Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Serious Incident: BA 744 At JNB  
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12326 posts, RR: 35
Posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 36073 times:

From PPRUNE:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/373713-ba056-jnb-lhr-incident.html

A few days ago (11th May), a BA 744 departing JNB, as BA 056 to LHR, suffered a serious techical fault on takeoff. The details are fairly sketchy, but no doubt the SA air accident investigators (and no doubt the British AAIB) will be preparing a detailed report. However, what seems to have happened is:

"Engines 2 and 3 REV Amber (cowl position) within approx 15 secs of each other during the roll. As the aircraft was still on the ground this resulted in a command to the FCU's to retract the L/E flaps Group A. The reverser commands to the FCU's operate in pairs 1&4 2&3
The L/E flaps probably extended again as the a/c became airborne"

Now, I'm assuming this happened after V1, otherwise of course, the crew would have aborted (many crews might even have elected to abort after V1, given these circumstances). An LHR bound BA 744 weighs around 354t on takeoff, so what you do NOT want to see at c.150 knots is a combination of the reversers going "amber" (not quite unlocking) and worse still, the leading edge slats retracting.

The crew reacted quickly and the aircraft was levelled and, after dumping fuel, returned to JNB, where it was grounded by the SA authorities.

94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12326 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 36006 times:

More from the "Aviation Herald":

http://avherald.com/h?article=4198598d&opt=513

Aircraft was 'BYGA:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Glenn Beasley



User currently offlineTheginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 35908 times:

On that post there are lots of differing 'facts' on what happend.

The information from 'leaked sources' doesn't seem to stack up either.

Speculating about aborting before V1 etc etc isn't really going to get far!

[Edited 2009-05-13 14:16:02]

User currently offlineHotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 35926 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
(many crews might even have elected to abort after V1, given these circumstances).

Only if they were feeling suicidal!

Groundspeed at Vr in joburg is typically around 215mph, you'd go off the end at around 180mph.

Nothing had gone wrong prior to V1.

[Edited 2009-05-13 14:16:20]

User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4041 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 35353 times:



Quote:
According to that information the crew levelled off at 35 feet AGL

 eyepopping   wideeyed 

Reading the PPrune thread on the topic, it seems as if there was NO loss of thrust, only amber TR warning lights on 2 engines which caused the l/e devices to partially retract. They say over there that the stick shaker activated at 12ft, a/c levelled at 35-40ft to accelerate, then the l/e devices came out again at approx 160ft. The crew then applied FULL power and climbed away, then dumped fuel and returned.

Sources on there have indicated if thay had lost thrust on 2 engines, then G-BYGA would have been a smoking hole in the ground as it could not have climbed away on 2 at FAJS.

Excellent work though by the BA crew. I hope that BA covered the cost of dry cleaning their trousers !!.

 praise 



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 31947 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
many crews might even have elected to abort after V1, given these circumstances).

Really???? And where do you come up with this theory? It is the worst course of action anyone could take! Pure speculation, and poor at that, on your part.


User currently offlineBochora From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2008, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 31361 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
Really???? And where do you come up with this theory? It is the worst course of action anyone could take! Pure speculation, and poor at that, on your part.

I find comments like this very unfair towards other users. He was saying what he thought and there is nothing wrong with that, aviation related or not.

On topic, well done to the fantastic BA crew - some of the best in the skies.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 31189 times:



Quoting Hotelmode (Reply 3):
Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
(many crews might even have elected to abort after V1, given these circumstances).

Only if they were feeling suicidal!

Groundspeed at Vr in joburg is typically around 215mph, you'd go off the end at around 180mph.

Nothing had gone wrong prior to V1.



Quoting Theginge (Reply 2):
On that post there are lots of differing 'facts' on what happend.

The information from 'leaked sources' doesn't seem to stack up either.

Speculating about aborting before V1 etc etc isn't really going to get far!



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):


Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
many crews might even have elected to abort after V1, given these circumstances).

Really???? And where do you come up with this theory? It is the worst course of action anyone could take! Pure speculation, and poor at that, on your part.



Quoting Bochora (Reply 6):
I find comments like this very unfair towards other users. He was saying what he thought and there is nothing wrong with that, aviation related or not.

And I and the two other posters were saying what we thought, what's wrong with that? I am sorry if you disagree, but it is nothing more than uninformed speculation.

