Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting 744lover (Reply 4): Quoting D L X (Reply 3): Why did they pull the throttles back after the plane was airborne? Because the captain though he could flare the airplane back to the runway and reject an already airborne takeoff.... |
Quote: An A320 Check Airman told NTSB staff that he had never seen anyone take off without Vspeeds, it was not trained, and if there were no V-speeds he would expect a crew to reject the takeoff, and then taxi off the runway. The USAirways Airbus Fleet Director told NTSB staff that the airline’s expectations for a pilot confronted with no V-speeds would mean that they did not finish their checklist, and they should not have taken an active runway. The USAirways FAA Aircrew Program Manager told NTSB staff that he had never seen a situation on the line or in the simulator where a pilot initiated a takeoff roll with no visible V-speeds on the PFD, and the lack of visible V-speeds on the PFD during the initial takeoff roll would be consistent with their reject criteria, and would probably be a reason not to begin the takeoff roll in the first place since the V-speeds were supposed to be confirmed prior to takeoff. The USAirways Managing Director of Flight Technical Operations told NTSB staff he never experienced a situation where he did not have V-speeds on takeoff, and “I wouldn’t dream of taking off without V-speeds. |
Quoting litz (Reply 8): Quoting D L X (Reply 5): Above V1, the correct answer is "fly through it," correct? Far as I know, there is only one exception, and that's when the pilot is convinced the airplane is not capable of safe flight. the captain, in his interview, specifically stated that he felt this was the case. |
Quoting D L X (Reply 3): |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): Now, every other manufacture has throttles that move so you would be able to quickly deduce what is happening because you could see the automation retarding the power . Also the pilots would have seen the other on the controls and both would not have pushed forward at the same time. Real close call here due to pilot error combined with Airbus automation. Easily avoidable.... |
Quoting Mcoov (Reply 17): I wasn't aware that Airbus' autothrottles did not move the physical throttle levers. That is a serious ergonomic failure, along with the two joysticks not physically reciprocating each other's movements (see AF447). |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): Real close call here due to pilot error combined with Airbus automation. Easily avoidable.... |
Quoting Mcoov (Reply 17): I dislike that Airbus thinks that the computer is smarter than the pilot, but Airbus aircraft have demonstrated some serious issues with communication between the aircraft computer and the crew. |
Quoting Mcoov (Reply 17): I wasn't aware that Airbus' autothrottles did not move the physical throttle levers. |
Quoting D L X (Reply 5): EDIT: Above V1, the correct answer is "fly through it," correct? But it appears that the pilots didn't know their V numbers, so had no way to know if they were above V1 or not. The report says rotation occurred at 159 kts and the mains lifted off. What is a typical V1 speed, and what is a the typical range? |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): The PILOTS did NOT pull the throttles back. About a week after the crash, a post was up about the incident that explained what happened. Here is a quick outline . Plane taxied to a Different runway than what was loaded into the FMS(last second runway change). FO could not get it loaded in a timely manor. Capt said to never mind loading it and pushed the power up. As the plane got airborne , the FO got the data into the FMS and pressed enter. The plane was accelerating and was past V2. When the automation realized the plane was faster than V2 , the computer pulled the power back ....yes, the{%^+}>computer. It gets better!! Both pilots thought duel engine failure so they....BOTH... pushed the control sticks forward. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): BOTH... pushed the control sticks forward. |
Quoting D L X (Reply 5): Yeah, I just came to a similar conclusion in my head. He realized he was fubar, and tried to bring it back in instead of fly through it. (The right move?) |
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 12): That sounds terrifying. |
Quoting tb727 (Reply 19): The number 1 rule is that aircraft can be flown like any other out there. |
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21): The Airbus will only accept control inputs from one controller. One pilot can push the priority button to take control away from the other pilot, but there is no dual input to the flight controls possible in the Airbus. |
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 22): Having read the report, I can't comment on whether the pilot and F.O. were grossly negligent in getting into the situation they found themselves in |
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 22): the pilot's comment to the effect that "the plane is unsafe to fly" resonates with me as a rational response to the incongruous warnings he was receiving on the take off roll. I've often read that a pilot often has mere seconds to understand a critical situation and choose his/her response. Often the pilot can't assess in such a short period and disaster results. This pilot didn't understand the warnings, and felt something was very wrong - wrong enough to abort the flight. I think he did the best he could do having gotten himself into this situation. |
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21): Quoting reltney (Reply 13): BOTH... pushed the control sticks forward. So what, if they did, which apparently they didn't, it has no impact on the flight controls. Unlike linked control columns, both pilots pushing the control sticks forward does not increase the force on the elevators. The Airbus will only accept control inputs from one controller. One pilot can push the priority button to take control away from the other pilot, but there is no dual input to the flight controls possible in the Airbus. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): The PILOTS did NOT pull the throttles back. About a week after the crash, a post was up about the incident that explained what happened. Here is a quick outline . |
Quoting Mir (Reply 25): Attempting a takeoff with the wrong runway loaded in the FMS and no speeds posted is an indication of negligence |
Quoting trent772 (Reply 29): so just take-off and soon after you're airborne pull HDG and be done with it, as for the performance part, they would have had no problems since the speeds calculated for that particular take-off were for a runway that was 1000ft shorter than what they really had. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): Plane taxied to a Different runway than what was loaded into the FMS(last second runway change). FO could not get it loaded in a timely manor. Capt said to never mind loading it and pushed the power up. As the plane got airborne , the FO got the data into the FMS and pressed enter. The plane was accelerating and was past V2. When the automation realized the plane was faster than V2 , the computer pulled the power back ....yes, the{%^+}>computer. It gets better!! Both pilots thought duel engine failure so they....BOTH... pushed the control sticks forward. The aircraft impacted hard enough to break off the nose wheel and crack the fuselage . Plane was not repairable. |
