RAM 737 Rotates too early

1123heavy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kle80KB_s3I

Looks like a struggle to take off until it eventually happens.

I'd say the heart rates up front during this were going faster :eek:

Bsal

Finger trouble inputting the weights or v speeds perhaps.

cuterob

quite a low flap setting too, although it can be a takeoff flap setting but still

vicwatson

Looks like the pilot was doing a wheelie !

duskyjoe

Looks like a major fugh up.....they are blessed they had runway to play with. Incredible footage. Agree with others , Loadsheet error or input by the crew by at least 5 ton.

Growler!!!

From one of the Facebook pages I've liked. Not sure that's in the Boeing FCOM or FCTM:

Royal Air Maroc actually replied in response to the video I posted this morning.
"After false information was spread out regarding flight AT811 from FRA to CMN on July 23, we want to clarify that during take-off, ATC advised of possible wake turbulence from adjacent landing A330. In turn, the Captain decided to execute a manoeuvre to gain more speed until they reached speeds that would ensure a safe take-off".

maximum12

Growler!!! wrote: »

From one of the Facebook pages I've liked. Not sure that's in the Boeing FCOM or FCTM:

Royal Air Maroc actually replied in response to the video I posted this morning.
"After false information was spread out regarding flight AT811 from FRA to CMN on July 23, we want to clarify that during take-off, ATC advised of possible wake turbulence from adjacent landing A330. In turn, the Captain decided to execute a manoeuvre to gain more speed until they reached speeds that would ensure a safe take-off".

Who are they trying to kid !

Very close to being a tail strike

1123heavy

Growler!!! wrote: »

From one of the Facebook pages I've liked. Not sure that's in the Boeing FCOM or FCTM:

Royal Air Maroc actually replied in response to the video I posted this morning.
"After false information was spread out regarding flight AT811 from FRA to CMN on July 23, we want to clarify that during take-off, ATC advised of possible wake turbulence from adjacent landing A330. In turn, the Captain decided to execute a manoeuvre to gain more speed until they reached speeds that would ensure a safe take-off".

So your man decided while barrelling half way down the runway and rotating that he was gonna "give it some more" instead?

As for "execute a manoeuvre to gain more speed" ... their Captain Fantastic has obviously been given certain wisdoms of flight that the rest of us ignorants have been deprived of :pac::pac:

billie1b

From my eyes it looks like no flap setting what so ever and then during his wheelie the flaps set to 1 and he noses down for extra speed and then up and away. Could be totally wrong but he/she is lucky they had a longgggg runway!

duskyjoe

I've heard it all...... I must remember that cue from ATC to do a touch and go prior to actually rotating on the next mission.

maximum12

billie1b wrote: »

From my eyes it looks like no flap setting

Would that not trigger an alarm for incorrect takeoff configuration?

billie1b

maximum12 wrote: »

Would that not trigger an alarm for incorrect takeoff configuration?

Yeah it should give a config warning but if the runway is long enough like this one you can set while rolling and keep going

1123heavy

billie1b wrote: »

Yeah it should give a config warning but if the runway is long enough like this one you can set while rolling and keep going

The alarm for incorrect take off configuration will sound regardless of the length of runway, I'm pretty sure it's in the Boeing FCOM that the take off is to be aborted if this alarm goes off, if not there it would be in the airline's SOPs, no sane pilot would continue the take off roll with the alarm going off and planning to fix it half way down the runway.

EchoIndia

billie1b wrote: »

From my eyes it looks like no flap setting what so ever and then during his wheelie the flaps set to 1 and he noses down for extra speed and then up and away. Could be totally wrong but he/she is lucky they had a longgggg runway!

If you watch again closely they have slats plus a small amount of flap (5 degrees?) set from the start of the roll. All in all a bizarre sight. At the point where they did properly lift off they probably had c 2000m remaining - about the same as all of runway 16/34 at Dublin.

1123heavy

EchoIndia wrote: »

If you watch again closely they have slats plus a small amount of flap (5 degrees?) set from the start of the roll. All in all a bizarre sight. At the point where they did properly lift off they probably had c 2000m remaining - about the same as all of runway 16/34 at Dublin.

I agree, certainly is flap there. Combined with the warning system in place, no flap is the most unlikely scenario. I think incorrect data input to the FMC resulting in erroneous V speeds is the likeliest cause as someone else suggested.

billie1b

1123heavy wrote: »

The alarm for incorrect take off configuration will sound regardless of the length of runway, I'm pretty sure it's in the Boeing FCOM that the take off is to be aborted if this alarm goes off, if not there it would be in the airline's SOPs, no sane pilot would continue the take off roll with the alarm going off and planning to fix it half way down the runway.

I never said it wouldn't sound if the runway was longer, I said that the alarm should sound but if the RWY is long enough you can set them while rolling and still take off. Yes its not in the SOP's etc but it can be done, thats all I was saying.

Buffman

The AVH headline sums it up nicely:
Royal Maroc B737 at Frankfurt on Jul 23rd 2016, three takeoffs for the price of one

Lucky it was a 700, I don't think they would have got away without at least a tailstrike in a longer 800, considering RAM have 6 700s and 30 800s in their fleet.

The King of Dalriada

billie1b wrote: »

From my eyes it looks like no flap setting what so ever

Slats seen extended at start of video, so at least Flaps 1

billie1b wrote: »

Yeah it should give a config warning but if the runway is long enough like this one you can set while rolling and keep going

Continue to roll and set the flaps during the take off run? ?... That's a one way ticket to a meeting with no biscuits with the chief pilot..

1123heavy

billie1b wrote: »

Yes its not in the SOP's etc but it can be done, thats all I was saying.

Well I agreed with you, in theory yes you can do that, but as I said no sane pilot would and I think it's unlikely that's what happened here.

And the very fact the take off config alarm goes off is somewhat of an "incident" in itself, many airlines will bring the crew into the office for questioning over why the alarm even went off (I know someone this happened to). So I couldn't imagine it being considered at all as acceptable to set flaps during the take off roll.

Dardania

maximum12 wrote: »

Growler!!! wrote: »

From one of the Facebook pages I've liked. Not sure that's in the Boeing FCOM or FCTM:

Royal Air Maroc actually replied in response to the video I posted this morning.
"After false information was spread out regarding flight AT811 from FRA to CMN on July 23, we want to clarify that during take-off, ATC advised of possible wake turbulence from adjacent landing A330. In turn, the Captain decided to execute a manoeuvre to gain more speed until they reached speeds that would ensure a safe take-off".

Who are they trying to kid !

Very close to being a tail strike

Very disappointing to hear that "justification" - particualrly as I've been on an Aer Maroc ATR that was subbed in for Aer Lingus Regional (Stobart at the time).

It's grand if someone makes a mistake, and owns up to it - they'll learn from it, and move on, but to blatantly spout BS such as this doesn't inspire confidence in the pilots integrity, or their CRM checks

1123heavy

Dardania wrote: »

Very disappointing to hear that "justification" - particualrly as I've been on an Aer Maroc ATR that was subbed in for Aer Lingus Regional (Stobart at the time).

It's grand if someone makes a mistake, and owns up to it - they'll learn from it, and move on, but to blatantly spout BS such as this doesn't inspire confidence in the pilots integrity, or their CRM checks

I think this was some person sat in the office managing the company's social media accounts who knows next to nothing about flying but thought he had to write something to defend the company's reputation. Decided to use phrases and words that to him seemed to make him know what he's talking about and at the same time reduce speculation, but that anyone with an iota of flying knowledge knows full well is BS.

Growler!!!

Dardania wrote: »

It's grand if someone makes a mistake, and owns up to it - they'll learn from it, and move on, but to blatantly spout BS such as this doesn't inspire confidence in the pilots integrity, or their CRM checks

How do you know the pilots didn't own up to it already or it didn't ping an alarm on the FDM?

Calling the pilots integrity into question is a bit much, so far we don't know what's happened. The pilot definitely didn't write the airline's response posted above!

What are CRM checks?

Irish Steve

I wouldn't be quite so quick to condemn the crew of the RAM, have a look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfY5ZQDzC5s. While most of what we're seeing are minor vortices from the flaps, there are several occasions where significant vortex activity is seen in the cloud after the aircraft passage, and while such a vortex doesn't cover as wide an areas as a microbursr, the effect is the same, a substantial body of air moving downwards, and if that sort of vortex crossed the RAM departure runway as they rotated, that would very much spoil your day.

ATC are well aware of the issues of vortex separation, which is why there are often apparently long delays between arrivals and departures, to ensure that the vortex has had time to move, or dissipate. A very long time ago, while filming Concorde at Exeter, which was at about 4 mile final, a light aircraft that was downwind to land called the tower, and I still remember the controller giving him the message, "be advised you need 8 nautical miles, repeat 8 nautical miles vortex wake separation behind Concorde". There was a LONG silence on the radio, followed by a slightly confused response of "Ahhhhh, Roger, continuing Downwind". You don't visualise having to fly away from the airfield into almost the next county to ensure that when you do approach, you won't get turned upside down by the effects of the previous arrival.

In passing, it's one of the reasons why airports like Dublin don't encourage small light single engine aircraft, the separation requirements from things like a 777, combined with the very low ground speed of some light aircraft can result in the loss of maybe 4 or 5 landing slots compared to "normal" operations, and at peak periods, that's bad news. In Dublin terminology, a Light aircraft over Finglas will have to fly out beyond Howth before turning back on to track to land on 28 if there's a 777 over Sutton Cross at the time, and with the speeds that a light aircraft flies at, that can be some time. Things will improve when the second runway gets built, as ATC will be able to run parallel approaches to both runways, which will avoid the delay issues if a slow light aircraft is approaching to land, the other runway will still be able to operate at commercial size separations, and there will be a relatively minor delay to departures to facilitate the landing traffic on the "departure" runway.

Getting back to RAM, it's very possible that there was a short term confusion in ATC, maybe a changeover, or 2 controllers, and the departure controller may not have been fully aware of the 330 landing in terms of separation, so the RAM crew were rolling before the realisation of the wake issue, if that was the case, then the RAM crew did actually handle the situation in an acceptable and appropriate manner, given they were already rolling. Their other alternative would have been an abort, which would then have meant a delay to cool the brakes, and possibly an additional fuel uplift, depending on the timings, and maybe even a longer delay due to duty time limitations, so a "stretched" take off run may well have been the easiest option on the day. The airframe wasn't damaged, the flight wasn't delayed, and without the video getting into the public domain, it would not have been an issue as such. and we'll never know now if the crew did actually report the incident post flight so that other crews could learn from it.

The King of Dalriada

Irish Steve wrote: »

I wouldn't be quite so quick to condemn the crew of the RAM, have a look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfY5ZQDzC5s. While most of what we're seeing are minor vortices from the flaps, there are several occasions where significant vortex activity is seen in the cloud after the aircraft passage, and while such a vortex doesn't cover as wide an areas as a microbursr, the effect is the same, a substantial body of air moving downwards, and if that sort of vortex crossed the RAM departure runway as they rotated, that would very much spoil your day.

ATC are well aware of the issues of vortex separation, which is why there are often apparently long delays between arrivals and departures, to ensure that the vortex has had time to move, or dissipate. A very long time ago, while filming Concorde at Exeter, which was at about 4 mile final, a light aircraft that was downwind to land called the tower, and I still remember the controller giving him the message, "be advised you need 8 nautical miles, repeat 8 nautical miles vortex wake separation behind Concorde". There was a LONG silence on the radio, followed by a slightly confused response of "Ahhhhh, Roger, continuing Downwind". You don't visualise having to fly away from the airfield into almost the next county to ensure that when you do approach, you won't get turned upside down by the effects of the previous arrival.

In passing, it's one of the reasons why airports like Dublin don't encourage small light single engine aircraft, the separation requirements from things like a 777, combined with the very low ground speed of some light aircraft can result in the loss of maybe 4 or 5 landing slots compared to "normal" operations, and at peak periods, that's bad news. In Dublin terminology, a Light aircraft over Finglas will have to fly out beyond Howth before turning back on to track to land on 28 if there's a 777 over Sutton Cross at the time, and with the speeds that a light aircraft flies at, that can be some time. Things will improve when the second runway gets built, as ATC will be able to run parallel approaches to both runways, which will avoid the delay issues if a slow light aircraft is approaching to land, the other runway will still be able to operate at commercial size separations, and there will be a relatively minor delay to departures to facilitate the landing traffic on the "departure" runway.

Getting back to RAM, it's very possible that there was a short term confusion in ATC, maybe a changeover, or 2 controllers, and the departure controller may not have been fully aware of the 330 landing in terms of separation, so the RAM crew were rolling before the realisation of the wake issue, if that was the case, then the RAM crew did actually handle the situation in an acceptable and appropriate manner, given they were already rolling. Their other alternative would have been an abort, which would then have meant a delay to cool the brakes, and possibly an additional fuel uplift, depending on the timings, and maybe even a longer delay due to duty time limitations, so a "stretched" take off run may well have been the easiest option on the day. The airframe wasn't damaged, the flight wasn't delayed, and without the video getting into the public domain, it would not have been an issue as such. and we'll never know now if the crew did actually report the incident post flight so that other crews could learn from it.

That's all very intetesing,....but what happened on the video has absolutely nothing to do with wake turbulence or vortices.

MoeJay

In any event the crew were well past their computed V1 so a rejected takeoff at that stage is fraught with danger (even with a 4000m runway.)

I agree, this is nothing to do with wake turbulence.

1123heavy

Irish Steve wrote: »

Getting back to RAM, it's very possible that there was a short term confusion in ATC, maybe a changeover, or 2 controllers, and the departure controller may not have been fully aware of the 330 landing in terms of separation, so the RAM crew were rolling before the realisation of the wake issue.

Are you suggesting ATC contacted the crew during the take off run about wake turbulence? I think it can be safely said with a high degree of certainty that they didn't do this. Wake turbulence would have been mentioned to them along with the take off clearance and that would have been it. And I struggle to see how the A330 landing adjacently would have produced such strong wake turbulence that it would have more or less forced the RAM 737 downwards, wake turbulence can be rough but I think this is a bit of a stretch.

The King of Dalriada

I think there's a misunderstanding here.
The Turkish 330 landed on 07R, the RAM 737 departed from 18. 2 different runways, although 18 passes through the approach of 07R.

Irish Steve

I've been talking to a number of people off line, and there is likely to be more to this over time, as the German regulators (BFU) were unaware of this incident until this week, and they are likely to be "interested" in exactly what happened, and how it happened.

From additional information, I would agree, the wake turbulence from the 330 should not have been a factor, as the approach profile crosses Runway 18 about 960 Mtrs from the threshold, it would have to be a very powerful 737 to be at or above VR by that distance, so the "official" explanation for this event is looking increasingly fragile, as the vortex from the 330 should not have impinged on the rotation area of the 737.

If the BFU do decide that this incident should be looked at in more detail, that may well produce some more meaningful answers in the fullness of time. The video seems to show slat and flap settings, so my best guess is that a wrong figure was entered into a critical area of the FMS, which gave either a wrong speed calculation, or wrong flex settings, or a wrong trim setting, and any of those could have affected the performance.

In terms of the potential to upset things, if the wake had hit the aircraft, which is now looking to be in doubt, it will depend on what the surface wind was at the time, if they lost (say) 10 Kts of headwind, which seems unlikely given that 07 was in use, and that 10 Kts was replaced by a 10 Kt vertical component, which is very possible, that would have an impact on the wing performance.

The video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ESmvyAmOs (I played it with sound off) shows very clearly what the passage of a heavy aircraft does to the wind, I'd not want to be involved with that sort of upset, there's no telling where things are going to go for that period of time.

The King of Dalriada

Irish Steve wrote: »

I, so the "official" explanation for this event is looking increasingly fragile, .

Looking fragile?
Anyone with any professional knowledge of aviation could tell it was pure BS from the start.

1123heavy

The King of Dalriada wrote: »

Looking fragile?
Anyone with any professional knowledge of aviation could tell it was pure BS from the start.

That it was, sir.

1123heavy

I'm gonna make a humble backtrack here actually.

I was just reading another point of view regarding the wake turbulence from the A330 and what potential effects it could have had. Initially I was of the opinion that those saying the wake turbulence would have affected the aircraft were implying the force of the wake turbulence literally "pushed down" the aircraft to counteract the lift force upon the first attempts at rotation (a view which I still find unrealistic).

But the recent opinion I read was that the wake turbulence could have been the cause by creating a tailwind for the RAM aircraft as the vortex from the right hand A330 wing would have "chased" the RAM during it's take off roll ... causing a potentially significant tailwind. With the V speeds calculated according to specific wind speeds, obviously usually a headwind, the potential tailwind created by the A330 could have drastically increased the necessary V speeds for the RAM crew, this could have simply gone unnoticed to the crew who were relying on their pre planned V speeds (which were likely actually based on a headwind) and probably got a bit of a fright during the rotation and reacted accordingly.

If this indeed did occur, then I feel the crew deserve a pat on the back if anything.

NewSigGuy

1123heavy wrote: »

I'm gonna make a humble backtrack here actually.

I was just reading another point of view regarding the wake turbulence from the A330 and what potential effects it could have had. Initially I was of the opinion that those saying the wake turbulence would have affected the aircraft were implying the force of the wake turbulence literally "pushed down" the aircraft to counteract the lift force upon the first attempts at rotation (a view which I still find unrealistic).

But the recent opinion I read was that the wake turbulence could have been the cause by creating a tailwind for the RAM aircraft as the vortex from the right hand A330 wing would have "chased" the RAM during it's take off roll ... causing a potentially significant tailwind. With the V speeds calculated according to specific wind speeds, obviously usually a headwind, the potential tailwind created by the A330 could have drastically increased the necessary V speeds for the RAM crew, this could have simply gone unnoticed to the crew who were relying on their pre planned V speeds (which were likely actually based on a headwind) and probably got a bit of a fright during the rotation and reacted accordingly.

If this indeed did occur, then I feel the crew deserve a pat on the back if anything.

I have a suspicion that the V Speeds would not change as a result of the wind component.
The Take off Distance required will be dramatically longer as a result of wind shift but Vr and V2 will not change significantly.

IMHO they rotated too early as a result of either a calculation error or an incorrect call by one of the crew.

1123heavy

NewSigGuy wrote: »

I have a suspicion that the V Speeds would not change as a result of the wind component.
The Take off Distance required will be dramatically longer as a result of wind shift but Vr and V2 will not change significantly.

But they would need a higher rotation speed to get the thing off the ground with a tailwind than a headwind.

ned14

1123heavy wrote: »

But they would need a higher rotation speed to get the thing off the ground with a tailwind than a headwind.

The indicated speed accounts for headwind and tailwind as it measures the speed of air hitting the pitot tubes. So rotation speed would be the same if calculated correctly.

The takeoff distance required would increase if a tailwind existed, but the pilots wouldn't notice unless the wind had significantly changed, as their V-speeds would still be the same.

duskyjoe

1123heavy wrote: »

NewSigGuy wrote: »

I have a suspicion that the V Speeds would not change as a result of the wind component.
The Take off Distance required will be dramatically longer as a result of wind shift but Vr and V2 will not change significantly.

But they would need a higher rotation speed to get the thing off the ground with a tailwind than a headwind.

B.s

Irish Steve

Posting B.s to a post is not an acceptable response to the post. If there is something wrong with a previous post, then a reasoned explanation of WHY it is wrong is acceptable, gratuitous insults is not. If you can't post a reason why, please don't post

To clarify, if they did indeed suffer a sudden change of external conditions, which is not yet proved, the V speeds do not change. However, to very much spoil their day, the INDICATED air speed would have suddenly decreased, which is completely contrary to the expectation as the aircraft is accelerating and increasing ground speed, so technically, if this sequence of events did occur as reported, having reached Vr. they were then faced with a reducing IAS, and reduced lift capability from the wing. and a requirement to wait until the Indicated speed rose again above the calculated Vr speed, which would have resulted in the sort of gymnastics that were captured on video. If that was the sequence of events, then the crew did very well to avoid a tail strike and do not deserve criticism. If on the other hand they made a mistake in the data input or calculation, let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

1123heavy

duskyjoe wrote: »

B.s

Thank you for your great contribution to this thread, your wisdom is to be admired.

NewSigGuy

Irish Steve wrote: »

To clarify, if they did indeed suffer a sudden change of external conditions, which is not yet proved, the V speeds do not change. However, to very much spoil their day, the INDICATED air speed would have suddenly decreased, which is completely contrary to the expectation as the aircraft is accelerating and increasing ground speed, so technically, if this sequence of events did occur as reported, having reached Vr. they were then faced with a reducing IAS, and reduced lift capability from the wing. and a requirement to wait until the Indicated speed rose again above the calculated Vr speed, which would have resulted in the sort of gymnastics that were captured on video. If that was the sequence of events, then the crew did very well to avoid a tail strike and do not deserve criticism. If on the other hand they made a mistake in the data input or calculation, let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

Fair point, but if there was a negative shear and they experienced a loss of speed they should execute a windshear escape manoeuvre, which before V1 is a reject after V1 is select TOGA and accelerate to Vr.

I'm not convinced shear was a factor having watched the video.

Irish Steve

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Fair point, but if there was a negative shear and they experienced a loss of speed they should execute a windshear escape manoeuvre, which before V1 is a reject after V1 is select TOGA and accelerate to Vr.

I'm not convinced shear was a factor having watched the video.

At this point, we can't be sure, and if you've just started to rotate, you're not expecting the IAS to go south, especially if the airframe as such feels like it's accelerating, which would have been all the body cues, working out why it's not getting away like a homesick angel is probably something best done with hindsight, in the heat of the moment, avoiding a tail strike was probably as good as it got.

From comments I've seen, the BFU are now looking at this, so at some stage, there may be a more structured and formal report of the incident, which will have some sense in it. Until then, all we can really say is it happened, and there but for the grace of God go I.

lintdrummer

Irish Steve wrote: »

From comments I've seen, the BFU are now looking at this, so at some stage, there may be a more structured and formal report of the incident, which will have some sense in it. Until then, all we can really say is it happened, and there but for the grace of God go I.

There will be no investigation according to the AV Herald:

"[font=Times, "Time New Roman", sans-serif]On Aug 30th 2016 the BFU responded to an inquiry by The Aviation Herald of Aug 25th 2016 stating, the BFU had neither received any notification by the crew, airline or airport involved nor by the person taking the video (see below) and became aware of the occurrence only through the release of the video into the public more than a months after the occurrence. The BFU argued that as result it will not be possible to establish sufficient facts and evidence needed for a detailed investigation, hence the BFU decided to refrain from initiating an investigation."[/font]

[font=Times, "Time New Roman", sans-serif]There is no question in my mind that this was anything other than pilot error. Any commander worth his salt would have raised a Flight Safety Report if the cause was attributable to wake turbulence and likely to occur again. [/font]

duskyjoe

1123heavy wrote: »

Thank you for your great contribution to this thread, your wisdom is to be admired.

Apologies all for my glib comment....uncalled for.