Look at the last incident on a 747 that rejected after V1. V1 is just that, you DO NOT reject after V1. End of story.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 31090 times:



Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 4):
Sources on there have indicated if thay had lost thrust on 2 engines, then G-BYGA would have been a smoking hole in the ground as it could not have climbed away on 2 at FAJS.

Something which would cause the same result on each and every ETOPS flight! In other words: the ETOPS promoters swear to you that loosing thrust on 2 engines will never never happen!


User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3709 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 30661 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 7):
Look at the last incident on a 747 that rejected after V1. V1 is just that, you DO NOT reject after V1. End of story.

It isn't that absolute, but close. You do not reject after V1 unless you're totally, completely, utterly convinced that taking off will have worse consequences than driving off the runway... But it is fair to assume rejecting after V1 usually leads to a runway overrun, as was the case for Kalitta at BRU, which I suppose is what you are referring to.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 8):
Something which would cause the same result on each and every ETOPS flight!

This is at best a tenuous argument. What would you have said if the plane involved had been a 737 ? That it should have had four engines ?

[Edited 2009-05-14 00:28:40]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 30413 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 9):
It isn't that absolute, but close. You do not reject after V1 unless you're totally, completely, utterly convinced that taking off will have worse consequences than driving off the runway...

Exactly. Depending on what the problem is and what is at the end of the runway, rejecting a takeoff after V1 may be the safer option.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 30380 times:



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 8):

Something which would cause the same result on each and every ETOPS flight! In other words: the ETOPS promoters swear to you that loosing thrust on 2 engines will never never happen!

If you lose thrust on two engines on a twin at T/O, you are a smoking hole in the ground unless you're really light and have lots of runway left. If you lose thrust on two engines on a quad at T/O, you are a smoking hole in the ground unless you're really light and have lots of runway left.

The exact way you might become a smoking hole and where the hole will be will differ between the two scenarios, but a smoking hole is a smoking hole.


User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3709 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 30239 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
Exactly. Depending on what the problem is and what is at the end of the runway, rejecting a takeoff after V1 may be the safer option.

It might, but don't take my post too much to heart either. Taking off is the best option in 99% of incidents occurring after V1.

[Edited 2009-05-14 00:34:40]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 30208 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 12):
Rejecting past V1 isn't a viable option 99% of the time a problem occurs after V1, and what comes after the runway's gone doesn't generally play a role in the decision-making process, if only because you don't always know (charts don't tell you).

I would make that 99.99999% of the time.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 30093 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 12):
Taking off is the best option in 99% of incidents occurring after V1.

True, and generally planes are best off in the air. But to say that it is never the best course of action to reject a takeoff after V1 is not correct.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineHotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 29726 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
True, and generally planes are best off in the air. But to say that it is never the best course of action to reject a takeoff after V1 is not correct.

Look at the picture out the front of a fully laden 747 at V1 in Johannesburg and see if you still think that.

Apart from locked flight controls, in which case you're not flying anyway, I cant think of a single failiure where its safer to try and stop when V1 is limiting.


User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 29405 times:

It's amazing that on this forum people will argue with actual B744 drivers...


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 29066 times:



Quoting Hotelmode (Reply 15):
Apart from locked flight controls, in which case you're not flying anyway,

There is the case. There are very few cases where it is safer to reject the takeoff, but they do exist.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDash8pilot From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 28899 times:

In our SOP we are told that above a 100kts (I fly an MD82/83), to abort only for an engine fail, fire or flight control malfunction but V1 is V1 you better not dream of aborting.

Now we were also taught there are 4 things that will kill you on take off 1) a rudder hard over (provided one of the engines fail) 2) asymmetric flaps 3) thrust reverser deploying 4) the rudder unrestricted light going off.

Its scary to see that 2 of the 4 items happened to this crew (not sure if applies to a b744 or only to a Md80)..

But congrats to the crew for getting out of this one.. Ba must have some damn good training.


User currently offlineHotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 28875 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 17):
There is the case. There are very few cases where it is safer to reject the takeoff, but they do exist.

Thats not rejecting the takeoff, thats the take off rejecting you, and anyway it shouldnt be possible in a large jet. As Phil says, you do not voluntarily stop after V1. Stopping after V1 WILL result in a crash. Can i suggest you stop digging?

