EK MC miscomm

[Thylakoid]

http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/article2832068.ece

[GoreTex]

wow,
I would love to say it's unbelievable but after a decade with emirates I believe every word, it's just another embarrassment for emirates.:)

[ruserious]

To use the company vernacular, you have been optimised

[disconnected]

As a matter of interest, does anyone have any idea of EK's on time departure rate/percentage at the moment?

What with the general chaos at Dubai at peak times, the highly ambitious block times (no doubt to avoid more hourly pay) and the illusive turn around times, I would find it hard to believe its much above 40% but that's just a guess.

Can anyone enlighten me?

[Fart Master]

The Journo's a W****r, he would fit in well in the Middle East ME..ME. **** happens, get over yourself....tit:rolleyes::hmm:

[PITA]

Glad to know that all of the money we save by taking min fuel, and "short courses" for pilot training (sic), etc,etc, are being used so wisely.
:ugh:
NOT

[Andu]

There would be some cynics among the EK pilot group who would say this is a clear indication of how important our leaders believe the pilot to be in the grand scheme of things. Everyone else was considered important enough to be informed... but no one even considered the pilot played a large enough role to be needed to be told of the change of plan.

There must have been at least three 'error traps' in the last hour before landing, (for instance, the crew's inbound call to the company reps requesting a bay), any one of which should have alerted those on the ground (and in home base) that the aircraft was still heading for Heathrow. It would make for an interesting CRM exercise in tracing the circumstances of how they came to be missed.

If the captain (or the purser) involved is a Ppruner, I'd just love him to share with us all what he said in that first PA to the pax.The subsequent PAs must have been almost unique as well. Could the shouts of the passengers be heard from the cockpit?

That would be one day I suspect the pilots would be thankful for the locked cockpit door policy!!!! (And I'll bet the cabin crew would have all been wishing they could all be in there with the pilots!!)

[critical winge]

EKLAWYER I agree with you. If you are on the tarmac and inform the crew that you want to get off, then surely and legally they cannot force you to get airborne and transport you to somewhere you do not wish to go! Besides all that it is a flight safety issue as well as all the legal angles. In the big picture, I would love to see if anyone claims that they insisted to deplane at original destination LHR and were "FORCED" to go to LGW for the sake of the airlines poor managent of communication and operation. I would say that if the aircraft landed first in LGW then the pax could not force the plane airborne to LHR. But to land at LHR (DEST) and be forced to another airfield, that is beyond belief and the passenger certainly comes waaaaay Doooooooowwwwwwwnn the order of priorities when it comes to operational decisions here.

They should have deplaned at LHR no cleaning ETC and then gone straight to LGW, the aircraft would have been back airborne in 1 hour and well inside the curfew time. Clearly they had the diversion fuel (which they used so no refuelling) and it would have taken less than 30 mins to prepare the flight plan etc and loadsheet, even do a div loadsheet! How long to get the pax and bags off, 4o mins? Airborne in an hour easilly!! Then again we all know that the best decisions are not always made when the people they affect are not consulted first....THE CREW!!:ugh:

Chronicle of a delay (By the Independent on Sunday News paper)

All times BST...

1.15pm: Emirates flight 005 due to leave Dubai. The captain says that there will be a 20-minute delay

2.20pm: Plane leaves, just over an hour late

9.40pm: Touchdown at Heathrow

10pm: Captain announces that, because of curfew restrictions at Heathrow, the decision had been taken to divert to Gatwick – but that no one had told him

10.45pm: Emirates 006 is due to depart Heathrow, destination Dubai, on the same aircraft. Its passengers are en route to Gatwick by coach

10.50pm: Emirates 005 pushes back from stand at Heathrow for the "short flight to Gatwick"

11pm: Joins a queue of aircraft waiting to take off. The captain announces the wait is likely to be 10 minutes

11.25pm: Still taxiing. "I think we're going by road," said one passenger, shortly before we lined up for take-off, after one hour and 45 minutes on the ground

12.27am: Touch down at Gatwick

12.40am: Four hours late, and at the wrong airport, EK005 finally arrives at a distant stand on pier 6, the furthest gate in the entire airport from passport control

1.15am: The first piece of luggage arrives on the carousel at Gatwick. Twelve hours have elapsed since Emirates 005 was scheduled to depart for the seven-hour flight to Heathrow

2.30am: Emirates 006 departs from Gatwick, nearly four hours behind schedule. Many of the 335 passengers on board will arrive in Dubai to discover they have missed their onward connections

[emratty]

Fart Master why do you think the guy who wrote the article is a w***er? it seems like he got his story pretty much correct. Yes it is the ME but Emirates pretends to be a first world airline so it has to expect scrutiny in western papers not just the Gulf News.
Interesting to know what happens to the person who made this cock up because we all know what would happen to a pilot making an expensive mistake like this, but then again i think there will be so many middle managers running round blaming each other that what in fact will actually happen is ..... nothing!

