ndu_chucks:

I know too much about our people to believe what we are told, hook, line, and sinker. The first thing which should have been established is whether or not the aircraft was airworthy. Do you know why we have not yet been shown any evidence of the aircraft's airworthiness? Its because the evidence does not exist.

This AIB report is designed for people like you to reach the conclusions which you are reaching, so their mission is accomplished. I refuse to be gullible enough to fall for their explanation so soon.If you have any evidence that the aircraft did not have mechanical issues which made both takeoff and the abortion of the takeoff impossible, lets hear it.

Nwanne m, this unfortunate mishap has become politicized to the extent that one must shine his eyes well well. The easiest thing to do is to lie against dead pilots. These people are shameless, in my view.

sandee575: @manny4life
1. Radar couldn't have known the rotation speed. Neither would the "propeller testing". Perhaps the FDR
Do you know the rotation speed and what guideline?
2. Even if your FO doesn't call rotate, do you abort take off? No you don't.
3. Take off warning should have been evaluated and if found not to be a nuisance warning, the take off should have been aborted.
4. The Captain was likely to be "frozen" during the take off roll, rendering his judgements very poor.
5. Same as number 4
6. Same as number 4
The FO should have taken over controls from the Captain and aborted the flight. That's the teaching of Crew Resource Management.
The Captain was obviously incapacitated for some reason. However, it is common for FOs not to want to ruffle the feathers of their
Captains due the seniority ranking and authority gradient.

The standard ‘eighty knots’ call was made by the First Officer. The first evidence that the crew indicated that there was a problem with the take-off roll was immediately following the‘eighty knots’ call. The First Officer asked if the take-off should be aborted approximately 12 seconds after the‘eighty knots’ callout. Our investigation team estimates the airspeed to be approximately 95 knots. Airspeed was one of the parameters that,while working in the cockpit, appeared not to be working on the Flight Data Recorder. We were able to estimate the speed based on the radar data that we synchronized to the FDR and CVR but it is very approximate because of this. In response to the First Officer’s question to abort, the Captain indicated that they should continue and they continued the take-off roll. The crew did not make a ‘V1’ call or a Vr’ call. V1 is the speed at which a decision to abort or continue a take-off is made. Vr is the speed at which it is planned to rotate the aircraft. Normally the non-flying pilot calls both theV1 and the Vr speeds. When Vr is called the flying pilot pulls back on the control column and the aircraft is rotated(pitched up) to climb away from the runway. During the rotation, the First Officer stated‘gently’, which we believe reflects concern that the aircraft is not performing normally and therefore needs to be rotated very gently so as not to aerodynamically stall the aircraft.

sandee575:

The mistrust for our government is understood. Accident investigations are difficult to falsify because they go through many
hands. The country of manufacture Brazil will have their representatives, so will the aircraft manufacturers Embraer, the ICAO
officials are also interested, the Pilots Association are represented, the Airline officials must monitor, Insurance companies are
watching, the manufacturer of the testing equipment guard their products integrity jealously etc.

ndu_chucks:

I know too much about our people to believe what we are told, hook, line, and sinker. The first thing which should have been established is whether or not the aircraft was airworthy. Do you know why we have not yet been shown any evidence of the aircraft's airworthiness? Its because the evidence does not exist.

This AIB report is designed for people like you to reach the conclusions which you are reaching, so their mission is accomplished. I refuse to be gullible enough to fall for their explanation so soon.If you have any evidence that the aircraft did not have mechanical issues which made both takeoff and the abortion of the takeoff impossible, lets hear it.

Nwanne m, this unfortunate mishap has become politicized to the extent that one must shine his eyes well well. The easiest thing to do is to lie against dead pilots. These people are shameless, in my view.

ndu_chucks:

^^^ A sensible post.

it is way too premature to reach the conclusion that this mishap was primarily due to pilot error as some people are doing.

manny4life:

The pilot not extending flaps wasn't the cause, at least I will believe, what I'm saying is that flaps does help @ lower speeds, so if you would rotate at 135kts using 8degs flaps, without flaps, it has to be about 160kts.

Look, bottom line is that the pilot DID NOT have enough power to generate lift...PERIOD. Heck his FO never called out Vr, so why did he rotate when he didn't hear the call out speed? According to the same report, they could gather that he rotated at about 95kts which falls below the guidelines for Vr at 125ktas. So yes, when he rotated, there wasn't enough lift to hold the aircraft, he STALLED.

Again, flaps has nothing to do with takeoff, flaps ONLY helps increasing lift @ slower speed (before/during takeoff roll), that is what your taught in flight school.

sandee575:

The mistrust for our government is understood. Accident investigations are difficult to falsify because they go through many
hands. The country of manufacture Brazil will have their representatives, so will the aircraft manufacturers Embraer, the ICAO
officials are also interested, the Pilots Association are represented, the Airline officials must monitor, Insurance companies are
watching, the manufacturer of the testing equipment guard their products integrity jealously etc.

idlaw2k3: We will manage it...... That was just what the pilot was thinking, after all the flight is less than 45mins.

That is the attitude of Nigerians in general.