[Edited 2009-05-14 02:12:30]

User currently offlinePH-TVH From Netherlands, joined May 2001, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 28498 times:



Quoting Brons2 (Reply 16):
It's amazing that on this forum people will argue with actual B744 drivers...

Isnt that where forum discussions is all about?  Wink

From my point of view (and yes I have been to Joburg as a 747 pilot) the crew took the right action given the circumstances. Joburg is peformance wise very challinging with a fully loaded 747 (we where often TOW limited).

Quoting Hotelmode (Reply 19):

Thats not rejecting the takeoff, thats the take off rejecting you

Got to remind that one...  goodvibes 


User currently offlineCptRegionalJet From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 28358 times:

I wonder that they even managed to get airborne and fly wings level with one wing's LE devices retracted-just think of asymetric lift(AA DC 10 crash at ORD comes to my mind).
Excellent job by the crew in recovering such a situation  thumbsup 


User currently offlineLongHaul67 From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 245 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 28274 times:

Avherald states that the airplane landed after 120 mins. Does it really take that long to dump sufficient fuel to land a 744?

A fully loaded 744 taking off without L/E flaps on one wing, how critical is that actually?
The Spanair incident comes to mind, but it's perhaps not a relevant comparison.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 28073 times:



Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 4):
say over there that the stick shaker activated at 12ft, a/c levelled at 35-40ft to accelerate

40 ft  scared  The flag pole in the middle is 40 ft.



Ever zoomed a runways at 100ft ? thats close enough. The span of this machine is 210 ft, so better keep it straight..


User currently offlineBA32X From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 28075 times:

Gents, what a lot of people don't realise is that stopping from BEFORE V1 at high speed WILL also lead to an over run and can put you off the end into the clear way of the airport. There is a lot of speculation as to what did or didn't happen. Either way, the crew did a fantastic job. For those who say that this all happened before/after v1, think, If you had a double reverser unlocked caption at the same time, with NO associated power loss, no swing and no adverse power indication problems....Would you elect to stop a ~370T aircraft (from a very high speed) knowing that it will most likely end up with you in the mud in the clearway, having destroyed the undercarriage? When there is a much more likely, positive outcome of getting airborne and that the indication was spurious?
I know what I would do and having trained and seen a real reverser unlocked event in the sim, I assure you that you would know it had happened if it was a real indication!

ATB.