[tbaylx]

Sounds like a typical "op[s normal" day at GF...can't see what all the fuss is about :hmm:

[MR8]

Although the crew seems to have nothing to do with the initial error of landing at LHR while everybody was waiting for them in LGW, I do have serious questions with their lack of resistance when SMNC told them they had to fly to LGW with the pax.
Also, when exactly did they find out? They obviously didn't call the Ground Handling guys in Heathrow on beforehand..
Then again, what do you expect? The Captain was a DEC, in the company for less then 6 months, accompanied by 2 FO's, both here for a year or less.. These poor people obviously aren't familiar with the sometimes pushy decisionmaking in Dubai. They didn't stand up against a decision made by some people in an office in Dubai who are just moving around some numbers.. '' EK005 to LGW instead of LHR, busses on the way...''. Don't bother sending a little ACARS or SATCOM call, why do we have all that technology in the first place?

I can only conclude that the crew involved showed a lack of Captaincy and involvement in the decisions that have been made. A decent experienced crew would have told off SMNC about THEIR error not to inform the crew and offloaded the pax in LHR.

But then again, that's probably the price we have to pay for our rapid expansion. Although it wasn't the most clever decisions that have been made, and a lot of money is being lost because of it, it was all safe...

MR8

[fractional]

lack of resistance?...
If it safe to do so, why not. Mistake or not, one follows what the company wants us to do, again, as long as it's safe to do. I may take advice from someone else in the company structure, but otherwise just do it. SMNC will answer for their actions.

[MR8]

Fractional, isn't that the easy way? Is that why you became a pilot/captain? If that's the way you want to fly, not using your brain and let people in an office far away take your decisions, can you still be proud of what you are doing?
Personally I feel already too restricted in what I am allowed to do. The SOP's at EK are often not a guideline anymore, but a strict rule. For example, the fully established at 1500ft thing is completely ridiculous. But that's another discussion...
Anyway, in my opinion and with the information I have, the crew showed lack of decisionmaking. Don't forget you are the captain on board and SNMC is only there for guidance.
Consider the point eklawyer made: if someone sued for unlawfull imprisonment, do you think the guy behind his desk will face proscecution?
It's all so easy just following their advice, but not always the right thing to do...

MR8

[TangoUniform]

Disconnected, yes the EK on time performance is approaching 100%. That is, leaves the same day as scheduled.

MR8, curious on what grounds would you have refused to take the a/c and pax to LGW? Was it safe? Probably. Was the crew fatigued? Were you out of FTDT? Or would your answer be, I don't like the decision, therefore, I will reject it? See your point about this being a complete F***up, but you might have a very hard time 'splaining why you left the airplane at LHR with full pax, no ground staff and headed off to the hotel. If at any point SMNC was requiring you to violate stated policy, then set the parking brake, but otherwise.....good luck.

[fractional]

SNMC must have carried some checks by escalating the problem before taking such an absurd decision. Absurd, because they left it too late. This is why they are there just as BBs "watching you".
Unless people have their backs well armoured (???) and I'm not saying there aren't, usually the axe comes down pretty evenly. At least, I would hope so. Not taking such a decision, again although very late, it would have caused much more damage generally, even if you consider the financial penalties EK has to pay according with the new EU rules.
It was the best of the worst scenarios they had on their desks. It doesn't happen everyday. At least, I want to believe that.
Generally speaking and here I'm addressing professional outfits, Flight Followers/Dispatchers/Watchers/Controllers (you name it) are a great help to airborne crews and vice-versa, and this should be encouraged to grow. Both sides will definitely gain.
For those of you who don't think so, just ask your firendly supervisor for a group familiarisation visit during "refreshers" to your ops guys and I'm sure perceptions will change for the better. Ops guys should also do some flying along with crews for a similar learning curve.

