Danny I think you are overdoing it a bit.
I have, as “none A 340 driver”, highlighted some factors that have an influence on every approach and have put some numbers “cultural Boeing values” on them. If these values combine adversely then; “as a crew” you are in trouble.
I stated that the combination of:
1. The increased speed due to the high density altitude would be an important factor, the value of which can be read straight from the instruments. I estimated it to be around 38 kts.
Using a rule of thumb, that is fairly accurate above FL 100 and well within compressibility.
The error seemed to be around 10 kts due to the drop-off in compressibility error below FL 100 and I adjusted my rule of thumb of:
TAS = IAS + FL/2 + ∆ISA/2 FL/2 in TAS = CAS (IAS) + FL/4 + ∆ISA/2 a useful value to have in mind at TOD or before starting an approach.
2. I made an estimation of 25 kts increase in V ref between T/O Flaps and Landing Flaps with Vref = 1.3 Vs.
25 kts is a very conservative value indeed, since values up to 40 kts are very common.
3. An estimate of the max tire speed of 195 Kts a fair value.
The result was that some A 340 drivers finally came up with some facts from the QRH.
1. ∆ TAS-IAS = 23 kts (Error of 15kts)
2. Increment of only 10 kts between T/O flaps and Landing Flaps (Error of 15 kts)
3. Vref of around 1.2 Vs iso 1.3 Vs a margin of 10 kt (Error of 10 kts)
4. Max tire speed of 205 kts iso 195 kts (Error of 10 kts)
A difference of 50 kts between Airbus technology and my “Boeing cultural” numbers, and a difference of about 32 kts in actual approach speeds.
I have no problem with the fact that, using the Airbus data this error margin came forward.
There have been many discussions on this forum regarding Airbus and Boeing technology. This incident and the numbers discussed highlight some of these differences.
You may argue that my comments are hindsight but I have to disagree with that statement. I referred to some factors that are relevant, not only to this approach but to any approach, one can hardly argue this to be hindsight. I have also suggested a CRM model that may show useful in managing non-normals, not out of hidsight but amodel that has proved it's value for many years.
As far as EK is concerned, I refer to the tread regarding the dismissal of their head of operations and the fact that you removed one of the posters “FUBAAR” from this forum and believe you know why you did so.