Amazing video of near 737 disaster

[Left Seater]

So a few days ago a Royal Air Maroc 737 departing Frankfurt almost didn't get airborne. Here is the video:



Man those passengers were lucky. Almost a tail strike on rotation. Then a ton of questions. Was the lack of flaps due to the runway length? The 737 has excellent short field abilities. Was there an issue with the trim? Was the Flight Management Computer incorrectly updated? Were the V speeds incorrect? Was the CG incorrectly computed?

Tons of questions but all of it points to some sort of pilot error.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

LTS should be by any minute to provide all of us a proper education on exactly what happened. He read some stuff on the internet once so he knows what he's talking about.

[The Big Pickle]

I'm gonna go out on a huge limb and suggest non-White affirmative action pilots.

[smackaholic]

Is it possible they simply forgot to drop the flaps? I would think there would be some sort of giant flashing red light in the cockpit that says, "hey asshole, your flaps are up". Anyhoo, you do have to rack the pilot for having the presence of mind to drop the nose, get some more airspeed, then climb out. He may be a forgetful dumbfukk, but he does have some piloting skillz.

[Diego in Seattle]

I'm gonna go out on a huge limb and suggest non-White affirmative action pilots.

Fuck you! Those pilots were hustling!

Sincerely,
Roger Murdock

[Rooster]

Muslim air carrier. Need anything else be said?

[The Big Pickle]

Muslim air carrier. Need anything else be said?

Yeah, so I guess they don't need affirmative action when everyone is a low IQ sandmonkey.

[Left Seater]

For sure there is some flap out and as I said earlier the 737 has awesome short field capabilities. That said not being a 737 pilot or having a 737 type rating I don't know how often a flaps 1 is performed or if it should ever be done.

In addition I am sure this was a derated takeoff given the runway length. That makes it harder to overcome this issue.

If there was enough room to lower the nose and gain more speed/lift I would assume that there was enough room for full on braking and reverse thrust.

[smackaholic]

On long runways, is it common practice to take off with less flap because you can roll to a higher speed? Is there an advantage in this? Less fuel use, maybe? I always thought that max flap was SOP for all landings/takeoffs.

[Left Seater]

Well not having a type rating on the 737 I can't talk specifics for the 737.

That said I have never taken off in any plane without some flaps. Generally you use less flap on take off than you do landing since you have less thrust while landing.

I have done a ton of reduced power takeoffs which the airlines do all the time as well. The derated take off uses something less than the max engine power which reduces wear and extends time between overhauls and also uses less fuel. The disadvantages are slower acceleration which means a longer take off roll.

[Diego in Seattle]

How often is noise abatement ordinances the reason for less than full throttle?

[Rooster]

It looks like they rotated a couple of times but failed to reach VRoC (or whatever V speed is used for rotational airspeed) and kept pressing for more airspeed. Like you said, LS, was it a CG issue or maybe overgross? It appears that as they hit that V value, it wasn't enough to generate lift, so they elected not to abort, but keep pushing for increased airspeed.

For a moment it looked like they had run out of runway, ideas, and luck.

[poptart]

For a moment it looked like they had run out of runway

Yes.
The pilot clearly expected the curve of the earth to kick in, and that his plane would naturally rise off the ground at that point.
Didn't happen.


---- FLAT EARTH ----

[Left Seater]

I think there is a very good chance that some of the data fed into the FMC was wrong. Either they were heavier than they thought, the wind was different, the temp was hotter, etc. I don't think they were over gross as they did have a normal climb after stalling the wing and trying the second rotation.

Noise abatement procedures often can be confusing or counterintuitive. I don't know of a single noise abatement procedure that calls for a derated takeoff. In fact most of the time it is the opposite. Let's take John Wayne airport in Southern California. They have very strict noise monitoring standards for west departures. On top of that the runway is very short. So the usual practice there is to taxi onto the runway and set the parking brakes. Then you bring the engines to full power. Once your N numbers stabilize you release the brakes. When you reach Vr (rotate speed) you lift the nose to your normal initial climb angle and then once you are clear of a possible tail strike you keep pulling back. This increases your climb angle so you are climbing much quicker than normal. However, this usually isn't sustainable and you then push the nose back down some and pull off some of the throttle as you pass over the noise monitor. Then once clear of the monitor (Newport Beach) you establish a normal climb out procedure.

The passengers might enjoy the ride if they like roller coasters and a little weightless feeling, but most do not. That is why we often make a PA announcement prior to take off there. In Portland Oregon the F-15s based at PDX use afterburner to take off and then while still over the runway they pull up to vertical and rocket up to flight level 20, where they roll over and kick out of the burner. This makes a hell of a lot of noise over and around the airport but limits its radius. It also takes a ton of fuel and the F-15s often tanker shortly after takeoff.