[MR8]

fractional, good post..
TU, I agree that you would have a hard time explaining why I won't take the aircraft to LGW, but not the passengers. If you land safely in LHR, I cannot see why anyone would take off from the destination with the pax on board.
Also, there must have been ground staff at LHR, how else could they have turn around the aircraft? Did they have enough fuel for the additional flight? Didn't they require a loadsheet and a new flightplan? They must have had support.
Anyway, I don't have enough information about the real circumstances that night to make a correct judgement, I just find it very strange.

MR8

[Gillegan]

I'm sorry but it is fairly illustrative of this company's attitude towards flight crew that they would be the last one's notified of something like this. Sure it was a screw up but let's face it, of the people that needed to know about this decision, the captain was the last guy on the list.

As far as support from dispatch, SMNC etc., my experience has been that they are more often a hindrance than a help. The thing that worries me is that we have a lot of DEC's coming from places where they could count on their dispatch for good advice and they probably expect the same level of support here. EK Dispatch is critically undermanned (now where have we heard that before) and just don't have the time to devote proper care to the production of flight plans etc.. They are operating at 120% capacity on a good day. Look out when things get difficult.

The fact that once the airplane was on the ground, they were unable to reassess and adjust their plans to take the passengers off the airplane and turn it around for LGW is a great example of tunnel vision. They had a plan and they were going to stick to it. We specifically train our pilots to reassess, readjust and mitigate. A little of that might have gone a long way.

[fractional]

As far as support from dispatch, SMNC etc., my experience has been that they are more often a hindrance than a help.
EK Dispatch is critically undermanned (now where have we heard that before) and just don't have the time to devote proper care to the production of flight plans etc.. They are operating at 120% capacity on a good day. Here is an opinion. Do we all have the the same opinion? Do other Gulf (and others outside) pilots think the same of their ground supporting staff?
I'm sure many of you have addressed this issue (and others) internally. I find it appalling the levels of training, retraining and consequently the licensing of the ground staff in this part of the world. Only the UAE requires licensed Dispatchers and some of these licenses are just "given away". I believe the screening and the issuance of llicenses is harder at the school levels (obviously, I'm referring to the DXB school only).

[BYMONEK]

For Gods sake guys get real!

I'm completely dumbfounded by the actions that were taken and as much as SMNC screwed up, a certain amount of ownership has to be taken by the Captain. We're not just given that extra fourth bar because we're safe operators. We have it because in theory at least, we have certain leadership and decision making qualities that set us apart from those unable to take on that responsibility. All Captains have authority but shouldn't we also have the leadership skills to complement that? How could anyone NOT think it unreasonable to de-plane the PAX and bags in LHR and ferry the aircraft to LGW. It's called damage limitation and ends up with only half the passengers pissed off. I for one would have strongly recommended that decision and would have needed a very strong argument from Ops to avoid implementing it.

Is the Culture here really so bad that we live in fear of not following SMNC advice, regardless? Having received 3 different FTL's answers through ACARS from them in the past relating to a single question, i'm only too aware of their limitations regarding operational issues and mistakes that they too make. A process that took over 2 hours and was only finally resovled because I was prepared to keep questioning their decision. As Captains, we have to take more ownership in situations like this and anyone who answers with a " why should we expose ouselves, just follow SMNC's advise" should, in my opinion, not be worther of taking a left seat position. Stick with blindly following the rules from the other seat if that's the way you feel. Which brings me onto the last point.

So what if that guy was a DEC. More fool Emirates then for taking these guys on. Perhaps this incident, like many others that have preceeded it involving DEC's, has merely highlighted the fundermental flaw with this policy. As someone mentioned earlier, the very nature of our rapid expansion makes us vunerable to unique issues not faced by the more established carriers. Airlines that have Captains with probably 7 or 8 years minimum F/O experience before upgrading. Time spent learning not only the culture within the Company but watching how the guys in the left seat deal with problems. Problems that aren't always covered in the FOM! Whilst we have most Captains here with only 3-4 years, it's more than enough time to understand the Company culture and 'how things work'. Particularly in this part of the World with the various National cultures we deal with on a day to day basis. How much of this exposure do the DEC's receive by jumping straight into the left seat here? Absolutely none! Not only that, but what examples are they now giving to the guys in the right seat. Feedback from many F/O's on the line is rarely positive when it comes down to the topic of DEC's. What a pitiful situation to be in when First Officers should be learning from the Skippers instead of holding their hands through ETOPS, HF, new destinations and guiding them on Company policies and procedures.

