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

[Dan Roman]

Are all you tools F'ing kidding? HE GOT A REVERSE UNLOCK LIGHT AT 125kts!!!!!!!!!!!

ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!


They put themselves in the stall that could be avoided.

Good point, reading that in the update raised my eyebrow. 25kts below V-1, 14000' runway, problem with a thrust reverser..........

Better to be on the ground wishing you were flying than to be flying wishing you were on the ground.

 

[tailwindz]

Are all you tools F'ing kidding? HE GOT A REVERSE UNLOCK LIGHT AT 125kts!!!!!!!!!!!

ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!


They put themselves in the stall that could be avoided.

Do you talking heads have any clue what you are talking about?

Do you know what the indication would be?

Do you know what an "unlock" indication means?

Do you know understand the problem?

Do you understand the probable outcome of a high-speed reject near gross in a whale?

Educate yourself before putting your DC-9 mouth into gear.

 

[SLOTH]

Gotta love all of the Monday morning quarter-backing on this situation and every other one that comes up regardless of outcome!!

 

[avbug]

ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!

Not in a Boeing.

One rejects a takeoff, and aborts an engine start. You don't know that?

You probably don't know enough to be second guessing the crew, either.

 

[Dan Roman]

I'm not second guessing, I flew the 74 25 years ago and flat don't remember the significance of the warning. The Boeings I fly now don't display a warning during the takeoff role unless it's important enough to rejsct for.
Reverser unlocked sounds worthy of consideration, but I really don't remember.

 

[bubbers44]

Sully was in the left seat, in command, and best to try to get back to LGA visually. The FO was unable to see anything in their left bank back. Of course you would take control. Letting the flying pilot continue flying works best in most situations but not if he is new and on the outside of the turn back with no engines. Since they couldn't safely land downwind at LGA they landed in the Hudson. The FO might have done the same thing but was in the wrong seat to plan the ditching.

 

[UALRATT]

Yeah....with a 300-hour "diversity" F/O, like United Airlines, would have been a fireball.....

Papaa but Colgan was a Caucasian? How can that be? You foo oops! I can't say that.

 

[Mr Wu]

Do you know what the indication would be?

EICAS message, just like the summary said?

Do you know what an "unlock" indication means?

Sleeve somewhere between stowed and extended.

Do you know understand the problem?

Yes/No/Maybe. Good enough reason to abort (reject if you want to make up a story about how it happened to you and spout shi)

Do you understand the probable outcome of a high-speed reject near gross in a whale?

Probably better than continuing with one engine in reverse when you're high, hot and humid.

Educate yourself before putting your DC-9 mouth into gear.

So educate me. How much runway does a "whale" near gross weight need to get from 125kts to 167kts on 3 engines and one in reverse at T/O power?

 

[Abernathy]

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.

Unfortunately that has become the new standard. NOT doing what the Colgan crew did makes you a hero. But I'm not complaining. A little good public attention for flight crews doesn't hurt.

 

[b707guy]

.....!

 

[Lear70]

Not 100% sure but I believe on the 747-400 that if the auto throttles are engaged, any indication of thrust reverser unlock will auto-retard and idle the applicable throttle. In that scenario, you'd have 3 good engines producing power, 1 engine at idle in reverse. Pretty sure it will fly just fine like that, but again, I haven't flown the whale.

Now it depends what EICAS indicated whether I'd choose to try to abort a takeoff above 100 kts. My normal brief includes, "Abort for anything under 100 kts, above 100 kts we're only aborting for an engine failure, engine fire, loss of directional control, or inadvertent thrust reverser deployment". However, that's in a two-engine aircraft where a thrust reverser deployment is pretty nasty business above V1.

If it was just a momentary EICAS message that disappeared right after I looked at it with NO indication in the directional control of the airplane to accompany it? I might not reject the takeoff, either. Accompanied by directional control issue (confirmation of an actual T/R deployment), yeah, under V1, I'm rejecting, but that's me.

