Well? Any news from the AAR Meeting?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot have a kiosk on check-in that says click on the box that says YOU WILL COMPLY with the OMA - FDP starts 60 prior - while at the top of the screen it says your briefing starts in two minutes - which is 90 prior.
A prosecuting lawyer in a criminal case or plaintiffs attorney in a civil case will have very little trouble in convincing a jury that that is a culture of abuse of the regulations.
A prosecuting lawyer in a criminal case or plaintiffs attorney in a civil case will have very little trouble in convincing a jury that that is a culture of abuse of the regulations.
Might I suggest it's just as plausible that a rival attorney would have some success at pinning blame on you as an individual, as you have ticked that you will comply with OM A, then seemingly operated outside of it. Consequently, even though you know it to be wrong, you appear to be going against OM A every time you go to work. Any attorney worth their salt would rip you to pieces for that. Clearly the company are at it, but in the unfortunate event that you are held to account for your actions, it might not be as clear cut as you think.
Last edited by DuctOvht; 27th Mar 2016 at 14:57.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try.
But nope - you face disciplinary action if you dont comply with the sham & scam.
I think most juries would empathize but more importantly understand the culture of fear that is the root cause.
There is just too much evidence out there for them to deny the scam unless they lie.
Lying under oath in a federal court is a felony offense - not taken lightly.
But nope - you face disciplinary action if you dont comply with the sham & scam.
I think most juries would empathize but more importantly understand the culture of fear that is the root cause.
There is just too much evidence out there for them to deny the scam unless they lie.
Lying under oath in a federal court is a felony offense - not taken lightly.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duct--the company holds the power and failure to comply will lead to either sanctions or dismissal. The lawyer can attempt all he likes any judge/jury will be led to the fact that the pilot is powerless.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hope you're right but you never know what might happen in a court.
I don't know what else to say reading this thread from afar except I hope you manage to get an improvement in your lot. It doesn't sound pretty.
I don't know what else to say reading this thread from afar except I hope you manage to get an improvement in your lot. It doesn't sound pretty.
THR RED ACC,
I think you misunderstood what your parents meant when the said you were special.
Do a bit of research about the difference between how RAAS works and how it differs from the way the ROW/ROP that the A380 has works. Also check your Ops Man and see that there are occasions where three approaches can be flown. Then come back here and apologise to the crew you slandered.
I think you misunderstood what your parents meant when the said you were special.
Do a bit of research about the difference between how RAAS works and how it differs from the way the ROW/ROP that the A380 has works. Also check your Ops Man and see that there are occasions where three approaches can be flown. Then come back here and apologise to the crew you slandered.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MIDDLE EAST
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don
For those ignoramus amongst us, me included, would you be kind enough to give the basics on the system. i.e., can it be 'de activated' in any way? I must admit that I too was somewhat surprised given the fact that we all know the runway is suitable, even when wet with the A/C at max Ldg weight, especially with those low approach speeds. How much reliance are we now placing on the automation without standing back and taking a look at the big picture? Perhaps THAT was the point THR RED ACC was making.
As for the 3 attempts, would have to take a look at ALL the facts before judging that but it does seem strange when the third should be assured. What made them think that the 3rd approach would be any different and how much support did they get from our engineers or tech pilot? Maybe it was Ops that took the decision. Either way, your technical input would be appreciated!
Harry
For those ignoramus amongst us, me included, would you be kind enough to give the basics on the system. i.e., can it be 'de activated' in any way? I must admit that I too was somewhat surprised given the fact that we all know the runway is suitable, even when wet with the A/C at max Ldg weight, especially with those low approach speeds. How much reliance are we now placing on the automation without standing back and taking a look at the big picture? Perhaps THAT was the point THR RED ACC was making.
As for the 3 attempts, would have to take a look at ALL the facts before judging that but it does seem strange when the third should be assured. What made them think that the 3rd approach would be any different and how much support did they get from our engineers or tech pilot? Maybe it was Ops that took the decision. Either way, your technical input would be appreciated!
Harry
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Not sure any more
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry, if you get a runway too short message then a go around is mandatory. Knowing our unforgiving management, if you were to land off it anyway (using big picture stuff) and something went wrong then..... well you can guess the rest!