For those of us with any time here, we're more than aware of how things rapidly go downhill the minute operations goes off the rails. Emirates is much like a Ferrari. It's a wonderful sight to behold when it's working but the minute something goes wrong, it f**ks up big time and it costs a shed load a money to put right. You can't run a Ferrari on a shoestring and constant costcutting. It needs constant care and investment and well trained and motivated staff to look after it.

Isn't the saying 'short term pain for long term gain'? The DEC policy is a good example of this. In reverse!

BYMONEK

P.s Fractional, what 'refresher' might that be then?

[fourgolds]

A complete Fiasco , agreed. This is where I feel the regulatory bodies need to protect the general public.If Airlines choose to divert and manage a SCHEDULE under the disguise of "operational reasons". I feel the CAA should investigate the consumers rights and penalise the airlines accordingly. ( Just like they penalise if you miss curfew). A totally different story if its for REAL operational reasons. The EU allready imposes heavy fines on airlines who cancell flights ( hence the planning from Dubai Opps to try and avert this). Problem is that it needs to be re examined. I feel after this fiasco the rules might well change in favour of the flying public. Especially also when we are going into a new era of enviromentally sensitive (green) regulations aimed at reducing emissions. ie. ( lets just burn another 7 tonnes of gas while we quickly reposition the aircraft to LGW).I really dont think you can point fingers at the Captain as it was safe. This was a COMMERCIAL decision and had nothing to do with the gentemans ability to be in command. Different story if passengers demanded to deplane at LHR , or the crew was fatigued or the pax became disruptive as a result. Thats His domain , but the Commercial decision rests with EK.

this a reminds me a a Grand Prix a few years ago where the Ferrari pit BOSS told the driver who was winning ( cant recall who it was , think it was Barracello)) to fall back to Second place to allow Schumaker to overtake him just at the finish line to ensure that Ferrari would win the drivers championship. Great for Ferrari , but not sporting. Subsequently it lead to a rethink of the rules by the governing body and now its not considered fair play.

[fractional]

I for one would have strongly recommended that decision and would have needed a very strong argument from Ops to avoid implementing it Here is a constructive opinion.
When you say "de-plane the PAX and bags in LHR and ferry the aircraft to LGW", how much time REALLY did they have ahead? Was there a departure slot at the right time?
Fractional, what 'refresher' might that be then? Recurrent?! CRMs?! CRMs may also mean Company ........

[airbus757]

Posting that these types of problems handled poorly because the gentleman involed was a Dec is ridiculous. That is like saying that every Captain who is not a Dec will handle problems better than any Captain who is. It just ain't so. The same thing applies to a Captian with ten years in the seat and one with five. The "less" experienced guy may well do a better job. It all comes down to the individual on the day.

This whole thread has developed from the words of a passenger who could not have known all the facts. We have not seen information from any other sources. Some have suggested the Captain did all he could and some have suggested he should have done more. Fairly tough calls considering they themselves don't have all the information. Perhaps we "should stay below the line" and give the benifit of doubt to the Captain and the rest concerned.

This whole event will be critiqued for many days to come But there is one undeniable fact...all concerned are still here to talk about it which means the Skipper did his primary job. The saftey and security of the Pax, Crew and aircraft has been maintained.

7

[MR8]

BYMONEK, I agree 100%.

[Craic Ore]

Here's a fact:

The one chink in the plan to offload the pax is that there were no EK groundstaff at heathrow to help them out. Just the dispatch company. So they had no chance of offloading the pax and bags before the curfew and barely made it out as it was. Yes, it was a complete cockup.

I will agree with what a few of the guys said, that they are severely understaffed in ops. The unfortunate things is that if you diverted with your hair-on-fire and forgot to send an acars msg to ops, you'd be in for a good bollocking when back in Dubai since you didn't follow the FCI's on the issue. Of course I'd personally tell them to stuff it in that case with a wry grin :E

A disaster, yes, but I guess I've just come to roll my eyes and to expect them.

