What happened
During the takeoff phase, the aircraft's rotation was slower than required, leading the captain to focus heavily on monitoring the pitch attitude. During this maneuver, the pilot monitoring announced "pitch rate" at a time when a "positive rate" announcement would typically be expected. This verbal similarity, combined with the focus on pitch targets, meant the pilot flying was not prompted to request landing gear retraction. As a result, the landing gear remained extended.
As the flight progressed through the initial climb, the crew encountered several distractions, including abnormal radio altimeter alerts and unexpected flight director indications. When the autopilot was engaged, the aircraft began a right turn toward high terrain, necessitating manual intervention by the captain. This period of high workload and attentional tunneling caused the crew to overlook EICAS indications and increased wind noise that would have otherwise signaled the gear was still down.
Once the workload decreased and the crew noticed the extended gear, the captain attempted to rectify the situation. Driven by perceived urgency and stress, the captain initiated the retraction without confirming the action with the first officer or verifying the airspeed. This resulted in the gear being retracted at a speed 17 kt above the maximum retraction limit.
The investigation
The investigation examined the sequence of cockpit communications and the impact of flight deck workload on crew performance. Investigators analyzed how the semantically similar "pitch rate" and "positive rate" announcements may have caused interference in the crew's working memory. The investigation also looked into the technical anomalies, such as the unexpected flight management system command and the radio altimeter alerts, which contributed to the crew's narrowed focus on lateral tracking rather than configuration monitoring.