PDA

View Full Version : Emirates B777 of the runway in Singapore


wilco77
17th Feb 2006, 03:08
Does anyone have any more info on this?

Not from here
17th Feb 2006, 09:02
Was a B777-300 EK 432 SIN - BNE last night 16/2
High speed rejected T/0, cleared the runway, Tires deflated on taxi way,
All Crew and Pax safe,

A330ETOPS
17th Feb 2006, 13:15
I was onboard :bored:

RogerIrrelevant69
17th Feb 2006, 13:39
A couple of years back, I had the particular good luck to be in the jump seat of an Iberia MD-80 in Madrid when the captain rejected the take-off at 80 knots. His ASI didn't kick-in so it was no way Jose and by jaysus did we stop fast.

Quite an adrenaline buzz in the cockpit that day. Skipper told me he had been flying jets 30 years and he never had to reject a T/O.

A330ETOPS
17th Feb 2006, 14:16
Even before landing in Changi from DXB, we had to go around! first time i've experienced that aswel!

lomapaseo
17th Feb 2006, 14:47
Even before landing in Changi from DXB, we had to go around! first time i've experienced that aswel!


Are you saying that you were onboard two separate aircraft both operated by Emirates into and out of Changi.

DXB-SIN

and SIN-BNE

With the landing resulting in a go-around and a takeoff resulting in a highspeed abort? :confused:

If so I certainly wouldn't want you onboard any of my flights :(

A330ETOPS
17th Feb 2006, 14:57
Our first flight was into Singapore which had to go around, then i stayed in Singapore for 2 days until my onward journey which had an rto

Supertramp
17th Feb 2006, 21:15
So let me get this straight, the aircraft didn't end up "of(f) the runway" but taxied clear of the active after a high speed RTO. "Off the runway" carries the connototion that it lost control and ended up in the rough, like Qantas in Bangkok or Air France in Toronto. Am I right that that wasn't the case here? If so, a very misleading heading.

Standing by for many words of wisdom from 'Streamline' on what the crew should have done and how he would have done it infinitely better ans how their training was obviously deficient and how he warned EK this very incident would occur.

AlJassmi
18th Feb 2006, 00:38
People, please remember that go-rounds are generally not anything special. Quite often just means the ATC doesn't have the required runway separation standard eg busy day, trying to squeeze out as many departures as possible and someone rolls a little slower than expected meaning they haven't rotated by the time the arrival will cross the threshold.

Flight Detent
18th Feb 2006, 14:09
Thats no real problem stopping, RogerIrrelevant69.....

During a takeoff at the "olden-but-golden" runway at HongKong some years ago in a B742 freighter, the ASI didn't register anything at the 80 knots call, so the takeoff was rejected at that point.
Thats a low speed abort, and the runway is long, so we only used idle reverse thrust, to get us to and off the runway at the first available high-speed exit.
Replaced the ASI and we were off again to Japan, only about 90 minutes late, good job all round!

Thats when those revampted and converted B742's with those great GE engines were only newly in service with AHK, a matter of months.

Thats the only abort outside the OFT I've ever experienced!

Cheers, FD :hmm:

Lax Pax
22nd Feb 2006, 21:20
Quite an adrenaline buzz in the cockpit that day. Skipper told me he had been flying jets 30 years and he never had to reject a T/O.
This is one of those things that impresses me about professional pilots. In the above scenario, a pilot, after thirty years of flying, experiences his first problem on take-off that requires a RTO--and he's ready for it. He handles exactly as trained. That's a fine edge to keep sharp over thousands of routine operations--would seem to take very disciplined thinking to not let past history grind down your readiness.

Am I right?

CP32
22nd Feb 2006, 23:56
Thanks Lax, I fly a 747 400, yes, I try to mentally rehearse the "STOP!" as we roll on every take off, but it does help that we practice in the simulator every 6 months too, as do all airline guys.

CP32

Doors to Automatic
23rd Feb 2006, 12:47
Our first flight was into Singapore which had to go around, then i stayed in Singapore for 2 days until my onward journey which had an rto

Both these incidents are rare - in 600-700 sectors as a pax I have experienced 3 go-arounds and 0 aborted take-offs.

