Given that almost certainly the Madrid accident was caused by the non deployment of the flaps/slats during taxi or immediately prior to take off, for whatever reason, be it human error, relay failure etc etc it would appear that this is by no means an uncommon occurrence.
Two of the videos on this site taken at Tivat, Montenegro clearly demonstrate this.
One is an Aviogenex B737-200, the other is an F100.
On both occasions the rate of climb is or appears to be normal...could it be just luck or a light pax/fuel load?
Any comments please; because as an ex liney and avionics engineer I for one llike to see some degree of flap extension before any flight that I am a passenger on starts its take off roll....

Don't use that term "Human Error." Uuurgghh! But, I'll answer for Antony's finest. A Fokker 70/100 will normally depart with "Flap Zero". Only on a short runway with no "close in" obstacles will flaps help. But just for the hell of it (and practice) I'll use Flap 8 every now and again. Flap 15 is also valid for take-off (for the aircraft) but we can't use that in our company as we don't have figures for its use.

PM

In my part of the world they would be called

ZERO FLAP TAKEOFFS

I don’t recall viewing either of the videos you describe; but, with all due respect, can you see in the videos that these aircraft did not have any flaps extended? If you can see that the flaps are, indeed, retracted, the next thing of interest would be the altitude of the airport, the length of the runway, and the gross weight of the aircraft. While there are some operations that use zero flaps for takeoff (and some of those still use leading edge devices in the extended position), there are not many that use this as a routine configuration. It’s been a while, but from my B737 days, it seems to me that there were cases where zero flap takeoffs were authorized – but it wasn’t routine; and I can’t speak with any authority on the F100. However, remember, that the only thing flaps do is allow the generation of lift at slower airspeeds – and requires a higher thrust setting to push that greater-cambered wing through the air. If you’re not restricted by altitude, runway length, gross weight of the aircraft, tire speed, and have a long time during which you can operate the engines at TO thrust, you probably don’t need flaps for takeoff – once you have generated enough airflow over the wings to provide sufficient lift to support the weight of the aircraft – flaps are not necessary. But again, doing so is the exception, not the rule. And then, coming back in to land is the “flip-side” of this story.

???
How about, we start putting pilots with more than just a couple hundred hours (half of which was on a synthetic device) at the helm of commercial heavies. How about we start making the single engine configuration a very big deal to those young airmen. How about we explain them what VMC is, and how darn capital it is to push that rudder correcly.
I say they VMCed this thing right into the ground without even trying to save it (maybe made it worst), I got money for this bet! Who's got the final report?

Here is a new concept: how about going back to "stick and rudder" teachings, instead of handing out type ratings, like they're going out of style.

The next thing you're going to suggest is that pilots actually fly the airplanes! My friend, it sounds like you're pushing for a revolt!




...and more power to ya!

It depends on what you mean by "heavy". I regularly fly the F70/100 (MTOW 44,450Kgs) with colleagues who have less than 300 hours total time. Both in the sim. and on the real thing they can fly well within the required limits and many are walking encyclopedias on the aircraft. Most also enjoy (like me) stick and ruddering with no automatics. However, they are surprised by weather every now and again and have loads to learn about people and actual operations, which is why they sit where they do.

As for Spanair - let's wait and see.

PM

I should have been more clear in my "soap box" serie. I have nothing against pilots with 300 hrs, if they have been trained properly. That is a big IF! With capital letters. Let me clear this out.
As some of you might already know, I have been sideline 3 times this year for economic reasons (read fired, let go, the company is moving in a different direction and you are not invited to this party), from companies which could not manage themselves to profitability. I made the math and it was more than possible.
Consequently, I went back to school to transform my FAA into JAA, so I am now at home, with my 14 little manuals trying to cram all of this useless material in order to pass tests, and acquire a title which I have held for 12 years already in another ICAO state. That title is: "professional PYLUT".
Untill recently I was afforded the opportunity to go back to Africa, and fly the central sub region, I found a flock of so called frozen european atpls logging their precious JAR 25 time, so that they could go back to europe and get a real job according to them (nevermind the fact that we were zooming around in a 24tons, 50 seat jet, it wasn't a real job). In a previous life I use to train those very same people to FAA standards so they could get pro licenses back in the state, and let me tell you, the standards I saw coming from those guys were "scary" at best.
I will say that 5% of them were of the aviator class, meaning they had the right stuff, they were born with the necessary skills to rewrite aerodynamic theories and bring meaningfull contribution, but the rest (that's 95%) were ....