Hello Harold. The ROW (Runway overrun warning) considers two cases when you are airborne. It looks at the ATIS information you put in the performance page of the FMC, and uses the runway info from the FMC data base, and the planned landing weight. From this it determines where you would stop on a dry runway (brakes Hi no reverse) and where you would stop on a wet runway (max avail braking and reverse). Is these stop distances are within the available length, all is good. On finals, when below 500 feet ( might be 300, can't remember) it uses the actual weather to recalc the distances. On shortish runways and high landing weights tail wind could trigger a " if wet runway too short" or if a greater tailwind in limiting conditions, "runway too short" warning (the dry stop line is beyond the runway).
I haven't checked, but when full, and with some fuel for weather/holding etc, landing weight will be in the 380 to 390t region.
If it's chucking down pick handles, as was suggested in another thread, calcs could have been done for a contaminated runway (3mm right?) so any tailwind would have a large effect.
I haven't checked, but when full, and with some fuel for weather/holding etc, landing weight will be in the 380 to 390t region.
If it's chucking down pick handles, as was suggested in another thread, calcs could have been done for a contaminated runway (3mm right?) so any tailwind would have a large effect.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MIDDLE EAST
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Don. I would not be surprised though if there's a FCI or some SOP change to come out of this event, maybe even a software change from our French cousins.
It just seems absolutely ridiculous, a farce almost, that this 'super' plane with over 500 pax diverted from a runway 10,000 ft in length that wasn't even contaminated. If there was a significant tail wind, change bloody runways! Is the performance REALLY that limiting on this big bird? Or, have we reached a stage in our careers where we know, hand on heart, that the aircraft will do it but the computer is saying no and our VPNC is saying no. He's saying no because he does not have the technical knowledge and, as Kipper has eluded too, operates in a non Just culture with little or no support when the chips are down.
Which is why I guess we're still reminded on CRM courses of Airmanship, suspicion and resilience. How much of those traits were evident in this event will become clear when the investigation is complete.....but I for one am not holding my breath.
Harry
It just seems absolutely ridiculous, a farce almost, that this 'super' plane with over 500 pax diverted from a runway 10,000 ft in length that wasn't even contaminated. If there was a significant tail wind, change bloody runways! Is the performance REALLY that limiting on this big bird? Or, have we reached a stage in our careers where we know, hand on heart, that the aircraft will do it but the computer is saying no and our VPNC is saying no. He's saying no because he does not have the technical knowledge and, as Kipper has eluded too, operates in a non Just culture with little or no support when the chips are down.
Which is why I guess we're still reminded on CRM courses of Airmanship, suspicion and resilience. How much of those traits were evident in this event will become clear when the investigation is complete.....but I for one am not holding my breath.
Harry
Last edited by harry the cod; 28th Mar 2016 at 01:17. Reason: Removal of an individual's initials.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53° 32′ 9.19″ N, 9° 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THR RED ACC,
I think you misunderstood what your parents meant when the said you were special.
Do a bit of research about the difference between how RAAS works and how it differs from the way the ROW/ROP that the A380 has works. Also check your Ops Man and see that there are occasions where three approaches can be flown. Then come back here and apologise to the crew you slandered.
I think you misunderstood what your parents meant when the said you were special.
Do a bit of research about the difference between how RAAS works and how it differs from the way the ROW/ROP that the A380 has works. Also check your Ops Man and see that there are occasions where three approaches can be flown. Then come back here and apologise to the crew you slandered.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austria
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote by harry:
Or, have we reached a stage in our careers where we know, hand on heart, that the aircraft will do it but the computer is saying no and our VPNC is saying no. He's saying no because he does not have the technical knowledge and, as Kipper has eluded too, operates in a non Just culture with little or no support when the chips are down.
well said! totally agree! just wanted to add: waiting with a warning letter
Or, have we reached a stage in our careers where we know, hand on heart, that the aircraft will do it but the computer is saying no and our VPNC is saying no. He's saying no because he does not have the technical knowledge and, as Kipper has eluded too, operates in a non Just culture with little or no support when the chips are down.
well said! totally agree! just wanted to add: waiting with a warning letter
You know what Harry. I don't think it's that 380 crew that has the ego problem.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MIDDLE EAST
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don
You know what Don. I agree. Never said they did. It was more likely from the operational side which I did say but have removed now as it was subjective opinion and not actual facts.