25 Ncfc99 : But there is a world of difference between a discussion and arguing for the sake of it. As far as I can tell after reading this forum for a couple of
26 KL591 : Does anyone know if the BA aircraft was taking off northbound or southbound, because at JNB at the end of the southbound runway is a 40+ foot drop ont
27 Hotelmode : Northbond I believe
28 Post contains images David L : Except the chances of losing two engines on an ETOPS certified/maintained/operated aircraft should be lower than the chances of losing two on a non-E
29 757GB : A lot of us are not pilots, but it's nice to be able to exchange opinions and learn from others. Having said that, my thinking is that rejecting afte
30 SA7700 : Either way, you have busy highways on the North-and South bound perimeters of the runways. The R21 highway, between JNB and Pretoria, is at the North
31 TristarSteve : The RB211-524s on the BA B744 are interchangeable with the engines on the BA B763. 13 of the B763 are ETOPS compliant, so all the RB211-524 are maint
32 D L X : CAn someone translate this into lay-English? Thanks
33 CHRISBA777ER : The warning lights for the number 2 and 3 thrust reversers came on within 15 seconds of each other on the takeoff roll, indicating that the the rever
34 YYZatcboy : From what I understand of 747 flight displays etc... When the thrust reversers are activated you get an amber display saying reverse. When the revers
35 D L X : Thank you both! So is it safe to assume that the thrust reversers opened uncommanded (or perhaps not at all, like a false positive)?
36 Smeg : I think that it was certainly a false positive. (or there is the possibility that they were unlocked, but not open - I have no idea if this was the c
37 D L X : Why did Boeing design the slats to automatically retract when the reversers are deployed? Do they get in the way?
38 Smeg : On the ground with the reversers deployed, there is a risk of the slats sustaining damage from either the forward moving jetblast itself or from fore
39 DocLightning : I don't think it would hurt very much at all to be in a 744 smacking into the ground at 180 kts. I think it would all be over and they'd be scratchin
40 Smeg : That is very true!
41 B747FE : All 747 have FLAPS, leading edge (Krueger and Variable Camber) and trailing edge (Fowler double or triple slotted) To avoid fatigue cracking due to v
42 RoseFlyer : Even though not all the information is clear, I send my congratulations to the crew. They handled a difficult and complex situation perfectly since th
43 TristarSteve : It is most probable that the reversers opened a little at the top, enough for the stowed prox sensors to sense far and indicate yellow REV on the EIC
44 David L : Thanks. I had an inkling in the back of my mind that was the case, hence the last-minute bail-out.
45 Francoflier : I agree with TristarSteve. It was most likely a very slight movement of the cowls, or a wrongly calibrated microswitch, or even a simple erroneous el
46 BMI727 : I think you are right. You won't be unscathed either way, but running off of the runway may be safer (or less unsafe) if something happens and the pl
47 Hotelmode : You dont stop after V1. Full stop. No arguments. You dont have time to make a sensible decision one way or the other, so unless the decision is made
48 SEPilot : Except I cannot find any record of any jet plane since WWII actually suffering two UNRELATED engine failures on the same flight. So, while I will nev
49 YYZYYT : Here's a technical question: the reports at the top of the thread say the stick shaker went off at 12 ft, and they levelled out at 35... does a 747 ha
50 Flipdewaf : So just after V1 in a 744 at las vegas there is a triple bird strike do they still press on for the sky? I think not, at the end of the day the decis
51 SEPilot : All aircraft have ground effect; it starts at approximately at one wingspan's height above the ground. The closer to the ground you are (as a percent
52 FlyCaledonian : So it was engines 2 and 3 - can someone clarify if these are the inner engines on each wing, or are they on the same wing?
53 SEPilot : Those would be the inboard engines on each wing.
54 LHR27C : I really don't understand how people can come on here and argue with someone who actually flies the aircraft for BA. Hotelmode is one of the "people
55 Andz : They NEVER use 21L for takeoffs. Wrong. The highway at the end of 03L is the R21. Wrong. N12 is at the southern end of 21L. 21R is the only runway at
56 David L : I suspect that one of the reasons for "never" aborting after V1 is that any problem that occurs after that will almost always be safer to take into t
57 Flipdewaf : I agree almost every time you will cary on and it is probably bad practice to even think the other way but once in a blue moon it would be better to s
58 KL591 : I believe they do use 21L for take offs, maybe not very often but they do! I used to live near the airport AND when visting SA on more than one occas
59 Borism : Well, you would lose the proportional amount of ground effect force. But the ground doesn't drop off to infinity and 747 doesn't just fly on ground e
60 BMI727 : Like I said before, the only reason to stop after V1 is if you aren't going to be flying anyway. It is rare, but it can happen and there is no time t
61 Francoflier : There was no asymetric lift. Either the slat groups on each wing retracted or they didn't. The FCUs might have been fooled into thinking the reverser
62 Borism : right, sorry, there was no way aircraft would configure itself asymmetrically. any idea why stick shaker might have activated at such low altitude as
