Sackings at Emirates

[BYMONEK]

Confirmation i'm afraid.Both pilots involved in the overrun incident at J'burg have been sacked. Training manager has stepped down and will resume duties as training Capt.( Boss's son in law i gather).Nice to know that the guys out there have the full support of their managers and the company doesn't believe in using scapegoats.I think i'll stick to my 40% tax or should i say41%( having BALPA)has never felt so good.Shame on you Emirates :(

[bijave]

Firing people who made a mistake is the best way of having more mistakes made by anihilating the trust and feedback systems.

[BEagle]

With recent atrocities in Saudi in mind, perhaps it would be an idea to change the title of this thread.....

Changed, agree.... Squid

[BYMONEK]

Thanks BEagle.......didn't give it a second thought i'm afraid.Apologies if anyone may have been offended.Sad world we live in when even a turn of phrase can take on a whole new meaning.I don't know what the level of trust was like between managers and pilots but i bet this sacking won't have helped.The Company is expanding so fast they are trying to run before they can walk and the top level managment must be putting huge pressure on training dept's and pilots to deliver.(hence a lot of
the trainers leaving which only compounds the problem!) People must be too afraid to say to the top guys....no,this isn't safe,let's slow down and get it right. Any guys out there who feel this may be the case or were the two pilots involved grossly negligent?

[View From The Ground]

Does anyone know what justification was used, from what I have read on this site it was a loadsheet error, by someone else? dispatcher? that the pilot's could not have known about. If this is the case the sack is a horrendous way of treating these people. Even if they were at fault, has there been a finding within the investigation that the pilots were wilfully negligent, or that there was a fundamental flaw with the way they operated. If not surely training not sacking is the answer.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

View From The Ground.
I am sorry to say you have not read this post with all its pages very well. The one thing that can be said with certainty, is that it was not a load sheet or trim error.
I am sorry to point out to you, it is 99% certain that it was Pilot error. Whether it was due to training or not we will have to wait and see.

[View From The Ground]

Apologies I was basing my posting on the early pages of that thread, and I had not read it all in detail. If it is proved to be pilot error then depending on the nature of the error training may be more appropriate than sacking, for all kinds of reasons, including maintaining an open reporting culture.

[SeldomFixit]

If this was the one where pitch angle was set by using the sidestick position indication as a target then I feel the blame has come to rest squarely where it ought to have. Forget the Masonic wails and stop denegrating "professional" by accepting consequence for action.

[Ally Minium]

According to the article in flight, the investigation found that the crew had used non-standard handling techniques which lead to under-rotation.

They made a mistake but maybe a period of retraining (for the whole fleet), emphasising correct techniques, would have been more appropriate.

[BYMONEK]

I agree that if the guys had made intentional violation of sop's then they must face the consequence,however,no guy is going to intentionally take out 150m of overrun and lighting for fun!I gather that it was the skippers first flight on the A340-300,which is a completely diff. beast to the-500 series.Was all this pointed out during his training and further more,why have both guys been sacked?

[Engineer]

Ally Minium

But what a mistake to make

If deviation from SOP's ends up with an unforeseen problem due to an error of judgement. The consequences of that action should be accepted.

[Cap 56]

The problem with EK is that those pilots that see the problems are AFRAID to speak up and those that do speak up get SACKED or ABUSED in any way possible.

Finally the box of pandora will be opened!

[loungelizard]

Yes, well, when very senior training Capt's train the guys to "set the stick indication on 9 degrees" have those people also lost their jobs. "Well the FCOM s state 11 deg PITCH they say in response". "Oh no capt, the "preferred method" is ???????"

What a bloody disgrace. To the two brothers involved, the majority of us feel ashamed at your treatment and only hope that a visit to the international courts and worldwide publicity will expose that airline for what it is.

BYMONEK ...... truer words have never been said.

[Engineer]

If there is a problem at EK then it can not be that serious or peoples feet would be be doing the talking.

Or is the allure of the big bucks and the life style sufficient to endure what is supposedly dished out.

[Shake]

So, for those which contributed to over 20+ pages of b~~~**** concerned with load sheets and trim hypothosis...have a deep thought before resuming your pious BS as fact.

Wrong rotation technique proliferated by the EK training department on one variant too many almost cost the lives of over 300 people.

F/O I believe considered resignation before being fired and now has excellent grounds for unfair dismissal... Cpt not sure but is pursuing similar legal action... all will probably be settled out of court to prevent public emabarrasment to 'award winning' EK management.

FA back up from an impotent trg regime content with climbing the tree vacated by far more qualified personnel than they could ever hope to be...

Anyone remember human factors before it was hijacked by CRM sound bites?

Oh, and sad Engineer... $ ?...FO!

[spy]

Loungelizard

I seem to be quoting it a lot at the moment but the recommendation you describe is not an Emirates recommendation but one published in the Airbus Instructor Support Manual!

Mine is for the A330 and A320 so the figures will vary no doubt for the A340.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Perform a prompt input on the side stick at VR. Typically put the stick cross symbol on the PFD initially to around 7.5 to 10 degrees. This is NOT a parameter to monitor as such, but merely an indication of the amount of stick input required.

The purpose of the prompt input is to overcome the large inertia of the aircraft and initiate an adequate and continuous rotation.

Avoid being aggressive on the stick, and once rotation rate is established, avoid further aft stick inputs, especially when pitch attitude has increased, so as to avoid tail strikes.

Rotate initially to target pitch of 12.5 degrees; once airborne, adjust the pitch to follow the FD pitch bar orders (SRS mode)."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I respectfully suggest before you make such broad statements about the Emirates training department you first address your comments to the Airbus flight test and training departments who have made these recommendations, I am sure they will be interested in your views

And no I do not work for Emirates. I have no idea why this incident happened except clearly the aircraft did not get airborne before the end of the runway. Are there any official reports about yet?

