| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.

View
 

Take off

Page history last edited by Béatrice H. Alves 3 years, 8 months ago

 

 

 

 

 


 

Lexical domain

Take-off incidents

abort, bird/animal hazards, traffic interference, runway incursion, overheating, towing, 180 turn back, runway excursion, cancellation and change of clearance, problems with steering gear, engine power, aircraft breakdown

 

BA 747 crew commended for escaping near-stall on take-off

By David Kaminski-Morrow

South Africa's Civil Aviation Authority has praised the airmanship of British Airways Boeing 747-400 pilots who battled to prevent a low-altitude stall after the leading-edge slats unexpectedly retracted during lift-off from Johannesburg.

At 167kt on the take-off roll, fractionally below rotation speed, all the leading-edge slats inboard of the engines on each side automatically retracted, after receiving a spurious indication of thrust-reverser activation.

As the aircraft tried to climb out from Tambo International Airport, known for its 'hot and high' environment, the jet lost a "significant amount of lift", says the CAA, and the stick-shaker immediately engaged, warning of an approaching stall.

Instead of following the typical climb profile, the first officer - whose aerobatic experience meant he was familiar with buffet - controlled the aircraft through the stall warning and buffeting by executing a shallower climb, while the commander supported the manoeuvre by calling out heights above ground.

[…]

In its inquiry report into the 11 May 2009 incident, the CAA says the crew had "no notion" that the slats had retracted before rotation. There is no separate indication in the cockpit for leading-edge slat position.

[…]

After stabilising the 747's climb, the crew declared to air traffic control that they were experiencing problems with two engines and would be returning to the airport. The aircraft, which had been bound for London Heathrow with 265 passengers and 18 crew members, landed safely.

[…]

Read the complete story

 

Back to top

 

Clipping approach lights on departure

A Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300 performing flight QR-778 from Miami,FL (USA) to Doha (Qatar), lined up runway 09 at taxiway T1 (approximately 2600 meters/8500 feet takeoff distance available, full runway length 3968 meters/13,016 feet) and departed Miami's runway 09 but struck the approach lights runway 27 during departure. 

View on NBC Miami 

Read about it on the Aviation Herald

Some Pictures

 

Damaged Gear

Close-up of the damaged gear. On take-off the captain reported hearing a tyre burst. Traffic stacked up while 27R was checked for debris. 90 minutes later she came back to LHR and the damage is there to see on the front left tyre of the right main gear. She landed without any problems on 27L.

 

Back to top

 

 

Kalitta Rejected Take off

Read more about this accident here. or here.

 

Back to top

 

Rejected take off test

 

 

 

Back to top

 

Tire burst while rolling

 

Back to top

 

Bird strike (starlings)

 

Back to top

 

Engine fire during roll

 

Back to top

 

The tire that doesn't burst

 

Back to top

 

 

 

 

 

Concorde

A Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10 lost a titanium part, about 30 centimetres (12 in) wide and 43 centimetres (17 in) long, during a takeoff from Charles de Gaulle Airport. During the Concorde's subsequent take-off run, this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, ruptured a tyre which then burst. A large chunk of this (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 lb) struck the underside of the aircraft's wing structure at well over 300 kilometres per hour (190 mph). Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that eventually ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the landing gear. Leaking fuel rushing over the top of the wing was ignited by an electric arc in the landing gear bay or through contact with severed electrical cables. At the point of ignition, engines one and two both surged and lost all power, but slowly recovered over the next few seconds. A large plume of flame developed; the Flight Engineer then shut down engine two, in response to a fire warning and the Captain's command.[4]

Having passed V1 speed, the crew continued the take-off but they could not gain enough airspeed on the three remaining engines, because the undercarriage could not be retracted due to the severed electrical cables. The aircraft was unable to climb or accelerate, and it maintained a speed of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) at an altitude of 60 metres (200 ft). The fire caused damage to the port wing, and it began to disintegrate - melting due to extremely high temperatures. Engine one surged again, but this time failed to recover. Due to the asymmetric thrust, the starboard wing lifted, banking the aircraft to over 100 degrees. The crew reduced the power on engines three and four to attempt to level the aircraft but with falling airspeed they lost control, crashing into the Hôtelissimo[5] Les Relais Bleus Hotel[6][7] near the airport.[1]

The crew was trying to divert to nearby Le Bourget Airport; accident investigators say that a safe landing with the flight path the aircraft was on would have been highly unlikely.

Read more

 

Back to top

Comair Flight 5191 - Wrong runway

....

 

Back to top

 

 

Tapir strike

Brazilian Tapir (Photo: Whaldener Endo)
Brazilian Tapir (Photo: Whaldener Endo)
A Total Linhas Aereas Avion de Transport Regional ATR-42-500, registration PR-TKB performing a charter flight from Coari,AM to Manaus,AM (Brazil) with 45 passengers and 4 crew, collided with a tapir while departing Coari which bent the right hand main gear. The crew continued to Manuas about 200nm from Coari where the crew performed an emergency landing into Manuas. The crew burned off fuel before landing, landed and brought the aircraft to a safe stop on the runway. The aircraft was disabled on the runway. The passengers disembarked onto the runway.

The airport was closed for about 2 hours until the aircraft could be moved off the runway.

 

Read more about it on the Aviation Herald

 

Take off Speeds

 

Rejected take off - A319

 

Back to top

 

 Rejected take-off A320 - Nose wheel steering  issues

Read about it on the Aviation Herald

 

Back to top

 

 

 

 

Engine explosion during take-off

Read about it on the Aviation Herald

Back to top

 

 

Load shift?

Several observers on the ground reported the National Air Cargo Boeing 747-400 had just lifted off and was climbing through approximately 1200 feet when it's nose sharply rose, the aircraft appeared to have stalled and came down erupting in a blaze.
According to a listener on frequency the crew reported the aircraft stalled due to a possible load shift.

Read about it on the Aviation Herald


Back to top

 

Nearmiss in Chicago

 

Deadly Tenerife


Back to top

 

Lapa Flight 3142 -Whisky Romeo Zulu

As the aircraft started the takeoff run, the take-off warning system (TOWS) sounded an alarm in the cockpit, indicating that the aircraft was not correctly configured for the maneuver. The crew ignored the warning and continued the takeoff, not realising that the flaps were not at the required take-off position and were instead fully retracted, thus preventing the aircraft from lifting off. The jet overshot the runway, breaking through the airport's perimeter fence, crossed a road, hitting an automobile, and finally collided with road-construction machinery and a highway median. Fuel spilling over the hot engines and gas leaking from a damaged gas regulation station resulted in a fire that totally destroyed the aircraft.

The Junta de Investigaciones de Accidentes de Aviación Civil (JIAAC) determined that the pilots failed to configure the aircraft correctly for take-off. The penal prosecutionfocused on proving that the company's policies and organization, lacking the Argentine Air Force's controls, were the main factors that led to the accident. For instance, it was mentioned that a pilot was allowed to fly without a license by the company. Because of these perceived flaws, some of LAPA's directors and the Air Force staff responsible for monitoring the airline were taken to jury trial.

 

Whisky Romeo Zulu from E-Fly Academy on Vimeo.


Back to top

 

 

Rejecting take off at JFK - Close call

 

Back to top

 

 

B747 testing RTO

 

Back to top

 

A 340 rejecting Take off at V1

 

Back to top

 

 

Tailstrike

Back to top

 

Tailstrike in Madrid

An Aeromexico Boeing 767-200, registration XA-TOJ performing flight AM-2 from Madrid,SP (Spain) to Mexico City (Mexico), was rotating for takeoff from Madrid's runway 36L when the tail of the aircraft contacted the runway surface leaving debris behind. The crew continued the takeoff and climb, levelled off and descended after the oxygen masks were released, then entered a hold to burn off fuel and returned to Madrid for a safe landing about 90 minutes after departure. Two cabin crew received injuries, the aircraft sustained substantial damage.

Read more about it on the Aviaton Herald

Back to top

Snowplow vs. Falcon 50

 

Back to top

Contaminated Runway Ops, Russian Style

 

 

As a former FBO line boy whose job was to wash airplanes, this video makes me cringe. As a pilot, it also makes my palms sweat a little. The airplane is an Antonov An-24. The place is Bodaybo, a gold-mining town in the Russian Far East. The runway is a muddy mess, making the takeoff roll more of a mix of slip-sliding, hydroplaning pilot skill and probably a little bit of luck, too.

The An-24, operated by Russian airline UTair, appears to lurch sideways as a giant spray of mud coats its belly, fuselage and underwing. A crowd is gathered on the ramp to watch the takeoff, so you know that even the bystanders understand the risks. Still, this being the middle of nowhere, Russia, this is probably considered more or less a normal takeoff from a slightly contaminated runway.

We’d love to read what the An-24’s POH has to say about such operations — and see the same airplane attempt a landing.

Read it on Flying Magazine

Back to top

 

Tailstrike in Sidney

Accident: United Airlines B744 at Sydney on May 7th 2010, tail strike on takeoff

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, May 7th 2010 14:42Z, last updated Monday, May 24th 2010 22:44ZA

United Airlines Boeing 747-400, registration N128UA performing flight UA-870 from Sydney,NS (Australia) to San Francisco,CA (USA) with 220 passengers, had just rotated off Sydney's runway 34L at 14:58L (04:58Z), when the crew of another aircraft on an adjacent taxiway reported the Boeing had touched the runway surface with the tail between intersection with taxiway Kilo and intersection with runway 07/25. The crew of the United 747 climbed to 8000 feet dumping fuel over the Tasman Sea and returned to Sydney's runway 34L for a safe landing about 80 minutes after departure. The airplane taxied off the runway at taxiway G.

Runway 25 was briefly closed until a runway inspection confirmed the runway was clear to be used for departures, runway 34L remained closed for about 35 minutes needing sweeping and causing delays to departures due to the runway and adjacent taxiways being unavailable. Tower told other aircraft, that debris needed to be cleared from runway 34L as result of the tailstrike.

Flight UA-870 had to be cancelled, the passengers were taken to local hotels.

The accident airplane N128UA was able to depart Sydney on May 11th noon as flight UA-9918 to Busan (South Korea) and climbed to FL360. Busan hosts a maintenance facility of Korean Airlines in charge of doing heavy maintenance for United Airlines' Boeing 747s.

The Australian Transportation Safety Board confirmed a tail strike by the aircraft and opened an investigation.

Metars:
YSSY 070800Z 04005KT CAVOK 19/10 Q1019 NOSIG
YSSY 070730Z 04006KT CAVOK 19/09 Q1018 NOSIG
YSSY 070630Z 30005KT CAVOK 22/05 Q1018 FM0700 04008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070600Z 30006KT CAVOK 23/04 Q1018 FM0630 04008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070530Z 29007KT CAVOK 23/04 Q1018 FM0600 04008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070500Z 31007KT CAVOK 23/02 Q1018 FM0600 04008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070430Z 31007KT CAVOK 23/04 Q1018 FM0600 04008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070400Z 31007KT CAVOK 23/03 Q1018 FM0600 14008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070330Z 28008KT CAVOK 23/04 Q1018 FM0600 14008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070300Z 29008KT CAVOK 22/05 Q1019 FM0500 22008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070230Z 27006KT CAVOK 22/04 Q1019 FM0400 22008KT CAVOK
YSSY 070200Z 25006KT CAVOK 20/05 Q1020 FM0300 22008KT CAVOK

Read comments here



Shock absorbers decompressed, tail on the ground (Photo: Tony Gosarevski):
Shock absorbers decompressed, tail on the ground (Photo: Tony  Gosarevski)

Shock absorbers decompressed, tail on the ground (Photo: Tony  Gosarevski)

Shock absorbers decompressed, tail on the ground (Photo: Tony  Gosarevski)

 

Back to top

 

 

 

Tailstrike in Melbourne

Emirates pilot in tail strike near-disaster tells his story

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

Ellen Whinnett
July 12, 2009 12:00am

THE pilot at the controls of an Emirates jet that almost crashed at Melbourne Airport has revealed how he saved 275 lives.

 

Breaking a four-month silence, the pilot told how he managed to wrench the fully-loaded plane into the air just seconds before it almost crashed.

"I still don't know how we got it off the ground," the pilot said.

"I thought we were going to die, it was that close.

"It was the worst thing in 20 years (of flying). It was the worst thing I've felt, but thank God we got it safely around."

The pilot, a 42-year-old European man, spoke to the Sunday Herald Sun on the condition his identity not be revealed.

Realising the plane had not reached a high enough speed to get airborne, and with the end of the runway rapidly approaching, the pilot and co-pilot were desperately checking controls in the cockpit, trying to find out what had gone wrong.

At the last second, the pilot engaged a rapid acceleration known as TOGA (take-off go-around) and lifted the plane off the ground.

With 257 passengers and 18 crew aboard, the Airbus A340-500 struck its tail three times, wiped out lights and a navigation antennae at the end of the runway - some of the equipment struck was just 70cm high - and sustained $100 million damage as it barely cleared the airport boundary fence.

After limping into the air, the pilot took the jet out over Port Phillip Bay to dump its load of highly flammable aviation fuel, then returned to Melbourne Airport 30 minutes later.

Passengers had seen smoke and dust swirl into the cabin and felt the impact as the tail struck the ground, but the pilot did not tell them how bad the situation was, fearing it would cause them to panic.

The pilot said that when he left the plane after safely returning to Melbourne Airport he saw a number of the passengers disembarking, unaware of how close to death they had come.

"There were a lot of passengers left the airplane smiling," he said.

He said the landing afterwards was a "textbook landing".

"From take-off until we landed I am extremely proud of what we did from push-off to landing.

"The cabin crew were outstanding. We did extremely well under the circumstances. We kept it very, very simple."

He said he did not know to this day exactly how he manoeuvred the Airbus into the air.

"I . . . sort of reacted on instinct," he said.

"I had a feeling that (something) wasn't working, but I couldn't find out what was wrong.

"I knew I couldn't stop.

"At that point I knew we just had to go.

"And we got it off the ground, miraculously."

The accident was later described as the closest Australia had come to a major aviation catastrophe.

Tail strikes are extremely dangerous and can result in a plane breaking in two.

A report by air safety investigators found the co-pilot was at the controls when the pilot, a captain, called on him to "rotate", or lift the plane's nose.

When the plane failed to lift, the pilot again called for him to rotate the plane, which saw the plane's nose lift and its tail strike the ground.

The pilot then took over, commanding and selecting TOGA, which provides the maximum thrust the plane's engines will deliver.

Once the plane was in the air, the crew realised the take-off weight programmed into the plane's computer was 100 tonnes lighter than the actual weight of the plane.

The typing error meant the wrong take-off speed and thrust settings had been calculated.

Emirates has said there were four layers of checks that should have picked up the error, and the failure to do so was "perplexing".

The pilot did not type in the numbers, but was responsible for checking them.

The pilot said he almost collapsed after bringing the plane safely back to land.

"One of my friends almost admitted me to hospital I was so stressed," he said.

"If you have a near-death experience your body reacts in a particular way."

In multiple interviews conducted with the Sunday Herald Sun over a period of weeks, the pilot who has left Dubai with his family and returned to his home country in Europe also revealed:

HE had slept for only 3 1/2 hours in the 24 hours before the flight taking off on March 20.

THE brush with death upset him so badly he had not slept for four days after the accident.

HE and his co-pilot were ordered to resign. They were handed pre-prepared letters of resignation when they returned to Emirates headquarters.

HE was still so horrified by the accident that he could not bear to think about it.

HE needed to find a job, but did not know if he would fly again.

HE was reluctant to reveal exactly what happened in the cockpit in case his recollection was different from what Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators would find.

The veteran pilot, who has 22 years' experience with the military and commercial airlines, said he knew Melbourne Airport quite well.

In his 4 1/2 years of flying for Emirates he had flown in and out of Melbourne many times.

"Maybe four, five times in the past six months," he said.

"Melbourne was one of the places I knew well.

"Maybe (I flew there) once every other month.

"It was quite emotional to have to say goodbye."

Since the accident, several Emirates pilots have spoken to the Sunday Herald Sun, saying fatigue was a major problem with the airline, which is one of the world's largest long-haul carriers.

The ATSB has also been told of fatigue problems, though its preliminary report into the tail strike revealed fatigue was probably not a factor.

The pilot said it was hard for him to know if he was fatigued or not, but that he had very little sleep when the near-fatal error was made.

"I had the flown the maximum in the last 30 days. One hundred hours in 28 days, it's an Emirates rule," he said.

"I'd flown 99 hours. You can fly 100 hours in a month. There a big difference in long-haul, nights, it's a mix of everything."

He said he had told ATSB investigators he had little sleep in the day before to the 10.30pm flight on Friday, March 20.

"This long-haul flying is really, really fatiguing. Really demanding on your body," he said.

"When I did that take-off in Melbourne I had slept 3 1/2 hours in 24 hours.

"You feel sort of normal, abnormal."

He said he had been in Melbourne for 24 hours before his flight.

"That (the Melbourne-Dubai flight) is the most tiring trip I have done in my career.

"You're always out of whack."

The pilot said he and other pilots tried hard not to make any mistakes, but occasionally errors happened.

"It's never on purpose," he said.

"No fingers point in our direction. It happens because of a range of things coming together at the time.

"Until now, I had a perfect record.

"I was just a pilot."

He said he had told the ATSB everything about the period leading up to the accident, and he praised the Australian investigators for their thoroughness and sensitivity.

"I told them everything about what happens. Eating, exercise, I was dead honest. It's always like that when you fly," he said.

"I was really scared of going to jail when I got back to Dubai."

He said there had been four pilots in the cockpit - he and the co-pilot, who had been at the controls as the plane taxied along the runway, and two augmenting pilots who were on board because of the length of the 14 1/2 hour flight to Dubai.

 

 

Back to top

 

 

Take off at JFK

No occurrence here but it's nice.

 

 

Back to top

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.