[TangoUniform]

MR8 - am just coming into this thread, but, regarding your comment about

"For example, the fully established at 1500ft thing is completely ridiculous"

..read your books boy. FOM Ch 15 P29. (Hint: you don't have to be).
TM

Sorry TM, but MR8 is right. If you check it does state that one has to have gear down and landing flaps selected. So 1500ft, be configured.......1000ft or 500ft be stabilised, depending on the weather. Damn, I hate to agree with 8.;)

[Oblaaspop]

MR8 Agree 100%


BYMONEK Agree 95% : Very good post, but don't really think its fair to blast the skipper because he was a DEC. It appears he has slotted right into the EK way of thinking straight away ie. do as the company says or else!


I have to say that I would have tried my utmost to deplane those PAX at LHR even if it meant leaving their bags/freight on board to save time. (I do not believe for one minute that there were no staff on duty at LHR, the flight was only an hour late for gods sake!). And I wouldn't have taken off until I'd spoken with SENIOR management on the SAT phone to protest this crap decision!


There is absolutely no way they would have had enough fuel remaining from the original flight as they would have been min fuel as the had to offload freight at DXB (BTW, what a piece of crap that old B777 is, can't even take a full load on a poxy 7 hour flight to LHR --- should have taken a 'Bus:ok:), so they would have had to pull on stand to refuel, load sheet, flight plan etc which with the best will in the world would have taken 30 mins....so why not let the PAX off then?


Sorry, but crap decision all round and that includes the flight crew (sorry guys, had to be said), if I'm missing a glaring piece of info then I take it back, but on face value, they should have argued the toss!!


Be sensible out there boys and girls, or we're gonna start to look very Mickey Mouse!

[GMDS]

BYMONEK
You sound bitter ..... but your DEC witchhunt is a double-edged sword.
You write:
"Whilst we have most Captains here with only 3-4 years, it's more than enough time to understand the Company culture and 'how things work".
Well the skipper in JNB had just that and unfortunately stuck to some of it too closely (god knows what would have been written if it had been a DEC....).
You were talking about a quality issue of somewhat 7 years spent as FO's in classic carriers before moving left. Agreed. What about some 6000h-FO's from regios that move over after 3 years on WB-FO in this region? Are they good enough just because "trained" by EK?
The issue about such incidents as in LHR have nothing to do with DEC's or low (wrong) hour-FO's. It's about culture in EK. The authorities (not necessarily the local one, i doubt it could), the owners (unfortunately there's about only HHSMo that has the ...... for it) and the public need to wake up and realise that with mangers like AAR and TC such blind following of SOP and directives will initially lead to more equally dumb incidents and finally to even more tragic ones.
Let's focus on THAT, please.

[Craic Ore]

I've talked with the purser directly and the crew were told all the groundstaff had either gone home or were at gatwick to help with the ensuing problems there. If my memory serves me, they were at a remote parking place too, so with no buses, no time to deplane.

Hey, I agree it was crap, but maybe he did everything he could, so the armchair quarterbacks can now stand down.

[BYMONEK]

No, I'm most definately not bitter and apologies to those offended by my perceived attitude towards this individual Captain.

I don't have every single fact to hand and on reflection it may well have been wrong to put most of the blame with him but I still think he must shoulder some of the flack. I know that other departments cock up and when these errors impact on us directly, we are the ones who have to deal with it in a professional manner and have to put it right. Yes, the decision he made was safe but as Captains, sometimes just a little more thought process is required to also achieve an efficient and dare I say it, sensible outcome. I'm not saying that because he was a DEC it precluded him from making the right decision, merely that he was 'handicapped' by his lack of time here. Because of Company culture and nothing to do with hours.

Regarding your comment on JNB, that is a different matter altogether and involved training issues. Taking of which, fractional, we don't have refreshers anymore. Only the 2 hours annual SEP 'CRM' which is taught by non accredited instructors.

BYMONEK

[Watchdog]

Such clever armchair specialists...were you actually there and party to the conversations/options etc that went from flight deck to OPS? No? Neither was I....suggest you wise-a*ses are in no position to make judgement, although I agree it was a disappointing chain of events! :ugh:

[trimotor]

Tango Uniiform,
Without wishing to instigate 'thread drift', you DO NOT have to be configured at 1500ft (unless for LVO) - just have the landing flap SELECTED (and the gear down). (Depending on the type you operate, it will then take perhaps 300ft of glideslope to become stabilised. )

This is both the wording and intention of the FOM - for those lacking skill it allows decelerated/delayed flap approaches while still meeting company stabilisation requirements.