[Jack The Lad]

Spy

I don't intend to trawl through the umpteen pages here on PPRuNE, but I do recall figures of 9 degrees being quoted by some here as the initial target pitch attitude....9 degrees is way off 12.5 degrees and will invariably result in a significantly different profile and performance. At the time, I thought 9 degrees was a very shallow pitch attitude for any jet, regardless of weight, but didn't respond because I am not familiar with that specific series of Airbus.

Way back, we were always taught to go for a target pitch attitude, depending on weight and then adjust as necessary once airborne (airborne as opposed to rotation). Even on a mini jet like a B737 the pitch can vary between 12 degrees and 17.5 degrees, depending on weight, but the technique was always the same, target 15 degrees and then adjust; select the pitch and let the flight director settle down, then follow its direction. Everyone knows on the airbus that the cross represents something different on the ground; The cross is there to check you have full deflection of your flight control surfaces on the ground.

Notwithstanding the above, technique is vitally important. Pilots can only follow what they have been taught and maybe there is something lacking in either the manufacturer's published technique or that of the airline's training techniques. Remember back to the early incidents on the Airbus (A320) which were caused by ignorance of the flight crew of the various modes of flight (India)? After that, pilots were alerted to the 'big No NO's, such as the NFP turning his F/D off and the PF following orders on his! Lots of pilots learned by the misfortune of those that didn't have the benefit of that forewarning. The engineers who designed the systems could not understand why the pilots didn't appreciate these things!

Airbus technology is brilliant, but it can and will bite you in the ass, unless you are very lucky or very conversant with the technology. It's a big learning curve.

Sad to hear the crew lost their jobs. It would have been more appropriate to suspend them pending the results of the official investigation into the circumstances and the airline's training department's taught techniques.

EK used to be one of my heros, but I'm dissapointed by it's 'knee jerk' reaction to this incident. Maybe they thought this would 'gloss over' any perceived doubt of their safety by the travelling public. Sadly, they are mistaken in that regard, because a 'whitewash' is just that...a whitewash. Sacking the crew on the day, does not necessarily solve a more deep seated problem!

[Cap 56]

Spy

Your post is lucid and has some value, if this so called “slip” by the EK training department is indeed based on an Airbus memo and would be an isolated one.

That is unfortunately not the case, as any investigation that digs a bit deeper would/have most certainly find out.

The key issue is that EK is loaded with money and exploded since 1991.

The Arabs looked for some OPS managers and have hired the worst they could find. The only excuse they possibly have is that their hands were tight on their back.

To a certain extend it's their (the arabs) own fault, since they do not accept any critism and are vulnerable to sweettalking.


Maybe you forget the incident about one year ago (also widely discussed on PPrune) that led to a dramatic change in the recruitment policy; a change initiated by no one else that HH himself.

The worst thing one can do, is to put a lot of money in incompetence as that’s about the same as pouring fuel into a fire.

[4HolerPoler]

Jack the Lad - I think you're missing the crucial issue - the wording states that the cross-hairs should be placed on 7.5 to 10 degrees. It's not the cross-hairs that should be used, it's the aircraft symbol; the pipper. Using the cross-hairs is crazy and bad technique to boot. That, IMHO, is what is vital here - Airbus has it in their literature, as posted by Spy & there is an indication that some trainers/ institutions are suggesting that the cross-hairs should be used. Try it next time in the sim - put the cross hairs on 8 to ten degrees. At sea level you might get some reaction ( certainly not 3 degrees per second) but at 5500 AMSL very little is going to happen.

4HP

[Jack The Lad]

4HP

Not mising your crucial issue at all....go reread what I said.

Attitude is attitude and the airplane will respond to whatever attitude you set it. Whether you use 'pippers' 'hairs' or whatever, to achieve that attitude doesn't really matter; the moral of the story is don't confuse the reference point!

[BYMONEK]

Jack the Lad
Very much agree with your last paragraph.Twas a kneejerk reaction if ever i saw one.Ironically,the findings are out but seem to have been 'mislaid'.HH,however,has been handing out safety awards and congratulations all round to GCAA and various other relatives for some safety awarness program that's been running in UAE.Plenty of sand in Dubai to bury those heads in.Can't lose face if you can't see it eh?:suspect:

Shake....CRM.....IS....Human Factors.Your point there being what exactly?

[fmgc]

4HP makes a very VERY valid point.

The "Maltese Cross" has nothing to do with attitude, just where the flight controls are!

[BYMONEK]

This is ,i gather,what he may have used.As the A/C rotated,Pitch indications would have increased ( DYNAMIC CHANGE) so to compensate for the apparent over rotation, actual pitch was decreased,to around 4 degrees,give or take.17sec in total from 1st stick movement to fully airborne.Yes,that's one hell of a long time and why wasn't he..sorry..THEY,looking out of the window.But.my whole point about this sorry incident is the poss lack of training they received.I don't fly Airbus but would it be an easy mistake to make,confusing the 'maltese cross' with the actual F/D and is there a big diff between pitch targets on A340-300/500.i'd imagine so and this may well have been in the back of his mind to avoid over rotating.Remember,this WAS his first flight on the -300 series AND out of J'burg as well! Swiss cheese model....need i say more?

[spy]

Guys my earlier post was in response to a claim that initially selecting 9 degrees on the Maltese cross was an Emirates training department teaching and that it was wrong. This is not true! Read my earlier post again, it is an extract from the Airbus training manual not a one off memo and it is also what I was taught by Airbus.

They do not suggest that this is a pitch target or indeed a parameter you need to monitor just a good place to start from to get the rotation going. Out of interest I have tried this in the sim on a hot day at max take-off weight at the airfield in question and it works! The target attitude is 12.5 degrees and then follow the SRS for an A330. This may be a little different for an A340 I don't know as I have no experience of the 340. Also the Maltese cross disappears once the weight is off the wheels so continuing to use the cross and getting it confused with pitch attitude is not going to happen.

I know nothing of Emirates internal politics and will be very interested in the results of the enquiry.:ok:

[wagtail23]

For those who want to know...

