Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12932 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6288 times:
They must have had one hell of a nose up angle; I remember seeing an Air Jamaica A340 at Heathrow pitch pretty significantly on finals and although it came close to a tailscrape it didn't quite do so. I wonder what body angle would be required to do this?
Barney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1177 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5859 times:
"After u hit Vee 1, doesn't the plane rotate and fly away due to the law of aerodynamics?"
Not really. V1 is simply the speed based on A/C weight and runway length that the go/no go decision must be made by in order to allow sufficient runway remains to abort on. Vr (rotate) is closer to the speed where the A/C is "ready" to fly however, this doesn't mean she just lifts off. Tail strikes are not uncommon, especially in heavy A/C, if you rotate too fast and don't allow time for all that mass to get moving up. Rotate beyond 13 degrees with the mains still on the ground in the 737, and you're draggin' a@@.
AS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6294 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5751 times:
The toughest part for Alaska pilots is getting a feel for the increased speeds on the 737-900. We have a few close calls and one strike with this bird. The new planes getting longer, and longer I think will make this stuff more common.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
AF002 From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 74 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5290 times:
For those who didn't bother reading the linked article, the summary is:
Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors
1. The pilot not flying (PNF) inadvertently entered an erroneous V1 speed into the MCDU. The error was not detected by either flight crew, despite numerous opportunities.
2. The PNF called "rotate" about 25 knots below the calculated and posted rotation speed.
3. The pilot flying (PF) initiated rotation 24 knots below the calculated and posted rotation speed and the tail of the aircraft struck the runway surface.
4. A glide path signal was most probably distorted by a taxiing aircraft and provided erroneous information to the autopilot, resulting in a pitch-up event. The pitch-up could have been minimized if the autopilot had been disconnected earlier by the PF.
Findings as to Risk
1. Other than proper cross-checking, as per SOP, and the speeds displayed on the PFD, the flight crew had no other means to know that an incorrect speed was inserted in the MCDU. A lack of situational awareness and airmanship contributed to not detecting the incorrectly set speed.
2. No warnings in the cockpit were provided to the flight crew indicating that the on-board equipment was receiving a false glide path signal. Had the flight crew noted the information depicted on the approach plate, it is likely that the PF would have been better prepared and reacted accordingly.
3. The flight crew was not directly informed of the possibility of glide path interference caused by a taxiing aircraft because the aircraft was not within 12 nm from the threshold, in compliance with ATS procedure.
4. The PF allowed the aircraft to climb 1000 feet during the pitch-up, which could have caused a conflict with other aircraft.
1. While the atmosphere in the cockpit was professional, it is possible that the flat authority gradient contributed to a more relaxed attitude toward cross-checking each other's actions or confirming other information.
Amazing!! Over self-confidence IS dangerous, I guess those 2 will remember for a long time...