If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

 Actions

BOEING 737-400

From SKYbrary Wiki

B734
Aircraft
Name 737-400
Manufacturer BOEING
Body Narrow
Wing Fixed Wing
Position Low wing
Tail Regular tail, mid set
WTC Medium
APC C
Type code L2J
Aerodrome Reference Code 4C
RFF Category 6
Engine Jet
Engine count Multi
Position Underwing mounted
Landing gear Tricycle retractable
Mass group 4


Manufacturered as:

BOEING 737-400


BOEING 737-400

BOEING 737-400 BOEING 737-400 3D

Description

Short to medium range airliner. In service since 1988. Similar stretched version of 737-300 introduced as replacement for the 727. The B734 is a member of the B737 family of aircraft.

For more information, see Boeing's B737 family specifications.

Technical Data

Wing span 28.9 m94.816 ft
Length 36.48 m119.685 ft
Height 11.13 m36.516 ft
Powerplant 2 x CFM56-3B2 (97.9 kN) or
2 x CFM56-3C (105 kN) turbofans.
Engine model CFM International CFM56

Performance Data

Take-Off Initial Climb
(to 5000 ft)
Initial Climb
(to FL150)
Initial Climb
(to FL240)
MACH Climb Cruise Initial Descent
(to FL240)
Descent
(to FL100)
Descent (FL100
& below)
Approach
V2 (IAS) 150 kts IAS 175 kts IAS 270 kts IAS 270 kts MACH 0.70 TAS 430 kts MACH 0.74 IAS 270 kts IAS 230 kts Vapp (IAS) 137 kts
Distance 2000 m ROC 3000 ft/min ROC 2500 ft/min ROC 2000 ft/min ROC 1000 ft/min MACH 0.745 ROD 1500 ft/min ROD 3500 ft/min MCS 210 kts Distance 1500 m
MTOW 6282062,820 kg
62.82 tonnes
kg
Ceiling FL370 ROD 1500 ft/min APC C
WTC M Range 21002,100 nm
3,889,200 m
3,889.2 km
12,759,842.529 ft
NM