The thing that stands out most from my experiences with those folks is as follows:
-They were bombarded with a massive amount of theory in training, which was not only useless for their daily flying routine, but also galvanized them into thinking that they were know part of an elite which no longer needed any sort of advising.
-They almost all had a serious lack of "stick and rudder", not understanding basic aero concepts of how to flare an airplane, how to properly control a stalled airframe, let's not talk about rudder use with a propeller aeroplane (heck they all studied to fly jets, props are for model airplanes according to them).
-They ALL lacked the knowledge that would be usefull to them, as in this massive 14 serie of tests, they never got to really understand VMC, what affects it, and how can they influence it, as an example.

My African stint afforded me the opportunity to go and be with those guys 24 hours a day, and I really got to see the disaster. They are no doubt well educated, but they lack the education that counts. They pretty much all learned to sprint before even being able to walk without falling. I had no problem flying with them, except that I would just pray that our flight would not require any out of the ordinary thinking, as this would quickly transform us into a one pilot operation. I would not even dream of finding out what an emmergency would mean. I am all for on the job training, but I have said it before, a transport category aircraft IS NOT a classroom platform, I expect people in those seats to have enough basic skills and decision making.

Am I being unreasonable? YES! Am I being too pasionate in this monologue? YES! Can a 300hrs pilot out fly me? YES!
Heck, the military does it all the time. The military takes people right out of the street and puts them at the helm of some serious high speed metal. BUT they don't do it the JAA way, they actually teach those guys to fly, one major difference is that they spend a lot of time inverted. What's the difference you ask, how is flying upside down making it better? Stick and rudder, they actually get to understand how to FLY an airplane, they get to become aviators, not just pilots in spiffy looking uniforms who push buttons in a well rehearsed manner at the right timing. Those military folks were thaught to take concepts and apply them, taught to think outside the realm of a flight manual, to understand what the airplane can and cannot do.

I have had a few threads spitting on the JAA training since I joined this website a few years ago, I did so because I am the one which kept having to correct all of the mistakes that I saw from the students that came over to me from Europe and could not land an airplane properly to pass a private pilot standard (which is ICAO standard, by the way), while their JAA ticket read COM/IR/ME/ATPL theory passed! Well, you don't say!!!! Is Mc Donald's handing out that happy meal special again? My paroles were justified back then!
Today, because of economic and personnal reasons, I am doing this JAA stuff, and let me tell you, now that I am in the system, I understand why it is flawed. Now that I have those theory books in front of me, I understand why the standards are so low. It is not because the books are bad, it is not because the information in it is false, it is because out the 25% of critical information that those pilots would need to become aviators is drowned in mindless, useless, redundant, unecessary material that they will never, ever use.....EVER! I can't blame them, if I was a beginning student, I don't think I could filter out the junk either. Additionally, the flight training is similar to the theory: "mimic what you saw, no need to understand why you are doing it". And this is how I saw pilots insisting on doing a QRH, when we clearly needed to just get the airplane on the ground. It is universal knowledge that the QRH has every possible answer to our flying problems....not!!!

Going back to Spanair. We need to wait for the final report, because otherwise we are all pissing in the wind. Yet there is this one thing about airplanes over 6000lbs being required to show positive climb rates during single engine operations (and that is with max gross, high ambient temp, low density, with critical engine out, CG in the most unfavorable rearward position, gear and flaps in the most unfavorable position, etc...). All of this to say, that airplanes of that category do not fall out of the sky...unless you don't know which rudder to push, and which direction to bank your machine to increase resistance to single engine roll.

Spanair reeks of VMC roll, and as to the reason why; reread my post: meaningfull training!

A revolt? Nope. A revolution? YES! I seem to recall that the POIs at the Miami FSDO thought I was a nutcase. Yet my arguments, backed up with the data from their accident/incident database, clearly showed that the majority of GA accidents were the resultant of extra curicular runway excursions due to a lack of crosswind proficiency, lack of control during the roll-out phase, or just lack of coordination reuslting in a spin during the base to final during a hefty crosswind. I suggested that all flight training should be perfomed in bright yellow piper cubs (or similar), without GPS, with an emphasys being placed on aircraft control, and rudder skills. They told me that their priority was to move into the 21st centurywith the FITS program, and adapting to people flying SR-20/22, Lancairs, DA-40/42, C172/182, with glass cockpit/GPS/TCAS/flight directors technically advanced aircraft, not going back to fabric covered airframes which belonged in museums.
So, now, I just read their accident/incident database, and count how many SR20/22, Lancairs, DA40/42 went for extra curricular runway grass sightseeing trips during the week, and the numbers just speak for themselves. I guess their EFIS and GPS need some tweeking so that the grass is better marked.
We need a true return to the basics of "stick and rudder", we need a revolution; unfortunately I couldn't get the FAA onboard when I was just the measly Chief pilot of a little flight training department. What could I have possibly known about aviation anyways, I didn't have a type rating, I had never flown on a real airplane, just those week-end toys that only kill four at a time.

I was right. You give good subtle.

I could not agree more with your assessment. Basic flight training should not include EFIS, GPS or any magic stuff until maybe the tail end of the instruction. If I had my way I'd make the PP folks do their cross countries using nothing but a map, pilotage and dead reckoning. That's how I did it with my students some 33 years ago. I'd also require spin training. My first experience with a spin was an inadvertent entry while practicing stalls in the practice area. After getting my heart rate under control, landing and changing my drawers I found my flight instructor, a wonderful woman named Ann Piggott. Ann smiled her sweet little smile and said, "Do you have the time to go back up so that I can show you what you did to yourself and how not to do it again?" We went flying and she spun me for an hour in both directions. It was probably the single best day of flying education that I have ever had.

I do disagree with one thing that you said and I think that you'll understand why. Any airplane, including a transport category airplane, is a rich training ground. I feel comfortable stating that I'm a fairly experienced, probably above average pilot. As a pilot I learn things every time I fly. As a captain it's my job to train the folks that I fly with in order to prepare them to some day move into my seat. I relish that opportunity since I love to teach. I'm one of the luckiest people on the face of the earth. I haven't had an honest job in almost 30 years.

We are not in a disagreement, quite the contrary. What I meant is that a transport catgory aircraft is not the place were you need to figure out what a flare is, or how to use rudder/ailerons to stay on a centerline. I'd like for transport category airplanes to be the university, and the single engine piston bangers your kindergarden, as they should be. But some governments seem to think that you can enter university without knowing the first thing about grammar or knowing your multiplication tables, and go for quantum physic classes, or Saint Augustin philosophy studies. I don't claim to know it all, and as Gen. Mc Arthur once said: " a good leader is one that knows how to follow first"; hence, I am a student in your aircraft, but I don't think we'll have to worry about teaching me the old tricks, just the new ones.
Did you subtle that?

Harm –

It would seem that you and Ranger are singing the same song … and I’d lobby for humming along on the chorus! You hit a nerve when you mentioned “FITS.” I happen to know (or knew) a couple of the folks you referenced (no comment) but I’d jump on the bandwagon with both feet and a big horn for an opportunity to throw tomatoes at the project known as “FITS.” For those of you who don’t have any idea about what this program is, here is quote from an FAA website:

In partnership with industry and academia, the FAA/Industry Training Standards (FITS) program creates scenario-based, learner-focused training materials that encourage practical application of knowledge and skills. The goal is to help pilots of technically-advanced aircraft (TAAs) -- which have more automation and often greater performance capability -- develop the risk management skills and in-depth systems knowledge needed to safely operate and maximize the capability of these aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS).

First of all let me clarify, I don’t disagree with what is said in the above paragraph – primarily because it says the goal is to “help pilots of technically-advanced aircraft - which have more automation and often greater performance capability - develop the risk management skills and in-depth systems knowledge needed to safely operate and maximize the capability of these aircraft in the NAS.” Who could argue with that? However, an innocent reading of this description would have one presume that the goal is (or was?) to take reasonably proficient pilots and provide them with the education and training necessary to “safely operate and maximize the capability of technically advanced aircraft.” Again, no problem from my perspective. Apparently (and unfortunately), what has happened is that this program has been adapted to basic pilot training – using some of these “technically advanced aircraft” as the basic training platform – depending quite heavily on the use of a lot of “simulation” (and I use the word “simulation” in lieu of some of the other words I could use to describe the equipment) in substitution for the aircraft to complete that training. On top of that, the student is taught what to do, how to do it, when to do it, in order to be able to pass the test – not necessarily how to fly an aircraft.

I could go off the deep end here and say that the FAA really didn’t need to get into (read that as “really should NOT have created a mechanism to allow/encourage”) the business of “enabling” the industry to do what I just described. But, nonetheless, they did so by accepting these “simulation” devices as viable substitutes for actual airplane time required by Part 61 – that substitution took time away from “learning-how-to-fly-an-airplane” and gave it to “learning-the-systems-operations-on-a-technically-advanced-aircraft.” Excuse me, but that’s not a one-for-one exchange in my book. There are those who would argue with me saying that the pilot ultimately passed his/her flight test for the PPL, so that proves I am wrong. I would say that if the lesson plans are written so that the pilot can pass the PPL test, then it is the lesson plans that are at fault (why? because they should teach the student how to fly); however, it’s NOT the lesson plans that are at fault. I would wager that instructors do not individually write these lesson plans. I can’t prove it, but it would be easier for me to believe these lesson plans are company lesson plans, written by the company that bought and uses these simulation devices to grind students through the mill more quickly and more cheaply than the business further down the ramp in that is in direct competition for student pilots. If you were first learning to fly, had been bitten by the bug, and were in the market for learning to fly, I would think you’d look for an FBO that would promise a PPL more cheaply and more quickly. Certainly, the FAA wouldn’t issue a license to anyone unless they were really qualified … right? Sure. How often do you think FAA Inspectors are out giving PPL tests in an airplane these days?