Harry
You know what Don. I agree. Never said they did. It was more likely from the operational side which I did say but have removed now as it was subjective opinion and not actual facts.
Harry
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering we don't know all the facts, it's tough to arm chair this one, but if all was operationally ok I can guarantee you the boys (or girls) were sitting up there saying this is bulls*it. We all know the airplane can stop on that runway even on some of the worst english winter weather days, but, as has been said already, would you risk your provident fund to land in that situation with our management?? They bred this culture so they can foot the bill...not us.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry.
You can deactivate the ROW/ROP/BTV system. If the OANS (the airport map that appears and replaces the ND) shows the runway length to be different from the charted runway length on the approach plate by more than 35m then you should "consider" pulling the reset button on the overhead panel as part of your approach preparation for BTV can't be used. It's FCOM SOP to consider this.
The lengths should be checked by each crew before descent otherwise ROW/ROP warnings will be received on finals resulting in unnecessary GA's
Hope this helps.
You can deactivate the ROW/ROP/BTV system. If the OANS (the airport map that appears and replaces the ND) shows the runway length to be different from the charted runway length on the approach plate by more than 35m then you should "consider" pulling the reset button on the overhead panel as part of your approach preparation for BTV can't be used. It's FCOM SOP to consider this.
The lengths should be checked by each crew before descent otherwise ROW/ROP warnings will be received on finals resulting in unnecessary GA's
Hope this helps.
Last edited by Craggenmore; 28th Mar 2016 at 04:09. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the details at Aviation Herald;
Incident: Emirates A388 at Manchester on Mar 26th 2016, FMS decides runways too short
Incident: Emirates A388 at Manchester on Mar 26th 2016, FMS decides runways too short
By Simon Hradecky, created Saturday, Mar 26th 2016 22:40Z, last updated Saturday, Mar 26th 2016 23:02Z
An Emirates Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EOP performing flight EK-19 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Manchester,EN (UK), was on approach to Manchester's runway 23R (length 3048m/10,000 feet) when the crew went around from about 1300 feet MSL due to a computer warning the runway was too short for landing. The crew positioned for another approach to runway 23R but went around from 1100 feet MSL again due to the same warning about 14 minutes after the first go around. The aircraft entered a hold at 8000 feet, the crew requested runway 23L (length 3050 meters/10,007 feet) and attempted an approach to runway 23L about one hour after the first go around but went around again from about 1100 feet due to the warning runway 23L was too short too. The crew decided to divert to London Heathrow,EN (UK), climbed to FL190 and landed safely on Heathrow's runway 27L (length 3660m/12,000 feet) about 2:10 hours after the first go around.
The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in Heathrow for 2 hours, then departed again for Manchester and completed a safe landing on runway 23R on its first approach after diversion and total 4th approach to Manchester.