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving B734

  • A320/B734, vicinity London Gatwick UK, 2012 (On 4 August 2012 an Easyjet Airbus A320 on approach to London Gatwick was given landing clearance in IMC for a runway occupied by a Boeing 737-400 waiting for take off which heard this transmission. Despite normal ground visibility and an unrestricted view of the runway, ATC failed to recognise their error and, after two unsuccessful attempts to advise them of it, the commander of the 737 instructed the A320 to go around which it did. Only upon hearing this did the controller realise what had happened.)
  • A321 / B734, Barcelona Spain, 2015 (On 25 November 2015, an Airbus A321 taxiing for departure at Barcelona was cleared across an active runway in front of an approaching Boeing 737 with landing clearance on the same runway by a Ground Controller unaware that the runway was active. On reaching the lit stop bar protecting the runway, the crew queried their clearance and were told to hold position. Noting that the event had occurred at the time of a routine twice-daily runway configuration change and two previous very similar events in 2012 and 2014, further safety recommendations on risk management of runway configuration change were made.)
  • AS32 / B734, Aberdeen UK, 2000 (For reasons that were not established, a Super Puma helicopter being air tested and in the hover at about 30 feet agl near the active runway at Aberdeen assumed that the departure clearance given by GND was a take off clearance and moved into the hover over the opposite end of the runway at the same time as a Boeing 737 was taking off. The 737 saw the helicopter ahead and made a high speed rejected take off, stopping approximately 100 metres before reaching the position of the helicopter which had by then moved off the runway still hovering.)
  • B734 / C172, vicinity Girona Spain, 2016 (On 28 September 2016, a Boeing 737-400 and a Cessna 172 both on IFR Flight Plans came into close proximity when about to turn final on the same non-precision approach at Girona from different initial joining routes. The Investigation found that two ACC sector controllers had issued conflicting approach clearances after losing situational awareness following a routine sector split due to an area ATC flow configuration change. The detection of the consequences of their error had then been hindered by a temporary area low level radar outage but helped by timely visual acquisition by both aircraft and a TCAS RA.)
  • B734 / MD81, en-route, Romford UK, 1996 (On 12 November 1996, a B737-400 descended below its assigned level in one of the holding patterns at London Heathrow in day IMC to within 100 feet vertically and between 680 and 820 metres horizontally of a MD-81 at its correct level, 1000 feet below. STCA prompted ATC to intervene and the 737 climbed back to its cleared level. Neither aircraft was fitted with TCAS 2 or saw the other visually.)
  • B734, Aberdeen UK, 2005 (Significant damage was caused to the tailplane and elevator of a Boeing 737-400 after the pavement beneath them broke up when take off thrust was applied for a standing start from the full length of the runway at Aberdeen. Although in this case neither outcome applied, the Investigation noted that control difficulties consequent upon such damage could lead to an overrun following a high speed rejected takeoff or to compromised flight path control airborne. Safety Recommendations on appropriate regulatory guidance for marking and construction of blast pads and on aircraft performance, rolling take offs and lead-on line marking were made.)
  • B734, Amsterdam Netherlands, 2010 (1) (On 6 June 2010, a Boeing 737-400 being operated by Atlas Blue, a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Air Maroc, on a passenger flight from Amsterdam to Nador, Morocco encountered a flock of geese just after becoming airborne from runway 18L in day VMC close to sunset and lost most of the thrust on the left engine following bird ingestion. A MAYDAY was declared and a minimal single engine climb out was followed by very low level visual manoeuvring not consistently in accordance with ATC radar headings before the aircraft landed back on runway 18R just over 9 minutes later.)
  • B734, Amsterdam Netherlands, 2010 (2) (On 2 October 2010 a Boeing 737-400 being operated by Turkish operator Corendon Airlines on a passenger flight from Dalaman to Amsterdam made a late touchdown on landing runway 22 at destination in normal daylight visibility conditions and failed to stop before the end of the runway. The overrun occurred at low speed and there were no injuries to the 173 occupants and only minor damage to the aircraft.)
  • B734, Barcelona Spain, 2004 (On 28 November 2004, a KLM B737-400 departed laterally from the runway on landing at Barcelona due to the effects on the nosewheel steering of a bird strike which had occured as the aircraft took off from Amsterdam.)
  • B734, Brisbane Australia, 2001 (On 18th January 2001, a Qantas Boeing 737-400 encountered a Microburst while conducting a go-around at Brisbane Australia.)
  • B734, Kabul Afghanistan, 2016 (On 10 December 2016, a Boeing 737-400 main gear leg collapsed on landing after an approach at excessive speed was followed by a prolonged float prior to touchdown on the high-altitude Kabul runway. The Investigation found that the collapse had followed a severe but very brief wheel shimmy episode in the presence of a number of factors conducive to this risk which the aircraft operator’s pilots had not been trained to avoid. It was also found that although the aircraft operator regularly undertook wet lease contract flying, their pilot training policy did not include any route or aerodrome competency training.)
  • B734, Lahore Pakistan, 2015 (On 3 November 2015, a Boeing 737-400 continued an unstabilised day approach to Lahore. When only the First Officer could see the runway at MDA, he took over from the Captain but the Captain took it back when subsequently sighting it. Finally, the First Officer took over again and landed after recognising that the aircraft was inappropriately positioned. Both main gear assemblies collapsed as the aircraft veered off the runway. The Investigation attributed the first collapse to the likely effect of excessive shimmy damper play and the second collapse to the effects of the first aggravated by leaving the runway.)
  • B734, Palembang Indonesia, 2008 (On 2 October 2008, a Boeing 737-400 being used for flight crew command upgrade line training unintentionally landed off a non precision approach at Palembang in daylight on a taxiway parallel to the landing runway. Neither pilot realised their error until the aircraft was already on the ground when they saw a barrier ahead and were able to brake hard to stop only 700 metres from touchdown. It was found that the taxiway involved had served as a temporary runway five years earlier and that previously obliterated markings from that use had become visible.)
  • B734, Sharjah UAE, 2015 (On 24 September 2015, a Boeing 737-400 cleared for a night take-off from Sharjah took off from the parallel taxiway. The controller decided that since the taxiway was sterile and the aircraft speed was unknown, the safest option was to allow the take-off to continue. The Investigation noted that the taxiway used had until a year previously been the runway, becoming a parallel taxiway only when a new runway had been opened alongside it. It was noted that the controller had "lost visual watch" on the aircraft and regained it only once the aircraft was already at speed.)
  • B734, Timbuktu Mali, 2017 (On 5 May 2017, a Boeing 737-400 made a visual approach to Timbuktu and slightly overran the end of the 2,170 metre-long runway into soft ground causing one of the engines to ingest significant quantities of damaging debris. The Investigation found that the landing had been made with a significantly greater than permitted tailwind component but that nevertheless had the maximum braking briefed been used, the unfactored landing distance required would have been well within that available. The preceding approach was found to have been comprehensively unstable throughout with no call for or intent to make a go around.)
  • B734, Yogyakarta Indonesia, 2007 (On 7 March 2007, a Boeing 737-400 being operated by Garuda landed on a scheduled passenger flight from Jakarta to Yogyakarta overran the end of the destination runway at speed in normal daylight visibility after a late and high speed landing attempt ending up 252 metres beyond the end of the runway surface in a rice paddy field. There was a severe and prolonged fire which destroyed the aircraft (see the illustration below taken from the Investigation Report) and 21 of the 140 occupants were killed, 12 seriously injured, 100 suffered minor injuries and 7 were uninjured.)
  • B734, Zurich Switzerland, 2013 (On 11 October 2013, the commander of a Boeing 737-400 taxiing on wet taxiways at night after landing at Zurich became uncertain of his position in relation to the clearance received and when he attempted to manoeuvre the aircraft off the taxiway centreline onto what was believed to be adjacent paved surface, it became bogged down in soft ground. The Investigation considered the direct cause of the taxiway excursion was not following the green centreline lights but it recommended improvements in the provision of clear and consistent taxi instructions and in taxiway designations in the area of the event.)
  • B734, en-route, Daventry UK, 1995 (On 23 February 1995, a British Midland Boeing 737-400 made an emergency landing at Luton airport UK after losing most of the oil from both engines during initial climb out from East Midlands airport UK, attributed to failures in the quality of maintenance work and procedures during routine inspections of both engines prior to the flight.)
  • B734, en-route, New South Wales Australia, 2007 (On 11 August 2007, a Qantas Boeing 737-400 on a scheduled passenger service from Perth, WA to Sydney, NSW was about three quarters of the way there in day VMC when the master caution light illuminated associated with low output pressure of both main tank fuel pumps. The flight crew then observed that the centre tank fuel pump switches on the forward overhead panel were selected to the OFF position and he immediately selected them to the ON position. The flight was completed without further event.)
  • B734, en-route, Sulawesi Indonesia, 2007 (On 1 January 2007, a B737-400 crashed into the sea off Sulawesi, Indonesia, after the crew lost control of the aircraft having become distracted by a minor technical problem.)
  • B734, en-route, east northeast of Tanegashima Japan, 2015 (On 30 June 2015, both bleed air supplies on a Boeing 737-400 at FL370 failed in quick succession resulting in the loss of all pressurisation and, after making an emergency descent to 10,000 feet QNH, the flight was continued to the planned destination, Kansai. The Investigation found that both systems failed due to malfunctioning pre-cooler control valves and that these malfunctions were due to a previously identified risk of premature deterioration in service which had been addressed by an optional but “recommended” Service Bulletin which had not been taken up by the operator of the aircraft involved.)
  • B734, vicinity East Midlands UK, 1989 (On 8 January 1989, the crew of a British Midland Boeing 737-400 lost control of their aircraft due to lack of engine thrust shortly before reaching a planned en route diversion being made after an engine malfunction and it was destroyed by terrain impact with fatal or serious injuries sustained by almost all the occupants. The crew response to the malfunction had been followed by their shutdown of the serviceable rather the malfunctioning engine. The Investigation concluded that the accident was entirely the consequence of inappropriate crew response to a non-critical loss of powerplant airworthiness.)
  • B734, vicinity Lyon France, 2010 (On 7 September 2010, a Turkish operated Boeing 737-400 flew a non precision approach at Lyon Saint-Exupéry in IMC significantly below the procedure vertical profile throughout and only made a go around when instructed to do so by ATC following an MSAW activation. The minimum recorded radio height was 250 feet at 1.4nm from the runway threshold.)
  • B738/B734, Johannesburg South Africa, 2010 (On 27 July 2010, a South African Airways Boeing 737-800 on take from Runway 21R was instructed to reject that take off when already at high speed because a Boeing 737-400 was crossing the same runway ahead. The rejected take off was successful. The Investigation found that both aircraft had been operated in accordance with clearances issued by the responsible position in TWR ATC where OJT was in progress.)