63 Post contains links ULMFlyer : Since I'm one of these people, could you please elaborate a little more on why that's the case, BA32X? I'm always looking forward to learning somethi
64 Meister808 : If there is a clear area established at the end of the runway (the stopway/clearway) that area can be used as part of the calculated accelerate/stop
65 D L X : Does the calculation of V1 depend on functioning engines? What if engine performance is degraded but not killed, as in, say Air Florida 90? If the pla
66 SEPilot : V1 is calculated on the basis of the stopping distance of the aircraft, period. It is the speed after which the aircraft cannot stop on the remaining
67 BMI727 : The part about the minimum speed to continue takeoff and achieve the safe height with an engine failure is a bit confusing. Isn't the engine out safe
68 ULMFlyer : Thanks, Meister. I suppose I misread his post somewhat when he said he'd rather go flying instead of aborting prior to V1 due to reverser unlocked in
69 D L X : I'm confused then. Let's say we have a 10000' runway. If you reach that speed earlier in the takeoff roll, like 4000' down the runway, you'll clearly
70 Post contains links ULMFlyer : I'm far from qualified to answer you guys and I'll defer that to the pros. I'm sorry I screwed up the link in that previous post and couldn't edit an
71 Bellerophon : Borism ...I wonder why did they lose speed so that stick shaker activated?... Don't assume that they lost speed just because the stick-shaker activate
72 Scarebus03 : It certainly is an interesting defect and well done to the crew for ensuring a safe outcome. Definitely a difficult decision to make in continuing the
73 BMI727 : Exactly. If you are flying along at 140 knots and retract the flaps you will get a stick shaker despite never having changed speeds. It just seems th
74 XXXX10 : Can I ask, if the crew really believed that two of the reversers had deployed, would that be one of the 1 in 1,000,00 situations where an abort after
75 FLYMAD : Not neccesarily - LH 540 at NBO crashed on take-off on 29 November 1974 with 98 passengers & crew surviving out of a total of 157. We all know the B7
76 Rheinwaldner : I know that and because ETOPS is so established I just wanted to point out the unlikeliness of this: But on the other hand: malfunctioning reversers
77 Speedbird128 : Yes we do. Although not for intl long hauls, we do use it for deps. This is when 21R/3L is closed, which is usually early weekend mornings (and some
78 Andz : My profuse apologies. In 30 odd years of using JNB, including 3 years living right under the approach to 21L I have never experienced or seen a take
79 SEPilot : To the best of my knowledge (and I have specifically researched engine related crashes) that is the only crash ever caused by an inadvertent thrust r
80 Post contains links 757GB : Actually, there was a TAM Fokker F100 crash in 1996 that apparently was caused by thrust reverser deployment in flight as well: http://aviation-safet
81 SEPilot : Thanks for the info; I was unaware of this one.
82 Rheinwaldner : I know that (or to say it better: your posts show that) and therefore I consider you as ETOPS expert!
83 SEPilot : Expert or not, 757GB just showed me one I had not found. It's always good to expand your knowledge.
84 AirNZ : Yes, in most cases. However, it is not absolute or definitive that it is never/can never be done. There are scenario's when I can quite assure that i
85 OldAeroGuy : Engine condition is important prior to V1. If the engines are not producing the thrust used for the V1 calculation, the airplane may reach V1 too far
86 Speedbird128 : things change... also, the SAAF airwing for VIP ops use 03R/21L for take off too, as they operate from denel.
87 Kaitak : In retrospect, knowing what I know now, it was probably poor speculation, but it was based on the idea that not having leading edges - and moreover,
88 Tdscanuck : Engine condition isn't just important, it's vital. For some conditions, V1 may be climb gradient limited or Vmcg limited (both of which are intimatel
89 AirNZ : Yes, I certainly understand what you're saying and I commend you for it. However, I do not regard it as ill-informed speculation at all. This is a di
90 Hotelmode : Absolutely, I'd quite agree with one exception. V1 is V1, you go.. The manufacturers and the relevent authorities believe the aircraft is airworthy g
91 777STL : Word. You learn pretty quickly here how to filter out the people talking out of their asses and pay attention to the few knowledgeable posters with a
92 RRconway : Hear Hear....These are the same people who will tell you that because they can do it in MS Flight Sim they could do it for real if the call 'Does any
93 757GB : With all due respect, there is no need to stereotype anyone. Even in error, we can express our opinions and that does not mean lack of respect to pro
94 NCB : I'd say that the crew pulled a nice job and took the right decision at the right time. At the moment that the T/R would have showed amber and slats re
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Kingdom 744 At JNB posted Sun Feb 25 2007 09:41:49 by Andz
United 744 At JNB posted Mon Sep 26 2005 07:46:35 by Andz
BA 744 At VCE Today! posted Fri Jun 24 2005 03:59:53 by ENCRJ
BA 744 At FLL Right Now posted Sat Apr 24 2004 02:25:53 by SegmentKing
BA 744's At Gatwick posted Mon Aug 25 2003 01:04:18 by A340600
BA 744 At Glasgow posted Sat Mar 16 2002 23:49:46 by By738
LH 744 At JNB posted Tue Feb 26 2002 10:30:23 by Flitepathsa
BA 744 At Phl! posted Tue May 8 2001 03:02:51 by USAFHummer
BA 744 At ORD In 11/00 posted Sat Aug 26 2000 04:29:20 by Doc k
BA 744 Go Round Today At PHX? posted Thu May 8 2008 17:53:51 by BristolFlyer