It's OK - you can go back to not agreeing with MR8.
TM

[Lord Flashhart]

Tri, Isnt Landing flap Selected and Gear Down - Configured? I agree that you don't have to be stabilised til 1000/500ft.

[critical winge]

15.10Approach
15.10.1 General
◊ The use of Low Power/Low Drag
(LP/LD) and Continuous Descent
Approach (CDA) techniques during the
Initial & Intermediate approach phases
are encouraged. However, timely
configuration changes are crucial to
ensure that stable approach criteria are
met. ATC requirements such as track
shorting or speed requests, which could
result in an unstabilised approach, are to
be declined and an explanation provided.
15.10.1.1 1,500 ft AAL Configuration
Selection
◊ It is required that Landing Gear is down,
and landing Flap configuration selected,
no later than 1,500 ft AAL.
15.10.1.2 1,000 ft AAL Approach
Stabilisation
◊ 1,000 ft AAL is the cut-off point, at
which the approach is to be discontinued
if stable approach criteria are not met.
◊ If a reasonable certainty exists that the
aircraft will become stabilized by 500 ft
AAL, the cut-off may be amended to 500
ft AAL. This is permitted only if both
the following conditions are met at 1,000
ft AAL:
n i. The Landing Checklist is completed,


ENOugh sideslip

[fourgolds]

only at EK can a diversion fiasco discussion be turned in to a debate on stabilisation criteria. if its that easy to get so side tracked from the origonal topic , its easy to see how opps could drop the ball too. By the way what is the price of eggs these days ?

[trimotor]

Lord Flash. No selected does not mean configured. Say you selected landing flap at 50ft - they'd still be running out when you landed - and you wouldn't be configured.

Anyway, let's get back to bleating about things we only know half the story of.

TM

[Lord Flashhart]

Thanks Tri, but it is being pedantic, height loss from flap 3 to full from selection to reaching full must only be about 50ft. But,yes, if you want to, I agree that legally at 1502ft you can call for flap full, then by the time PNF has reacted and selected it at 1500ft you are legal, but it think the gist of it all is to have everything configured by 1500.

Anyways - back to the topic on hand-

It sounds like the crew were snookered, and the Pax shafted. An ugly outcome for Emirates, but at the end of the day, no one was hurt.

Just like a couple of days ago when the baggage loaders broke down and aircraft were being delayed for an hour plus due lack of bags. We departed half and hr late minus 40 bags, and I heard one 777 was missing 270. Ouch.

[trimotor]

yep, pax were caught in the middle. Rumour has it one pax was a senior 'wheel' in the company...

(Flap 20 to Flap 30 in the 777 will take 300ft, give or take the time to complete the checklist as well. Pedantic it may be, but that's the game we are in. Be configured at 1500 if you like, but I can assure you that is not the gist of the selection requirement. How do you cope with 160 to 4nm?)

[disconnected]

Interesting thread. Sounds like a post mortem on an accident which it wasn't. Merely a bad day at the office. Probably some mistakes were made which hopefully will be learnt from. I'm sure at least the captain in question will be a better captain for the experience. However reading the thread it seems no one knows the full story but are taking a newspaper report as the basis. Have we learn nothing?

This is undoubtably the price one pays for rapid expansion but from a business perspective rapid expansion and rapid pilot training is the right thing to do. (look at today's Gulf News). EK have some good people hence we make money (I agree there are a few idiots too)

As for the discussion on stabilisation please don't embarrass us all by demonstrating not everyone knows by when they should be stabilised. For the rulebound - don't forget good judgement and logic can take precedence over SOP. You shouldn't be a captain if fear of the oak desk results in you and you passengers being in an oak box.

As for legal arguments based on a few feet - get real - even the best lawyers will have a tough time making that a persuasive motion.

[EGGW]

What Trimotor says is spot on, its that the landing flap must be selected by 1500' aal. The 777 takes a long time to travel from 20 to 30, whilst all Airbus take a nano second to travel from 2 to 3 or 3 to 4 depending on landing flap you want. You do NOT have to have the flap at the landing setting by 1500' aal. You are quite wrong if you think you do. However, if you do its safe, but its not required.

Anyhow, thread drift over.