Metars:
EGCC 262120Z 23017KT 9999 FEW026 SCT037 07/03 Q0992 NOSIG
EGCC 262050Z 21016KT 9999 SCT025 BKN031 07/04 Q0991 NOSIG
EGCC 262020Z 21015KT 9999 -SHRA FEW018 BKN028 08/04 Q0991 NOSIG
EGCC 261950Z 20017G27KT 9999 FEW028 08/04 Q0990 TEMPO SHRA
EGCC 261920Z 20015KT 9999 FEW026 BKN031 08/05 Q0990 NOSIG
EGCC 261850Z 20013KT 9999 SCT022 SCT027 BKN033 08/05 Q0990 NOSIG
EGCC 261820Z 20013KT 9999 FEW039 07/06 Q0990 NOSIG
EGCC 261750Z 20012KT 9999 FEW028 SCT039 08/06 Q0990 NOSIG
EGCC 261720Z 21010KT 9999 -RA FEW028 SCT033 BKN039 08/07 Q0990 RERA NOSIG
EGCC 261650Z 24017G28KT 8000 RA FEW010 SCT025 BKN031 08/07 Q0989 RERA NOSIG
EGCC 261620Z 18018G28KT 3000 RA BKN018 BKN023 BKN034 12/10 Q0987 TEMPO 2000 +RA BKN014
EGCC 261550Z 17023KT 9999 SCT020 BKN025 BKN032 13/09 Q0988 TEMPO 4000 +RA BKN014
EGCC 261520Z 18022G33KT 9999 BKN025 BKN032 BKN038 14/09 Q0988 TEMPO 8000 RA BKN014
EGCC 261450Z 18021KT 9999 -RA SCT026 BKN032 14/09 Q0989 TEMPO 8000 RA BKN014
EGCC 261420Z 18022G32KT 130V200 9999 SCT023 BKN029 BKN035 14/09 Q0990 TEMPO BKN014
Incident: Emirates A388 at Manchester on Mar 26th 2016, FMS decides runways too short
Incident: Emirates A388 at Manchester on Mar 26th 2016, FMS decides runways too short
By Simon Hradecky, created Saturday, Mar 26th 2016 22:40Z, last updated Saturday, Mar 26th 2016 23:02Z
An Emirates Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EOP performing flight EK-19 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Manchester,EN (UK), was on approach to Manchester's runway 23R (length 3048m/10,000 feet) when the crew went around from about 1300 feet MSL due to a computer warning the runway was too short for landing. The crew positioned for another approach to runway 23R but went around from 1100 feet MSL again due to the same warning about 14 minutes after the first go around. The aircraft entered a hold at 8000 feet, the crew requested runway 23L (length 3050 meters/10,007 feet) and attempted an approach to runway 23L about one hour after the first go around but went around again from about 1100 feet due to the warning runway 23L was too short too. The crew decided to divert to London Heathrow,EN (UK), climbed to FL190 and landed safely on Heathrow's runway 27L (length 3660m/12,000 feet) about 2:10 hours after the first go around.
The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in Heathrow for 2 hours, then departed again for Manchester and completed a safe landing on runway 23R on its first approach after diversion and total 4th approach to Manchester.
Metars:
EGCC 262120Z 23017KT 9999 FEW026 SCT037 07/03 Q0992 NOSIG
EGCC 262050Z 21016KT 9999 SCT025 BKN031 07/04 Q0991 NOSIG
EGCC 262020Z 21015KT 9999 -SHRA FEW018 BKN028 08/04 Q0991 NOSIG
EGCC 261950Z 20017G27KT 9999 FEW028 08/04 Q0990 TEMPO SHRA
EGCC 261920Z 20015KT 9999 FEW026 BKN031 08/05 Q0990 NOSIG
EGCC 261850Z 20013KT 9999 SCT022 SCT027 BKN033 08/05 Q0990 NOSIG
EGCC 261820Z 20013KT 9999 FEW039 07/06 Q0990 NOSIG
EGCC 261750Z 20012KT 9999 FEW028 SCT039 08/06 Q0990 NOSIG
EGCC 261720Z 21010KT 9999 -RA FEW028 SCT033 BKN039 08/07 Q0990 RERA NOSIG
EGCC 261650Z 24017G28KT 8000 RA FEW010 SCT025 BKN031 08/07 Q0989 RERA NOSIG
EGCC 261620Z 18018G28KT 3000 RA BKN018 BKN023 BKN034 12/10 Q0987 TEMPO 2000 +RA BKN014
EGCC 261550Z 17023KT 9999 SCT020 BKN025 BKN032 13/09 Q0988 TEMPO 4000 +RA BKN014
EGCC 261520Z 18022G33KT 9999 BKN025 BKN032 BKN038 14/09 Q0988 TEMPO 8000 RA BKN014
EGCC 261450Z 18021KT 9999 -RA SCT026 BKN032 14/09 Q0989 TEMPO 8000 RA BKN014
EGCC 261420Z 18022G32KT 130V200 9999 SCT023 BKN029 BKN035 14/09 Q0990 TEMPO BKN014
Last edited by motojet; 28th Mar 2016 at 04:40. Reason: Grammer
No and no. Fellas we talk about no respect from the muppets but yet will eat our own on an anonymous forum. If you have issues, ring the dudes and discuss it.