All in all noise abatement generally isn't about reducing overall noise, instead it is all about reducing noise over a certain monitoring station. Now if we want to discuss continuous decent approaches that is a different story.

[Diego in Seattle]

I always liked the sound of MD80's as they passed overhead. Just a very different sound from all the other engines.

PW...Ever see a C-17 come in for a landing? It's like they're being hung from a string.

[Screw_Michigan]

These new jets are boringly quiet. A newer high-bypass engine (like this 737) are verah quiet, so I doubt seriously they'd be doing that. The US (from what I've read) is more anal about that than any other country as well, so I don't see that as a problem.

I used to eat lunch at a place in ATL where I could watch planes take off (this around 2000), and the bigger planes (767, 777, 747's) were almost silent. Then a little old 737-200 would roll up and shake the ground and crackle & pop. My boys and I found a spot right where they were taking off a couple of months ago (pretty damned close, too), and the MD 80's were definitely the loudest taking off that day. We also saw a 787 take off, and you had to strain to hear it. Unreal how quiet it was...

Incidentally (now that I'm on a plane sound tangent), we're pretty close to Robbins AFB. They have a butt-load of JSTARS (military 707's) down there, so I regularly get to hear them fly overhead at less than 5,000 feet just about every day - and yes - they're still using the old JT3D P&W's, so that's very cool. Also - they have a good stock of C5's, and a good number of them still have the completely satanic-sounding T39 GE's on them. To me - that's still one of the most awesome sounds ever created by man. Sadly, though, they're starting to fit them with the new, "quiet" engines. What a fucking bore!

Wait...who took over Spray's username?

[smackaholic]

I have been around lots of jet noise through my life. Here are my observations.

Loudest noise ever made other than spray after a visit to the golden corral: Has to be the EA-6. I think the E, which was the stretch version of the A-6 used for E-warfare seemed to be even nastier than the A-6, which is the second loudest thing I have heard. Standing on vultures row, watching takeoffs, it was painful, even with the mickey mouse ears on. The far more powerful F-14s were more impressive to watch (everyone should see a 14 at full afterburner at night, strapped down to the catapult) but they were no where near as loud.

Most sinister: What spray said. That ungodly howl of a C-5 has likely caused people to commit evil acts. It is fukking horrible. Coolest thing about C-5s is watching them takeoff/land. Their size gives the impression that they are standing still. Looks like the goodyear blimp going by. It seems impossible that they don't just fall out of the sky.

Airport observations: Big=quiet. Pretty much all the modern commercial airliners are earily quiet. The smaller general aviation stuff, like what lefty drives are always way louder.

Hey lefty, when you do that whoopty-do move climbing out of SNA, you should get on the PA and give them your best Texas "YEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWW!!!"

[Left Seater]

I agree with you guys on the MD-80s. Love that plane from the two by three seating to the long cabin which helps with turbulence it is awesome.

The worst noise I have ever heard from a jet was the intake from a B-1 lancer. Freaking horrible high pitched screech from the front of the plane.

The newest jet engines / nacelles use interrupted air to help muffle the exhaust noise. Look at the rear of the 787 and 747-800 engines and you will see what Boeing calls shark teeth around the nacelle. This reduces engine noise by another 5 db.

[Moving Sale]

[Left Seater]

So Royal Air Maroc is now trying to claim that the "takeoff" was the result of wake turbulence from the arriving Turkish A-330. This is a huge load of crap and most of the aviation community is laughing at them.

[smackaholic]

I would have went with "I was just practicing wheelies".

[Rooster]

You want noisy? The Russian IL-76 is unbelievably loud. In Kandahar those jets would wind up their engines and conversation would have to stop because of the noise. All hours of the day and night. Not even B-52s make a comparable level of noise.

[Mikey]

This pilot didn't lose his head...

[Dr_Phibes]

Similar and posted before, an IL-76 using the length of a runway. The comments section from the Russians are great, if he didn't use the full runway the plane was underloaded. There's horse sensed in that.

[Left Seater]

Here's the thing about those videos, had something gone wrong you would have seen death. When planes are underpowered or overloaded and are lifting off with feet to spare just imagine what would happen if they lost an engine? Or the had a run in with a rabbit or bird on the runway?

In that first video Papa posted notice how far down the runway they stop that plane after turning on to the runway. Pilots have sayings about a lot of things but one that fits here is "there's nothing as useless as altitude above you, runway behind you and gas left on the ramp." Anytime I am not doing a rolling takeoff (i.e. I don't have to stop on the runway) I make a tight of a turn as possible.