The training recieved by those of us at EK, we had 2 days groundschool, almost exclusively computer based training, followed by 2 sim sessions. The A340-300 manuals we had were handed back in after the grounschool was completed as there were not sufficient for us to keep them.

The sim sessions were flown on the A340-300 but the emphasis for techniques was for the A340-500. So we were taught the 1/2 sidestick input (as opposed to 2/3 for the -300) and to quick check the maltese cross was at 9 degrees pitch up (purely used as a cross check).

On the night of the incident, it was the first operating flight for BOTH the crew on the A340 (of either series) at an airfield which has its inherent problems associated with an elevation of 5500 feet.

It is rumoured that there were no FCOMs on board and that there was no laptop for use as a reference to the documents either.

The tech log had notification of the captains sidestick having approximately 1.5 cm of slack before any control surface reaction was noticed.

Somebody mentioned the Swiss Cheese model....here the holes lined up perfectly and the result is now history.

What happens next is up to the operating crew to decide, but I wish them luck and one has to now think of the future of the 'Award Buying Airline'.

[Cap 56]

4HolerPoler

I see that you are starting to realise that flying in thin air is not that easy after all.

Once more it's not 5556ft but around 8000 ft, pilots that forget that thing caled air wil have problems geting in the air.

J'Burg is aspecial place that in my opinion needs a sim ride before being dispatched as a crew.

As far as instructors are concerned, it is the UAE CA that endorses the qualification and not EK.

[HotDog]

Cap56, I presume you are referring to airfield elevation at FAJS? According to my Jeppesen it is 5552ft or 1694meters AMSL:confused:

[Cap 56]

At sea level you might get some reaction ( certainly not 3 degrees per second) but at 5500 AMSL very little is going to happen.


Must be the same on landing.

HotDog

I have explained this before,it\'s density altitude that counts.

Basic PPL stuff.

[Mo Heekan]

To the two guys sacked:

I can only offer my regret that you were sacked and am utterly dismayed at the Companies reaction.

Fear & mistrust will continue to be the underlying ethos of how pilots interact with a management that cares little for it's staff. A sad day indeed.....

[loungelizard]

Spy,

Well if you dont work for EK, then you dont know what was hammered into them verbally during their pathetic minimal training. !~!!!

[Wino]

FMGC

Not to be a nitpicker, but you just posted a dangerous misconception. The MALTESE CROSS DOES NOT TELL YOU WHERE THE FLIGHT CONTROLS ARE. It tells you what the sidestick is asking for. To see where the flight controlls are you would have to look at the flight controlls page.

Airbus has a long history of innaccurate operating/training manuals on their aircraft. They like to hide behind "translation" problems. However the language of aviation is ENGLISH, and untill Airbus can print an accurate operating manual in English they should be suspended from building aircraft (in otherwords get a better techinical writing or translation team). That would get them off their asses in a hurry.

Even mature aircraft turn out to having glaring errors in the English versions of their FCOMS (like the American Airlines A300 for example)

Cheers
Wino

[fmgc]

Wino,

You are correct.

[320DRIVER]

Following are two excerpt from the Airbus manuals. First id from Supplementary Techniques second is from Take-off SOP. These are for Single Aisle Family.

Perfectly clear and unambigous to me...




Quote

The PFD includes a symbol (1) that is the sum of sidestick positions given to the computers. It permits the PNF to check that the PF is making an appropriate control input during takeoff roll.

Small limit marks (2) indicate the limits of stick travel (± 16° in pitch, ± 20° in roll).

They are only displayed with the aircraft on ground. The flight crew must not use this display for control checks, because it does not necessarily indicate the control position in failure cases. The flight crew must use the ECAM flight controls page for making that check.

Unquote


Quote

-ANNOUNCE « ROTATE »


-ROTATION PERFORM


At VR, initiate the rotation to achieve a continuous rotation with a rate of about 3°/sec, towards a pitch attitude of 15° (12.5° if one engine is failed).


Minimize lateral inputs on ground and during the rotation, to avoid spoiler extension.


After lift-off, follow the SRS pitch command bar.


Unquote

[maddog62]

The MALTESE CROSS DOES NOT TELL YOU WHERE THE FLIGHT CONTROLS ARE. It tells you what the sidestick is asking for.

Wino, spot on :ok:

With the plane still on the ground the "Maltese cross" at ~ 9 degrees would mean: "I want ~ 9 degrees of pitch."

During rotation, no change of input on the sidestick will mean: "I want more than 9 degrees" and therefore the Maltese cross will move to higher angles.
At this point, if you wanted to keep the cross at 9 degrees you'd have to reduce the pitch!

No big deal if it was a video-game :ugh:

Mad

[Oxidant]

No big deal if it was a video-game

Ah, at last someone has worked out what the Airbus engineers used as a yard-stick for their aircraft!:rolleyes:

[spy]

Loungelizard

Perhaps you could enlighten us?

I would be very interested in what they have been teaching in all seriousness.

However, you did not expand on your earlier post and your statement merely mentioned selecting 9 degrees on the PFD Maltese cross. There is nothing wrong with teaching that as long as it is in the context of my earlier post. Minimal training is not restricted to Emirates, many airlines these days could be accused of cutting corners on training and my sympathy is with the crews if this is another example.

Yes the Maltese cross is an indication of side stick deflection!

The recommendation in the Supplemental Techniques also suggests the use of two thirds aft side stick deflection which appears as around 7.5 to 10 degrees on the Maltese cross!! As I said before the technique is described in the instructors guide to aid instructors in teaching students how to set up the correct rotation rate!

Maddog62

Selecting 9 degrees on the Maltese cross does not mean I want 9 degrees of pitch it is simply an indication of single or combined side stick deflection. It has no relevance the required pitch attitude.

It is all too easy to point the finger following events like these. The reasons are rarely as simple as they first appear.
:ok:

[Cap 56]

How many times have I seen during the revisions of manuals “rewritten for clarity”, it is an ongoing process.

But who initiates that process?

The Airlines of course by asking questions, technical meetings etc…

The position of the technical pilot is crucial in this process.
JAR OPS provided this possibility for good reasons.

Boeing or Airbus, it does not make a difference its a question of proper communication and transparency in both directions.

But someone has to identifythe problem first and that\'s the frontline instructors.

[BYMONEK]

CAP 56
Well done! Forgive me for appearing facetious but for once i actually agree with you! unlike in the J'burg overrun forum!
The only problem in this case,however,is whether Emirates Culture fosters an open feedback/reporting of problems amongst it's instructors.If it doesn't,then they might as well be pi**ing into wind!

[Cap 56]

Do not worry, PPRuNe has it’s limitations…..semantics, connotation etc…it’s not always easy to get a point across.

Definitely not in a highly sensitive context. I se this one rather clearly because I lived trough it myself that's all.

One of the biggest challenges of the human being is to see the pitfalls in human communication.

[loungelizard]

Spy,

Yes, you are correct in all you say. The problem here is the teaching of setting 9 deg with the Maltese and holding until "she bites the air". This equates to only a 4.5 to 5 deg pitch. At a DENSITY ALTITUDE at prob close to 7500 ft on the day, "she" aint gonna go anywhere near "biting".

I am not jumping to judgement here whatsoever, nor should any of us because we were not the poor bas#ards there on the day. However, as the snout is taken further up in attitude, obviously to the lads by now that it aint quite working "THE WAY THEY WERE BLOODY WELL TRAINED", the RWY disappears under the nose and how much RWY is left nobody knows. I would be surprised if these guys were able to see the threshold come and go due to the pitch attitude they now had to input and their normal eye level. TOGA was now applied and the rest is history.

EK management should be dropping to their pathetic knees in the fact that they had this particular driver at the helm and not some, well errr, ahhh, I dont think you should go there Lizard. !!!!

[Omark44]

This is Devil’s Advocates stuff and I have never flown an Airbus, so what do others think? I have been accelerating down JNB's 12,500' runway on a modestly loaded B744 using reduced thrust take-off power, I became aware of the end of the R/W and advanced the throttles to max T/O power, we leapt into the air, I had felt uncomfortable and acted accordingly, once in the cruise we re-did our figures and we were correct, is was a matter of faith. Heavy weight take-offs were no strangers to me but I had been lulled in to a false sense of security by a 12,500' runway and with a failed APU, no ground cooling air available, an already delayed flight, a load sheet for another aircraft presented and subsequently corrected, not to mention a company VIP on board I was distracted so my reaction on the runway was 'animal' based on instinct.
What has happened to our training system whereby instinct and a knowledge of lights changing from white to red and then red etc. is suppressed by an overwhelming dependence on what the manufacturer says?

[Shuttleworth]

loungelizard.... absolutely.

[spy]

Loungelizard

I can only say I have found the technique to work fine with the A330; you are putting in around two thirds back stick using this technique. If you have had a different experience with the A340 then I accept what you say. How much back stick are you using and how do you judge how much to put in at J'Burg if you are not using the Airbus recommended method?

[Cap 56]

normal_nigel

That’s exactly why Robin send Saleem and myself to Seattle and ask Boeing "Hey guys do we understand this correctly," BEFORE we brief our instructors.

Unfortunately the DO Mr J**** and his clan lost face, didn’t like the answers and swept it all under the carpet.

One does not need to be an expert, just a dose of common sense will lead you to the right questions.

And sometimes one has to ask for confirmation of the obvious without fear of loosing face.

I must say that on the differance between the Boeing and the Airbus; I do think that the Boeing option of providing more tactile feedback trough the classic control colum and throttles may be proving a point.

I am sure some chaps in Seattle are saying right now "You see" lets stick to what we have done so far for the B 7E7 as well.

[spy]

So what are Emirates teaching that Airbus don't like?

[Cap 56]

Omark44

Right on, my former company had suffered an engine fail on the B 743 due to a bat-strike.

They were so f*** scared seeing the end come near that they rotated before V r and struggled below V 2 to safety.

The performance departure came under serious pressure but it turned out they were 100 % right in their calculations.

The crew was not sacked but received 14 days or more holiday to recover. They may have made a small mistake but it was concluded that under the given circumstances their reaction was perfectly normal. And so was the reaction of the Airline.

Load sheets work with average weight numbers, reality may be different.

spy

There is a history between EK and Airbus regarding the A 310 were Airbus told them: "If you want to fly the A 310 according to your SOP then thats fine with us, but here in Toulouse we do it our way, otherwise we are not cheking you out"

[spy]

Dungfunnel

Well the key to this thread is why were the guys sacked? Interestingly that may hinge on how the crew were taught to fly the aeroplane as it appears to have been serviceable and loaded correctly! So either they screwed up or they were following incorrect company taught procedures as has been alluded to by some on this forum. If the latter is the case it would be nice to know what EK are teaching.

Clearly you have an axe to grind with EK, thats fine, I am more interested to learn what happened.:ok:

[Underdog2000]

What all you gentlemen seem to have forgotten with all your tech talk is that the pilots did what they were taught in ground school and in the sim. We here in EK are not allowed to think, or use years of airmanship, we are told to do it that way, and if you don’t you will be fired!! In the old days we tried to learn by others mistakes (if they were around to tell us). These pilots now realize that they were taught the wrong technique, we should all learn by this not sack them. In the old days your chief pilot was a buffer between you and management, and would hold your hand when needed, that’s what he gets paid for, not this one! Next time you get stuck behind an EK aircraft that is unable to comply with an ATC request for speed on approach, please don’t think bad of us, we are only doing as per SOP’s to protect our jobs. This company does not have the memory to remember what happens when pilots “work to rule” because they are too frightened to deviate from SOP’s. Which incidentally have been rewritten more times than I care to remember? These are hard times out here, please be gentile with us.

[Captain Sand Dune]

"...please be gentile with us".

You sure you want that?:}

[loungelizard]

Dungfunnel.......... Pure poetry my son. !!!

Spy,

Unfortunately ol mate you and we will probably NEVER know what happened as there are large plumes of smoke and huge mirrors flying everywhere within EK and blankets galore covering some extremely incompetent management.

[EK380]

What about the latest rumour, (picked it up Sun-night) that 11 Captains resigned after the 2 guys got sacked....

Any confirmation on the above?

EK past the top and is going downhill....

:rolleyes:

[Underdog2000]

Capt. S. Dune,
Thank you. Of course I meant “please be gentle with us” My spell-check does not work when I am really annoyed and disappointed !!!!

[spy]

:confused:

Ok! EK is not a great place to work! But what are they teaching you guys to do?

All we have been told to date is EK are teaching their pilots incorrectly! I have no reason to doubt any of you, I would just like to know what they are teaching that could cause a crew to overrun the runway!

Underdog2000

Your post was clearly heart felt! If indeed the crew did what they were shown to do what was it? What were they taught that differs from Airbus? And if every one else at EK is doing the same why are there not more overruns?

I am not trying to accuse anyone of any miss doing; I would just like to understand what is being taught.

:confused:

[Muttley Crew]

There is one sop they use that has been binned by every other company i know flying glass So what's this SOP? I skipped over most of the bus-talk. DId I miss something... will re-read.

Nope. What SOP is this you're referring to??

[zekeigo]

Heard from a South African Airways maintenance guy that the pilots decided to take-off from the intersection.

[Invictus]

From a non-pilot-type


Are there any passenger aircraft that have an "Auto-Rotate" function, and I am not talking about helio's with engine failure.

Thank you

[AutoAbort]

NO!

(At least not yet) I hope I'm retired by the time they introduce that.

AutoAbort

[Invictus]

Is is not a natural progression of present automated systems?

All Manual,
Altitude Hold,
Heading Hold,
Auto - Fix Navigation,
Auto - Route Navigation
Optimum Level Determination etc...
Auto - Land


Especially when the numbers are getting tighter and there are things like Flex (I think I understand this) etc....

Surely there is a sound argument for this as the next step?

This is not intended to pi$$ off the pilots, it is a genuine question.

Invictus

[Cap 56]

and in line with my post on the other tread (ref: emer landing)

thank you Invictus

I repeat my previous statement : "one does not T/O from an intersection on an 8 hr flight"

[Cerberus]

Not sure what any of this has to do with the 'sackings'.

Doesn't the A340-600 have tailstrike protection due to its extra length. I understand you can back stick it at rotate and it will control the rotation rate to avoid hitting the tail. Might be wrong, never flown it.

As to all the rest of the innuendo why not just say 'one does not screw up and hit the lights.' An intersection, if it was used, would not have corrected for a wrong rotation. If it was on the ground for 17secs, without a rearward input on the stick or more thrust; it was only gonna fly when it got to the escarpment .

And, if it was on the deck for that long after rotate without lifting, there was plenty of runway available all other things being equal. Cap 56; as to not taking off from an intersection on an 8 hour flight. Good sweeping statement but I think you'll find that full length is rarely used at Gatwick, most guys go from A1, that costs a few inches. Why not just drop a cliche about runway behind you rather than trying to be so pious. It must be great to have never made a mistake.

Cerberus

[SeldomFixit]

Cerberus - while you are advocating the pious use of cliches, how about, as a professional pilot you are paid very handsomely to avoid the types of mistakes that kill 300 punters.

[TDK mk2]

SeldomFixit:

I get paid not very handsomely to avoid types of mistakes that would kill 30 punters. Do you really think level of pay makes a difference to the way one seeks to perform ones duty??

Level of pay may attract competant and qualified people to apply to a given airline, and then it is the job of that airlines recruitment system to select suitable candidates.

Assuming that an acceptable candidate is appointed and properly trained to the airlines procedures and equipment, should they then go on to make a mistake which endangers the lives of passengers, is it not a system failure which has allowed this?

Or is a fully qualified and trained person (who has hitherto satisfied all the company requirements to dispatch their assigned duties) who makes a mistake which endangers lives deemed to be 'negligent' and therefore liable to be terminated from employment, as most employment contracts make provision for?

[Wino]

CAP56,

I repeat my previous statement : "one does not T/O from an intersection on an 8 hr flight"

that statements displays a shocking misunderstanding of how flex takeoff and runway data is used, and how much extra runway your really have.

Assuming that the pilots took off from the intersection and performed a flex takeoff with the right numbers for that intersection (and that the flex cap would not have been reached on full length), performance wise there is virtually no difference between taking off from an intersection and full length as long as appropriate flex numbers are used. Infact, once airborne, your climb and engine out performance would be better having gone from the intersection (though full power is always available, it is not figured into an engine failure scenario)

If your statement was "One does not flex ( or reduce thrust) on an 8 hour flight" then you might be improving safety for your leg of the flight (though probably reducing it somewhat for the next chap who flies your plane as you put more heat into the turbine, and driving up costs significantly for your airline) But a flex takeoff from an intersection or full length has pretty much the same margin for error. (again assuming that a flex cap wouldn;t have been reached on one takeoff instead of the other)

Flex thrust trades thrust for runway length effectively making the whole available runway required. Use a somewhat shorter runway length and more thrust is used. Use a longer runway and less thrust is used, but effectively froma pilots point of view, flex power is making every takeoff a maximum performance takeoff where a delayed rotation or abort after V1 will send you off the far end of the runway.

Cheers
Wino

[Fly3]

Re: not flexing for an 8 hour flight and intersection take offs.
I have it on very good authority that SIA are using almost max flex on t/o out of SIN on their A345's operating non-stop to LAX and that is a 16 hour flight. I believe that they will be using intersection W for departure out of EWR for take off on the south westerly runway when they start that service next week.