I wonder what the statistical probability is of experiencing an aborted take-off and a go-around in two consecutive flights?

radioexcel
23rd Feb 2006, 14:54
Quite often just means the ATC doesn't have the required runway separation standard eg busy day, trying to squeeze out as many departures as possible and someone rolls a little slower than expected meaning they haven't rotated by the time the arrival will cross the threshold.
If something like this happens in South Africa, the ATC is suspended immediately (guilty) because somehow/someway he made a mistake and must be punished!!! Poor suckers!!:ugh:
This morning had Air France landing with wet slippery runway(with high speed exits), bit of a cross wind but he slowed enough to exit the next taxiway 400m ahead(30yrs of judgement) and came to a basic halt on the runwat before turning off. When told to expidite,(other traffic 2nms behind, 4 at the holding point and 3 more 7nm appart on final) he started mouning ..very heavy....and that he should have vacated at the end(4000m runway). I think this is and excelent example of professionalism?? Landing clearance given eventually 1nm final!!:sad:
Sometimes ATC's must have hair on their teeth to handle these situations...trying to accommodate everyone with minimum delay.

Just wanted to moun a little. SRY

RE

Jambo Buana
23rd Feb 2006, 15:54
Statisically 2/3rds of ovveruns after an RTO were rejected unneccesarily in the first place! Be go oriented thats what I say.

Rockhound
24th Feb 2006, 20:18
May I make a plea for posts to be written clearly?
Or am I the only one who has not a clue what Radioexcel is trying to say in his post?
And I believe Jambo B meant to say that "2/3 of all RTO's are unnecessary".
I try to learn something from PPrune but it sure isn't easy sometimes.
Rockhound:confused:

Strepsils
24th Feb 2006, 22:16
I thought they were fairly clear.

Radioexcel is making the point that sitting on the runway is neither the time nor the place to be complaining about being asked to expedite, get off the runway then moan (if you must!)

Jambo said that 2/3 of RTO's which resulted in an overrun should have been airborne. Don't know if that's correct or not but seemed fairly clear.

Please bear in mind that English may not always be the posters first language either.

Rockhound
25th Feb 2006, 02:23
Strepsils,
Good for you that you managed to decipher Radioexcel's post. I took "mouning" to be "moving" and couldn't understand the reference to "very heavy". Then he wrote "I think this and excelent example of professionalism???" Huh? Does he or doesn't he? If you're right, he does not. Do you understand his next sentence beginning "Landing clearance.."? I don't.
We agree on the interpretation of Jambo B's post.
Whether or not English is the contributor's first language has little to do with my complaint. The clearest English is always the simplest English. (As it happens, English is not, strictly speaking, my first language, either).
Anyway, I've had my say and won't belabour the point. Thanks for your interest, Strepsils. Happy landings.
Rockhound

turtleneck
25th Feb 2006, 03:15
quote by strepsils: Radioexcel is making the point that sitting on the runway is neither the time nor the place to be complaining about being asked to expedite, get off the runway then moan (if you must!)

sitting on the runway nobody should be urged to expedite. if the remaining on the rwy was too long, atc can complain once off the rwy. when cleared to land it's your rwy and your airspace to ga if necessary. no unnecessary distraction should occur, as you never know (and you goddam don't feel on the scarebus) if your collegue lands long, crabbed etc. etc.. to rectify situations like that you don't need additional distractions like "i sure would appreeeciaate if you'd leave at the first high speed, traffic already on touch-down...". who will be accountable for a overrun or missing the twy????
in jepps or notams there are indications as how to plan landings and twy's. i agree everybody should try to comply, or get a blame (later), but stop distracting guys during the most difficult phases.
ttn

Strepsils
25th Feb 2006, 13:07
Turtleneck - and came to a basic halt on the runwat before turning off I think this is the crux of the matter. You're right, you don't need any distractions when landing, but once you've slowed to taxy speed (or seemingly in this case, slower) you're just blocking the runway. That's not professional. Runway occupancy times should be kept to a minimum. Try this at Heathrow and you would not be popular.