I had a freind on the flight (non EK), and she was royally p***ed off at the fiasco. Sounds like a royal communication cock up. The crew are the operational lynch pins, shame they were left out of the loop prior to landing at LHR :sad:

EGGW

[GoreTex]

ladies,
you are splitting hairs now, why dont you just fly the aircraft, land and go home, it cant be that difficult.
are you pilots or what, if an outsider reads this thread he thinks that you are a bunch of w******.
you cant be serious thinking if you select flap full in 1502 feet and bla bla bla...

[mensaboy]

Sorry Gortex, its not splitting hairs. This is the culture at EK. 1500' AAL, yet the triggers are based on Radalt. I find that to be a bit odd to say the least.

As far as this being a 'DEC event' I have to disagree. I'm sure everyone who knows me understands my POV regarding the DEC policy and if you don't, then here it is............ It is the most flawed policy that EK has made in its entire history.


But, I refuse to believe some of the things posted here wrt to the Captains decision- making process.

First off, none of us has all the information. And to be honest, after consultataion with SMNC, voicing my concerns and giving alternate suggestions, if they 'still' requested what they allegedly did, then I too would have done exactly what this Captain did.



Keep in mind that most of this comes from a passenger, and no offence intended, but clearly he is even less informed than what this company allows for us pilots. No doubt the minions sitting at a desk will not be questioned at all, and in their defence, they are overworked, undermanned and under trained. It always boils down to the pilots, yet for some reason we are not given the required authority and respect due, considering this obligation. This is the inherent flaw within EK. They demand so much from us, yet put forth an atmosphere of 'fear and intimidation' towards us.



Then again when you hire the likes of TCAS and ED ( the non-literate native english speaker), then the results are predictable. My god, ED's latest email about ENGLIGH TESTING FOR PILOTS, begins with a sentence at which a 5th grader would laugh. If only we had one person in management that would even try to express to the upper echelons that we must be trained, encouraged and supported to make decisions, then this airline would not be headed towards another serious incident without doubt.



In my opinion, and I totally agree I don't have all the facts, this Captain did a great job and for us to slag him, is undermining our position as pilots as well as inadvertently supporting the misguided policies of management at EK.

[Farty Flaps]

I can confirm what goretex said.
I am an outsider, I am reading this , and you are w***ers.:E
Still after three years of it you will be skygods , destined to outdo any mere mortal that dares to be a DEC,:E:E


PS I know humour is in short supply and egos a plenty in EK so I'll be clear , it was a joke:ok:

[MR8]

Trimotor, I'm a bus-boy, so basically, selected is the same as configured, it takes just a second for the flaps to get there. Don't know how you Boeing guys play it.
As for the 160 till 4, we can do that with speed selected and fully configured. The ridiculous thing is that we are now flying fully configured, burning extra fuel to keep the speed (putting extra load on the flaps) and once past 4nm you just reduce and are nicely established at 1000ft.
Instead of treating us like children and making up these stupid rules, why don't they let us just do our job and fly the thing. People who can't decide themselves where to put the gear and the flaps out to make the stabilization criteria just don't belong in the seats their in.

Anyway, I just used this as an example in a previous post, let's get back to the topic...

I would love to see if Ed or whoever will inform us about this cock up for future reference.. He is in his writing phase with all his pathetic letters lately.

Have to go to sleep now, wouldn't want my neighbour asking me tomorrow what I was doing up at 2.25 in the morning. He might want to point out to me how serious my job is and that I need to take my rest blah blah blah...

MR8

[critical winge]

Disconnected said and I couldn't agree more
For the rulebound - don't forget good judgement and logic can take precedence over SOP. You shouldn't be a captain if fear of the oak desk results in you and you passengers being in an oak box. :} Awesome :D

As for legal arguments based on a few feet - get real - even the best lawyers will have a tough time making that a persuasive motion. RIGHT ON !! :ok:

WHAT WAS THIS THREAD ABOUT?:

[airbus757]

The sky is blue.
No it isn't. It's blueish.
No it's blue/white.
Not at night it isn't.

Can't we just agree there is a rule about 1500 and be done with it.

7

[TangoUniform]

Menstralboy,
You're losing it, mate. A whole post and you didn't blame the pimple on your ass on George Bush. Wow. And you almost made it through the whole post without slagging someone from the states. Otherwise agree with you on the original topic here. Damn, I have agreed with MR8 and now menstralboy. I AM losing it.