But I'm not Monday Morning Quarterbacking a successful outcome of the maneuver, that's for sure. They made it work, good for them.

 

[Beefy Botham]

That scenario does not occur on a B747-400.

 

[tailwindz]

I profusely apologise to the BA crew for not acknowledging your superior airman-ship and decision making in your Joberg departure on my first post. Well done. If I ever have the pleasure of meeting either of you around the world, the night is one me. An awesome display of airman ship.

Needles to say, I am impressed.

Mr Wu, If you had asked, rather than attacked a crew that actually accomplished an amazing feat, I would explain. Right now the level of contempt I have for you and the others on this board that have the ignorance to question such an event speaks volumes about you. Good luck in your career. My only fear is that I have to position on an aircraft that you are in a front window seat of.

 

[Mr Wu]

I profusely apologise to the BA crew for not acknowledging your superior airman-ship and decision making in your Joberg departure on my first post. Well done. If I ever have the pleasure of meeting either of you around the world, the night is one me. An awesome display of airman ship.

Needles to say, I am impressed.

Mr Wu, If you had asked, rather than attacked a crew that actually accomplished an amazing feat, I would explain. Right now the level of contempt I have for you and the others on this board that have the ignorance to question such an event speaks volumes about you. Good luck in your career. My only fear is that I have to position on an aircraft that you are in a front window seat of.

Save your whining for someone who cares. You answered my question - you don't know.

 

[avbug]

Sleeve somewhere between stowed and extended.

Negative.

Pretty sure it will fly just fine like that, but again, I haven't flown the whale.

Then what makes you "pretty sure?"

So educate me. How much runway does a "whale" near gross weight need to get from 125kts to 167kts on 3 engines and one in reverse at T/O power?

Not even the performance programs or charts will tell you this, as it's nonsensical. It's also irrelevant, as in the case in question, an engine was not in reverse at takeoff power.

The QRH procedure, which is not a memory item, for a reverser unlocked in the -400, is as follows:

Condition: REV annunciation displayed with reverse thrust not intentionally selected.

With no yaw, loss of airspeed, or buffet:
--Operate engine normally.

With yaw, loss of airspeed, or buffet:
--Fuel Control Switch, affected engine: CUTOFF
--Transponder Mode Selector: TA ONLY

Do not accomplish the following checklist:
--Engine Shutdown

Buffet may be reduced by decreasing airspeed.

Landing Preparation:
--Use Flaps 25 and Vref30 + 20 for landing.

Imagine that. Operate normally, with no yaw, loss of airspeed, or buffet. Do not shut down engine or follow engine shutdown checklist. Go figure.

Now, several here have lambasted the crew for not pitching to the stick shaker. The airplane was already there. Several have thrown in their "I woulda done this," or "I woulda done that" two cents worth, with obviously no Boeing experience, and certainly no 747 experience. The crew did what they could, given the circumstances. The crew did not have an engine in reverse, and didn't have an engine in reverse at full power. The sky is not falling, and the boogie man hasn't come out of the dark staircase just yet. The crew had a very unusual issue with which to deal, and they dealt with it well.

As for a rejected takeoff in the 747...http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zjtdEB0M1...pUfk/s1600-h/KalittaN704CK-BRU080525-AAIU.jpg

A loaded takeoff the the 747 means you'll be seeing the red lights at the far end when you rotate, most places you go. There are very few indications that merit rejecting (not aborting) a takeoff. A reverser indication without yaw, loss of speed, or buffet isn't necessarily worth a high speed rejected takeoff.

Not 100% sure but I believe on the 747-400 that if the auto throttles are engaged, any indication of thrust reverser unlock will auto-retard and idle the applicable throttle.

Verbatim from AOM Volume II:

The thrust reversers are protected against deploying inadvertantly. If a reverser unlocks and deploys inadvertantly, the reverser system applies bleed air to stow and lock the reverser.