ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 293349
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information.
If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.
| Date: | Thursday 16 November 2017 |
| Time: | 09:08 LT |
| Type: |  Boeing 737-7KK (WL) BBJ |
| Owner/operator: | MyJet Asia |
| Registration: | VP-CAM |
| MSN: | 38608/3208 |
| Year of manufacture: | 2010 |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 4 |
| Aircraft damage: | Minor |
| Category: | Serious incident |
| Location: | Seletar Airport (WSSL) -
 Singapore
|
| Phase: | Take off |
| Nature: | Passenger - Non-Scheduled/charter/Air Taxi |
| Departure airport: | Singapore-Seletar Airport (XSP/WSSL) |
| Beijing-Capital International Airport (PEK/ZBAA) | |
| Investigating agency: | TSIB Singapore |
| Confidence Rating: |  Accident investigation report completed and information captured |
The Boeing 737-700 departed from Seletar Airport, Singapore for Beijing, China. It took off on runway 03 with a thrust setting which was significantly below that required for the conditions of the day. The tower controller noticed that the aircraft lifted off close to the end of the runway and climbed slowly.
The flight crew was informed by Air Traffic Control of the possibility of runway approach lights having being damaged by the aircraft. They checked the aircraft and determined that all systems were operating normally. They elected to continue their flight to Beijing. The flight continued to Beijing without further incident.
A runway inspection revealed damage to 10 approach lights at the end of runway 03.
After the aircraft had landed in Beijing, the two tyres on the left main landing gear were found damaged with cuts and gouges. There was no injury to any person.
CONCLUSION
1 The aircraft took off with a reduced thrust take-off of 90.4% as determined by the FMC using an assumed temperature of 67°C. The thrust setting was significantly below that required for the conditions of the day and the runway length available. The assumed temperature of 67°C was somehow inadvertently introduced into the FMC.
2 The flight crew could have noticed the discrepancies between the results of the OPT and FMC had they followed both the operator’s and the aircraft manufacturer’s procedures.
3 The FMC calculations of V-speeds and N1 setting did not take into account the runway length available, unlike the OPT calculations.
Accident investigation:
 |
|
Sources:
TSIB
Revision history:
| Date/time | Contributor | Updates |
|---|---|---|
| 09-Oct-2022 19:01 | harro | Added |
Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description
The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:
Quick Links:
| ASN Home | Send Correction / Feedback |
| FSF Home | Disclaimer | Copyright |
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy |
| Press / Media |
CONNECT WITH US:
©2024 Flight Safety Foundation