37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1474242 |
Time | |
Date | 201708 |
Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Environment | |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Initial Climb |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Component | |
Aircraft Component | Flap/Slat Indication |
Person 1 | |
Function | Captain Pilot Not Flying |
Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
Person 2 | |
Function | Pilot Flying First Officer |
Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
Experience | Flight Crew Type 650 |
Events | |
Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical |
Narrative:
Takeoff planned for and made from runway xx in ZZZ. First officer was the PF. Takeoff was made with a normal rotation rate at vr; and normal initial climb pitch altitude by the PF. At 'landing gear up' call; pm verified and stated 'positive rate; landing gear-up' and retracted the landing gear. Almost immediately following landing gear retraction the stall warning system stick-shaker activated; the 'why' of which took a moment to process. Pm looked at the instruments and saw the stall warning 'fence' near the aircraft symbol; airspeed in the red band; and the pitch attitude still below flight director commands.pm pushed the throttles up and called out the stick shaker and 'airspeed'. PF kept positive control of the aircraft at all times and shallowed the climb slightly and let the aircraft accelerate straight ahead. Pm noted the flaps were still set at 5 throughout the brief encounter. Aircraft was then cleaned up on profile and the climb out remained normal after that. Throughout the climb the pm and PF questioned what had happened and more importantly why; without any logical explanation.during the leg prior the crew; we applied MEL 27-4-xx for le flaps transit amber light on at flaps 5 during the previous approach into ZZZ; requiring the QRH to be run and; after landing; application of the MEL before this particular takeoff. At cruise the captain notified maintenance control and dispatch of the issue. As a further precaution; the performance weight and balance landing data was compared to dispatch; provided landing data by the pilots; to reconfirm its validity. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. After landing the captain refused the aircraft for subsequent flight due to safety concerns and lack of confidence in FMC and stall warning system interaction.no [recommendations]. Training provided worked as advertised when it was needed to handle this abnormal situation.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737 flight crew reported a stick shaker event after takeoff and gear retraction caused by a faulty leading edge sensor.
Narrative: Takeoff planned for and made from runway XX in ZZZ. FO was the PF. Takeoff was made with a normal rotation rate at Vr; and normal initial climb pitch altitude by the PF. At 'landing gear up' call; PM verified and stated 'Positive rate; landing gear-up' and retracted the landing gear. Almost immediately following landing gear retraction the Stall Warning System stick-shaker activated; the 'why' of which took a moment to process. PM looked at the instruments and saw the Stall warning 'fence' near the aircraft symbol; airspeed in the red band; and the pitch attitude still below Flight Director Commands.PM pushed the throttles up and called out the stick shaker and 'airspeed'. PF kept positive control of the aircraft at all times and shallowed the climb slightly and let the aircraft accelerate straight ahead. PM noted the flaps were still set at 5 throughout the brief encounter. Aircraft was then cleaned up on profile and the climb out remained normal after that. Throughout the climb the PM and PF questioned what had happened and more importantly why; without any logical explanation.During the leg prior the Crew; we applied MEL 27-4-XX for LE Flaps Transit amber light on at Flaps 5 during the previous approach into ZZZ; requiring the QRH to be run and; after landing; application of the MEL before this particular takeoff. At cruise the Captain notified Maintenance Control and Dispatch of the issue. As a further precaution; the performance weight and balance landing data was compared to Dispatch; provided landing data by the Pilots; to reconfirm its validity. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. After landing the Captain refused the aircraft for subsequent flight due to safety concerns and lack of confidence in FMC and Stall Warning System interaction.No [recommendations]. Training provided worked as advertised when it was needed to handle this abnormal situation.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.