Rockhound - Just to be clear, I wasn't having a pop at you, and quite often I totally agree with you! I also sympathise if English isn't your first language, you're having to translate these posts twice!:}

When radioexcel said I think this and excelent example of professionalism? I noticed the question mark on the end, which I assumed to indicate sarcasm, i.e. I think this and excelent example of professionalism, NOT!;) His next sentence I think was commenting on the fact that he wan't able to pass landing clearance to the next A/C until he was 1 mile from T/D, due to the Air France hold up.

tescoapp
25th Feb 2006, 14:55
Must admit it does seem to be a habit of Air France pilots to play the awkard bugger card.

Of the GA'a I have seen at Man about 70% of them have been due to Air France not clearing 24R when crossing it.

And I have also seen them (a few times) accept a line up clearance and TO clearance to then sit there for 2 mins and when asked what they were doing say they haven't got cabin secured yet.

radioexcel
25th Feb 2006, 19:55
Strepsils and Turtleneck hit the nail on the head.;)
In some places the ATC cannot give a land-after due to Gov. restrictions , even with high speed exits. The preceding aircraft must have vacated the active runway beyond the runway holding point of that specific taxiway before the next landing aircraft may be given a landing clearance. (I hope this is now clear enough for certain readers) AND my apologies for the spell error on the word "MOAN". It was late and I slipped.:O
Fact is, when given a take-off clearance, an aircraft is expected to line-up and take-off without delay. The same after landing. When slowed to controllable speed, an aircraft is expected to vacate a runway as soon as possible. In both cases however, the pilot must ascertain utmost caution to be in full control of his aircraft. If he/she cannot comply, he/she must inform ATC. But on so many occasions I have seen the aircraft comming to a virtually walking pace on the runway and hundreds of meters from the next exit. Being of the same frequency as all the other aviators, he/she then is "unaware" of what he/she is doing wrong by such a long runway occupancy. When aircraft is spaced 7nm appart on final, landing clearance can normally be given to the 2nd aircaft at 3-4nm final. If the spacing is reduced to 5nm, and the first aircraft over-utilize the runway, the 2nd aircraft will only receive the landing clearance at 1-2nm on final. Prefered distance is 3nm minimum.

I hope Rockhound will understand what I mean this time.

Regards

RE
PS. SAFE FLYING GUYS:ok:

OZZY AIRBORNE
26th Feb 2006, 16:28
Hot rumour is that this one was a high speed reject due to config warning. If so, this makes for an interesting debate. On one hand you shouldn't normally get the config warning coming on so late in the takeoff roll and on the other hand at 150 kts you don't have long to analyse the problem and act. I know everyone tries to be "go minded" these days but I reckon it would be hard to rip off someones epaulettes for stopping. Any views chaps and chapesses?

Strepsils
26th Feb 2006, 21:57
I suppose it all depends when v1 was. If V1 was 145kts then questions would have to be asked, 155kts and they made the right call.

This is complete speculation mind you, no idea what V1 actually was, if they rejected due to a fault would the fault have rendered the aircraft unflyable, did the fault affect their ability to stop? Hard to comment without more facts, but an RTO with an overrun has to fall mainly into two possible scenarios : 1) fault affecting performance or (2) Error or misjudgement.

Will be interesting to find out which it was in this case.

plovdiv
27th Feb 2006, 06:14
Why on earth are you speculating that the take off may have been rejected above V1.

There was no overrun.

Shame on you for attempting to bring the crew into disrepute by suggestion.

Streamline
27th Feb 2006, 08:32
It is always a good idea to mentally rehearse the RTO manoeuvre shortly before Take Off.

If you are fast enough on a dry runway, and use the space available to you, you walk away from it.

Taken into account that the performance boys did their job correctly

Strepsils
27th Feb 2006, 10:36
plovdiv - Sorry, had been some days since I read the first page of posts, got side-tracked by the heading and thought the aircraft had run-off. Forgot this had been corrected on previous pages.

klm-md11
27th Feb 2006, 11:01
Doors to Automatic wrote:

"I wonder what the statistical probability is of experiencing an aborted take-off and a go-around in two consecutive flights?"

happened to me couple of years back...

KLM 737-800 landing in FCO from AMS aborted landing due to late vacating of A/C on RWY... as stated by the captain

two hours later...

Alitalia A321 FCO to ATH aborted T/O due to "faulty instrument reading caused by passengers using mobile phones" as stated by the captain...:rolleyes: