 737.

"The fact that the crew did not know they had not deployed immediately after selection was why they called maintenance afterwards!" They should have returned to stand. If flaps do not deploy normally the aircraft is u/s for flight.

So, "my friend" - in my opinion you were given a bucket of hogwash. Simples. The only conclusion I can draw from YOUR story is that they either forgot or delayed it for some reason.

Well if the cap fits ...

I've coloured it in to make it easier for you. :O

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...ps/767sec2.pdf

http://www.civilaircraftregisters.or...tal%20stab.jpg

KEY:

Red bit - moves up and down a lot
Yellow bit - moves up and down, but not so much, and occasionally gets hit by passing aircraft

LGW Vulture:

I'm afraid the story you were told by the crew of your Airbus is almost certainly a load of BS. The flap / slat system on the A320 is self monitoring and takes only a few seconds to tell the crew if the flaps do not move to match the pilot's selection. If they actually did experience a failure of the flaps to move, combined with a failure to give the appropriate warning, then your flight should never have left the ground as the function of that system was (or at least should have been) in serious question.

I suspect that what really happened is that the flaps weren't set during the after start flow. That in itself is not a huge issue, as the before takeoff checklist includes a check of the required and actual flap settings. Also, there is a takeoff configuration test that is done just prior to entering the runway. If the flaps were retracted, that check would have resulted in an alert message in the flight deck.

deSitter
 

Ailerons on DC 9 and MD 80 are aerodynamically controlled by tabs, so the ailerons may stay in any position during ground ops. Same with the elevators. What you saw was perfectly normal.

ManaAda System, you beat me to it, many times in my 18mth on the Diesel9 we had a helpful following aircraft alerting us to control surfaces all over the place.

I also had to endure 1 year on the Fokker100 being told we had no flaps selected for take-off, that was a normal config on that beast.

Fully agree about intervening when sitting as SLF, no flaps/no de-icing (think Aeroflot) / collisions/whatever. . . .you will be involved in the smouldering wreck & any crew worth their salt will listen to your concerns , particularly (but not limited to) if you have some aviation qualification.

Amazed the Eng on the FR flight didn't take it further.

Haha. Between the lines as well. Made me chuckle!

BOAC. Engine start order on a two engine aircraft. first you start engine 2, then you start engine 1.

The best bit
 

Taxied a half metre to one side of centreline to give clearance

Anyone who taxis so close to another aircraft that they feel it necessary to deviate a half meter off the c/l clearly has serious issues with judgement. Firstly an inability to assess the accuracy of their own judgement because no one can accurately judge a half metre gap at their wingtip. Secondly a fundamental flaw in judgement itself, no sane pilot makes a run for a gap so narrow that they think a mere half metre will get them by.

Pax report contact with another a/c.

Almost beyond belief anyone would dismiss this without investigation before taking off, especially when the FO had told you to stop suddenly due proximity to that a/c. Grossly and unforgivably unprofessional and downright DANGEROUS.

Saw scrapes in the paint knowing there had been reports of contact but ignored them, and considered the fact they were not at a maintenance base relevant to that decision.

Criminally irresponsible. A loss of licence decision imho.

Well, maybe, but if you think they'd do anything about it I'll assume you nothing about the IAA. A call to an ex Air Corps mate in Ryanair perhaps, "Oh, just a wee scrape? No harm done? Oh, OK, that's all then...":ugh:

Clearly talking utter scribble as well as thinking it. What the £@%& is that supposed to mean to a BCN controller????


Having said all that it can be very difficult to get cabin crew to take one seriously as a passenger reporting defects. We all assume pax to be utter numpties and it is easier to dismiss them as imagining things than to act upon it. Several years ago I was pax on a F27 into Norwich - or was it Teesside? and clearly saw the wheels trample two taxiway edge lights (The sort on nine inch stalks) but the FA at the door tried to fob me off with a bored yes yes yes thank you sir even when I identified myself as a commercial pilot. She only acted, with obvious annoyance, when I said I'd report it forthwith to the airport authorities and demand an inspection of the taxiway light to prove it before they left.
You may have to be very firm in such a situation and I agree with Capt Playstation that in a similar event to the Ryanair incident the last resort is to blow a slide to prevent a potential catastrophe.

Which throws up a question that lurks in my head since I read this story...what did the FO do? What did he say to his captain?
CRM? Was he in the loop? Or wasn`t he informed at all?

Ballsout - I was giving a little allowance for possible non-English speaker (most people would have written 'after start') and the other thing is, of course, not always:)