Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

BA 747 crew commended for escaping near-stall on take-off

  • Thread starter Thread starter UALRATT
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 27

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
It helped to have been taking off on a 14,000 feet long runway. Here is some additional albeit better information coming from Avherald...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) have released their final report concluding the probable cause of the serious incident was:

Loss of a significant amount of lift on rotation during the takeoff caused by the automatic LE flap retraction logic retracting the Group ‘A’ LE flaps on receipt of spurious thrust reverser unlock signals from the no. 2 and no. 3 engines. The possibility of such an occurrence had not been identified during amendment of the retraction logic.

The SACAA wrote as last of their findings:

"The flying crew should be commended for the professional way that they controlled the aircraft during a critical stage during takeoff and thereby ensured the safety of the 283 occupants on board the aircraft."

The airplane was departing Johanneburg's runway 03L. The departure was planned at reduced takeoff power, the first officer was pilot flying. Calculated speeds were V1=150, Vr=168 and V2=176 KIAS at flaps 20. The #3 thrust reverser amber message displayed on the EICAS screen at about 125.6 knots (below V1), the #2 thrust reverser amber message at 159.9 knots (above V1, just below Vr). At this stage the leading edge Group A flaps retracted automatically according to system logic, speed was 164 KIAS. The airplane rotated at 173 KIAS and became airborne at 176 KIAS. The stick shaker immediately activatated at a radio altitude of 4 feet intermittently for 8 seconds during the next 15 seconds, significant buffeting was observed. The pilot flying, having significant experience with aircraft buffeting due to aerobatics flying, continued to fly the aircraft with the captain, remaining pilot monitoring, calling out aircraft height. The landing gear was retracted at 177 KIAS and the leading edge flaps immediately deployed again reaching their normal position at a height of 56 feet AGL, the stick shaker ceased at 186 KIAS. The leading edge flaps reached their deployed position again 23 seconds after retracting, the airplane performance returned to normal thereafter and the airplane climbed out. Whilst climbing through 7000 feet the crew declared PAN reporting problems with the #2 and #3 engine and decided to return to Johannesburg. The airplane continued to climb to FL150, dumped fuel and landed safely 92 minutes after liftoff.

The leading edge Group A flaps (all leading edge flaps inboard of the outboard engines) are designed to automatically retract if the airplane is in ground mode and either reversers #1 and #4 or reversers #2 and #3 are unlocked. This design is meant to reduce wear on the flap panels, that the airflow from the thrust reversers would produce on the extended panels.

The thrust reversers did not unlock and remained in their stowed position all time, however were at the rear end of their permitted travel in high power engine operation. The stow sensors for thrust reversers #1, #2 and #3 were rigged outside the requirements with the target set too far forward thus causing the unlocked indication with the thrust reverser cowls in their permitted yet rear position.

The crew were and remained unaware of the Group A leading edges having retracted due to this automatic retraction only visible on a separate indication. Only the extended flap EICAS display would have provided them with the according information, however the display was not brought up. The only available indication was a color change of the flap display in the regular EICAS display which however is hardly visible.

The SACAA noted in their findings: "During this time the flight deck crew had no indication or understanding of what had caused the lack in performance of the aircraft."

Several safety actions are underway as result of the occurrence. Boeing plans to change the system logic withdrawing the reverser unlock signal from the autoretract logic, which would continue to function based on the reverser handles and air/ground logic. This was put into an Airworthiness Directive by the FAA.

The SACAA released a number of safety recommendations concerning the man/machine interface, spurious alerts and robustness of software and hardware control logic.
 
This incident occurred at rotation, immediately after take-off. Sully & Skiles hit the birds at around 3000' feet. Totally different situations, but I suspect you already know that and are just trying to stir up something from nothing. Either that, or you are an idiot.

Exactly, thanks.
 
We are not trained to take the controls from the Copilot. In contrary I tell them to never stop flying when it is their takeoff and something happens. If for some reason they were not doing the right thing, I would take control but I train with the guys twice a year. I know what they can do and don't expect that an awkward transfer of controls would help a situation like that. PM job in that situation, make sure thrust levers are at the firewall and back up with callouts of airspeed and altitude. Sounds like some great CRM in that cockpit. Now remind me again why we deserve decent compensation for flying these machines? Don't they fly themselves?
 
This incident occurred at rotation, immediately after take-off. Sully & Skiles hit the birds at around 3000' feet. Totally different situations, but I suspect you already know that and are just trying to stir up something from nothing. Either that, or you are an idiot.


I was thinking the same thing. I'm going with number two. :laugh:
 
Bet they dropped the tea and crumpets in thier draws after that one. Nice Job guys!
 
I can see in this scenario US airlines have the captain do the flying. I wonder what would've happened had he barked out "My Aircraft!" at a such low alt and a/s. It's a good thing he did not try to emulate Sully and did let his FO do the flying.

Yeah....with a 300-hour "diversity" F/O, like United Airlines, would have been a fireball.....
 
What's the big deal? He got the shaker, and unlike the Colgan 3407 crew, he lowered the nose (pushed down on yoke), gained airspeed, until stick shaker went away and airplane climbed. This is what common sense would dictate, what else are you suppose to do when the shaker goes off. I guess I commend this crew, but they only did what any competent pilot should have done.
 
First rule of flying:
"Maintain A Safe Airspeed."

At Airways the FO is supposed to fly and the Captain works the problem. Now, I hate the East as much as any Westie, but I think Sully taking the controls was probably in the best interests of the operation that day since Skiles (if I'm remembering correctly) only had 35 hours of Airbus time. You read that right, 35 hours.

Now, I know that Skiles has 20,000 hours, but it's mostly in the 73, sorry. Think about it, your FO is a veteran pilot, but he's got 35 hours in type and now you're at 3000ft with no engines. . . . Did you think what I thought? Say it with me: "My Aircraft."

Sully was right to take the plane that day, it wasn't an exercise in the simulator. Letting the 35 hour guy dead stick an Airbus would have been a big mistake.

Now, on a different vein, The crew of that 74 did a great job. Turning this and every thread into an east west thing is pretty lame.
 
Says who?

I have flown for 4 Part 135 carriers and 3 Part 121 carriers. Not a single one has EVER had the CA take the airplane at a low altitude. Engine failure, engine fire, stall recovery, anything.

AFTER the aircraft is STABILIZED, some airlines have the F/O fly while the CA troubleshoots the problem, while some have the PF direct the memory items and checklists, so *that* is different from airline to airline, but I've never seen a carrier with a standardized practice of taking the airplane with a problem right at or after V1.

Not sure what you're talking about here...

It is not in the FOM but I vividly remember a Capt at AT on the B717 briefing me on a takeoff (it was my leg) out of MIA one night, gusty winds etc, that "if we get into windshear on takeoff I will take the controls from you and fly us out of it."

Thankfully we didn't get into windshear and I never flew with that d-bag again.
 
What a standard bs FI thread-
(shakes head) what's wrong with you guys?

nice job BA !!!

A very good job.
Leave it at that-
 
It is not in the FOM but I vividly remember a Capt at AT on the B717 briefing me on a takeoff (it was my leg) out of MIA one night, gusty winds etc, that "if we get into windshear on takeoff I will take the controls from you and fly us out of it."

Thankfully we didn't get into windshear and I never flew with that d-bag again.
Well, it's aviation, and we all know, d-bags happen... ;)

There's all types everywhere, just glad I've never flown for an operator who thinks switching controls on a problem that close to the ground is a good enough idea to make it standard practice.
 
I believe the FO loses instruments on the bus when the ADG deploys so the CA has to take the controls.

Kudos to the BA crew.
 
All single engine landings at SWA are to be made by the CA. Period.

Trash bags are to placed in the cockpit by the F/O. Period.
 
First rule of flying:
"Maintain A Safe Airspeed."

At Airways the FO is supposed to fly and the Captain works the problem. Now, I hate the East as much as any Westie, but I think Sully taking the controls was probably in the best interests of the operation that day since Skiles (if I'm remembering correctly) only had 35 hours of Airbus time. You read that right, 35 hours.

Now, I know that Skiles has 20,000 hours, but it's mostly in the 73, sorry. Think about it, your FO is a veteran pilot, but he's got 35 hours in type and now you're at 3000ft with no engines. . . . Did you think what I thought? Say it with me: "My Aircraft."

Sully was right to take the plane that day, it wasn't an exercise in the simulator. Letting the 35 hour guy dead stick an Airbus would have been a big mistake.

Agreed

grog_sit_reserv;2013366Now said:
Turning this and every thread into an east west thing is pretty lame.[/I]

Can I get a 'hallelujah"? Amen!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom