Takeoff Performance Issues?

[J.O.]

http://avherald.com/h?article=4ac18a5b&opt=0

Incident: Sunwing B738 at Belfast on Jul 21st 2017, overran runway on takeoff

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Jul 25th 2017 18:58Z, last updated Tuesday, Jul 25th 2017 19:02Z   A Sunwing Airlines Boeing 737-800 on behalf of Thomson Airways, registration C-FWGH performing flight BY-1526 from Belfast Aldergrove,NI (UK) to Kerkyra (Greece) with 186 people on board, was accelerating for takeoff from Belfast's runway 07 when the crew detected problems with the acceleration of the aircraft and re-selected TOGA prior to beginning takeoff rotation. During the initial climb the crew selected max continuous thrust and power adjusted accordingly. ATC reported the aircraft had an unusually long takeoff run. The aircraft continued the flight and landed in Kerkyra without further incident. The Canadian TSB reported that a runway inspection found an approach light for runway 25 bent over. The aircraft was inspected at Kerkyra with no damage found. The UK AAIB have opened an investigation into the occurrence. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in Kerkyra (also known as Corfu) for about 90 minutes, then departed for the return flight BY-1527. Metars: EGAA 211650Z 12014KT 9999 SCT026 16/11 Q1000= EGAA 211620Z 12015KT 9999 FEW027 SCT033 15/10 Q1000= EGAA 211550Z 12015KT 9999 SCT024 15/10 Q1000= EGAA 211520Z 13013KT 9999 FEW024 SCT030 16/11 Q0999= EGAA 211450Z 13014KT 9999 SCT025 15/10 Q0999= EGAA 211420Z 13014KT 9999 SCT025 15/10 Q0999= EGAA 211350Z 13016KT 9999 FEW023 SCT028 15/10 Q0999= EGAA 211320Z 13016KT 9999 FEW021 SCT027 15/11 Q0999= EGAA 211250Z 13015KT 9999 SCT026 15/10 Q0998= EGAA 211220Z 14014KT 100V160 9999 SCT024 16/10 Q0998= EGAA 211150Z 13016G28KT 9999 SCT022 17/12 Q0998= EGAA 211120Z 12016KT 100V160 9999 FEW021 SCT027 17/12 Q0997=

[DEFCON]

With all the automation available today aircrew have little more to do than observe during the takeoff and yet they still somehow managed to miss all sorts of obvious clues that we're telling something wasn't right??? Fatigue coupled with a shortfall in experience perhaps?

It seems a little odd that the same crew flew the return leg without further adieu 90 minutes later? It would appear that because the aircraft was okay mechanically and damage free, a major screw up on the part of the flight crew is considered to be part of normal ops and overlooked?

 

 

 

[johnny dangerous]

1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

With all the automation available today aircrew have little more to do than observe during the takeoff and yet they still somehow managed to miss all sorts of obvious clues that we're telling something wasn't right??? Fatigue coupled with a shortfall in experience perhaps?

It seems a little odd that the same crew flew the return leg without further adieu 90 minutes later? It would appear that because the aircraft was okay mechanically and damage free, a major screw up on the part of the flight crew is considered to be part of normal ops and overlooked?

 

 

 

I'm a bit slow at these things. Could you list all of the "all sorts of obvious clues"? And if we are just throwing out possible scenarios on why this happened, could we add the Captain was thinking about sex, and the Fist Officer was constipated?

[johnny dangerous]

I'll help you out. Without knowing anything about this occurrence, it appears that for some reason, an incorrect thrust setting (and possibly V1, VR, and V2 speeds, we don't know) was entered into the Flight Management Computer. We don't know why that happened or who (if anyone) made a mistake that enabled the error.

The next thing that happens is that the crew notices a lack of normal acceleration, and makes a decision to increase thrust (a seemingly safe and correct decision, depending the aircraft's proximity to the V1 speed, which may or may not have been a valid V1).

Only a non-professional pilot would begin to throw rocks at the crew or the airline at this stage.

[DEFCON]

Why are my questions akin to throwing rocks?

You say; "it appears that for some reason, an incorrect thrust setting (and possibly V1, VR, and V2 speeds".

Fatigue leads to errors like the one you've posited; could it be a factor?

When the crew realized the T/O wasn't proceeding in a 'normally' timely way, why didn't they reject?

Assuming your next thought; why didn't the crew recognize the signs of acceleration problems long before V1?

And if you need a list of all the signs that tell a pilot a T/O is progressing as it should, well, what can I say? 

One further question; being the AEF is an  'aviation' discussion board, why is it okay to discuss & debate every gory detail of an incident / accident immediately following when it involves a foreign carrier, but when Canadians are involved we're supposed to remain respectfully mum for a couple of years awaiting the official report?

It's not that you're alone in this regard, but do you think your responses may be unfairly tilted towards the defensive?