So it wasn't the Flight Crew doing it ...and no quality/safety check done afterwards. They were lucky this time.

For those who are quick to jump the gun and blame the crew. If you care to read the actual AAIB report, you will find that:

- the crew was presented with a A321 loadsheet indicating a CG within limits. The loadsheet assumed even distribution of PAX throughout the cabin, whereas in reality everyone was seated in the front.

- there is no mention of incorrect takeoff weight or performance calculations. By all indications the V-speeds were correct

​​​- forgetting to raise the gear after barely leaving the ground (mind you intersection t/o at LTN means around 1800m TORA) is a minor error, completely irrelevant to the incident

Don't most airlines include a final closing up cross check from the cabin crew confirming approximate passenger seating distribution? Mine does.

Sidestick_n_Rudder

Finally someone understanding English or actually taking time to read the report before calling the crews something connected with peanuts... Thank you Sir!

All those rows empty in the back should have prompted any properly trained cabin chief (who are there primarily for safety, not to serve passengers, as we are always reminded when their service attitude is questioned...) to pop their head in the cockpit and query whether that fits with the information at the pointy end. Of course, as someone above aptly said, if you pay peanuts...

‘By all indications the V-speeds were correct”

Have a look in the fcom and there are some speed tables based on VMU and VMCA and compare them to the figures given in the report.

Sidestick_n_Rudder

There is no way a Vr of 112kt on an A321 makes any sense unless You are ferrying the aircraft on a short sector (and also in that case probably with Conf 2 or 3).

Being a Captain means also having enough experience and gut feeling to understand that something’s definitely not right and you must break this Swiss cheese that is forming up just before your eyes. They were also very lucky they didn’t leave half of the tail on the runway.

tubby linton

Doesnt the departure system flag a warning if the aircraft is overloaded or out of trim? Could the load controller have changed the seating to free seating in order to produce the loadsheet - and forgotten to tell the cabin staff - or if he did they didnt action it?

Seems to be a very large split between the Vr and V2. A V1 speed of a 112 would not be uncommon in Ltn from the intersection but as you say a Vr speed of a 112 is virtually impossible unless it’s empty. Could there be some confusion in the report regarding V-speeds? Seems very odd to me.

You can make all the excuses that you want, but the fact that this happened to Wizz, as opposed to Ryan or Easy, doesn't surprise anyone.

Sure, at better, safer, more experienced 320 operaters things happen. But when it does, it's surprising, and dealt with.

With Wizz, nope, no way I'd put my family on there.

All euro-locos had their fair share of cockups without any serious outcome, fortunately. Just think about EZY's intersection incident in Portugal, or RYR's NDB approach in France. WZZ's recent stint in LTN is no different. However their EIN-SKP departure and continuation of flight, following a birdstrike causing temporary unreliable airspeed indication raises a few questions about the company culture...

For what it’s worth, I can see why the crew left the gear down. They were obviously distracted by what had just happened. That’s more or less inconsequential in the grand scheme (in my opinion).

I’m curious about the V speeds though, as they seem way too low. The report doesn’t mention anything though.

oooh yes thanks sonicbum

I don't have acess to A321 performance data, as I have only flown the A320, and that was some time ago. However:

- if anything, the Vmc speeds on the A321 should be lower than on the A320 due to longer fuselage. Correct me if I am wrong

- the takeoff was conducted with a light-ish airplane on a short, wet runway. It is very possible in such conditions to have the V-speeds limited by Vmca/Vmcg/Vmu and be lower than what we are normally used to see. On longer runways the V-speeds are usually higher in order to improve climb performance.

According to the report mentions V1 of 112kt and Vr of 123kt @68.6T. Does it really sound so low?

Can anyone post published Vmcg and Vmca for the A321 and stall speed in Conf3 for 68T? I remember there used to be a stall speed graph in the FCOM. Min V2 can be as low as 1.13*Vs1g

Or even better, do a calculation in FlySmart? The wx/rwy conditions are described in the report.

You know, you’re right. Avherald says V1/Vr were 112 and v2 was 123. The actual report says v1 was 112 and vr was 123. That’s more reasonable.

Several of the reader comments in the Avherald report also query the quoted Vr. Hopefully the article will be corrected in due course to use the figures from the AAIB report.

I believe they did correct it now.
Definitely a wrong Vr of 123 becomes tricky.

Never understood why it was there at the first place. Good thing they finally removed it. This aircraft can be flown entirely without checklist in my opinion especially the newer models where you have an Ecam warning for everything. All the important items are displayed on the Ecam memo. Gotta love Airbus for that.:)

So accounting for all the errors in the reporting, understanding this was a lightish A321 off a wet runway (therefore not totally unexpected speeds), we now have a situation where the only way this could've been trapped was by having knowledgeable and safety aware cabin crew. At Wizzair and most LCCs, this means you are expecting three 18 year olds and one 25 year old with barely any life experience, let alone aviation experience to speak up. At my previous legacy airline, at least 2 of the crew would've picked this up in a flash but they're in their 30s and 40s and cost far too much.

The first comment on the report in Avherald makes it very scary. It could have ended in disaster. The RW is short with no overrun the crew wouldn't consider abort takeoff. The aircraft which is in direct law on ground got airborne only because of the thrust/weight couple created by TOGA. Otherwise they would've overrun with takeoff thrust. Providential escape.