We can manage anything in this country,

rickety cars? no problem, we import them and manage it!,

unsafe boats we get on them and manage it,

even bad Governments officials who are supposed enforce laws meant to protect the public
we manage them.
After all it did not start today.

sandee575:

You are contradicting issues. Flaps have much to do with take off. Yes, they help to increase lift at low speed. That is the lift required for lift off.
You don't have an infinite runway length so you need to use the flaps to get off the ground early enough. Your take off speed becomes a factor of the all up weight of the aircraft at the time, the ambient temperature, the field altitude and the surface wind direction and speed.

ndu_chucks:

I think we all agree that not engaging the flap in of itself is not enough to cause a crash, all other things being equal. We are told that the crew decided not to use the flap during takeoff. It seems to me as if the real cause of the crash is the following as noted in the AIB report:

“Approximately three seconds after ‘power is set’ call, the First Officer noted that the aircraft was moving slowly."

I submit that the aircraft was moving slowly and could not attain enough lift for successful takeoff. Additionally, the condition of the aircraft made abortion impossible. The responsible parties in my mind, are those responsible for air safety.

If you can show us that this aircraft would have successfully taken of if the pilot had used the flap, then I'm all ears.

BTW: The protocol you posted up there is applicable when flap is used. Using flap for takeoff is not mandatory in this case, else AIB would have screamed pilot irresponsibility right away!

sandee575:

Perhaps the airplane was certified for take off without flaps especially at high take off weights/speeds, I wouldn't know. You are right about that likelihood that AIB wouldn't have spared the Captain with a precise indictment. But come to think of it, that aircraft, being a propeller driven one ought to have done some "power checks" at the holding point prior to lining up on the runway for take off.
That is the procedure designed to warn the pilots of any potential power problems during the take off.
However the engine instruments in the panel should also have indicated low torque at the commencement of the take off roll.
May the souls of the departed rest in peace.

manny4life:

Not really. The reason why I said they don't have anything to do with it takeoff because it's optional, granted that it's incorporated into some airline SOP's, and everything you said is VERY CORRECT, depending on each scenarios, it's optional. That is why we're waiting on the SOP for Associated Airlines to determine if it was incorporated in it or not.

anyaekekehinde:

wait ooo, my sister, all the previous plane mishap that has happend in nigeria, were all the people or organisations you mentioned not there when they were analysing their respective black boxes, because we dont normaly hear anything about black box report ooo, how come about this one now. Or have we just suddenly changed to do things right, infact this is the quickest black box information recovery in the history of nigeria and is coming from Stella oduah's instituted AIB... My sister you dont know nigerians

sandee575:

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are designed by airlines to create a uniform operating environment for their crew. SOPs cannot take the place of the Aircraft Operations Manual (AOM) where the aircraft manufacturer states how the aircraft is meant to be operated and its limitations. Any departure from the AOM or Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) is to err on the safer margin.

manny4life:

1. Like I stated, no be me talk am... Look at the post below



2. Well wouldn't that be a distraction to your protocol? So it still boils down to pilot error because he ended up rotating at a WRONG SPEED. Reason why you see the other pilot calls out the speed.

3. The warning that came on was the take off flaps setting" indicating that flaps was in wrong position

4/5/6 === > oh well

I believe there was some sought of breakdown in communication between both, however, some airlines forbid the FO to take over an aircraft particularly where the Captain is the one flying. They would ONLY do such if the Captain is incapacitated...

manny4life:

Yes, the AOM is totally different from the SOP's, more than likely, the SOP's was adopted from the AOM, however, the AOM does have optional specifications. In some cases, some AOM's usually say " NOT TO BE ADOPTED FOR REAL WORD USE FOR FLIGHT PLANNING", so airline and aviation experts usually come up with their own standards which in reality may or may not be exact as AOM. For instance, takeoff speeds may differ, fuel consumption or saving may differ, etc. it doesn't mean "erring on safe margin".

sandee575:

No airline will forbid the FO from taking over controls from the Captain if his situational awareness is in doubt. Incapacitation is a good example.
There are others. The Captain will do the thanking after and passenger lives saved.

sandee575:

Is manny4life a pilot??
Or a google expert

tayo4ng: If it were to be in America the Aviation minister ought to have voluntarily resign by now.

gothrones:

If it wasn't an act of God, then how did it happen? Don't you religious folks believe that nothing can happen without the consent of God?

Think about the ramifications of your statement. Suppose this wasn't an act of God. Then that means that an event that God did not approve of happened on its own. Wouldn't that call into question the omniscience of God?

manny4life:

I actually have my license to fly...

I am not a Google expert, heck if I had money, I want to complete all my ratings and be ready to go commercial.

Jakumo:

Ha ha ha Orlando, you's da man. Let me explain. Unlike in the pickup truck that you board to and from your marijuana farm, aircraft pilots sit in a small room called a flight deck, which is separated from the passenger cabin by a closed door. Unless the pilots were engaged in a full contact fist fight, it is unlikely that any passenger would be able to hear what is being said behind that closed cockpit door, ESPECIALLY with the phucking engines spooling up.

Are you seriously asking what I think you are, or is this a joke ?

sandee575:

Would that be a PPL? Are you in Nigeria? You like to fly helicopters?

donphilopus: why blaming him na?
Do you know whether he was coming back from suspension?
He'll be eager to pilot a plane after a year of suspension na

manny4life:

Exactly, that would be the rule of thumb, but how does a FO know his Captain is incapacitated and actually aware of his environ? Seniority plays a role in the cockpit.. You heard about the UPS FLIGHT that crashed in Dubai I believe, it was the overriding decision of the tired Captain that led to their demise. How about Colgan 3407? The FO knew what was going on but couldn't do much because his captain had the controls, though fatigued played its role, FO couldn't do much.