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]

.....!