I should also clarify that I am not at all against the proper (and significant) use of flight simulation devices – in fact, I believe quite strongly in good simulation. However, I am also a huge believer in limiting the use of simulation equipment to what that equipment has been designed and built to do and is used as part of an overall training plan that incorporates the simulation properly into a course of study, practice, rehearsal, and demonstration that will achieve the desired goals. Just because something closely approximates something else doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good simulation. Otherwise, playing ping-pong would be considered a good “simulation” for playing tennis. Sure, ping-pong uses the same rules; the “court” is laid out the same way; the paddle/racquet can be used to strike the ball similarly, and once struck, the ball responds in a similar fashion. But, in my opinion, that is where the similarity ends; and if anyone thinks that playing ping-pong is a good tool for learning and practicing tennis … good luck.

Bollocks is the word you were loking for?

The FITS equivalent being in full fledge in JAAland, let's learn from the JAR mistake and keep it out of FAAland.

Other appropriate words might include “junk,” “garbage,” “twiddle,” “scam,” “games,” and I could go on, but my fingers would get tired…

Oh, I wish it could be so ... unfortunately, the pesky varmint (known as FITS) has already escaped into the population. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam is preoccupied with taking care of the events in “multi-engine-jet-passenger-operations” land and isn’t probably going to be terribly motivated to recapture said varmint and detoxify those the varmint has bitten!

Was this post about flapless takeoffs ? Strange how it became the ingredients for minestrone...?

Well … it was … and IS about aircraft performance and how, sometimes, some people “forget” what they know and “forget” to run the appropriate checklists – even if it is only to themselves.

foxbat started the thread by noting that taking off without flaps or slats extended appeared, at least to him, to not be an uncommon practice. Well, that directly depends on the aircraft type, the operation being conducted, and the circumstances at the given time. Sometimes its not easily determined what, if any, flap configuration an aircraft may have when just watching a takeoff from some distance away. Did that aircraft have flaps extended? Unless you know the nuances of each aircraft, answering that question for any given takeoff is probably not an easy conclusion to reach. In many aircraft today, the first increment or two of flaps may merely move the flaps “aft,” as opposed to “down” – increasing the wing area – and, by increasing that area, actually increase the camber of the wing surface without necessarily lowering large panels of wing area into what used to be the slip-stream. This kind of flap extension is very hard to see unless you really know for what it is you’re looking.

Also, I can understand PM’s preference to not immediately accuse the pilots when something happens like what happened in Madrid recently. However, as observers, we all have to recognize that every single takeoff is, without exception, THE most important event taking place at that time, for that crew. There are no exceptions. The thing that bothers me about what happened in Madrid is that the warning device that failed simply cannot be depended upon to save your “bacon.” Yes, I know its purpose is to advise the crew when they “screw up” and not extend the flaps … when you advance the throttles, the horn will sound and let you know that the flaps are not set properly for takeoff.

In the Madrid case, the flaps were not extended. I don’t know the particular aircraft, but I doubt that the pilot can select a flap position with a control in the cockpit, and not get some indication in the cockpit regarding the position of the flaps. I also know of very few pilots that, regardless of what checklists were or were not completed just prior to or just after taxiing onto the active runway, will not check at least “flaps, speed brakes, and trim” as the power is advanced for takeoff … and I’m not merely describing what the pilot says to himself – I’m saying the pilot will physically look at the flap lever and the gage (to see that they match and are in the right position), physically look at the speed brake lever (if the aircraft is equipped with speed brakes/ground spoilers), and physically look at the trim indicator. Any one of these not in the right position could make that takeoff at least a “thriller,” and maybe memorable as well … memorable for others, that is. Checking these few things is a habit pattern that a pilot cannot develop too early in his (her) career. In fact a similar check should be done just prior to landing as well (no lower than about 150 feet AGL in small aircraft and 300 to 500 feet AGL in large aircraft) … this would include at least “gear, flaps, and spoilers” – again, physically looking at the controls and indicators for each.

Both pilots in the Madrid accident apparently failed to make that “physical/visual check” just prior to or during throttle advancement on their ill-fated takeoff. Had one of them noticed that the flap handle was in the wrong position or noticed that the flap indicator wasn’t in agreement with the flap handle, they’d still be arguing and pointing fingers at each other about who forgot to do what and when …

Please, don’t depend on warning systems to keep you out of trouble. Don’t get me wrong – having those warning systems is just fine … but you are much better off in not putting your life into the hands of those who manufacture, install, and maintain systems that will only tell you when you’ve made an error. YOU are the best safety equipment in that cockpit – and YOU had better not forget it.

Ah! Sorry, my comments were silly (again) and after having read ALL the posts properly - I get the gist apologies to all.