As for the A340 yeah I am sure I said that. Plenty of jokes about that horrible airplane. It has 4 blow dryers for power. Or it was the first commercial airliner certified with 5 APU's. Or an all time favorite, the A340 is the only commercial airliner to experience bird strikes from behind. As stated before on a good day it might climb at 1000ft/min on initial climb. Plenty of stories though of engine shutdowns after V1 or Vr where the A340 made 250 ft per minute on initial climb out.

[Goober McTuber]

THAT heavy bastard...

pot, kettle, etc.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

THAT heavy bastard...

pot, kettle, etc.

C'mon Goobs...don't go starting shit...

[Goober McTuber]

THAT heavy bastard...

pot, kettle, etc.

C'mon Goobs...don't go starting shit...

[Diego in Seattle]

I think that's pretty much all I needed to hear to make me not want to fly on a 340, Lefty. Jesus - that's scary.

But you'd go up in a 380?

[Left Seater]

I think that's pretty much all I needed to hear to make me not want to fly on a 340, Lefty. Jesus - that's scary. I know the longest non-stop flight up until a few years ago was a Singapore Airlines 340-500 flight from Singapore to Neward (over 9,500 miles & 18 hours). I know it's engines were bigger than the 340-200/300's, but I would imagine that that was one horrifically slow & scary takeoff & climb! Can't imagine how bad it would be to have one engine go out on THAT heavy bastard...

I would probably take the A340-500 over the other A340s. The 500 series that SQ used had somewhere around 125 seats in an all business class layout. Plus they didn't carry much if any cargo. So instead of 300 plus people and associated luggage and then cargo on top of that, it was 125 people and bags and no cargo. Granted the fuel carried was more but the cargo is what can really drive up the weight.

As for the A380, I wouldn't have an issue with them now that they are 10 years in. The real question with the A380 is will Airbus have to end production next year. Singapore and other early users are reaching the end of their initial 10 year leases and they are not renewing. This isn't unusual as the early planes are generally heavier than later line numbers and range is therefore less while fuel burn is higher. Since these relatively new planes will be available in the aftermarket will anyone pay new prices? On top of that Malaysian is looking to dump theirs as well.

[Goober McTuber]

On top of that Malaysian is looking to dump theirs as well.

I believe they've already started with their Boeings.

[Left Seater]

They have. Apparently 777s are in higher demand than A380s. Not a good sign for the continued production of the whale.

[Goober McTuber]

I was referring to Flight 370.

[Screw_Michigan]

How long have Airbus and Boeing been the dominant manufacturers of commercial airliners?

[Left Seater]

Better part of two decades. When McDonnell merged with Douglas they were still producing good commercial aircraft. This continued thru the purchase by Boeing in 97 (?). What is now the Boeing 717 is a solid aircraft.

There are other manufacturers but they have tended to stay in the regional jet market or very low end of "mainline" aircraft. Embraer is producing solid planes just short of 100 seats. Bombardier is also working on a new design that has had some decent orders but it is delayed.

[smackaholic]

I think that's pretty much all I needed to hear to make me not want to fly on a 340, Lefty. Jesus - that's scary.

From what lefty told us, it wouldn't get off the ground with your fat ass aboard, anyhow. So, you're safe.

[Dinsdale]

Embraer is producing solid planes just short of 100 seats.

Rode in a few, and maybe it's just because they were new, but that was some smooth riding planes. Seems like whenever I got on an Airbus, it was universally a rough ride.

Could just be coincidence, I guess.

[Left Seater]

There is some physics involved in the longer thinner jets riding thru turbulence slightly better.

[Screw_Michigan]

Better part of two decades. When McDonnell merged with Douglas they were still producing good commercial aircraft. This continued thru the purchase by Boeing in 97 (?). What is now the Boeing 717 is a solid aircraft.

There are other manufacturers but they have tended to stay in the regional jet market or very low end of "mainline" aircraft. Embraer is producing solid planes just short of 100 seats. Bombardier is also working on a new design that has had some decent orders but it is delayed.

Why do you think we haven't seen any major advances in aeronautics in 40-50 years that has dramatically reduced flight times? IIRC, we've had roughly the same flight times coast to coast for almost 60 years. I know the Concorde was supposed to be the big advancement, but that obviously isn't flying.

Feel free to call me an idiot, but I was just wondering this.

[Smackie Chan]

Feel free to call me an idiot

Glad you gave permission. Otherwise, no one here would ever do such a thing.