Quoting catiii (Reply 28): I'm going to rely on the NTSB report, which contradicts everything you said, rather than a posting on an Internet board by people who weren't even there... |
Quoting trent772 (Reply 29): One other thing I find odd is, instead of going to the runway analisis charts for the airport soon after ATC told them "taxi to RWY 27L via Yankee hold short of RWY 9L APP" all they did was chit-chat about how congested the frequency was and how hungry they were, whatever happened to the "Sterile Cockpit" concept? |
Quoting Florianopolis (Reply 30): But that's the thing: It WAS flight worthy. It WAS flying. The engines were producing plenty of thrust, and they face-planted the airplane* after rejecting the takeoff AFTER becoming airborne. My question is: Why would you do that? All I can think of is in case the gusty winds stopped blowing right when they lifted off and they lost 20 knots, and felt the wind come out of the sails, so to speak. A dual input would also make the plane respond squirrely, but I don't see that on the FDR/CVR. |
Quoting rta (Reply 10): Is that the plane thats still at PHL without US Airways branding? (or has that been moved?) |
![]() |
![]() |
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 16): |
Quoting catiii (Reply 28): |
Quoting litz (Reply 2): loud horn and "ABORT ABORT ABORT" |
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 32): I can't find the reltney version in the report either. |
Quoting catiii (Reply 28): I'm going to rely on the NTSB report, which contradicts everything you said, rather than a posting on an Internet board by people who weren't even there... |
Quoting D L X (Reply 5): EDIT: Above V1, the correct answer is "fly through it," correct? But it appears that the pilots didn't know their V numbers, so had no way to know if they were above V1 or not. The report says rotation occurred at 159 kts and the mains lifted off. What is a typical V1 speed, and what is a the typical range? |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): Plane taxied to a Different runway than what was loaded into the FMS(last second runway change). FO could not get it loaded in a timely manor. Capt said to never mind loading it and pushed the power up. As the plane got airborne , the FO got the data into the FMS and pressed enter. The plane was accelerating and was past V2. When the automation realized the plane was faster than V2 , the computer pulled the power back ....yes, the{%^+}>computer. It gets better!! Both pilots thought duel engine failure so they....BOTH... pushed the control sticks forward. The aircraft impacted hard enough to break off the nose wheel and crack the fuselage . Plane was not repairable. |
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 21): The Airbus will only accept control inputs from one controller. One pilot can push the priority button to take control away from the other pilot, but there is no dual input to the flight controls possible in the Airbus. |
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 40): Untrue. Airbus averages the two inputs. |
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 40): Quoting D L X (Reply 5): EDIT: Above V1, the correct answer is "fly through it," correct? But it appears that the pilots didn't know their V numbers, so had no way to know if they were above V1 or not. The report says rotation occurred at 159 kts and the mains lifted off. What is a typical V1 speed, and what is a the typical range? If you've taken off, you're beyond V1. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): Plane taxied to a Different runway than what was loaded into the FMC(last second runway change). FO could not get it loaded in a timely manor. Capt said to never mind loading it and pushed the power up. As the plane got airborne , the FO got the data into the FMS and pressed enter. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): The PILOTS did NOT pull the throttles back. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): The plane was accelerating and was past V2. When the automation realized the plane was faster than V2 , the computer pulled the power back ....yes, the{%^+}>computer. It gets better!! Both pilots thought duel engine failure so they....BOTH... pushed the control sticks forward. |
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 37): With these two points in mind I don't think it's unreasonable that the Captain elected to continue the takeoff after he discovered the speeds were not set. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 13): Plane taxied to a Different runway than what was loaded into the FMS(last second runway change). FO could not get it loaded in a timely manor. Capt said to never mind loading it and pushed the power up. As the plane got airborne , the FO got the data into the FMS and pressed enter. The plane was accelerating and was past V2. When the automation realized the plane was faster than V2 , the computer pulled the power back ....yes, the{%^+}>computer. It gets better!! Both pilots thought duel engine failure so they....BOTH... pushed the control sticks forward. The aircraft impacted hard enough to break off the nose wheel and crack the fuselage . Plane was not repairable. |
Quoting Mir (Reply 25): Attempting a takeoff with the wrong runway loaded in the FMS and no speeds posted is an indication of negligence. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 36): Wow, totally different from what USair check pilot buddy said a week after. |
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 16): You don't need moving throttles or interlocked controls. That's old technology. The computer knows better than any human being, so should have ultimate authority of the airplane. |
Quoting hivue (Reply 46): Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 16): You don't need moving throttles or interlocked controls. That's old technology. The computer knows better than any human being, so should have ultimate authority of the airplane. Right. Ask the Asiana crew at SFO how much good back driven throttles did them. They might also have a comment or two on the usefulness of 777 automation. |
Quoting reltney (Reply 36): Wow, totally different from what USair check pilot buddy said a week after. I should know better and wait for the NTSB report only. My bad. |
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 48): You directly contradicted the NTSB report after it had been published. |
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 47): I'm willing to bet you have no understanding of the Asiana accident and automation on the 777. |