Maroc 737 in loss-of-lift incident at FRA
 

I' m curious what comments there will be on this one:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqsvVCvWIAE8vaZ.jpg

My guess is a performance error. Clearly in the video a low flap setting was used (flaps 1)so my guess is that performance was based on a higher flap setting but the pilots used a low flap setting instead, either intentional or not. Which resulted in rotating earlier and nearly tail striking. The airport is Frankfurt which has two very long runways, so flaps 1 could of easily been used (if performance allowed).

this one looks very ankward, especially when it touches down again after liftoff. It reminds me of people forgetting about density altitude or ice over the wings.

Crikey, that's not flash!

Maybe something to do with that big white triangle that's following them down the runway.:E

I am curious what the trim was set to. To me seems like a rather short take off roll for a (my assumption) reduced thrust take off on a long runway.

Upon further examination - look like a 0 flaps takeoff.

A little something to talk about during the debrief for sure !!

Culture
 

Cock up up followed by cover up. They were lucky to get away with it.

wrong derate maybe...incorrect flap setting. Had it been a 738 we woulda seen a show of sparks at the tail.
Another possibility is thrust setting and V speeds calculated for a wrong takeoff weight. ZFW entered prior to refueling, calculations made on a ZFW + fuel remaining from previous flight. Long flight ahead, 10-15 tons of fuel not accounted for.....otherwise it's real hard to not become airborne. Any airplane with the correct thurst setting and a smooth rotation rate, like the one in the vid, can be rotated 10 knots prior to Vr and it will fly. This sure was a combination of "wrongs".

I think I can, I think I can, there, I can, I can! :D :ok:

Flaps 1 takeoff. Planes don't fly if you rotate at too slow a speed. You can see the nose wheel extended early in the TO roll.

Well, he's definitely got at least Flap 1 set because you can see the slats extended. I cannot recall if Flap 1 is a takeoff flap setting for the 737 but, if it is not, they would have got a config warning on applying thrust. My quarterbacking would guess at wrong weights in the FMC (ZFW entered into the GWT field etc) giving the wrong speeds on the speed tape. I'm very glad the PF did the right thing when confronted with a lack of lift and gave the wings a few more drops of IAS before having another go when a bigger arrow of upward energy was formed. He didn't panic and try and stop, so I reckon he made a good job out of a bad situation, even if they did (maybe) cause that problem in the first place. Incorrect FMC entries have been around for quite some time now and I'm sure there will be more but let's hope better data entry procedures will mitigate against too many occurring.

Looks like a zero fuel weight error, which can happen very easily, especially if you're rushing. However, a 1 tonne error only equates to around 1 knot on the speeds so it would have had to be a big discrepancy. The PF did a good job though IMHO as a tail strike was on the cards.

Could be as simple as the PF rotating when the PM called V1.

So obviously past V1, what should they do but "cover up" ?

Miles Magister
4000m runway so pretty sure V1 and Vr would be the same for a 737 even at max weight.

Airplanes I fly have an audio Takeoff Warning if flaps and trim are not set when throttles are advanced.

RAM Response...
 

Royal Air Maroc has apparently responded as follows:

"After false information was spread out regarding flight AT811 from FRA to CMN on July 23, we want to clarify that during take-off, ATC advised of possible wake turbulence from adjacent landing A330. In turn, the Captain decided to execute a manoeuvre to gain more speed until they reached speeds that would ensure a safe take-off".

Really???

overhasty protective PR measure if you ask me..not very persuasive.