ANALYSIS
flightglobal.com 19-25 January 2016 | Flight International | 25
At one point he gave the co-pilot
the confusing instruction to “pull
nose-down” (the pilots were differ-
ent nationalities and neither was a
native English speaker), but he
failed to act correctly to take over-
ride control with his sidestick.
■ (^) The US National Transportation
Safety Board has published an
interim report on a 13 March 2014
rejected take-off at Philadelphia
that reflected a crew failure to re-
enter necessary take-off data when
the take-off runway was changed.
The co-pilot of the US Airways
Airbus A320 (N113UW) entered
take-off information for runway 27R
into the multipurpose control and
display unit (MCDU) when the crew
intended to takeoff from Runway
27L. The captain noticed the dis-
crepancy while taxiing, and the co-
pilot corrected the runway to be
used but did not re-enter the take-
off speeds and “flex temperature”
that determine take-off thrust, de-
spite a message reading “CHECK
TAKE OFF DATA”. Passing 80kt, a
computer voice warned “retard”,
and the electronic centralised air-
craft monitor issued the message
“ENG THR LEVERS NOT SET”. The
captain continued the take-off with
the thrust he had set, but when
approaching 120kt, the pilots no-
ticed the take-off V-speeds were
absent from the speed tape. The
captain continued the take-off roll
and rotated around 160kt, then a
moment later aborted the take-off.
The nose gear collapsed on hitting
the runway hard. The aircraft came
to a halt on the runway and a pas-
senger evacuation was carried out.
The NTSB comments: “Recently we
have experienced a number of un-
necessary rejected take-offs be-
cause a flex temperature was
omitted in the MCDU.” The memo
reminds pilots they can continue a
take-off without flex temperature by
advancing throttles to take-off or
go-around power.
■ (^) Italy’s accident investigation
agency ANSV, examining a 2
February 2013 accident at Rome
Fiumicino airport, reports a
Carpatair ATR 72-500 landed in
gusting wind conditions that ex-
ceeded the aircraft’s operating lim-
its. Following a night approach to
runway 16L, the aircraft bounced
from a nose-down touchdown, and
then oscillated in roll during the
second runway impact, which also
damaged the main gear. The crew
had been informed of 22kt winds
gusting to 37kt, but did not carry
out an approach briefing and so did
not discuss this. The captain – the
pilot flying – had 9,600h on type
and the co-pilot only 15h. The final
approach was flown fast, at 130kt
instead of the correct 118kt. After
the initial nosewheel impact and
bounce the captain was pushing
forward on the controls, the co-pilot
pulling back, which resulted in the
controls decoupling. This led the
aircraft to roll slightly left and it
bounced off each main landing
gear, wrecking both, leaving the air-
craft to slide on its fuselage belly
for some 400m, rotating through
nearly 180 ̊ as it veered off the run-
way and came to a halt on grass.
■ (^) South Korean investigators are
unable to be certain of the origin of
the fire which brought down an
Asiana Airlines Boeing 747-400
freighter off Jeju island on 28 July
- The inquiry believes it start-
ed in the vicinity of two pallets of
dangerous goods on the aft main
deck. Just 3min after the flight was
handed from Incheon to Shanghai
area control, the crew requested an
emergency descent from 34,000ft
to 10,000ft, citing a main-deck fire.
The inquiry points out two pallets
close to the rear freight door
REX/Shutterstock❯❯