[White Knight]

Cap 56. Being the expert that you are please tell me how much you understand of the PERF A requirements for modern transport aeroplanes.

ie - If the perf. calculations say you can take off from a particular intersection with a particular config and a particular flap setting than that is what you can do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!All you have to do is clear the end of the runway, sorry TODA by 35' (yes, 35' which is f**k all) with an engine out - or maybe 15', yes, FIFTEEN FEET on a wet runway, and you are completely LEGAL. It has nothing to do with how LONG the flight is:mad: :mad:

Moderators, moderate me if you want but this guy hasn't got a bl00dy clue:mad:

[Wino]

Furthermore white night,

unless you hit the flex cap (and then an airplane like the 777 lets you pile on derates as well as flex) you will clear the fence at the end of the runway by the exact same amount of clearence from the intersection of full length....

You are right, he has not a clue, atleast on this topic...


Cheers
Wino

[zekeigo]

Good rule, if you are conservative, the tower will always offer you the intersection. If you are close to the maximum take off weight, derated, flexible or not, go to the full length.
You will have that extra 150 meters or so not to hit the lights if anything goes wrong.
The wet V1 does not apply for the A-340 White Knight, we are discussing the EK JNB case.
Think about it.
Zeke
:suspect:

[Wino]

Just to plays devils advocate,

If something goes wrong that requires TOGA power, if it is below V1, you probably should have stopped anyway, and if you are past v1 well... you will have more power already being made so the power change will be smaller minimizing the chance of inducing upset.

Furthermore some flex/derates are so massive as to have an enourmous effect on min V1 (which is a function of Vmc and Vmcg) so becarefull about taking 2 derates plus a flex (in a 777 this can cut an engine thrust almost in half) and then cobbing the engines. You may get a nasty suprise as you head off the side of the runway....

In principal, it is quite true that there is nothing quite so useless as runway behind you. But once you get into the regime of flex power (reduced thrust) takeoffs you are leaving MILES of runway behind you even if the aircraft starts from the physical end of the runway... So that old axiom doesn't really survive in the modern age.

HOWEVER, blasting down the runway in your C150 you bet. Use every inch of the runway. Its just that in jets you really leave your runway behind you when you dial in a flex number, not where you physically start rolling from...

Cheers
Wino

[zekeigo]

It is easy to come with all this theory when you are sited behind a desk, but in the real world, when you are behind the controls of a big jet just about to take off, you better go to the extra mile. Always go to full length, you’ll never be sorry about that…
Zeke
:ok:

[White Knight]

Believe me, I always use the full length, however I'm merely pointing out PERF A requirements;) If the book or the computer says you can do it then you can - remember there is a gross error percentage thrown into the figures for your protection.
Yes, going TOGA at lighter weights and lower speeds could give you a very bad day out....

[NigelOnDraft]

Always go to full length, you’ll never be sorry about that… So you always use the full length at LGW do you? Bet ATC like that...

when you are behind the controls of a big jet just about to take off, What is a "big" jet? What is satisfactory, in your opinion, as a maximum size to use "intersections"? A 320? ATR? B767? A B767's runway requirements are often substantially less than an A320.

If you take the "ALWAYS SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION" line, then I am afraid you do not fly when there are CBs around, the wind is more than 10K, with any MEL items etc. etc.

It's a difficult question - but there is nothing "unsafe" about using an intersection if the figures fit. The EK case seems so amazing (if the htpothesis is true) it should not affect that statement...

NoD

[five iron]

NigelonDraft,

I don't mean to be picky, but you are aware that an ATR is NOT a jet, yes? The big f**k off propellors are a bit of a give away, no?:confused:

[county down star]

Runway behind is runway wasted whatever the type of aircraft, that's what I was tought during my PPL in a Cessna 150!

[flygirl28]

Dungfunnel,
I take great offence to your posting stating that "all us pretty girls are on the game". The majority of us being highly intelligent human beings who are merely here for the same reason as everyone else, to make money. Emirates is no better or worse than any other airline, we choose to be here and enjoy the 'false' lifestyle as you claim it be. Please sling your mud elsewhere.

[whiteknuckle]

What a load of waffle !!! Except the fact that the pilots made a fundamental error. You may blame the training department but rotating an aircraft to the desired attitude is basic. If you are going to operate different 340 variants, then prepare accordingly.
Taking off from an intersection using flex is irrelevant; in this case.
As for the 343 and 345 being fundamentally different, not true. I have flown both.

Gentleman the pilots concerned were lucky that their day ended as it did.

[Engineer]

Is it feasible that the performance calculations were made and set for the full length runway.

Then not readjusted for an intersection takeoff. If this was the case at a high elevation airport this would manifest itself as a considerable problem.

[Wino]

STUDI,

I will try not to get too technical but derates and reduced power takeoffs are slightly different and can be used together in combination.


Generally for regulatory reasons, you cannot reduce thrust more than 25 percent as part of a flex power (reduced power) takeoff. So for round numbers we will use a 777 with 100,000lb thrust motors (pretty close to what AA has, I think the rolls royce engines are good for 94,000). So if you took the maximium reduction of thrust available (usual done as a simulated air temperature, we will say 70 dedgrees C but this part isn't important, just background info on how they do it)

So with a full flex at max rated power you could reduce engine output to 75,000 lbs of thrust per side which would reduce your turbine temps by several hundred degrees thereby prolonging engine life.

However, in doing so climb and cruise power on not effected and if climb power for the engine was say 75,000 lbs of thrust at sea level that is what you would get in the climb. and whatever the the cruise thrust is would still be unchanged.

But the 777 operates at an enourmous variation of weights and performance depenpending on whether you are going on a short hop like to England from JFK or to Narita from JFK.

So you have another option as well. These care called derates, usually labled 1 and 2 or something similar. The derates are a computer entry and trick the engines into thinking they are 90,000 lb thrust engines or 80,000 lb thrust engines. Once you do the derate to 80,000 lbs THEN you can flex 25 percent off of that and take the trust for takeoff all the way down to 60,0000lbs per side AND in this case climb and max cruise power will be reduced as well, thereby reducing heat across the entire operating spectrum of the engine.


Now remember that VMC and VMCG are basically a result of a ratio of the power of the engines to the strength of the rudder, That big rudder can overpower a much smaller engine thrust at a much lower speed. So you can have a lower permissable v1 at a lighter weight because the thrust will be lower so the aircraft won't roll over on its back or diverge from the runway. Suddenly cob the power though and you might have the 100,000lbs of thrust again below a speed which the rudder can counter it.


It's absolutely clear that with applying reduced T/O hrust you reduce somehow your runway length

To really oversimplify it, basically all reduced power takeoffs are calculated so you wind up rotating on the far numbers. So you are lengthening your required runway so that you use every foot of runway as an acceleration area. The point I was making was that you will reach v1 and rotate in the same place pretty much regardless of where you started from on the runway. (yes I know that is an oversimplification for all you other nitpickers)


If the EK Crew really took off from an intersection it's a good example of having benefitted from more runway (no attack on the crew concerned, just to back-up my argument). They were sure they had it right, but even though they hit the end lights. More runway would have helped.

Again the rotate point would have been virtually the same because of the flex power takeoff so it wouldn't have mattered....
More runway won't fix this bad technique. The problem was they didn't rotate aggressively enough. The point at which they started the rotation would most likely not have changed appreciably.



One other thing that needs to be take into consideration from all you always go to the end of the runway people. Aircraft actually have taxi limitations on how far you can taxi them. (Most people aren't aware of them, but they exist because of sidewall heating that slow taxing generates. Its usually around a 35000 foot limit eg. 7 miles). While you won't reach them in most cases, take two laps around the orbit at kennedy or taxi to runway a very far runway in Denver and you most certainly will excede them.

as a further corrolarry to the above. Everyone thinks you wear tires on touch down with that impressive puff of smoke, but that is NOT where the tire wear occurs. 95 percent of tirewear occurs during taxi. So extra taxing could be heating your tires such that they will blow out when you try and stop....

One last thought, In this day and age of runway incursions going all the way to the end fo the runway just means you have to pass MORE intersections at a speed to fast to stop should someone else have their head down in their cockpit when it should be up...


Cheers
Wino

Edited to add:

Engineer. While very feasible and often a cause of such incidents, in this case it has been ruled out by the accident board I believe.

[rathouse]

Is there any chance we can go back to the original chit chat about the sackings. This has all been said in the heading "JNB Incident" or have we all rambled on long enough.

Flygirl... I think you need to get outside a little more in the sun. If you take offence to dungfunnel's comments, then lets just close the whole pprune down, so that people like you that have had Totalatarian conditioning wont be offended by statements.

[max AB]

I can't believe these guys got the sack, but then a again this is the Middle East...or as a collegue observed, the Wild West, with management shooting from the hip!!

[mutt]

I’m sitting here laughing my head off with the number of Cessna pilots who believe they know how to operate commercial airliners. Flex/Assumed/Derated takeoffs combined with intersection takeoffs are an every day part of commercial aviation.
In the case of the EK JNB, the chances are that if they had used the full runway, they would have further decreased the amount of takeoff power, so at the end of the day, the result would be the same. :):)

Mutt.

[overstress]

Studi

I think Mutt has a valid point. Those who are not qualified to operate to Perf A generally do not understand it. Even some of those who are qualified don't 'get' intersection takeoffs either!

Mutt was just expressing frustration at posters who do not understand the argument they are venturing into, that's all.

[prospector]

Is that not the reason for entering into the discussion, to get an understanding??. I find it suprising that there can be so many interpretations of basic facts from so many qualified people, between this and the EK thread it is quite worrying.

Prospector

[Ghostflyer]

Wino,

I will try not to get too technical

Thank god you didn't get too technical!! It seemed completely clear to me after I dusted off my Perf 'A' notes and got out my copy of 'Flying the big jets'. Good explanation, but your 'simple' explanation perhaps explains why the subject is not easily understood even by some pilots that operate Perf A aircraft.

Back to the thread, I heard a rumour that appeals are in the offing over the sackings.

Ghost:zzz:

[Wino]

Yeah, its not an easy subject, it would be a lot easier if we didn't start with alot of dogma from other aircraft.


It is VERY important to use full power on a piston engine take off as well (because of cooling issues, you actually hurt a piston engine by "babying" it for takeoff) so you ALWAYS take off with full power, and you ALWAYS start at the beginning of the runway. Take those two sentances and forget em when you get to a jet.

Well, jets in some ways are about as close to piston props as they are to a helicopter....

It will be interesting to see the appeal of the Emirates pilots. I would like to know their backgrounds, and of course I would like to see the training department take it on the chin. It can't be the first time the crew members did this. Though obviously its the first time it bit em in the old arse... I suspect there have been a lot of slow rotations that were not commented on.


Cheers
Wino

[zekeigo]

Sorry guys, I was out there flying.
To NigelOnDraft, last time I took off from JNB rwy 21R, 4418m no stopway, I had TOW around 279 tons, I couldn’t use any assumed because it was really hot, taxi all the way to A6 to full length. If I had 03L, I guarantee you I would go to full length as well. When I say big jet I realize that people reading PPRUNE know exactly what it is, otherwise they should go to APRUNE (A for amateur).
I am with rathouse, let’s get back to the original subject, Sackings at Emirates.
Zeke
:*

[Flywire]

OK now that everybody has been fired, sidelined etc...what now? Talk of replacing the training manager as a non-flying position...........very interesting.......bad to even worse idea.:confused:

[spy]

At the end of the day the aeroplane appears to have been fit to fly and loaded correctly. Therefore the crew would appear to have made a mistake in their handling of the aircraft. What they were shown or not shown does not excuse the error.

Should they have been sacked? I don´t think so but I do not have all the facts. They worked for a very young Arab operator with no employment law to protect the crews and no union protection to speak of. Sadly that means the owners can do what they want and no matter what we say or the managers may or may not want the owners will make up their mind and act on it. One of the down sides of working for this type of operator!

It is the local big wigs train set and if he wants you gone thats it as far as I can see and there will be little and managers can do to protect the crews even if they wanted too.
:(

[Invictus]

Spy


Hit

¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
V

Nail's Head

[Zones]

As an interested observer of this thread:

If they don't deserve sacking, then what options are open:
Re-training?
Demotion? (How do you demote an FO?)

Perhaps someone with relevant experience might like to explaim their philosophies in this area?

Where and how do you draw the line, if a mistake has been
made, on what action should be taken, if any? Afterall, we ALL make mistakes, and the key to making mistakes in my book is about learning from them, and that applies to many areas of life, beyond the realms of this web-site....

Z.

[Tajfa]

Retraining?
Yeah, good one. Most of us will agree with that.

What would have been the likely outcome for our unfortunate collegues if the company decided not to sack them?
Two years loss of bonus and right back to the line (With the Capt. as FO)

Sorry to say, but that is probably the best thing that could have been bestowed upon our poor friends!

:cool: Tajfa

[helen-damnation]

Spy

''Therefore the crew would appear to have made a mistake in their handling of the aircraft. What they were shown or not shown does not excuse the error.''

Following your argument, you presumably would have no argument with your family being sued if you ploughed in after misshandling an engine fail at V1 because you were incorrectly trained!:confused: :confused:

I don't think so!

What they were trained to do is at the heart of the whole incident and EK will need to tread carefully through the legal minefield:ouch:

BTW, they departed full length.

[Flywire]

Boyz we all know, ground school is good, refreshers are good, and we have the state of the art equipment etc....but.....

Now that we can have new (maybe younger more experienced blood) in training sims and line, things might improve.

Unfortunately there are still are a number of dead wood trainers come checkers (old school, lucky to have got their positions in the beginning days) lurking around, who have had jack**** experience in training and who are excellent at checking and no clue as to how to give instruction, and who are clinging to their jobs as "trainers". A new manager might utilise some training experience out of his 2000 odd pilots and get some fresh blood and thoughts into what training is really about.

Boyz lets face it, the training side needs the likes of C.R. who was there for a short time, was praised for his positive change, and then somehow I guess became a threat to the old school and got sidelined. Now here was hope in the training section until he left.....then all reverted to the same old checking, rather than training. The bean counters should also take some blame for pressurising management that training is expensive and to cut down on sim time.

Boyz losing a hull (close as it was) can cost the whole airline. Safety is dependant on the quality of training.........thats all I have to say... :ok:

[Cap 56]

Wino wrote

Generally for regulatory reasons, you cannot reduce thrust more than 25 percent as part of a flex power (reduced power) takeoff. So for round numbers we will use a 777 with 100,000lb thrust motors (pretty close to what AA has, I think the rolls royce engines are good for 94,000). So if you took the maximium reduction of thrust available (usual done as a simulated air temperature, we will say 70 dedgrees C but this part isn't important, just background info on how they do it)

Actually it's 75 % of the max thrust of the day under the prevailing conditions and NOT 75 % of the max thrust at SL.

I can see that finally the EK guys have taken a BIG U turn.

The drama is that it took an incident like this one for the dynamics that wee needed to unfold.

Edited to add:

Once you are down to 75 % every meter behind you is a lost one.

Altough there may be some advantages in intersection T/O the main motive is often to get airborne earlier. (makes no sense on a 8 hr flight)

Often on a wide body you are limited by the time needed by your cabin to get ready anyway.

Nobody will argue that close to V 1 you have to be go minded and therefore some extra runway ahead of you will give you more time to get it right.

Fly wire

Unfortunately there are still are a number of dead wood trainers come checkers (old school, lucky to have got their positions in the beginning days) lurking around, who have had jack**** experience in training and who are excellent at checking and no clue as to how to give instruction, and who are clinging to their jobs as "trainers".

You should have been there five years ago, you may not realise it but we are not that different after all

I advise those new guys who might get involved to be very carefully even if EK asks them to get involved and use the backup of Airbus or Boeing as the case may be in order to get it right.

Get everthing in writing, a word is quickly gone in the wind.

[spy]

helen-damnation

1. No one here has explained what has been taught at EK that differs from Airbus.
2. Most line pilots working for EK seem to accept that what is being taught is wrong!

Therefore, if the crew in question felt that what was being taught was incorrect, why when their aircraft was clearly not responding did they not take action sooner? The Captain signed for the ship and is responsible for it and the safety of his/her passengers and crew that is and has always been the bottom line.

Tajfa

My opinion on a suitable response by a responsible company, for what it is worth, would be in the first instance a review of the crews training record, experience and training provided on type. Consider any other mitigating circumstances and then if this proved to be a one off blip, re-training and a written account by the crew concerned in the airline safety magazine so others can learn from the event. This crew, if they are good guys, will be the last ones to make the same sort of mistake again so punitive action would achieve little and contribute nothing to flight safety. This approach fosters trust and makes crews feel able to talk about incidents so all can learn resulting in a much safer operation and happy airline.

On the other hand if it is proved that the crew were negligent and operated the aircraft in contravention of approved published company procedures then a more serious response would be appropriate, demotion, loss of seniority, increments, bonus etc, depending on the company’s policy and severity of the transgression. In a clear case of gross negligence, dismissal maybe the only course of action appropriate.

We are all human, the adult and responsible management approach should be to use the incident to increase flight safety, not to look for someone to blame and punish as the first port of call. Utopia? Maybe but I believe this is what all airlines should aim for. Certainly my own company has made a big effort over the last few years to move in this direction.

I clearly know nothing of EK and its attitudes so please do not take my comments as any form of judgement either of the company or the pilots concerned in this case as I like many here do not have all the facts. But at the end of the day my last post really reflects what I believe to be the situation at EK; it is the risk you run working for this type of operator, one can only hope in time they will evolve in to a more humane employer. It behoves them to have good employee relations and representation to increase pilot confidence in the company management structure and therefore, improve flight safety. This last point is often missed by some management structures who seem more concerned with covering their own rear ends than doing the job they are paid for. Sadly this attitude runs from the top down and in airlines like EK I believe it is a cultural problem that will not be easily solved.

However, Dubai is a nice place to live and work so it is a risk many seem happy to take.
:ok: